Armed Forces Recruitment
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on plans to expedite and streamline armed forces recruitment processes.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I must start by declaring my interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I welcome noble Lords to the “Ruth show”, given that I will answer three Oral Questions today.
The Armed Forces recruitment service contract with Serco will fully unify recruitment by October 2027. The ministry has also set an ambition to make a conditional offer of employment within 10 days and to give a provisional start date within 30 days if the candidate desires it, in addition to scrapping more than 100 outdated medical policies.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, there has been some improvement in retention rates recently, but since 1999 there have been only six years when the number of personnel joining the Armed Forces was higher than the number leaving. Last month, the Chief of the Defence Staff reported that the forces are getting smaller each month to the tune of 200 to 300 people. There is low morale, as well as various forms of job dissatisfaction. Can my noble friend explain what is being done to improve retention among service personnel?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. I want to make it very clear that I am in awe of anybody who puts on a uniform and runs towards danger; that is why we have to look after them. This Government inherited a recruitment and retention crisis from the previous Government.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
We did; noble Lords have discussed this in your Lordships’ House many times. However, since July, we have taken decisive measures on both recruitment and retention.
On the recent statistics, Armed Forces inflow has increased by 20% compared with the previous 12 months. The Army currently has a seven-year high in application volumes, the Royal Navy yearly recruitment target has been exceeded, and RAF applications are up by 34%. However, we still have a huge amount of work to do. That is why, specifically on retention, it is such an important step forward that we have introduced new retention teams, which hold exit interviews to work with service personnel to see whether we can help them overcome their reasons for leaving. We spend a huge amount of money on training our Armed Forces personnel; it is important that we make sure they stay.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister consider a trial run of reopening high street recruiting centres, the closing of which was, in my view, a disaster? They enable people who know the area in which they are recruiting and the people whom they want to recruit much better than some remote service. Would the Minister consider giving that a trial just to see whether it still works?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point; I will pass his views on to the Minister and report back.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, 2027 is a long way off. The problem is urgent now. I understand that, between now and the full implementation of the contract with Serco, there will be a period that has been referred to as a “mobilisation period”. Can the Minister tell the House what that will entail, as well as what will be done to improve the situation this year and next year, rather than waiting for 2027?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his service and for holding the Government to account on this. The new contract is an important and significant change in the recruitment process: a single recruitment service operating on behalf of the services and the reserves that will make sure we are recruiting where we need to. We need to make sure we get it right so that it does not lead to shortages. We are implementing some of the parts of the contract as quickly as we can. On turnaround times, noble Lords will be aware that one of the biggest challenges that the Army had with the Capita contract was access to medical records; it was taking weeks to get them. We are now utilising AI and that has sped up from weeks to hours, which is speeding up the process.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, the Government inherited an MoD employing 63,000 civilians. Of course, many do vital and necessary work, but surely this is an absurd number, given that the Army itself is only 72,000 strong. Have the Government made any international comparisons in this area, and what plans do they have to tackle the bloated bureaucracy, particularly in procurement? The realised savings could then be diverted to improve pay and conditions at the sharp end, in our forces themselves. Perhaps the civilian excess could be drafted into the mooted Home Guard: I am sure there will be many aspiring Captain Mainwarings in their ranks.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, one of the themes of the strategic defence review is to explore the approach to recruiting, educating, training and retaining the people needed for “one defence”. This includes the regular reserve, the Civil Service and industry. It simply is not always appropriate for people in uniform to do some of these jobs, and we need to utilise those in uniform where they can best serve. The SDR will be published in the spring—and by the spring I mean “Civil Service spring”, so it will be imminent. While we are here, I thank my noble friend Lord Robertson for his work on the SDR.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 43 years ago today, at this time, I was under heavy air attack and was later sunk. Recruiting at that stage was very buoyant—thank goodness, after one sinks. Post the war, it became even more buoyant. We have never had any shortage in this country, thank goodness, of young men and women who are patriotic and willing to risk their all for our nation. It seemed as though our recruiting system was trying to actively stop recruiting those people. I am very glad we have now got around that.
I will ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. Are we doing something special to get the engineers we are so very short of, particularly in the Air Force and the Navy, and the technicians who are crucial for our weapons systems? Is the UK Military Flying Training System now fit for purpose, because it has not been for a few years?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend not just for the question but for his incredible service. He highlights exactly what he did to keep our country safe and why people want to join our Armed Forces. I am proud to be his noble friend. I have to say I was disappointed because I had an update on ships, which is what I thought he was going to ask me about.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Just for my noble friend: HMS “Glasgow”, a new Type 26 will officially enter the Royal Navy tomorrow.
On the specifics of his question, I will have to revert on some details but let me be very clear on how we are recruiting and ensuring that people can come through, especially engineers. We are looking at each pinch point individually, and for tri-service air engineers we have offered a £30,000 incentive.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, there is an urgent need not only to increase the number of people recruited into our Armed Forces but to ensure they are better allocated to roles appropriate to their skills. Serco will, I understand, lead a consortium of six delivery partners—TEAM Serco. How do the Government and Serco propose to monitor progress by the individual team members to ensure the aggregate objective of increased numbers of personnel and better alignment of skills is achieved?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. At the heart of the contract is making sure there is one clear oversight to ensure of where we have missing skills. So, if a recruit says, “I want to be a chef in the Navy”, but we actually have too many vacancies for chefs in the RAF, we will actively encourage them to consider the RAF. Although this is candidate centred, we will for the first time be able to have an assessment of where our gaps are across the whole of the Armed Forces. If Serco fails, there are financial penalties.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. As the Minister has touched on reserves a couple of times in this brief session, does she agree that, following the SDR, we need to look at a surge in reserves—not just volunteers but really paying attention to our regular reserves? Given the threats and risks we face as a nation, we need to become very serious about mobilisation and think about the narrative for our society on defence, national security and especially national resilience.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an excellent point regarding the strength and capacity of our reserves. They are a core part of our Armed Forces and it is vital that they are treated as such, which is why they are also included in the single recruitment contract. We are currently reviewing, through the prism of the strategic defence review, how we recruit reserves and what additional support we need to put in place, up to and including potential legislation.
Online Harms: Young People
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the challenges facing young people from online harms, as raised in the Netflix drama series Adolescence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to protecting children from online harms. Under the Online Safety Act, social media companies have a duty to remove illegal, misogynist and violent content from their platforms. From July, platforms will also need to protect children from harmful content, including hateful or abusive content, violent content and pornography. Ofcom is clear that it will use its strong enforcement powers for platforms failing to fulfil these duties. This reflects the priority the Government place on these actions.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the Netflix programme “Adolescence” is a brutal exposition of the growing incel culture and manosphere that is infecting too many hearts and minds. A staggering 45% of young men have a positive view of the misogynistic influencer and conspiracist Andrew Tate. Every 29 minutes there is a post about rape on a popular incel forum. This content is leading to hatred of women and girls, and to serious violence. I listened closely to what my noble friend just said. Is she able to set out what the Government are doing to prevent this explosion of harmful misogynistic content and, in particular, the radicalisation that it can inspire?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the destructive role that misogynistic attitudes, including online misogynistic content, can play in society, including the impact it can have on the views and behaviours of men and boys. Tackling misogyny both online and offline is central to our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, supporting victims and preventing harm in our communities. We will publish a new violence against women strategy this year. The Government will ensure that schools address the root causes of violence against women and girls, and teach pupils about healthy relationships and consent, and will continue to ensure children and young people are at the heart of prevention and intervention programmes and policies.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, one of the key themes in “Adolescence” was intimate image abuse. Just this week, the Government have rejected the Women and Equalities Committee recommendation to increase from six months the time limit for victims to seek justice when their intimate images have been non-consensually shared. Will the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for rejecting a change that would help so many victims?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Government welcome the Women and Equalities Committee report on tackling non-consensual intimate image abuse, and the issues it raises are an absolute priority for us. That is why we have taken action by strengthening the Online Safety Act and introducing further offences as part of the Crime and Policing Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Bill—and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all the work she has done in helping to us to strengthen that legislation. We will not hesitate to go further to protect women and girls online. Technology-facilitated abuse will be a key component of the upcoming cross-government violence against women and girls strategy.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, there has been much discussion about online access for children and young people at schools, and the advice on keeping phones out of schools is much welcomed. However, surely we need to ensure that parents and carers have all the information and skills that they need to navigate and guide their children. Are this Government planning a comprehensive campaign to alert parents to online harms and to ensure that they have the right digital skills to be able to access information and support for their children?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that important point. Media literacy in all its forms is important for parents, teachers and young people, to make sure that we create a respectful online environment. Ofcom has specific media literacy duties that it will carry out. Its media literacy strategy prioritises research and initiatives to address online misogyny, including research to understand how such harmful behaviour occurs. As set out in the strategy, Ofcom expects its work on online misogyny to directly target teenage boys and young men. However, the noble Baroness is right that it goes further than that: we have to educate parents as well, to look at what their children are accessing. There is a huge job of work to be done on education in the wider sphere. Obviously, schools are playing their part in that now, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, but we have far more to do on this, and all aspects of government are addressing these issues.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to look at how much children are using social media, yet the new children’s code from Ofcom does not mention addiction. What are the Government doing to deal with the problem of screen addiction among our children?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Viscount will know that schools already have a policy, or are expected by the Department for Education to have one, to ensure that children do not have access to phones in schools. That is a clear policy that the Government are keen to reiterate. What we are talking about here is what children do outside the school environment. From July, the children’s code of practice will provide much greater reassurance and protection for children. Services will be expected to provide age-appropriate experiences online by protecting children from bullying, violent content, abuse and misogynistic content. In other words, there will be much more forceful regulation to specifically protect children. Obviously, we will continue to monitor the codes of practice, but there are specific new powers under the code that come into effect in July and we want to see their impact.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope the Government are actively tracking and measuring the effects of schools’ own policies on mobile phone use during the school day. If so, what conclusions can be drawn about the wisdom of an outright ban? If they are not tracking that information, why not?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, the Department for Education’s mobile phones in schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. The Government expect all schools to take steps in line with that. Beyond that, my own department, DSIT, has commissioned a piece of research to look at young people’s use of social media and their access to it throughout the day. The outcome of the research is due very soon and we will learn the lessons from that. Up until now, the evidence has not been as clear-cut as we would like. We hope to learn on an international basis how to protect young people throughout the day, and will apply those lessons once the evidence has been assessed.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, “Adolescence” is probably the latest in a long line of TV dramas that have the effect of changing societal attitudes—you can think of “Cathy Come Home”, “Queer as Folk”, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” and indeed “Breathtaking”. One of the ways in which young people can be encouraged to get off their mobile phones is through engaging more in drama, but we are seeing drama and arts taken out of the curriculum. Does the Minister agree that there is value in these dramas, not just in raising awareness and changing attitudes but in helping young people to explore themselves and their identity, and to communicate in ways that do not involve devices?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point that we need to provide alternatives to online activities for young people. She is absolutely right about drama, and sport can also help with that. The Department for Education is conducting a curriculum review at the moment and one of its priorities is to make sure that children genuinely have a balanced, wholesome curriculum that deals with all those issues—one that is not just academic but deals with children’s development in the round, which is exactly what the noble Baroness is saying.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Finland is known as a global leader in education and has schools that focus on critical thinking and the ability to absorb online information and regard it sceptically, when needed. Does the Minister agree that that is something we need to see much more of in British schools? We are presenting teachers with a real challenge, with so many subjects focused on teaching to the test and rote learning things to regurgitate. We have to think about the whole way in which our schooling operates, so it is focused on critical thinking.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point, and it goes back to the need for a balanced curriculum. In the past, our curriculum has become too focused on a very specific set of goals and not the broader issues. Having healthy relationships is part of teaching and learning at school; that is absolutely something that we need to do and we are strengthening the provisions for that within the curriculum. The Department for Education will provide guidance to help young people develop the skills that all young people need to be able to navigate this complex modern world.
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the declassification of files which stated that the Government “turned a blind eye” to serious crimes of the IRA in 2001, whether they will refer any murder cases to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, under the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, the commission is responsible for Troubles-related investigations for the period 1966 to 1998. Any alleged criminality which took place after 10 April 1998, including that described by the noble Lord, remains a matter for the PSNI. The UK Government do not comment on national archive releases or releases relating to previous Governments.
However, I want to take this opportunity to pay thanks to my noble friend the former Secretary of State at that time, as well as to all Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for their role in the incredibly challenging work of helping to maintain peace and delivering and implementing the Good Friday agreement, including the effective decommissioning of weapons. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude and should never forget the context in which they were operating.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, last year, the Conservative Government brought a Northern Ireland legacy Bill to this House and this Parliament. I did not support it because of limited immunity, but at least they had the courage and the decency to bring it to this House for debate and voting instead of having a de facto amnesty. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, at the time warned Prime Minister Blair of the consequences of having Sinn Féin, linked to a terrorist organisation, in government. I ask the Minister: at that time, because of the individuals involved in that meeting, does she accept that Gerry Adams was a senior figure in the IRA?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I cannot comment on anything to do with the archive. As to the matter he raises, it is currently a matter of ongoing court proceedings.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for his helpful Question, which allows me to reply. Would the Minister confirm to the House—if it needs confirmation—that the conduct of investigations and prosecutions in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, was under the exclusive control of the police service, the prosecution service and the courts, and that Ministers had no locus, no power and no desire to interfere with that process? Will she accept that the transition from war to peace is not always easy and that what Ministers did, accompanied by the work of people such as Lord Trimble and John Hume, was to persevere in a political peace process, whatever the odds, which has resulted in inestimable benefits for all the people in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend, as ever, makes a series of excellent points. He is absolutely right. He knows better than I do, as he served our country in government in numerous roles at Cabinet level, that the police have complete operational independence. We owe all those who operated as politicians in Northern Ireland and the UK Government and who worked so hard in the most difficult of circumstances to deliver peace a huge debt of gratitude. Every day, we now have to live up to the promise of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the spirit of the Stormont House agreement to make sure the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain have the peace that was so difficultly earned.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may know that Gerry Adams is suing the BBC for accusing him of being—I am not quite sure how to put to it—not necessarily on the side of the good. Can the Minister therefore help the BBC in its defence, particularly in the case of Jean McConville, dragged from her home in front of her young children and murdered by IRA gangs? Can she look at how much we can help the BBC against Gerry Adams, particularly with respect to what he was doing with the Jean McConville case?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord served for many years in the other place and will be very aware that I cannot comment on ongoing court proceedings, but he does raise a very important case—that of the McConville family. Every time such cases are raised, we need to remember the impact they have on the families concerned and all victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Three and a half thousand people lost their lives; families were for ever destroyed, and many people were hurt. There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure they get justice where they can and get to find their truth too.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, given that the Minister is quite correct in saying that the ICRIR cannot deal with cases post-1998, and given that the PSNI budget has been so seriously reduced that it is now operating with 75% of the officers it should have, can she commit to the development of ring-fenced funding to enable the PSNI to deal with the cases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, in order that justice may be done?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, with Stormont up and running, how finances are allocated and spent is a matter for it. That includes the PSNI budget. The noble Baroness will be aware that at the spending review we increased additional security funding for the PSNI for this financial year by £37.8 million. She will be further aware there are ongoing conversations between the NIO and the Northern Ireland Executive about how we can keep working together, but part of this is a question for the Northern Ireland Executive.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and point out to the Minister that there are national security issues that remain the purview of our national Government in dealing with funding. I congratulate the Minister on the many strings to her bow this afternoon. Despite desperate attempts to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland during what were euphemistically called “the Troubles”, I know that she will agree that Northern Ireland society did not break down during that campaign of criminality—not a war—and because of that, the line was held by our security forces and services, and I am proud to be a daughter of the RUC. Given all that, can she give us an update on the stage that the Ministry of Defence is at with the Clonoe inquest review? I understand that the Ministry of Defence was to take judicial review proceedings—could she give us an update on that?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a really important point that I know is of huge concern to the veterans community, both those who served in Operation Banner and more broadly. With regard to the specifics of the inquest, the veterans involved in the Clonoe inquest and the Secretary of State for Defence have applied for a judicial review of the coroner’s verdict and findings, which do not properly reflect the context of the incident nor the very difficult circumstances in which members of the Armed Forces served in Northern Ireland. The MoD is also funding the veterans in question to seek the judicial review and providing them with welfare support.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that trust is an essential element in the process of dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, and does she recognise that the current lack of legal certainty regarding the repeal of the legacy Act is adding to a lack of trust? Will she confirm therefore that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward new primary legislation on legacy issues during this parliamentary Session?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Everything in the delivery of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the ongoing peace in Northern Ireland is about trust and bringing people together. With regards to forthcoming legislation, we were clear in our manifesto, and we have been clear by having it referenced in the King’s Speech. This Government are committed to bringing forward the timing of the legislation. However, noble Lords will appreciate that, as my Chief Whip is sitting two feet away from me, I am going to confirm: when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, dealing with the here and now, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s decision to reopen legacy inquests, alongside the new legacy commission, inevitably risks elderly veterans being dragged back into coroners’ courts over events that happened as far back as half a century ago—yes or no? When the Tánaiste said this week that the UK and Irish Governments are working strenuously to find a “landing zone” on legacy issues, can she confirm that this will include full Irish co-operation with the legacy commission on information recovery?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord knows the answer to the first question. With regards to conversations with the Irish Government, he will be aware that we are working closely with them as the co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. At the recent BIIGC, both Governments reflected on the positive and constructive bilateral discussions which have taken place, as well as the substantive progress towards reaching agreement on a joint comprehensive approach to legacy issues consistent with the principles of the Stormont House agreement. We can see part of that change through the memorandum of understanding that was issued to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which the Government viewed as a significant step forward. We look forward to further enhancements in this regard—for example, legislation on co-operation.
Improving Cyber Resilience
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the cyber resilience of UK businesses, organisations and government systems.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Did noble Lords miss me? The cyber threat to the UK is significant and growing; recent attacks on retailers and the Legal Aid Agency are just the latest examples of this. This Government are introducing the cyber security and resilience Bill to ensure that critical infrastructure and the digital services that UK citizens and businesses rely on are secure. We are also working tirelessly to improve the cyber resilience of government systems and are providing more support and services from the centre, such as the Government Cyber Coordination Centre, which brings together cyber defenders to share data and respond more effectively to cyber threats, vulnerabilities and incidents.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the recent CYBERUK conference reported that the number of cyberattacks had doubled in the past year. This is costing tens—indeed, hundreds—of millions of pounds to businesses and is making people very nervous about their personal data. It is having a huge effect right across society. I welcome the fact that a new Bill is coming in, but we cannot wait for that. What is the National Cyber Security Centre doing now to review its strategies to proactively get businesses to sign up? Not many—a relatively small number—have signed up. Does it have sufficient staff to deal with this growing problem?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a timely and important intervention, given recent events. Our online and offline worlds are merging, and there is no clear differential any more. This is a different frontier in that crime. This is an evolving and increasingly sophisticated threat, and we need to make sure that we are ahead of it. Candidly, as the NAO report earlier this year said, government cybersecurity practices are not yet where they need to be—but we are investing. Because of the report, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been clear that we will bring forward a new cybersecurity strategy this year, and the NCSC is making sure that all resources are available. I urge all noble Lords to look at its website and specifically at what tools are available through the Cyber Essentials system. Companies that sign up for Cyber Essentials controls are 80% less likely to make a claim on cyber insurance than those without certification.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have any plans to update the Computer Misuse Act, mainly to protect our cybersecurity professionals and researchers, who do so much to keep us all safe? The Act is over 35 years old. Will the Government take the opportunity of the cyber security and resilience Bill to insert clauses to this effect?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, when parliamentary time allows, there will be a cyber security and resilience Bill, and I am sure that, at that opportunity, we will discuss this in detail. I look forward to doing so with the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I congratulate my noble friend on her ubiquity in terms of policy today. There has been a sequence of very bad cyberattacks and, although I am sure that Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and so on address very carefully their cybersecurity expectations, it is very difficult for any organisation to withstand what may be a state-inspired, state-sponsored or state-supported attack—I do not know, and I am sure the Minister will not be able to comment on, whether these were such cases. Therefore, is it not important that the National Cyber Security Centre provides enough guidance and encouragement to support businesses in recovering after they have been hacked, providing them with, if you like, a plan B for recovering and dealing with the consequences of a successful attack?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. He is absolutely right: there is a clear role here for the National Cyber Security Centre, both during an attack and afterwards, as it works with experts. My noble friend is right that I cannot comment on the details of the current attacks. I reassure noble Lords that the NCSC has a sector-specific trust group, where 60 CEOs from the retail sector have come together, both during the attack and afterwards, to make sure that best practice and information are shared in real time, so that other retail organisations can make sure that they are not subject to similar attacks.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the NAO report in January on government systems, which says that
“departments have significant gaps in their system controls that are fundamental to their cyber resilience. The resilience of the hundreds of ageing legacy IT systems that departments still use is likely to be worse”.
Accepting that the Government have inherited a legacy of years of underinvestment in Whitehall IT, and that the cost of successful cyberattacks is very high, does it not make sense to raise the level of investment in replacing some of these legacy systems as rapidly as possible?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The NAO report was clear in its criticisms of our structures, and we accept every recommendation of the report. We are working our way through them, which is why we will be bringing forward a government cybersecurity strategy this year—building on the work of the previous Government—to make sure that we are fit for purpose. On the updating of IT, I have just lived through the updating of the printer system in the Cabinet Office. I would suggest that we take a bit of time with the next one.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in November last year, media reports confirmed that the GOV.UK One Login service had been adopted by 50 government services, and that was expected to reach 100 within the year. However, Computer Weekly has since reported on serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Given that One Login processes biometric data from millions of citizens, why have the Government refused to publish their data protection impact assessment, and can the Minister confirm whether the rollout will continue on that timescale?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a series of important questions. Given the detail of them, I will write to her, and make sure that I speak to relevant officials, so that she gets the answers that she seeks. On One Login, over 5 million people are currently using it to prove their identity, and the ID Check app has over 6.5 million downloads, and a 4.7 rating on all app stores. If there are questions to answer, I will make sure that we get her the answers.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the government advice to companies facing not just a cyberattack but a ransom demand; whether that advice tallies with the advice and, indeed, instructions from their insurers; and how much money companies have paid out in ransom demands so far?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the threat of ransomware and ransoms are clearly appalling crimes undertaken by cybercriminals. The Home Office—and I can speak only for the public service and Government—has concluded a consultation on world-leading proposals to strike at the heart of the ransomware business model, cutting off criminals’ funding and protecting UK business by deterring threats.
The position of the Government is that public funds will not be used to pay ransom demands made by cybercriminals. This is, however, an important issue, which is why last year the National Crime Agency led a global collaboration to disrupt one of the most dangerous cybercrime networks in the world. In February, the UK sanctioned six Russian individuals for facilitating crippling ransomware attacks. This is at the frontier of the cyber threat, and from the Government’s perspective, we highly recommend that people do not pay ransoms; there is no guarantee that their data has not already been sold on.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, when Richard Horne spoke at the CYBERUK conference this month, he stated that Britain has suffered double the number of serious cyberattacks in recent months compared with the same period last year. Nevertheless, only 35,000 SMEs have been issued with Cyber Essentials certificates in the last year. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to increase uptake? Without it, SMEs will be critically vulnerable.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness gives me the opportunity to promote Stop! Think Fraud, an active campaign that promotes the work of the NCSC and directly targets organisations. The next iteration of its campaign is to target SMEs and micro-businesses, to make sure that they are aware of the tools that are available to them.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before colleagues leave the Chamber, I am delighted to be able to update the House on the plan for recesses up to Whitsun next year. I have already announced the planned dates for recesses until January 2026. As ever, these and the new dates can change subject to the progress of business. To save noble Lords rushing for their diaries, I shall email them to all Peers and place a copy in the Royal Gallery immediately after I have finished speaking.
Without further delay, I am pleased to confirm that we currently intend to adjourn the House in early 2026 as follows. For the February Recess, we will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February. Easter Recess will start at the end of business on Thursday 26 March, with the House returning on Monday 13 April. Finally, I would expect Whitsun Recess to start at the end of business on Thursday 21 May, with the House returning on Monday 1 June.
I hope that that assists colleagues in planning the year ahead. I shall always endeavour to keep the House updated with forward dates as soon as possible and of course communicate any changes in the same way. With that, I thank all staff and colleagues across the House for their hard work. I wish everyone a restful Whitsun Recess with family and friends.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the Statement made in the other place almost to the day of the anniversary of the Statement and apology made on behalf of the Government by my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister.
The infected blood scandal is one of the most serious failures of the British state in recent years, and it has caused immense harm for tens of thousands of people and their families. The heartbreaking film shown on ITV last night depicted the terrible deeds at Treloar college in Hampshire in the 1970s and 1980s, reminding us that the story is not yet over for so many living in the aftermath of such enormous negligence. As I mentioned when we debated the infected blood regulations earlier this year, in his 2022 report Sir Robert Francis said:
“Sadly, many of the infected community fear that they have not got long to live”.
That is why urgent action is needed, and we are united across your Lordships’ House in our conviction that the victims of this appalling scandal deserve justice.
As noble Lords across the House are aware, when we were in government we made significant progress towards justice for victims of the infected blood scandal—and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead for her role in establishing the statutory inquiry. I put on record once again our thanks to Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis for all their work, as well as to all the tireless campaigners, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, Lady Brinton, Lady Featherstone and Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
We welcome the fact that the Government have picked up where the Conservative Government left off and are continuing work to deliver justice for the victims. I particularly welcome the announcement that Sir Robert Francis, who has done so much to design and deliver the compensation scheme, will continue in his role as interim chair of the IBCA for a further 18 months.
We know there is nothing we can do that will truly heal the wounds felt by all those affected, but it is vital that we do all we can to address the pain and anger felt by those in the infected and affected communities. I also welcome the announcement of funding for charities to provide much-needed patient advocacy services. As time passes, we know that, sadly, fewer and fewer of the victims will be with us. For them, justice delayed really is justice denied, and that is why we support the Government’s work to speed up the pace of compensation.
The Minister will not be surprised to know that I have a few questions on the Statement. In the other place, Ministers said they expect to see a significant increase in the pace of payments. Can the Minister please explain the Government’s actual expectations of this increase in the pace of payments, and what does it mean in practical terms for victims?
Ministers have also said that a new surveillance registry will be set up to monitor liver damage in those infected with hepatitis C. I very much welcome this but, again, for victims, time is of the essence. Can the Minister please confirm when this service will be established?
Finally, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations, either in full or in principle. However, I note the mention made in the Statement that the implementation of some recommendations will depend on future spending decisions by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is obviously important that the expectations of those applying for compensation from the scheme are managed clearly and transparently at the outset. Can the Minister say which areas of the recommendations may be affected by the departmental spending decisions that were referred to, and will she undertake to report to the House by an appropriate means when the relevant spending decisions have been made?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for responding to the Statement in your Lordships’ House. I will start by thinking about all those infected and affected who, a year ago yesterday, heard Sir Brian Langstaff speak at the launch of the inquiry report. For those of us who were there, it was a joyful day when people really thought that things were going to change and happen at pace. The last Government promised rapid action, and the new Labour Government promised, and continue to promise in this Statement, moving “at pace”—indeed, the Statement uses this exact phrase. However, any conversation with any of the infected and affected leaves you in absolutely no doubt that, from their perspective, progress is still glacial: 77 claimants have been paid out of a possible 140,000, of whom over 3,000 have already died. Only 475 infected claimants have been invited to claim so far, and no affected claimants have even got that far because that scheme does not open to claimants until later this year.
If this is complicated—and we know that it is—why have the Government not invested more resources in the compensation body to process claims and, above all, not repeat work that has been done under previous schemes? As with many of the other current compensation schemes, including the Post Office Horizon scheme and the Windrush scheme, this one is floundering. It is fascinating that, whenever I talk to people from one of these schemes, they always cite how well the others are going, but all of them feel that everything is far too slow.
It matters because claimants are dying, probably every week. Some claimants were infected nearly 50 years ago, and Sir Brian’s statement on 13 May, made after taking two extra days of evidence earlier in May, is very clear. Action to speed up is needed now. Instead of a random system, including deferring all affected claimants until after the infected claimants have been sorted, is not acceptable. He proposes a prioritisation scheme, helpfully including worked examples. Will the Government accept that prioritisation is now necessary?
I have raised before the issue of an affected claimant who, when we looked at the regulation some months ago in February, was given less than a year to live. Under the current arrangements, there is not a hope that she will have even started the process before she dies. This is unacceptable. Will the Government ensure that all who have a limited time to live—I include within that Sir Brian’s definition of those over 70, and there are other detailed definitions as well—will have their claims started sooner rather than later?
There is also a difficulty with some of the routes. Those who were infected with just HIV—but probably hepatitis as well—have a very simple, essentially three-step route, and I am very grateful to the survivor who sent me two A3 pages demonstrating the processes. The HIV one is very clear, but for someone infected with hepatitis alone, it is essentially a horribly multifaceted process that takes up a whole page of A3 full of boxes. Will IBCA prioritise a simplification of this process? That is what is taking the time.
I also watched the Treloar documentary last night. I met some of the Treloar students in the mid to late seventies, with drama groups. I worked with those students. Talking to the survivors of Treloar’s, most of the young men I spoke to are dead. That, we need to remember. They and their families have a very difficult life; their families are still waiting. These are the affected people we have been talking about.
The Statement talks about listening to the incredibly moving testimony of those impacted, but feeling pain on their behalf is no longer enough—we must see action. Yesterday, a letter was delivered by the various survivor groups to No. 10, in which they said:
“As the Infected Blood Inquiry heard when it reconvened hearings on 7 May 2025, the community’s voice was absent when the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme was drawn up. The resulting scheme contains fundamental flaws, which could and would have been foreseen”.
Will the Government instruct IBCA to ensure that those are dealt with?
I will move on briefly to the government response last week to the Infected Blood Inquiry report, which has only taken a year to be published. First, on page 31, the Government say that it is
“complex to implement and enforce”
a duty of candour. I am grateful to the Government for making a priority of duty of candour in their manifesto, but there is still no timeline on when the Hillsborough law will appear. Those countries that have either a duty of candour or mandatory reporting for safeguarding find that having a strong law and good training absolutely changes the culture of those organisations. In Australia in particular, it works really well. May I encourage the Government to look at that?
Secondly, there are two recommendations on the defensive culture in the NHS and the Civil Service that are accepted only in principle. Repeated Home Office failures on the Post Office Horizon scheme and the Windrush scheme demonstrate that actually, we have to get rid of the defensive culture. It is a shame that, frankly, this has been recognised in principle only, and that the scale for it to happen has no timetable attached to it.
The Government say that the recommendations on training and an effective transfusion service are a
“complex set of sub recommendations”
from Sir Brian, but they say there needs to be
“a joined-up approach across … four services”.
This, again, is in principle, with no timeline, mainly because no funding has been identified. Have we not learnt from Sir Brian’s inquiry report that we have to do this to stop future mistakes?
On the patient voice, I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about the gratitude for the funding for the IB groups. That is important, but the Government have not accepted in principle the clinical audit. The Welsh and Scottish Governments have, but our Government and the NIA have not. Please can this be done at pace? It is ridiculous to do it on its own.
In summary, things need to change, and fast. I recognise that the compensation body is an arms-length body, but please will the Government provide funding to upscale things so that compensation can start in earnest?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton. As ever, the tone of this discussion and the questions so far has been one of sensitivity and co-operation; it is your Lordships’ House at its best.
I pay tribute to the work of many noble Lords across the House. Parliamentary scrutiny has played an important role in holding the Government to account on the progress they have made in responding to the inquiry, and I know that your Lordships’ House will continue to push forward the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Featherstone, for their ongoing engagement. I also put on record my personal thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Finlay, who have been incredibly helpful in my own journey on this area. We are truly lucky to have such tenacious women in your Lordships’ House.
The inquiry’s report revealed the scale of devastation caused by the infected blood scandal: lives were shattered and families were torn apart, all attributable to the collective and avoidable failings of the state. I and ministerial colleagues have pledged on a number of occasions that this Government are listening, and we are hearing. We will not seek to repeat the mistakes of the past. I hope that the progress set out in the Government’s response provides some reassurance—although, rightly, with questions—that we are acting on the inquiry’s recommendations. On behalf of the state, I reiterate our deepest apologies to those impacted by this heartbreaking scandal, as my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office have stated.
I turn to some of the specific points and questions that the noble Baronesses have raised. I apologise if I am unable to cover all the points raised, or if I have misunderstood any of them. I will reflect on Hansard and write to all noble Lords who participate today.
On the speed of delivery of the compensation, I think we know that this is at the heart of many of the issues highlighted over the last week in the media, separate from the heartbreaking documentary shown last night. I know that the speed of compensation payments is a primary area of concern to both noble Lords across this House and in the infected blood community more widely. Earlier this month, IBCA confirmed plans to ask an average of 100 people a week to start their claims. While the rollout of the scheme is an operational decision for IBCA, as an independent body, the Government are supportive of this ambition and stand ready to assist in speeding up payments. I am assured that it has the resources to expedite its findings. If it does not, I will speak to officials today and find out what else we need to do.
As the Minister for the Cabinet Office noted to the inquiry last week, the Government will consider the concerns that the inquiry and the infected blood community are continuing to raise. The Government’s primary focus is ensuring that compensation payments are made as quickly as possible, and we are aware that that leads to some challenges with certain parts of the implementation.
On the duty of candour, I recognise the concerns about the delay in introducing the forthcoming Hillsborough law Bill to Parliament. I want to assure your Lordships’ House that the Government remain fully committed to legislating in this area. The Government have been consulting widely with interested parties—we want to get this right—and are working to ensure that the best version is drafted ahead of its introduction. I look forward to debating the content of the Bill with noble Lords.
I reiterate the point about the ongoing implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations: we are committed to future transparency and accountability in this area, and we will be publishing the Government’s progress via a publicly accessible dashboard in due course. The dashboard will be updated regularly as progress is made.
We started by highlighting the documentary that was shown last night. There are too many heartbreaking stories associated with the infected blood scandal—in fact, every story is heartbreaking. What happened at Treloar’s was utterly abhorrent. I encourage all noble Lords across the House to watch the documentary, and I pay tribute to those in the community who courageously told their stories again to bring this documentary to our screens. The Government are committed to remembering the victims of this scandal through memorials, both specifically at Treloar’s and more widely in the UK. We are working through the process to remember them in a way that is appropriate and fitting.
On the extension of Sir Robert Francis’s contract, I am pleased that he will be continuing in his role. He has been involved in the creation of the process, and we have a shared priority to deliver compensation as quickly as possible.
With regard to monitoring liver damage, we absolutely recognise the importance of this for those who have been infected, and we will accept the majority of the sub-recommendations in full. Our approach will balance the implementation of the recommendations against the principle that all patients should receive the same treatment, irrespective of how the disease was acquired.
With regard to the DHSC and the recommendations, we are awaiting the CSR, so noble Lords will have to bear with me, but we will update the House on the additional recommendations as and when.
In respect of compensation and the speed of delivery, I can assure noble Lords that IBCA is committed to opening the full compensation service to all those eligible as soon as possible. On 11 February, IBCA set out its plans to open the compensation scheme in stages to make sure it is effective and secure for all those claiming. This was a decision taken independently of the Government by the IBCA board. IBCA is —importantly—an independent agency, but we do want it to expedite the payments. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is looking at all the recommendations and I will report back to your Lordships’ House in due course, when we have the recommendations of the latest stage of the inquiry.
With regard to charitable funding, as has been mentioned, I am pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care has identified a pot of £500,000 for this financial year. This is brand-new money for those charities that have supported victims in the infected blood community for many years, doing so independently. The Government recognise the important work done by those charities that are supporting the infected and affected community and the pressures placed on these organisations following the inquiry’s report and the Government’s setting up of the infected blood compensation scheme. Earlier this week, I met with the Hepatitis C Trust, which has had more than 3,000 phone calls just this year related to infected blood.
With regard to further hearings and the report, we remain fully committed to co-operating with the inquiry and to acting on its recommendations, and we are grateful for its compensation work to date. So far, we have set aside £11.8 billion to compensate the victims and made compensation offers of £130 million. I am conscious that noble Lords across the House will be keen to hear the Government’s plans for responding to the inquiry’s forthcoming report on the design of the scheme and the speed of delivery. While I cannot commit to concrete timelines at this stage, my honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will carefully consider all proposals and recommendations from the inquiry and will respond as soon as possible.
I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions. I am determined that we shall continue to work closely together to progress this work and continue in the spirit that has characterised our debates on this issue. The Government are clear that this is not the end of the discussion on infected blood. There is much more for us to do to deliver justice to the infected blood community: people who have suffered so much hardship as a result of this scandal. We must do what we can to provide what justice we can, and they must be at the forefront of our minds and our primary focus as we do so.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the widow of Graham Ingleson, who died at the age of 33 in 1993.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for meeting me before the Easter Recess. I know that she is genuinely committed to ensuring that the victims get justice, and that is welcome. However, she will not be surprised when I say that the Statement that was made in the House last week is wanting. I do not feel that it reflects the deep frustration and disappointment of the infected blood community at the shocking lack of progress. Therefore, in the light of their concerns, Sir Brian Langstaff took the unprecedented step of reopening the inquiry two weeks ago to hear why the compensation scheme is failing the community so profoundly. Does the Minister agree that the chronic delays in processing claims are lamentable? Only 160 or so of the 30,000 known to be affected received payment in the last year, and people are dying at the rate of one or two a week. Will the Government consider quarterly targets for IBCA to speed up claims settlements?
The Statement rightly recognises the devastating impact of this scandal. Does the Minister accept that the bureaucratic nature of the scheme exacerbates the distress of the community as they relive their trauma?
It is clear from the recent hearings that genuine engagement with the community is just not happening. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will address this with IBCA urgently? A
“publicly accessible dashboard in due course”
is not good enough.
Lastly, the Prime Minister said a year ago, “Politics itself failed you”. Will the Minister acknowledge that the paramount need is to ensure that politics does not repeat itself? In the words of the CEO of the Haemophilia Society:
“The inquiry gave us the truth, but we’re still waiting for justice”.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for coming in today to participate in the debate. As she is a member of the affected community, I know of the strain of leadership that she has had to face as people look to her for answers. She is a tenacious woman and a dedicated campaigner, but that still requires a huge amount of inner strength, and I thank her for what she is doing for the community.
With regard to the specific points, obviously several were raised and I will reflect on Hansard. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right: politics failed the infected blood community and we need to make sure that that does not happen again, both for this community and any other community that is facing issues where the state has let them down. I truly believe that politics is a force for good in society; we need to make sure that it is. I hope that the noble Baroness will soon be meeting with the Minister for the Cabinet Office to discuss next steps, and I hope both to be present and to make sure that she makes some of these recommendations forcefully, as I know she will. We will reflect on them as we also reflect on the findings of the second phase of the inquiry.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite him to ask his question.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with an infected blood compensation bill of £11 billion-plus and a further annual bill of £3 billion for misdiagnosis and incorrect medication, and then recognising the limitations on Commons inquiries due to Member availability, limited expertise and agenda pressures, does not this whole affair now demand an ad hoc inquiry into compensation arrangements administration in the Lords, drawing on our huge expertise in accountancy, healthcare and wider issues of compensation law? I am sure our people could find ways of speeding up the process and the scheme, saving a lot of public money that is currently unnecessarily feeding some areas of the legal and other professions. I suspect this will all end up in a VFM report before the Public Accounts Committee in years to come.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Noble Lords across your Lordships’ House have extraordinary expertise, and I will more than happily meet with any of them if they have recommendations for how we can more quickly expedite infected blood compensation payments. With regard to the £11.8 billion, though, that money has been ring-fenced in compensation payments for the victims of infected blood. We will do everything we can to make sure they get it. This is taxpayers’ money, so there is a balance here; we need to make sure that the people entitled to it get it, which is more straightforward for the infected; we will discuss in great detail what that means as we progress on to the affected, to make sure that safeguards are in place. But this money is for those people who have been directly affected, and we need to make sure that they are the ones with the money.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Many noble Lords will have heard me say before that I have to declare an interest, but for those who do not know, it is because one of my sister’s twins died aged 35 of infected blood and hepatitis C, leaving a 10 month-old baby daughter.
I met with the campaigners yesterday and these are among their main issues. Those in the infected blood community told me of their deep concern about the delays in the application process, but also of an arrogance of behaviour on the part of members of the IBCA. They said it appeared that the delays were deliberate and that, as has been stated, up to two victims a week are dying and there is a feeling that the Government might be saving money. I do not think that is the case, but the delays allow such theories to develop.
I ask the Minister the following questions. Why are responses to applicants’ queries taking so long? Is it that the IBCA needs more capacity, staffing or training? What are the Government doing about the difficulties that victims are having navigating the bureaucratic compensation claim system, which many of them think is vastly overcomplicated? There is, as I mentioned, a constant complaint about the attitude of some within the IBCA, who
“come across as gatekeepers rather than efficient, compassionate compensation enablers”.
Many wonder whether Treasury civil servants are seconded to the IBCA, as their treatment is so like the treatment they received from members of the Civil Service and the Government during the 40 or 50 years when they were trying to bring this to a head.
What is happening on the disparities between those with HIV, as opposed to hepatitis C? At the moment, HIV is scheduled for a vastly larger amount of compensation than hep C, yet those with hep C are dying more than those with HIV. Creating divisions among groups of people who are suffering and dying is not a great idea; I should like the Minister to convey that to the IBCA. Lastly, what is happening about the issues within the compensation scheme, such as 25% less for carers and underpayment errors due to wrong tariff calculations? I hope the Minister can answer some of those questions.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Every time we discuss this, I am very aware of the impact that it has on members of the community who have to relive the pain and hurt of the loved ones they have lost or are still caring for.
I want to be very clear and put on record that none of the delays is about saving money. That would be the most heinous of approaches. Although I understand that that is being said by members of the community, it is simply not true. Rather, we adopted the establishment of IBCA with a test-and-learn approach. We thought that the worst thing we could do would be to promise more and not be able to deliver. We are trying to ensure that we can deliver at a level and that the people who are entitled to money are actually getting it, and that we are learning from where we get it wrong and fixing it.
On streamlining the process, I tried to use the calculator to figure out what I would or would not be entitled to if I was a member of the community. There is still some way to go in terms of IBCA’s communications, I think it is fair to say. They are getting better but there is still some way to go. I say to all noble Lords, but especially to the noble Baroness, that if there are specific complaints and people are coming to you because they trust you, but there are cases that you would like me to raise directly to find out what is going on, then please pass them to me. I have already done this on behalf of some noble Lords and I have been more than happy to do so. I am very aware of the added burden this is, both in your inboxes and in the emotional toll that it takes. Give them to me and I will raise them.
On the tariffs, the impact of hepatitis infections can range from very mild to, as the noble Baroness’s nephew experienced, horrendously severe. The expert group provided clinical advice on the distinctions between these impacts. This meant that we could set severity bands. I am really sorry, because bringing it down to bands is emotionally very difficult when we are talking about people’s horrendous experiences, but if we are to expedite the compensation then that is the practical way in which we have to do so. The bands mean that when someone’s experience of hepatitis is more severe, based on clinical markers, they receive more compensation, and if their hepatitis symptoms get more severe they can then progress and reapply for additional funding.
On the lack of an HIV tariff, very, very sadly, most people infected with HIV due to infected blood have already passed away; in most cases their deaths were as a result of their HIV infection. It was the view of the expert group that it would be disproportionately complex to break down the HIV category into different severity bands, given the ultimate severity of death.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I declare that I was a member of one of the expert groups that fed into the Infected Blood Inquiry, which looked into one of the darkest periods in the history of healthcare in our country. There was systemic failure and inertia, with blood plasma being brought in from dangerous sources, such as American prisons. Lives were destroyed. So many people are suffering. So many families are feeling pain. So many people are dead, with many deaths yet to come.
There is a moral duty on all of us to ensure that Sir Brian’s report on compensation is implemented in full. It is well over a year since it was published. I say to my noble friend the Minister that putting aside so much money is welcome, but surely there is a moral imperative to pay compensation now to those who have suffered or are suffering through no fault of their own. It is great that money has been put aside, but what is causing the delay? What is the hold-up? I am sure that, if that could be dealt with, we could then move forward to spend the money that has been set aside. The delays appear cruel and besmirch all of us, to say the least.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and for the work that he did as part of the expert group. The Government will not be satisfied with the speed of payments until every eligible person has received the compensation that they are due as quickly as we can do it. When the previous Government and the then Opposition worked together to ensure that this could be delivered just before the general election—or just as the general election was called—we were clear that we would work together to make sure that this happened.
The money is there. We have had to create an independent vehicle to make sure that it is given away judiciously and is accessed by the people who need it—these are public funds—because, given the community that we are talking about, which for every reason in the world simply does not trust the state, having a body that is not the state was viewed as incredibly important. This means that we have had to create something from scratch, which takes longer, and we have had to make sure that the people working there have the tools and experience to give the money out. They are doing a job that most of us, when we enter public service, would celebrate. Those whom I have met cannot believe that their job is to try to fix something that was so horribly broken. The agency literally exists to give compensation to people who have experienced something horrendous. The people who work there are doing themselves out of a job, because IBCA will close as soon as people have received their compensation.
There is a long way to go but we want to do this as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with all noble Lords as we progress on this journey.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I would be very happy if my noble friend the Minister could outline when the funding for the support organisations will be provided. Many of them have worked strenuously over many years to ensure that the funding and the compensation go to the people who need them most: the victims of infected blood.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. The money was allocated only last week, I think; I will correct the record if I am wrong. We are working with the charities now to see which of them will be allocated the funding. That is a matter for the DHSC, but I will update my noble friend when I have more details.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, in joining with the moving testimony of those on both sides of the House who have done so much, I will just end with one tribute. I gave evidence to Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry over a number of days. I have had the misfortune, or fortune, to appear before a number of inquiries in my relatively long parliamentary career. Sir Brian conducted an absolutely exemplary investigation, with all those who worked with him. Among all this horror, it is something to hold on to that we have people in our public life in this country who can do work of that quality.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord rightly highlights the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. If we consider the subject matter that he has been exploring and the trust that he has managed to instil within the community, we see that his work is both extraordinary and miraculous. On the day of the report, when, across the road, he came forward to the group in the room to present the final report, there was cheering and a standing ovation from a group of people who have been so badly treated by the state. The fact they had that reaction to him—someone who, based on his CV, could easily be said to be the establishment—shows what an extraordinary thing he has managed to do. We owe him hugely for the work he has done, which is why we will act on every one of his recommendations.
UK-EU Summit
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. The Statement is as follows:
“I will update the House on the three recent trade deals that we have struck in the national interest.
First, however, I would like to say something about the horrific situation in Gaza, where the level of suffering, with innocent children being bombed again, is utterly intolerable. Over the weekend we co-ordinated a response with our allies, as set out in my statement with President Macron and Prime Minister Carney last night. I want to put on record today that we are horrified by the escalation from Israel. We repeat our demand for a ceasefire, as the only way to free the hostages; we repeat our opposition to settlements in the West Bank; and we repeat our demand to massively scale up humanitarian assistance to Gaza. The recent announcement that Israel will allow a ‘basic quantity of food’ into Gaza is totally and utterly inadequate, so we must co-ordinate our response, because this war has gone on for far too long. We cannot allow the people of Gaza to starve, and the Foreign Secretary will come to the House shortly to set out our response in detail.
Let me turn now to the three deals that this Government have struck. The principles we took into the negotiations are clear and simple. Does it drive down bills? Does it drive up jobs? Does it strengthen our borders? In each case, the answer is a resounding yes. These deals release us from the tired arguments of the past and, as an independent sovereign nation, allow us to seize the opportunities of the future—a clear message, sent across the globe, that Britain is back on the world stage.
We have a trade deal with the world’s fastest-growing economy, India, cutting tariffs for British industries, which is a huge boost for our whisky and gin distilleries—their only concern now is whether they can produce enough to sell—and for our car manufacturers, with tariffs slashed from over 100% to just 10%, and no concessions on visas. We have a trade deal with the world’s richest economy, the United States, slashing tariffs, saving thousands upon thousands of jobs in car manufacturing in places such as Jaguar Land Rover, protecting our steel and aluminium exports, and safeguarding the interests of our hugely important pharmaceutical sector.
But I can already see that, when it comes to this hat trick of deals, it is our new partnership with the EU that the Opposition most want to talk about—and given their abject failure to strike a deal with India or the US, I cannot say I blame them—so let me spell out the benefits of this deal, which gives our country an unprecedented level of access to the EU market: the best access of any nation outside the EU or European Free Trade Association.
I will start with our security. When Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine over three years ago, a gauntlet was thrown down, and it is our responsibility to step up. That is what this world demands, and it is what this partnership delivers, strengthening our national security through a new security and defence partnership that paves the way for British defence firms to access the EU’s €150 billion defence fund. That will support British jobs, British wages and British livelihoods.
The partnership also increases co-operation on emissions trading, saving UK businesses from having to pay up to £800 million in EU carbon taxes—once again, backing British businesses. The deal will drive down bills with increased co-operation on energy, because the agreement negotiated by the Conservative Party left us with a more expensive way of working with our neighbours—a needless rupture, despite our grids being connected by undersea cables. This partnership brings those systems together again, benefiting British bill payers and boosting clean British power in the North Sea.
This partnership also strengthens our borders, because, again, the previous deal left a huge gap and weakened our ability to work together to tackle illegal migration—the ultimate cross-border challenge. It closes that gap, including joint work on returns, preventing channel crossings, and working upstream in key source and transit countries, co-operating along the whole migration route to strengthen our hand in the fight against the vile smuggling gangs. It boosts our co-operation on law enforcement, combating terrorism and serious organised crime with closer operational work with agencies such as Europol and better sharing of intelligence and data, including, for the first time, facial imaging.
This partnership helps British holidaymakers, who will be able to use eGates when they travel to Europe, ending those huge queues at passport control. It delivers for our young people, because we are now on a path towards a controlled youth experience scheme, with firm caps on numbers and visa controls—a relationship we have with so many countries around the world, some of which were even set up by the party opposite. We should be proud to give our young people that opportunity. And, not for the first time, this Government have delivered for Britain’s steel industry, protecting our steel exports from new EU tariffs and backing our steel sector to the hilt.
Last but certainly not least, we have a new sanitary and phytosanitary deal, as promised in our manifesto, which will cut the price of a weekly shop, meaning that there will be more money in the pockets of working people, less red tape for our exporters, no more lorry drivers sitting for 16 hours at the border with rotting food in the back, and no more needless checks—the inevitable consequence of the Conservatives’ policies, which made it so much harder to trade even within our own market, between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The deal means that British goods that have long been off the menu in Europe can regain their true place, including shellfish, which are hugely important for Cornwall, Devon and Scotland. Not only does our deal on fish provide stability, with no increase in the amount that EU vessels can catch in British waters, but the new SPS agreement slashes costs and red tape for our exports to the European market. We sell 70% of our seafood to that market, so there is a huge opportunity that Britain’s fisheries, in which we have made a £360 million investment, will now look to exploit.
The reaction to this deal from business has been absolutely clear. I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses, but the new partnership has been backed by the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the British Retail Consortium, Asda, Morrisons, Salmon Scotland, the Food and Drink Federation, the British Chambers of Commerce, Ryanair, Vodafone, and producers of meat, milk and poultry—the list goes on and on.
I wonder whether that long list of businesses coming out in support of the deal will temper the reaction of the leader of the Opposition. For weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about here; the honourable Member for Clacton, who is not here, and the right honourable Member for Kingston and Surbiton have both shown, in their own way, that their parties do not get it. If your whole approach to our allies is about striking a pose, you do not get to strike a deal. What that means in a world like ours, where deals are ever more the currency of security and justice, is that you do not get to make a difference, and you do not get to deliver for Britain. That is what this partnership means.
For years, we were told that this could not be done. What the Conservatives meant was that they could not do it. We were told that a deal with the US or India was impossible; what they meant was that it was impossible for them. We were told that a choice must be made between the US and EU; what they meant was that they could not do a deal with both. This Government can and will, because we stay in the room, we fight for the national interest, and we put the British people first. These deals represent a signal that we are back on the world stage—a global champion of free trade, playing our historic role on European security—but above all, they are deals that put money in the pockets of working people, because that is what independent, sovereign nations do. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I say at the outset that we share her concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and I think everyone in this House would wish for a peaceful and swift resolution.
I have been around long enough to know that when a Prime Minister, of any party, tells you a deal is a triumph, you need to look pretty fast at the small print. In this latest case we do not yet have most of that, which is actually quite a problem, but the basics are clear: EU control of our food standards restored; Britain as a rule-taker, not a rule-maker; the ECJ back; dynamic alignment back; and, frankly, our fishermen sold all the way to the Dogger Bank in a December gale. All this for a packet of sausages that the French do not actually want. The promise is that we might—potentially, where appropriate, is what the communiqué actually says—be able to go on a summer holiday through passport e-gates. That is something the UK has continued to give EU citizens ever since Brexit. Why did they have to give up so much to get something that we in this country, who have real good will to our European friends, have given to EU citizens for decades?
I have defended some dud deals at that Dispatch Box in my time, and some good ones. You get to sniff them out—and this one is a dud. It reminds me of some other negotiations with the EU in the past: surrender all the key principles first, then try to negotiate the details later when your leverage is gone. So, having been told in the Labour manifesto that there will be no freedom of movement, the Government have a proposed scheme that could see tens of thousands of working-age migrants come to Britain, potentially with the ability to settle and bring dependants. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether reports that the scheme may be capped at 100,000 people are correct, and will she say what upper age limit the UK is seeking for the scheme?
The deal has again made Britain a rule-taker, leaving our farmers subject to rules made in Paris and enforced in Brussels, while they have no voice at the table. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of EU regulations and dynamic alignment on the viability of family farms in this country?
Do the Government understand that autonomy on food standards is vital to the prospects of our being leaders in precision breeding, for which we only recently legislated? From being world leaders in this industry of the future, we will be tied to move at the pace acceptable to the most resistant bureaucrat in Brussels.
We have also agreed to send new money to the EU for the right to sell to our neighbours defence equipment they desperately need, though it is still unclear what we will get for it and what we will have to give. It is disappointing that, in the face of the greatest challenge to European security for generations, we are haggling on the price of co-operation with would-be allies.
Perhaps the worst case is that of our fishermen. Personally, I was unhappy in 2019 when we delayed for five years full control of our waters, but our fisher folk had reason to expect that things would then improve, and so they did. Replying to a Question from my noble friend Lord Roborough just seven weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, told the House that
“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters … becomes a matter for annual renegotiation”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]
We agreed with the noble Baroness when she said she would work tirelessly to achieve that. However, along with our fishing fleet, she was torpedoed by a late-night call from President Macron. From working for annual agreements—something given to the Faroe Islands but not, it seems, to Scotland—the Prime Minister turned tail on a sixpence and ordered a 12-year surrender of our fishing rights.
There is something of a pattern. The US deal was good start with the US, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s achievement there. President Trump said that after the deal was done, he picked up the phone to the Prime Minister and boasted, “We got a billion dollars more for the US”. One late night call and they cave in. I beg the noble Baroness: when a deal is being discussed, please get the Prime Minister to bed early. Heaven knows what time the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General woke him up to sell him the ludicrous Chagos deal.
Will the noble Baroness set out what control the UK will have over quota-setting and marine protected areas in our territorial and EEZ waters? Will she explain why some of the poorest communities in our country should pay for 12 years the price for the Government declaring a triumph over well-chilled wine at a summit? On energy, just when it seemed some common sense was breaking out at the extremes of net-zero policy, we have entered the EU emissions scheme and cast away energy autonomy. If we want to be a leader in the vital industry of AI, we need large quantities of cheap, reliable, home-grown energy delivered by a UK Government. How will this help?
The Labour manifesto said on Europe that it would not reopen
“the divisions of the past”,
yet instead of looking to the future of a free, fast-developing, independent economy, it has reset us to a misremembered, hyper-regulated past where in some of the key industries of the future Britain must again move at the rate of the slowest in the slowest growing economic bloc in the world. This is a bad deal and, as my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has said, it should be ripped up, or perhaps used to wrap up some of our dwindling supplies of fish and chips.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating yesterday’s Statement. I begin by associating these Benches with the sentiments expressed in the Statement on Gaza. Recent Israeli action is indeed horrific and requires a response. Yesterday’s actions by the Foreign Secretary are welcome, but the most obvious way in which we can demonstrate our further support for the Palestinian people is to support their demand for statehood. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this option is under active consideration by the Government?
On Europe, the joint statement issued by the UK and EU begins by pointing out that this was the first UK-EU summit since Brexit, and this is the context against which the outcome should be judged. It was, of course, a real dereliction of duty for the previous Government to turn their back so comprehensively on our largest and closest partner. A reset in our relations is long overdue in the national interest.
Perhaps the biggest achievement of the summit was that it represented a milestone in rebuilding trust between the UK and the EU. For too long, too many in British politics have poured scorn on the EU while placing their hopes on replacing ties with Europe with countries which are now run by unreliable allies. The EU has noticed this and has been understandably wary about treating with the UK as a result. Against this background, the specific outcomes of the summit are to be welcomed, whether on freer trade in food products, energy, security, defence, or youth mobility, and I am sure pet owners will also be cheering to the rafters the return of the pet passport.
It will surprise no one, however, that we on these Benches see these agreements as but small, tentative first steps towards restoring a much deeper, more productive relationship with the EU. The progress on veterinary and plant health requirements is particularly welcome as it will lead to immediate benefits to the food and agriculture sectors; and, as the Statement made clear, it has even been welcomed by the Scottish salmon industry. The return of frictionless trade in these areas is one of the main reasons why yesterday’s deal will add 0.2% to GDP.
However, for firms in every other productive sector seeking to export to the EU, the deal does nothing to make that easier. Before yesterday’s deal we were set to lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit. Now we are set to lose 3.8%. This shows how much more there is to do and why movement towards rejoining the customs union and single market is still urgently required.
The commitment to a youth mobility scheme and reassociation with Erasmus+ I welcome, but it is vague as to timing and detailed content. Can the Minister say what the Government’s aspirations are for concluding these new arrangements so that students and young people more generally can benefit?
The agreements on travelling artists, short-term business mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are also welcome but are even vaguer. Given that agreement in these areas would be a clear win-win for both sides, it is surprising and disappointing that more progress has not been achieved. Can the Government say what they envisage happening next to bring about these much-needed easements?
The new UK-EU security and defence partnership is also welcome. At the heart of this is the €150 billion defence equipment procurement fund. The UK will now negotiate to become a participant in this programme. This could significantly benefit the UK defence industry, but there are no details. When can we expect some? In defence and security, and in the other areas covered by yesterday’s agreements, new institutional ties with the EU will give the UK, for the first time in almost a decade, a formal route to influence EU thinking. This is no small gain.
Taken together, yesterday’s agreements, far from representing a surrender of British interests, are an overdue reassertion of them. This view is shared by the British public, who now decisively support closer ties with the EU. The Government now need to build on the progress they made yesterday. That will make the UK more prosperous, more influential and more secure. The sooner and more decisively they do it, the better.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions on the situation in Gaza. It is dire; it gets worse by the day. Some will have heard Tom Fletcher from the United Nations on the radio yesterday speaking about his fear of the number of babies who could die in the next 48 hours if aid does not get in quick enough. I understand that a very limited amount of aid went in yesterday. There are lorries at the border now waiting to take more aid in. There are containers available, and discussions are ongoing to get that aid in. My noble friend Lord Collins will be repeating the Statement in the House tomorrow so there will be the opportunity to ask further questions on that.
I felt that this debate ran true to form. On the Conservative Benches the feeling was, “You’ve gone too far, it’s terrible”. On the Liberal Democrat Benches it was, “You haven’t gone far enough”. I feel that we have pitched ourselves in the right place. It was an uncharitable and, unfortunately, predictable response from the noble Lord, Lord True. He had questions and criticisms on e-passport use and asked why the deal was so bad last time. He should ask his own party that because the deal was done by his Government.
I will go through some of the issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the emissions trading system. It is a ridiculous situation that British businesses—a trade worth, I think, £7 billion—are at risk of paying what is, in effect, a levy to the EU. That has gone. That has to be in the interests of energy prices and British industry. That money was going straight from UK exporters into the EU budget. There is a better way of doing this. This streamlines the regulatory barriers. CO2 storage is a growth industry in the UK, with enormous potential for investment and jobs. Linking the ETS removes the disincentives for EU emitters to store CO2 in the UK. That makes our industry far more competitive. That is an important point.
On the SPS agreement, I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was not supportive of it, and I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. It is a huge improvement, and it will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland. The original Brexit deal tried to find a fudge to make this work, with the Windsor Framework. It was a terrible situation where we even had problems exporting between GB and Northern Ireland.
I do not know whether other noble Lords do, but I remember Boris Johnson talking to a group of businesspeople, when he said, “If there are any forms to be filled in, you come and see me; you send them to me”. I suggest that, if they had, he might have disappeared under the pile of forms sent to him. We were speaking to a businessperson the other night who said that, for one consignment, his company filled in 2,000 forms. That is damaging to our industry, and it is damaging to our exports. While those forms were being checked and more forms had to be filled in, produce was rotting at the borders. I know that Members across the House have found this to be an issue in their own businesses. It is absolutely right that we have taken action to deal with that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, questioned how long the deal on e-passports is going to take, and suggested that it is not going to happen. Negotiations with EU member countries are starting immediately to make sure that it does happen to protect and support those in the UK who are travelling. Anyone who has been on their way back from a holiday or business travel, joined a very long queue, and seen others with EU passports wandering through and British citizens not being able to, will be pleased to see that as well.
These are very important agreements. If it helps the noble Lord, in 2024, £14.1 billion of UK agri-food exports went to EU countries. That has a huge impact on British businesses. The noble Lord also went on about dynamic alignment. It might be helpful if I said something about divergence and dynamic alignment, and the rule-taking issue. Research undertaken this May by UK in a Changing Europe showed that the UK has done very little to diverge from EU regulations. That means that British businesses have been sticking to those rules, because it is in their interest since they are still exporting, but the barriers and difficulties they have faced in exporting have had a huge impact on their businesses. The lived reality is that we have had very little benefit from that, which is why this deal has been welcomed by so many businesses. In our trade deal with the United States, we made it clear that we were not prepared to accept, for example, chlorinated chicken, because it would have a detrimental effect on our farmers, who have invested in higher welfare standards. There are always issues that come along on that point.
I probably do not have time to respond to all the questions, but I want particularly to come back to fishing. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, raised about the European Court, we will have a role in shaping new rules. No rules will apply in the UK unless they go to Parliament and get its agreement, and any disputes will be resolved through international arbitration and agreement. Where the CJEU has a role is with regards to the interpretation of EU law.
Briefly on fishing, the fishing industry exports 72% of its produce to the EU. It will benefit hugely from the SPS agreement, which will make a difference. Our shellfish people have not been able to export anything. Saying that we can now export shellfish will have a huge impact and be beneficial to those farmers in Scotland, Devon and other parts of the country who produce shellfish, as well to our salmon farmers. On the year-on-year agreement, there was obviously a wish to get a better deal, but it was highly unlikely because we had not reset the relationship. The 12-year agreement provides some certainty, and alongside it is a £350 million investment for coastal areas and the fishing industry to help them invest in technology and grow their businesses.
I think this is an excellent deal. It deals with defence, security and the things that matter to the British people. It takes us a step forward, and away from the argument of Brexit or no Brexit. On the question from noble Lord, Lord Newby, about why we do not further, there will be annual summits to look at these issues; he mentioned some of them. On the customs union, if we were in that union, we would not have achieved the deals with India and the US. People said we could not do it; they said, “You will never get a deal with the EU and the US”. We have done it.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their progress in strengthening the European arm of NATO in the light of the changed circumstances we have, and on the start they have made on putting us back into a healthier relationship—a soft Brexit—with the European Union, to replace the hard Brexit that has done so much harm to our economy in recent years and continues to do so. But will she acknowledge that this is by no means a final deal, and there are many questions to be asked and many other areas to be opened up, such as benefits that might be brought to other sectors of the economy, to get us back to something like the healthy trading relationship we had with the EU before Brexit intervened? Will she confirm that we can make great progress without in any way compromising the public vote in the referendum? The hard Brexit we had was quite unnecessarily, fiercely anti-European. Can she reassure us that this is only the start of a continuing process of negotiation, so that we see firm detail and more positive results for interest groups in addition to the farmers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lord, the noble Lord makes an experienced and wise point. There is more flesh to be put on the bones of these particular agreements as well. For me, one of the most important things that came out of this is that now we have a willingness to talk, engage and reach agreement. That has been sadly missing, and this has been damaging to the British economy and the British people. There will be an annual summit as well, and there are a number of issues that are referenced in the documentation. I am thinking, for example, of those in the creative industries, touring musicians, et cetera—that is mentioned as well. There is more detail to be put on paper on the youth experience scheme and all those issues. But, yes, the annual summit is a way to have these discussions, and we are also looking to trade with other countries around the world. We all, I hope, want to see a better relationship with the EU—one that is mature—where we can have those discussions. Where we agree and can move forward, we want to do so. So there are outstanding issues and details here, and we intend to make that progress in the interests of the economy and the people of this country.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench and I very much welcome this Statement on SPS, electricity trading and emissions trading. We must not forget that UK energy was looking for a deal on electricity trading and the alignment of schemes in respect of emissions trading. In congratulating my noble friend and our Government on bringing us further towards the European Union, I point out and will ask the Minister about paragraphs 30 and 44 of Common Understanding, which was launched on Monday. It said:
“The European Commission should consult the Government of the United Kingdom at an early stage of policy-making”
in respect of SPS, emissions trading and electricity trading. Can she, at this stage, give us a timeline in relation to this? I declare an interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. In the fullness of time, I would welcome a resolution in that regard.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments, and she is right about the importance of these particular issues. I cannot give her an exact timeline, because the summit was only last week. But we want to work at pace on all these issues because, between summits, we want to see progress. We need to put the detail on the bones. But she is right about the issue of consultation, which is what has been missing throughout the time since Brexit. We need this consultation. We have been in government for only eight months, and the progress that has been made in eight months is good and something we should be proud of. But I take the noble Baroness’s point: you need the detail and, as soon as the timeline is available, we will share that information.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on pressing ahead with the youth experience scheme, and indeed with negotiating Erasmus+ —schemes which, in answer to the naysayers, will increase opportunities for less privileged young British people. However, it is disappointing that there are no concrete proposals on creative professionals touring. This is urgent. Many musicians cannot tour Europe, and of course this affects all the other arts too: visual arts, fashion, film and theatre. Finally, will there be discussions about rejoining Creative Europe, which would benefit us hugely, including in film?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has been a good advocate for exchanges and touring artists. I can tell him that paragraph 15 of the common understanding says:
“The European Commission and the United Kingdom recognise the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. They will continue their efforts to support travel and cultural exchange”.
That indicates the direction of travel, and that we do want to ensure that there are such arrangements. I cannot answer the noble Earl him on Creative Europe, as those discussions have not taken place. Not everything was dealt with at this summit, and that is one of the issues that we wish to see progress on.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the outcome of the summit is welcome, and the restored trust has been vital, although it does leave a lot of detail to be filled in. I fear that the Conservative reaction is insulting to business. There are also limits to what we can get, imposed by the Government themselves. For instance, even though, very welcomely, some red tape will be cut by the SPS agreement—of which we are yet to see the detail—there will still be customs hoops to jump through. Why are the Government maintaining their red lines against the single market and customs union? We know the ideology around that, but what is the practical value? I heard the Minister talk about the India and US agreements, but the volume of the EU market is far more important and the Government are limiting our ability to improve life for businesses and citizens.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not accept entirely the noble Baroness’s parameters. We are where we are, and in our manifesto we set out what the clear red lines were, recognising the public vote on Brexit. As well as having an agreement with the EU, we are looking further abroad as well. We have two agreements in place with the US and India, which, as she will know—as she was in those many debates until very late into the night—so many said would never be done if we had any arrangement with the EU, and we have proved them wrong. It is important that we look across the world for agreements as well, and we will continue to ensure that our relationship with the EU is one that is mutually productive.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I must declare an interest as a French farmer, in a small way, in my smallholding in France. In any case, I would welcome any agreement that I believed would remove or reduce unnecessary burdens to trade resulting from SPS regulations across the Channel. Indeed, I was party to the negotiations which ultimately culminated in an agreement to which the UK and all 27 members of the EU are party, called the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. It says that SPS measures shall not be applied as
“a disguised restriction on international trade”.
Yet that is what EU countries do, and the EU has been found in repeated violation of this agreement. The agreement goes on say:
“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.
Ours are currently identical. Why, therefore, does the EU not accept them as such? The agreement goes on to say that control, inspection and approval procedures are to be
“completed without undue delay and in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic products”.
We know that does not happen for our exports to the EU.
I ask the Minister why she believes that the EU will adhere to a rather vague and ill-defined agreement that she proposes to reach, when it in flagrant and repeated violation of an agreement that has been in force under international law for some years?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we are confident about this agreement and confident in our relationship with the EU. All those who export to the EU and have produce going to the EU, as well as all those who bring produce into this country, know how urgent and important it is that we reached the agreement. We have confidence in it, we believe that we will adhere to it, and we will ensure that the EU does too.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept the congratulations that she should convey to our Prime Minister on this very important step in rebuilding our relations with the European Union? They are pragmatic steps, but they open up the way to great future co-operation. For example, the framework of alignment that has been agreed on energy and phyto- sanitary standards is capable of being extended to other sectors of the economy, such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and engineering, which would be important. Finally, does she note that, at a time when the security situation in Europe is deteriorating fast, and there is talk of President Trump withdrawing from supporting Ukraine, it is crucial that Europe gets its act together on defence and rearmament, and that what is in this agreement will enable that to be done with much greater effectiveness?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will pass the noble Lord’s comments to the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and others involved in the negotiations. We will proceed only when it is in the interests of British businesses and the people of the UK. Each case is being taken step by step and on its own merits, and there is certainly scope for mutual benefit. The noble Lord is right to mention security and defence. He will be pleased to know that, in the second paragraph of the second chapter of the Common Understanding document, it was highlighted that, at the heart of all this, is common security and defence. As we have seen with the invasion of Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we have a strong and secure Europe, and that we are all working together to the same ends.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, whatever the claims and counterclaims of any deal by any Government, and whatever concerns may be raised today—I share some of those concerns, although some of us see the irony in that some of those raising concerns were very happy, only a short time ago, to see exactly the same conditions imposed on one part of the United Kingdom and to then tell us that it was the best of both worlds—what will be critical will be the practical experience of how this works out in reality.
The Minister is right in identifying that the most significant aspect of this deal is the SPS agreement. Under the previous arrangements that were in place, the Government are due in July to impose a labelling system for goods—food, drink and other SPS products—going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That adds an additional layer of bureaucracy, creating the only instance in the UK, or indeed all of Europe, where this will happen. In the light of this new agreement, will the Government give a commitment to end what would be a ludicrous situation of imposing new restrictions in July which are then redundant and will have to be removed at some stage in the next couple of months? Would the Government not be better to pause that, or at least increase the grace period, until this is implemented, so that we are not left with an unnecessary additional burden of the labelling of goods coming into Northern Ireland?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has experience of this. He will know that I have said in this Chamber before that I think it is a great shame that, when the Brexit debate was taking place, so little attention was given to the impact on Northern Ireland. Some people were taken aback, and certainly there were no preparations by the Government for how Northern Ireland could manage this. The SPS agreement removes the barriers on agri-food products. I will take away the point the noble Lord makes—I think it is wider than just agri-food products—see what is happening and discuss it with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and will come back to him ASAP on that issue.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there are another five minutes left.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will the noble Baroness accept that this has been widely supported throughout the country, and right across parties, because it shows that this Government have at least lived in the world we live in, and not in some past world? We now go forward to work more closely with our biggest and most important market and our closest neighbour. Will she accept those congratulations and our hope that we can move further forward in this direction?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am always happy to accept congratulations. The noble Lord makes a very important point about living in the real world. The issue of alignment came up a moment ago. If you look at what has happened already, you find that there has not been the divergence that we were told was going to happen. That is why the paperwork that British businesses have to go through in order to export is such nonsense and a burden for them. This is about living in the real world and doing the best we can for the economy and the people of this country.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the Statement read out by the noble Baroness the Leader said that this arrangement will do away with the long delays faced by lorry drivers with rotting food in the back. Can she say whether it will do away with the long delays faced by coach-loads of schoolchildren on school trips to France? Since the Government did away with the group passport scheme, groups of 40 or 50 school- children all have to get off the coach and be individually checked, which occasionally results in the coach driver hitting the legal drive time limit and abandoning the coach altogether. Will this new arrangement see the reintroduction of the group passport scheme or an equivalent replacement scheme to facilitate educational school trips for children?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness highlights one of those issues that was never thought of as going to be a problem. I am pleased to hear that schools are still going on trips. I have heard of so many schools not undertaking trips because of the problems, with many schools cancelling trips because of the complications of taking them. I do not think it was discussed at this summit; it is not in the papers I have seen, but I will find out. I will certainly ensure that it is raised in the future.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, during the European Affairs Select Committee’s recent visit to Brussels, it became very clear that it was the constructive and positive attitude of this Government that was opening the way to meaningful discussions, particularly on defence and security. There are obviously some details to be ironed out, but can my noble friend the Leader set out what advice and processes there will be so that the UK defence industry can benefit from the partnership agreements on defence and the funds available?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful for that question and mindful that I did not properly answer the question on this point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. When I was a Member of the other place, the defence industry was in my constituency, and I know that it is entrepreneurial, forward-looking and innovative. It does a great deal of technical research that has applications across the board, and the MoD will work with those companies. With the EU setting up the security action for Europe instrument, for which is proposed a €150 billion fund, we plan to make arrangements so that we can be part of it and benefit from it. Exports by the UK defence industry are going to benefit enormously from this, if we can ensure that its skills are recognised and we work in a joint partnership. It is that joint partnership that will allow us to bid for and be part of the €150 billion fund.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, to look at the real world, France has a budget deficit of 5.8% compared to ours of 2.3%. France has an unemployment rate of 7.3% compared to our 4.5%, and France has 19% youth unemployment. Germany’s economy is going down rapidly, with exports going down a lot. So, I am confused when the Prime Minister and the Government call this a wonderful deal. How can it be a wonderful deal for our businesses and this country’s economy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am slightly puzzled by the noble Baroness’s question, if I am honest. Our economy is doing really well now. We are picking up, having been through a very difficult time over the last 14 years and with, I hesitate to say, a £22 billion black hole in current spending plans. By doing a deal with the EU on trade and the economy—I will answer the question from the noble Baroness if she will let me and not make hand signals at me—we have just done all the things we were told we could not do. We have a trade and co-operation agreement and a defence and security agreement with the EU; we have a trade agreement with India and a trade agreement with the USA. The noble Baroness told us last year that would never happen—it has, and we are delighted that we can deliver for the British public.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 21st May 2025
(1 day, 18 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-V(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (20 May 2025)
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
“Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;(vi) threats of violence.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures. (3D) In this section, “persons working in their workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for signing Amendments 99 and 100. As I open the debate on them, I look forward to hearing from all Members who would like to engage on this very important topic of tackling workplace gender-based violence and harassment.
First, I thank the Minister for meeting me ahead of today to discuss these amendments. I am grateful for the engagement on this matter and hope that it continues. I also thank a number of organisations for their support in the drafting of the amendments: the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Rights of Women and the Workers Policy Project. The formation of the amendments began with the Private Member’s Bill to the same effect tabled by my Plaid Cymru colleague in the other place, Liz Saville Roberts, who is below the Bar today. Finally, I thank Mr Richard Spinks for sharing his personal story. Mr Spinks has experienced the most devastating consequence of the inadequacy of protections against gender-based violence in the workplace in the tragic loss of his daughter, Gracie, and I am thankful to him for showing his support for these amendments.
Amendments 99 and 100 attempt to tackle those very inadequacies in employee protections. By amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Amendment 99 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments and policy development. It would provide recognition and prevention training to all employees. Amendment 100 would mandate the Health and Safety Executive to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and issue guidance for employers in collaboration with relevant bodies.
The prevalence of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace across the UK shows that interventions such as these amendments are unfortunately absolutely necessary. The Government Equalities Office’s survey in 2020 found that 29% of those in employment reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or workplace environment in the previous 12 months, and only 15% reported it. A 2024 study by Sheffield Hallam University found that sexual harassment is particularly high in traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated industries, and highest in hospitality. Given that workers may be unlikely to recognise some of their experiences as sexual harassment, these numbers are probably much higher in reality. This is also true of gender-based violence, psychological and emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse, stalking and harassment, and threats of violence. In fact, 56% of calls to Rights of Women’s sexual harassment at work advice line are made up of reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control.
However, despite the UK ratifying ILO Convention 190 in 2022 to enhance worker protections against workplace violence and harassment, there are significant gaps within our legal framework to protect workers from those kinds of harm. The status quo is deeply lacking, and we are currently failing our women as a result, such as in the case of some 100 women, according to the police, who have accused Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed of offences including multiple counts of rape and attempted rape. Despite being owner of the Ritz Paris hotel and Fulham Football Club at the time, he was never held to account.
My mind turns also to those eight people, most of them current or former BBC staff, stalked by former BBC radio presenter Alex Belfield, who was also sentenced to a five-and-a-half-year term for harassing four people online, and Gracie Spinks, who was killed by a former male colleague, Michael Sellers, after having reported his obsessive behaviour towards her to her employer, Xbite. The inquest into Gracie’s death found that seven other Xbite employees had received unwanted attention from Sellers, with most consequently leaving their jobs while he continued to work for the company until dismissed in February 2021. Many said the company was aware and had spoken to him about his inappropriate behaviour.
Incidents such as these show the dangers of employer inaction under current regulations, and His Majesty’s Government are not absolved of this, with sexual assault, harassment and abuse having taken place at the Ministry of Defence, according to 60 senior women in 2023. The reluctance of employers—and that includes public bodies—to address such behaviours directly endangers people’s lives.
I understand that it is His Majesty’s Government’s belief that the worker protection Act 2023 has addressed some of these regulatory gaps. I, however, disagree. That Act was introduced to tackle the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace by creating a preventive duty requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in their workplaces. That is a commendable effort, but there are key issues with that legislation.
First, an automatic investigation into a breach of this duty takes place only after an individual successfully brings a claim of sexual harassment. This severely limits the preventive function. Secondly, it excludes other forms of gender-based violence in the workplace, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse, which form part of the recommendations of the ILO 190. It is clear that there is real need for legislation that requires employers to proactively create a safe work environment, one that addresses wider gender-based violence. The Employment Rights Bill is a good vehicle to bring about this change, cementing further the need to address sexual harassment and violence in the workplace as the employment-related issue that it is.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, having worked for many years before she came to the House on domestic abuse issues.
Nobody would disagree with the Government having this priority to reduce violence against women and girls; it is a no-brainer, given where we are starting from. The examples in the workplace of things going wrong, often in plain sight, are embarrassing, and the list the noble Baroness put before us, which I will briefly repeat in part, demonstrates that it is just the tip of the iceberg.
When I was a head-hunter, for many years I specialised in HR—sometimes known as “human refuse” or “human remains”, but otherwise known as personnel—and Harrods was known as a revolving door for HR directors. Any personnel director who looked at an offer of employment from Mr Fayed—he actually was just Mr Mohamed Fayed; he added the “al” because it makes you sound posher in Egypt—and who had done their homework knew what they were in for. Even people who took a deep breath and, for a large amount of money, took on that role rarely lasted more than 12 months. It really was supping with the devil, and it was widely known, but nobody did anything about it.
The BBC has been mentioned, as well as the NHS. The fact that female employees, surgeons included, in the NHS have reported rape—both allegations of rape and actual rape—over many years is inconceivable in principle but is and has been taking place.
The case of Gracie Spinks was mentioned. I too had the privilege of listening to her father as he spoke of his anguish at the death of his daughter. That is an interesting example. The company where the person who killed her, and who then killed himself, worked, Xbite, had a grand total of 140 employees. So, as we think through how to deal with this, how can we help organisations such as that, which had started up only five years before, to understand the co-responsibilities they have with their employees to try to protect them in the working environment? But also, how do we make that practical and effective?
I was involved, with others, in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill which has just left your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason that the Government brought that in is precisely because of issues of abuse in the workplace. The well-known tragic case of Jaysley Beck, who took her own life after years of repeated harassment by, shamefully, a series of her superiors, is a case in point. The Ministry of Defence itself also has a major issue in this regard.
The fact is that, as many of us will know, many of us—some of us—will indeed have married, gone out with or, heaven forbid, had affairs with people that we have met through interactions at the workplace. The workplace, outside of the home, is a major cause and focus of social interaction between people, and most of us spend a significant part of our lives there. To expect that to exist in a separate bubble and compartment and not recognise the issues that can often be engendered and amplified by the intensity of a working environment is to ignore the obvious.
So, should we ignore this in this Bill? I think we all agree that this is an issue that needs to be tackled. I think we all agree that we need to do better, but I think we need to ask ourselves: is this the right vehicle by which to try and do something about it? I have come to the conclusion that the answer is probably yes, not least because of the timing of the Government’s current focus on reducing violence against women and girls. What is clear at the moment is that there is a real lack of clarity and guidance, and ownership and responsibility, on how to respond in these kinds of situations.
We have a tangle of different laws and regulations dating back as far as 1974, with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We have the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. We have the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We have the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have the Health and Safety Executive, and we have the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190. That is a complicated thicket to try and work your way through, and there are many inconsistencies in the way it is applied and an almost total lack of understanding by those employers who are perhaps trying to respond to some of the issues that their employees are raising as to how best to deal with it, because there is no clear path or clear outline of how to respond. Creating clarity in this area for both the victims and the employers is an opportunity we should not miss.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he/she and their colleagues will sit down with Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones to try and look at this in the round, because, in a way, it would fit in very neatly with some of the other laudable initiatives of the Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I ask the Front Benches: please can we work together, politics out of the window, to try and work out between now and Report whether there are ways we can try and pull all this together, give greater clarity and improve on the unacceptable status quo?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is not able to be here today, and she has signed both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes.
The noble Baroness made an excellent opening speech and has covered almost everything, but I think it is worth repeating that what we are trying to do here is provide workplaces that are safe, free from violence and free from gender-based harassment. As we heard during an Oral Question earlier, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in our society, and that impacts on women and girls—probably girls, particularly—of all ages. It is crucial that the Government take this seriously.
We are not asking employers to sit down and think what they have to do from scratch, because this research has been done before. There is an excellent project conducted by the Fawcett Society that identifies five key requirements to create a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment: culture, policy, training, reporting mechanisms and the way that employers respond to reports. Successful and lasting change needs sustained commitment, and the Fawcett Society shows the way forward—or a way forward. Of course, that, with a great deal of other existing research, is something that the Health and Safety Executive could draw on.
The size of the problem is probably indicated by research from Scotland; there is no reason to think that the issue there is larger than anywhere else on these islands. Last year, a study reported that 70% of women in Scotland reported having experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace and that 80% of those never reported it to their employer. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. I am sure that the Government want to do something about this, not least because lower-paid and younger workers are particularly vulnerable. This is something that the Government will surely want to address because there are an awful lot of votes out there from younger people and, at the next general election, this Labour Government might need them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to raise some problems with these amendments. I have to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, made an absolutely brilliant, compelling case for her amendments and has been amply backed up by others. However, I still think that, if you look at what these amendments would do, there is a danger here.
We have already discussed, in our debates on recent groups, mission creep in relation to the concept of harassment; we have talked about it a great deal. I am concerned about subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 100, which relates to
“the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse”.
Bringing that into the law would introduce a very wide and broad set of rules into the workplace.
I am absolutely sympathetic to taking on some of the problems that we have seen in workplaces—for example, people being stalked at their workplace or being stalked by fellow workers, as well as the kinds of domestic abuse that have been described, with the Harrods example of rape and so on—because all of those things are terrible. However, we should not shy away from the fact that it will be quite difficult to legislate on every aspect of every intervention between employees in a workplace if we are going to broaden it out to emotional and psychological issues. That is one problem: it is overly subjective.
The use of the phrase “gender-based violence” is in danger of confusing us as well, because we now know that there is a confusion between gender and biological sex. We should not shy away from the fact that that language has been confusing for some time. We need some clarity, not muddying. If we call it “gender”, this could turn workplaces into sites of perpetual ideological grievances and finger-pointing.
Let me give noble Lords an example. Proposed new subsection (3C), which would be inserted by Amendment 99, says that the aim is a “gender-responsive approach”. This, it says,
“means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls”.
I point out that women and girls are not a subsection of gender identities. Gender identities are, “Have ’em if you want ’em”, in my view. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, do not throw them into this mix. We certainly cannot have gender identity created as a legal category by a well-intentioned amendment that would, in fact, undo the clarity we have recently had. These amendments completely conflict with the Supreme Court’s clarification of the distinction between biological sex as fact in law and gender identity, which is, I am afraid, often not just what people choose but part of an ideological activism that has, I would argue, been incredibly damaging to sex-based rights for women—often in the workplace.
We need to be very careful about proposed new subsection (3B) in Amendment 99. It talks of
“the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches”.
I get worried when the bosses are asked to provide training that is not about how you do your job, because training has become the vehicle that is often used not to protect employees from harassment but for viewpoint conformity and as an insidious form of harassment of anyone who does not conform.
We have to consider what this training consists of. I do not want to just say, “Oh yes, training, that is a good idea then”. The danger of training is that it can introduce all sorts of problems; and, in fact, training was the way that in most workplaces we now know that people misunderstood equality law. It was via training, informed by third-party organisations involved in the gender issue, that they started to adopt what has been called, by some KCs, “Stonewall law”. That is why so many organisations are now saying, “We were doing what we thought was legal”.
To finish, I will show the Committee how complicated it is. I hope noble Lords have read that incredibly moving and harrowing interview with Karen Danson, one of the eight Darlington nurses who are taking legal action against their employer, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, after they were forced to share a changing room with a male nurse who identifies as a woman and calls himself Rose.
As Karen explained in the interview, she had been abused as a child. She goes to work, where, as a nurse, she has to get to changed. In walks Rose, wearing only boxer shorts that are full of holes—details do matter in this instance—who keeps asking Karen why she is not getting changed. Karen, understandably, feels very disturbed. These amendments are about sexual harassment in the workplace. Karen and her colleagues go to their bosses and HR and say, “This is our changing room. We do not want to get changed in front of this man, however he identifies. What will you do about it?” What did HR say? It said that the nurses were the problem, called them transphobic and said they needed to be re-educated in trans inclusion; in other words, they were about to be sent on a training course.
I make my point that if you are the wrong kind of victim in a workplace in an ideological sense, you could be the victim of the training which tries to get you to accept “right” things, rather than protects your rights. I really admire the spirit of the way that the amendments were introduced. However, they are absolutely wrong-headed and we should reject them.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I will just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the greatest danger we have is that the Bill passes and yet we have groups of people in the workplace who are not in any way protected, or not sufficiently protected, either from violence or from harassment. I thought the case was brilliantly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I say to the Minister: carpe diem. Here is an opportunity to make sure that there is not a gaping omission in the work that the whole Bill is attempting to do to provide proper protection in the workplace. I find it quite ingenious that the approach here is to try to use the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. If the Minister has a better way of doing it, I am sure that everyone will be very eager and willing to listen. It contains within it the capacity for both investigation and enforcement. When we talked in previous groups, it was very evident that investigation and enforcement are very often the vital missing elements in the arrangements that we have set in place today. This seems to me to have been a very sensible approach to try to find an organisation that is appropriate and has the relevant kind of teeth.
I will not attempt to expand on the case as it has been made so eloquently. I am sort of filling in on this Bill when others have been called away—in this particular case to a NATO meeting. But I would have been very pleased to add my name to these amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general congratulations offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on her very comprehensive introduction of these amendments; she deployed some incredibly powerful examples.
We are all in agreement that violence and harassment, particularly sexual harassment and gender-based abuse, have absolutely no place in any workplace. Every worker, whether in an office, on a site or working remotely, deserves to feel safe, respected and protected. Tackling those issues must remain a top priority.
The amendment before us seeks to introduce stronger duties on employers to prevent and respond to these harms. Measures such as risk assessments, training and clear reporting systems can be important in building a workplace culture where abuse is not tolerated and victims are supported, so we absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment.
Although we agree that there is a need for action, we do not believe that the Health and Safety Executive is the right body to enforce these new responsibilities. That is not meant as a criticism of the Health and Safety Executive; it is simply a recognition that there are fundamentally different areas of concern that we think require a different kind of regulatory response. That is not the same as saying that we do not support the intentions of the amendment.
We do not support Amendment 100. We need solutions that deliver real protections to address sexual harassment. Finally, I have to say, from a very personal point of view, that I completely agree with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and her reservations about proposed new subsection (3B).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for her patience and apologise to her that it has taken until our fifth day in Committee for her to introduce her amendments. I thank her again for Amendments 99 and 100.
I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment. This is a top priority for this Government, with our manifesto commitment, as mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. In response, I am happy to say that we already have a strong and, in the Government’s view, appropriate regulatory framework in place that ensures that workers are protected from such risks.
I refer to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Under the statutory provisions made under the existing Act, employers have a very clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. Employers are required to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce this risk. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with other related legislation, also mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risk of workplace violence.
As part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and to take suitable action to reduce or eliminate this risk. The Health and Safety Executive—HSE—and local authorities are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and carry out both proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers are complying with their duties. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate measures to protect their workers and anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence. The HSE has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations. It also works very closely with other regulators to promote co-operation, share intelligence and, where appropriate, co-ordinate joint activities.
In the noble Baroness’s proposed amendments, there is a request for HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. Employers already have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to ensure they have sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety risks in the workplace, including violence and aggression. Although workplace harassment could be addressed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the HSE does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation exists.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the plethora of different types of Act and instrument that are meant to be woven together into a seamless whole to stop abuse in the workplace happening. He started off by mentioning an Act passed 51 years ago. He then talked about regulations enacted 26 years ago. He then spoke about the harassment Act of 18 years ago and the Equality Act of 16 years ago. With the greatest respect, if the combination of these regulations has been in force for as long as they have been and we are in the situation we now find ourselves in, with the evidence of what is happening in a variety of workplaces, large, medium and small, clearly all is not well.
The idea of bringing forward amendments such as these is not that they are word perfect from the word go. Everybody in the House knows that perfectly well. Committee is to probe; to try to see if we can come to agreement across the Chamber that it ain’t working and we need to do something better. With the best will in the world, standing up and trying to defend the status quo, when the status quo quite clearly is not working as it is meant to do in theory, is not helping anybody. So, I again ask and suggest—and I am sure the noble Baroness will say this when she responds to the Minister—that we accept that it is not working properly and that it would be a no-brainer to try to work together, across this House and with another place, to see if we can use this Act as a way to improve on what clearly is not working at the moment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for that, and I hear what he says. But I stress here, with all the current legislation in place, that there must have been cases before us that we can learn lessons from. What we need to do, and do better, is use “black box thinking”, where we can learn from what has happened and hopefully share with other regulators what works and what may not have worked, so that we can address a problem rather than bring in more legislation. We can look at what has been successful and share those successes among other enforcers as well.
I conclude by saying that the Government remain committed to raising awareness of this important issue. I can confirm that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, has already met with Minister Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, and we continue to work with them to try to see how we can come together on this. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I am grateful to those who have shown support for these amendments and also those who support the outcome these amendments are trying to achieve. I will reflect on what we have discussed in this debate today, ahead of Report.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a “gender-responsive approach”, I can clarify what that entails. The amendment addresses the different situations, roles, needs and interests of women, men, girls and boys in the design and implementation of activities.
As we have hit on during this debate, the status quo is clearly not working. I know that the Minister outlined in his response the preventative measures being put on to employers. But, as I have explained, those preventative measures are not actually preventative, because you have to prove your sexual harassment claim in order for it to be a breach. Even in the language we use about what is currently in place, it is not preventative. I welcome further discussion with the Minister following this, and hopefully we can come to an agreement on how we can bring this forward within the wider approach.
I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to bring back further amendments on Report. I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate and that we can engage further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliationAfter section 40A of the Equality Act 2010, insert—“40B Employees and applicants: political opinion or affiliation(1) An employer (A) must not, in relation to employment by A, discriminate against, harass or victimise (in a manner prohibited by sections 39 or 40), a person (B)—(a) who is an employee of A’s;(b) who has applied to A for employment;in relation to their political opinion of affiliation.(2) For purposes of this section—(a) “political opinion” means any political opinion and a reference to a political opinion includes a reference to a lack of a political opinion;(b) “political affiliation” means membership of any political party, group or organisation which is not excluded by subsection (2)(c);(c) political opinion or affiliation does not include any opinion or affiliation which—(i) would be unworthy of respect in a democratic society,(ii) is in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, or(iii) is affiliated with any political party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.””
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 101B, which seeks to amend the Equality Act 2010, I will also speak to Amendment 141A, which seeks to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996. I declare my interest as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union.
These amendments would protect job applicants and employees from being discriminated against by employers for their political opinions or affiliations, provided those opinions are not
“unworthy of respect in a democratic society”,
incompatible with
“the fundamental rights of others”,
and are not connected to a
“party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000”.
In the Telegraph on Monday, a government spokesperson said these amendments are not necessary because:
“Any employee dismissed because of their political opinions can already bring a claim of unfair dismissal at any point”.
Well, they can. But whether they are successful or not depends on whether their political beliefs satisfy the Grainger test—a reference to a case in which an employee sued his employer, Grainger PLC, for discriminating against him because he believed in manmade climate change. It was established in that case that, in order to enjoy protected status under the Equality Act, a belief had to satisfy five separate conditions. This is the Grainger test:
“The belief must be genuinely held … It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”—
remember that one because I am going to come back to it.
“It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour … It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance … It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.
Noble Lords will notice that the test I am proposing is a simpler alternative to the Grainger test. It is, in essence, just the fifth limb of the Grainger test.
So what is wrong with the Grainger test? For one thing, it is overcomplicated and leaves too much room for the personal political views of the members of a tribunal panel to creep in. That is why it has led to some arbitrary and biased decisions. For instance, the tribunal has ruled that anti-Zionism is a protected belief, while a belief in Zionism has not been granted that status, at least not yet. A belief in manmade climate change is protected—that was the judgment handed down in Grainger plc v Nicholson—but climate scepticism is not, and that has been tested in the tribunal. A belief in democratic socialism is protected but a belief in conservatism is not, and that too has been tested. In the case of Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com Ltd—a Free Speech Union case—the tribunal ruled that a belief in a small state, low taxes, freedom of expression and as few controls on an individual’s freedom as are consistent with human rights was not protected.
That is one reason why the Free Speech Union currently has five cases in which employees have been dismissed because of their links to Reform UK. One such case is that of Saba Poursaeedi, who is in the Gallery as I speak. He lost his job at the Hightown Housing Association because he was due to stand as a Reform candidate. He was told that Reform’s policies on immigration, net zero and housing were “in direct conflict” with the values of the Hightown Housing Association—as clear a case of discrimination against someone for their political views as you could hope for. He is taking Hightown Housing Association to the tribunal but, given the judgment in Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com, he may not be successful. That is one reason to accept these amendments: to level the playing field so that many people with right-of-centre political beliefs enjoy the same protection as people with left-of-centre political beliefs.
Another difficulty with the Grainger test is that it disadvantages open-minded people who, as the late Lord Keynes did, change their minds when the facts change. Remember the second limb of the Grainger test:
“It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”.
Do we really want the Equality Act to encourage dogmatism and punish open-mindedness in this way? Why should someone’s belief be undeserving of protection if it is susceptible to changing if the facts change?
The amendments would bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 provide a higher level of protection than that granted by the Equality Act, particularly Article 10, which protects freedom of expression, including the expression of political views. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would no doubt point out if she was in the House, if there is a discrepancy between the Equality Act and the convention then its shortcomings will be corrected by the courts eventually, since, as per the Human Rights Act, our courts must interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with convention rights.
However, bringing a claim before the employment tribunal is a time-consuming process and one that can be extremely expensive. The Free Speech Union helped a man to bring a case for unfair dismissal against Lloyds Bank to the tribunal two years ago, and it cost over £85,000. Not only can it be eye-wateringly expensive but it takes a long time, given the current backlog of cases. Mr Poursaeedi’s case has been scheduled for July 2027, more than a year hence. In the meantime, he and other victims of discrimination based on their political beliefs are awaiting justice. Why not short-circuit that process, bring the Equality Act into line with the convention and ease the burden on the tribunal at the same time, as well as protect people now from being discriminated against in this way, by accepting my amendments?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name down on Amendments 101B and 141A, tackling employment discrimination on the basis of political opinions, because I wanted to probe whether the Government can see that it is a real, contemporary issue that needs to be tackled, however they do it. We know from the history of the labour movement that in the bad old days, as it were, attacking people’s employment rights, sacking them and suspending them were used by employers to discipline the workforce, and they were often focused on people who had the wrong views in the workplace. Often, the trade union organisers who were involved in left-wing parties and so on were the ones who were targeted, and we had McCarthyite-type purges, red scares and anti-trade union blacklists of individuals in workplaces—shocking, but those were the bad old days and it would not happen today, except that I think we are witnessing something similar today even if the political opinions of the victims might be very different and it might take a different form. This is an under-discussed phenomenon, and I hope the Government will see that the Bill is a way of tackling it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. It is hard to adequately follow the tour de force and the passion and energy of—I will call her my noble friend— Lady Fox of Buckley. I would make the point, and it bears repetition, that free speech is worth defending on all occasions and, in many respects, transcends party- political affiliations.
As my noble friend Lady Fox alluded to, there was a time many years ago—until quite recently, historically—when people who represented labour versus capital were discriminated against for organising in the workplace. If people who worked in factories and mines, and on farms, tried to organise a trade union—which was perfectly reasonable—to improve their conditions and pay, they were politically discriminated against, suspended or fired, and their very livelihoods were put in question. That is a fact. We know that was the case.
We have made good progress. Those people who were, for instance, organising the Workers’ Educational Association classes for manual workers, in order to improve their education and their life chances, were discriminated against. That was wrong. We have gone full circle now, and those people who may support a right-of-centre position—pro-capitalism, pro-tax cuts, pro-lower regulations—are discriminated against.
The importance of this amendment is that it distinguishes what is respectable, moderate, mainstream opinion, which noble Lords may or may not agree with, from the extremes. The caveat in this amendment is very nuanced, in that it defends free speech for respectable political debate and discussion. That is very important.
The other reason why I support this amendment is that we have a very unfortunate phenomenon these days with the advent of social media: doxing. If you are a pernicious, unpleasant, vexatious, litigious person and someone on social media appears to have a view with which you disagree, you are no longer going just to take issue with them on social media and let the matter drop; you are going to identify where they live, where their children go to school and, more importantly for our purposes today, where they earn their living.
A good example—and a proud member of the Free Speech Union—is Mr Ben Woods, who was employed by Waitrose at Henley as a wine specialist. He had unfashionable views, certainly unfashionable in the Liberal Democrat citadel of Henley-on-Thames, being against immigration. But actually, he represented the majority of people in that he was gender critical and believed that women are biological women and men are biological men, and he put that on his social media. Maybe he was a bit exuberant in his opinions, but someone decided to contact John Lewis Partnership and Waitrose to dox him. He was suspended, investigated and lost his job, and that is now going to an employment tribunal.
That is a good example of a very regrettable modern phenomenon. This amendment would seek to protect people like this, who have perfectly respectable views and are entitled to earn a living and to try to get on with their fellow workers in their place of work—who may disagree with them—but not lose their job unfairly. On that basis, this is an excellent amendment. I certainly urge the Minister to give it some consideration, because it would not detract from the Bill. Above all, it is a fair amendment, and I believe she should support it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I would join with anyone who wants to speed up employment tribunals and cut the costs of going to them. I hope that is an agenda the Government will take on rapidly. We heard an unfortunate case of someone who is waiting until 2027; some people are waiting four years. I hope the Government will address that issue, but I cannot see that it is central to this Bill.
I am not a legal expert, and many of the cases quoted are not ones that I know—I do not know any of them intimately. In my experience, at least with employment tribunal judgments, it is very unsatisfactory to sum them up in a single sentence. They usually have within them a great deal of complexity and a fair amount of nuance. Without going through those, I am in no position to assess the evidence that has been put before us today.
I remain somewhat sceptical. I hope that we can get reassurance that people are genuinely protected because of their political views. I do not think anyone in this Committee would think it was right for someone to lose their job because they belong to one particular affiliation or another. I will look for the Minister to make that case and to explain the legal situation in far more depth than I can. I do not feel qualified to be more than somewhat sceptical.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is commonplace for individuals who express personal views that clash with the ethos of a particular company or institution to run into some trouble. Gary Lineker is the latest and most topical example, for displaying material that is considered to be antisemitic. My first experience, age 12, was my father refusing to let me display a political poster at a general election. If I had known about the Free Speech Union, maybe I would have joined the noble Lord, Lord Young, at that stage—maybe he should send Gary Lineker a membership form.
Lord Monks (Lab)
Oh, he has already done it—very good.
Let us be real about this. A lot of situations call for tact and diplomacy, and for us to be careful about the way we express difficult thing. A lot of people do not do that; they say what they like, thinking it is totally justified, and they get into difficulty. Unions spend a lot of time helping people get round those kinds of situations when they have got into trouble with their employer.
I do not think the argument coming from the other side of the Chamber is a convincing one. Let us remember a bit of common sense, and that tact and diplomacy are still required in many organisations, not just the BBC—and not just with my old dad, who did not like the fact that I had a “Vote Labour” poster in the window.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I did not want to intervene on this group, but, listening to the noble Lord, I became slightly worried that we are getting into censorship. This country is a proud country because of its ability to speak out and speak up. I would be incredibly nervous if we felt that we could not demonstrate our political views openly without being penalised for it. The unions do their own work, but it is incredibly important that people are able to demonstrate a political affiliation or a particular viewpoint without having to feel that they are going to be censored. That would really worry people like me, who often are the recipient of things that we do not like to hear, but we tolerate it because we think the country enables us to have the debate.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for his expert introduction to the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about common sense, but I fear that went out of the window of an employment tribunal some years ago. As my noble friend Lord Young laid out in an earlier group, this Bill threatens to restrict free expression in some cases with its provisions. It is for this reason that I support the amendments, which seek to safeguard political opinion and affiliation within our employment laws.
At the heart of any thriving democracy lies the freedom to hold and express political beliefs without fear of retribution. In a democratic society, freedom of speech and freedom of belief are not luxuries; they are fundamental rights that underpin our entire system of governance and civil life. The workplace, where so many of us spend a significant portion of our lives, must be a space where individuals can hold and express their political views without fear of unfair treatment or dismissal. As it stands, our existing laws provide only patchy protections for political beliefs, and they leave many workers vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Young’s examples are truly shocking, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish, in particular, Mr Poursaeedi well in his ongoing battles.
We should draw upon the timeless wisdom of John Stuart Mill, who was one of the great architects of liberalism. He argued in his seminal work On Liberty that the truth emerges only through free and open debate, and he warned against the suppression of any opinion, because no one person or group holds a monopoly on truth. Even opinions that we may find mistaken—perhaps such as democratic socialism—or indeed offensive, must be heard and challenged openly, for only through such dialogue can society discern truth from error. Voltaire was right on this. I must admit I find it a bit disappointing that the Liberal Democrat Benches are not more enthusiastic about these amendments.
By protecting employees from dismissal or discrimination based on their political opinions or affiliations, these amendments would ensure that the workplace remains a forum where diverse ideas can be expressed, scrutinised and debated. Suppressing political expression risks silencing valuable perspectives and preventing the emergence of truth through robust discussion.
We in this House pride ourselves on opening our minds to a broad range of political views. Obviously, that involves robust engagement, challenging each other and refining our positions through vigorous debate. If such diversity of opinion is essential to the functioning of this Chamber, why would it not apply beyond these walls, and particularly in other workplaces? Workers, like us, should be free to express their political beliefs without fear of losing their jobs or being discriminated against.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to accept my noble friend’s amendments. To go back to the great liberal John Stuart Mill, he also said:
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury”.
This is not the time for inaction. These amendments not only would protect workers from unfair dismissal and discrimination but would uphold our fundamental democratic values. By embedding these protections into our laws, we would reaffirm our commitment to free expression. I am afraid saying just that they are not necessary is not good enough. They clearly are necessary, as we heard in the examples from my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it would be helpful if I first clarify where the law stands on this.
On Amendment 101B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, let me make it clear that religious and philosophical beliefs are already protected by the Equality Act 2010, including in the workplace. However, political belief—in the sense of a party-political affiliation or opinion—was not included as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. The noble Lord referred to the Grainger case. That case and the definition that the noble Lord read out referred to the issue of philosophical belief, which is already protected by the Act.
In 2015-16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reviewed whether Great Britain’s equality and human rights legal framework sufficiently protects individuals with a religion or belief and the distinction of a religion or belief organisation while balancing the rights of others protected under the Equality Act 2010. The review found that the definition of religion or belief in the Equality Act is sufficiently broad to ensure wide protection for many religions or beliefs. It recommended no change to the definition of religion or belief or to the approach that the court should take in deciding whether any particular belief is protected under the Act.
We are not convinced that a political opinion or affiliation should be specifically protected by amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in contrast to other religions or beliefs. The extent of protected beliefs has been developed in case law, and we have not been presented with strong evidence that any legislative amendment is necessary. The amendment the noble Lord is proposing would potentially cause legal uncertainty over its relationship to the protected characteristic of religion or belief in Section 10 of the Equality Act, which has a much wider application than just the workplace.
The Government frequently receive calls for new protected characteristics—there have been over 21 suggested to date. While some of these carry merit, it simply would not be practical to include these all in the legislation, which would quickly become unmanageable for employers and service providers to follow, and for courts and tribunals to process and judge.
The noble Lord referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts and tribunals will always be required to balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as academic freedom.
Noble Lords have referred to a number of individual cases. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases. However, I can assure them that free speech is a cornerstone of British values. We are firmly committed to upholding the right of freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Monks that, in many cases—and preferably in all cases—it is ideal for these issues to be resolved by common sense at the workplace.
Turning to Amendment 141A, I seek to reassure the noble Lord that further legislative provision on this matter is not needed. Through the Bill, the Government are creating a day one right against unfair dismissal. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged in his explanatory statement, additional protections for employees already exist under Section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which currently ensures that claims for unfair dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation are not subject to any qualification period. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that, while dismissal on the grounds of political beliefs and affiliations is not automatically unfair, if brought to a tribunal, the tribunal could find that it was unfair based on the circumstances at hand.
As we have said, these issues will very often have to be decided by a tribunal, based on the facts of the case. This will obviously also have to apply to the noble Lord’s amendment as well. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the delays in employment tribunals are a very real challenge that we are very conscious of, and we have already reported elsewhere in other debates on the Bill that we are taking steps to address this.
Relevant case law sets out the circumstances where political beliefs may constitute a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, discrimination provisions could apply. Following a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, the qualifying period for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal relating to political opinions or affiliation was removed, further strengthening employees’ access to justice in instances of unfair dismissal based on political views. The Bill ensures that claims for dismissal on this basis continue to be treated in the same way as claims for automatic unfair dismissal by carving them out in a new Section 108A from the requirement that any employee must have started work before a claim can be brought.
We regard this as the right approach. Making dismissal for political opinions automatically unfair, as this amendment seeks to do, would fundamentally change the way that free speech is considered in relation to dismissal for the holding of views or the expression of views that the employer regards as unacceptable. It could sweep up such a wide range of views as to be unworkable. As sufficient protection against dismissal for political beliefs already exists, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 101B.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments. I echo the tribute made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to the journalist Patrick O’Flynn, who has just been taken from us so ahead of his time. I appreciate the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who I note did not oppose the amendments, although she was a little bit sceptical about the case I had made. I also thank my noble friend Lady Verma for her intervention.
In response to the Minister’s remarks, as she says, some political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. The issue is that not all political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. I gave some examples and I will give just one more: an employment tribunal decision that a belief in Scottish independence is protected, but a belief in unionism is not. There is often not much rhyme or reason to these employment tribunal decisions, because the Grainger test leaves so much room for bias, interpretation and subjective judgment. I am merely asking the Government to bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 14 lists the characteristics that should be protected and includes the words “political … opinion”. That means all political opinions, not just those you disagree with.
Finally, I come to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and point out that Saba Poursaeedi did not lose his job at the housing association because he was tactless or undiplomatic; he lost it because he was intending to stand as a candidate for Reform UK. The association had no misgivings about his performance in his role; indeed, it promoted him. He was a model of tact and diplomacy when dealing with the residents managed by the housing association. That was not the reason he was fired. The noble Lord is, of course, welcome to join the Free Speech Union, and I hope that he does. I have reached out to Gary Lineker, not to defend him in any case he might want to bring against the BBC—which I do not think he intends—but because the police have said they may now be investigating his remarks. I reached out to him and said that, if that happens, we will provide him with a solicitor and, if necessary, a barrister.
Lord Aberdare
“(2) The provisions of Schedule 3 do not apply to apprentices during any probationary period of up to six months, as specified in an apprenticeship contract signed by the apprentice and the employer and where the apprentice is less than 21 years of age at the time the contract is signed.”
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich, who much regrets that she is unable to be here today to move it herself. I was delighted to add my name to this very specific amendment, addressing what I am sure is an unintended consequence of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, both of whom have enormous expertise in apprenticeships, for adding their names as well.
Apprenticeships are key to developing the skills we need for achieving our national goals, including all the Government’s missions. The value and importance of apprenticeships is increasingly recognised, not least by young people and their families, but there are not enough apprenticeships available, and the majority are used by employers for upskilling or reskilling older people already in the workplace. We need many more apprenticeships for younger people, but the number of 16 to 24 year-olds starting apprenticeships has been declining. Only one in four young people in this age group who seeks an apprenticeship gets one, and the number of apprenticeships going to young people has declined from 41% in 2008 to 23%.
Small businesses have a crucial part to play in providing apprenticeships for young people. Some 70% of existing apprenticeships are in small businesses, and there is huge scope for small firms to offer many more apprenticeship opportunities. But it has proved consistently hard to persuade small employers to take on apprentices. One reason is cost, despite the extra payments available from government for small firms employing young apprentices, particularly if they have special needs. More important disincentives include the extra workload involved in training and supervising young apprentices, the amount of bureaucracy involved in navigating the apprenticeship system and, sometimes, the uncertainty about whether a firm will have a sufficient pipeline of work for the full term of the apprenticeship. There have been various schemes aimed at addressing these issues—group training associations, apprenticeship training agencies and now flexi-job apprenticeships—but in none of these cases has much impact been made on convincing more SMEs to offer more apprenticeships.
I believe there is a real danger that the day 1 employment rights set out in Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill could actually exacerbate this problem rather than helping to resolve it, by acting as a further significant disincentive to small employers considering taking on apprentices. My noble friend’s proposed amendment provides a closely targeted exemption for apprentices under 21 during a probation period of no more than six months, with a contract agreed by both the apprentice and the employer. This seems to me to be fair to both the employer and the apprentice.
For the employer, it helps to offset the high risk involved in taking on a young person who may—indeed, probably will—never have been employed before, and who may themselves decide within the first few weeks or months that the apprenticeship is not right for them. The existing risks and unknowns for an employer in taking on the costs, workload and duties of apprenticeships are hard enough to overcome without the additional burden of taking on full employment responsibility for an untried young person, probably in their first job, who may or may not turn out to have the attributes for or interests in that particular job.
These are not, after all, people with experience from previous jobs and a track record for a new employer to assess. Many of them may be among the almost 1 million young people currently defined as NEET—not in employment, education or training—whom the Government quite rightly are desperately keen to get into employment, for example through the planned youth guarantee. The amendment does not relate to people changing jobs, so it has nothing to do with labour market mobility, which this clause seems designed largely to promote.
I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what specific assessment the Government have made of the likely impact of this part of the Bill on the willingness of businesses, especially smaller businesses, to take on young apprentices. You would not need to talk to many small business employers to conclude that it could be very damaging. That would be bad news for such firms themselves, for our national skills needs, for the wider economy and, above all, for the potential young apprentices, who might miss out on attractive opportunities. This amendment would help to counter that, and I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, but has been very ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He and I tend to find ourselves in the same Lobbies for just about everything to do with apprenticeships.
We only very recently debated a Bill abolishing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education so that this amazing new body Skills England could emerge. We still know remarkably little about Skills England. It has a proud remit, but we do not yet know what it is going to perform.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, set out, this amendment is really important because there is a real problem in attracting youngsters into apprenticeships. An apprenticeship was always something for somebody starting out in a career, but the vagaries of the apprenticeship levy mean that they are increasingly being given to people mid-career, for advancing their careers. Unless there is more incentive to enable young people to access the workforce, we will be in an even more dire state. We have nearly a million NEETs now—young people not in education, employment or training—and, if they cannot access apprenticeships, that figure is only set to go up.
We know that, in other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status, but they do not in the UK; they are simply employees who have received an apprenticeship learning contract. The Bill will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old or a 50 year-old. This cannot be desirable. I beg the Government to look again at this, because it is hugely important that we do not deter employers from taking on youngsters.
I went with the social mobility committee up to Blackpool and The Fylde College recently, and we were talking to employers there who were already bemoaning the fact that it was incredibly difficult for them to take on apprentices. There was so much bureaucracy and burdensome stuff that they had to follow. They were all saying that, if this came in and if the apprentices had full employment rights from day 1, that would deter them even more. That really cannot be right, and I beg the Minister to listen to this amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I briefly add my support for Amendment 102 and will pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on her committee’s recent visit to the Blackpool and The Fylde further education college. I declare an interest as a commissioner at the Social Mobility Commission, the chair of which is also the principal of the FE college that the committee went to visit. From the perspective of social mobility and the importance of apprenticeships, any measure that would deter the creation of quality apprenticeships that are successful is a bad one, and I therefore support this amendment.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 102 in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich and pitched so perfectly by my other noble friend Lord Aberdare—I realise that that sounds as though I only have two friends in this House, which I hope is not the case.
This amendment addresses a consequence of the Bill that will significantly reduce the willingness of employers to hire young people as apprentices—a consequence that I am sure was neither anticipated nor desired by the Government or indeed the Bill’s drafters, which is strange because this Government are acutely aware of the skills shortages facing this country and the need to address them. It was notable that, in introducing the Government’s new immigration strategy last week, both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary emphasised the need to invest in skills so that the immigration system
“no longer ignores the millions of people who want the opportunity to train and contribute”.
They also highlighted that, in sectors like engineering, apprenticeships have “almost halved” in recent years.
We only very recently debated the Bill, now an Act, that abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. That change was not introduced because the Government are against apprenticeships; on the contrary, this is part of a reform that is creating a new integrated strategic body, Skills England, as we have heard, to meet, in its own words,
“the skills needs of the next decade across all regions”,
and apprenticeships are a central part of Skills England’s brief.
Young people do not need persuading of the value of apprenticeships. On the contrary, there is huge excess demand, as we have heard. Of those 17 to 18 year-olds who make a serious effort to find an apprenticeship, only 25% succeed. Young people typically start off on what are called intermediate apprenticeships, but these are in decline too, in absolute numbers and proportionally —crowded out by so-called higher apprenticeships, which are equivalent to university qualifications.
Today, more and more of our apprentices are older. Around half of apprenticeship starts now involve people over the age of 25. Critically, large numbers of older apprentices were already working for their employer before they became an apprentice. This is especially true of large employers who pay the apprenticeship levy, who account for a growing proportion of apprenticeships. So, if the Government are going to achieve their aims, we need to have far more openings for young apprentices —but there is a serious danger that the Bill will make large employers even more inclined to give apprenticeships to existing employees, with whose employment they take no risks, rather than hiring new young apprentices.
What about the young people who make up the growing number of NEETs? SMEs are the main employers of young apprentices and absolutely central to the economies of less-advantaged areas. But their apprenticeship recruitment has been plummeting. SME business owners complain that apprenticeships, as we have heard, have become more and more burdensome and bureaucratic, and just too expensive. So if, on top of this, young apprentices are entitled to full employee rights from day 1, many more employers, especially SMEs, will surely just walk away.
Taking on an untested person is always risky, and this Bill will make it much more so. In many other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status. In the UK, they do not; they are simply any employees who have received an apprenticeship training contract. This Bill’s provisions will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old training as an electrician or a 50 year-old on a leadership apprenticeship. These are the dangers of a one-size-fits-all approach, as I have already pointed out numerous times in Committee.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I did not put my name to Amendment 102, because I do not agree with it entirely, for reasons I will set out, but the general approach is absolutely right.
We do not need to get into the rights and wrongs of the apprenticeship levy and higher-level apprenticeships, particularly level 7, but it is important to recognise that the number of people starting apprenticeships—particularly down in levels 1, 2, 3 and perhaps even 4—is a challenge, and is holding young people back from getting into work. Indeed, it is not just young people, and that is my broader point: getting people—many of whom, for a variety of reasons, may have been out of the job market for a long time—into work. It is exactly this approach, through apprenticeships, which means that, usually for SMEs, the larger elements of the levy are not being used by the larger employers and are instead being used to help provide 100% of the cost in order to train people.
There are a number of different factors there. People have talked about the different elements of costs. There is also the opportunity cost. It is important that employers get involved in identifying and helping the supply chain of their own workforce. I am sure I am not the only person who has been somewhere where I just got fed up doing the hard yards on training and the extra work, and, as I said, the opportunity cost, only for someone else to come along and poach that person, or for that person, once they had fully qualified, to leave. I have seen the frustration that this sometimes brought.
One of the adjustments I would have made to this builds on the discussion about NEETs. The definition of NEETs is those aged 16 to 24. My suggestion is that the amendment be amended, to cover an apprentice who is less than 25 years of age at the time that the contract is signed.
On the consideration of a probationary period, it is fair to say that people will want to give those new to a sector, and new to the world of work, more than a week or so to see if it is going to work out. There is a mixture of elements that need to be considered when people take on apprentices. One is their capability in work and college, and seeing how that evolves, because it is not always such a straightforward translation. Nor should apprenticeships be considered as work experience; they are proper jobs, admittedly a training job, and we should bear that in mind if we see a further drying up of apprenticeships.
We can debate at other times how, sadly, unemployment seems to be rising, which I believe will be exacerbated by this Bill more generally, but the Government should be specific about how we give more people a chance. I know we will debate probationary periods in general later. Apprenticeships should not be seen as, “We will just see if they work out or not”. It is supposed to be more of a commitment.
The Government could accommodate this. They will be aware that, already, on wages—if not some of the other rights—there is an apprenticeship rate which is not the same as the national minimum wage in the first year of an apprenticeship. There is already a precedent in legislation and practice that apprentices can be treated differently. I appreciate that people do not necessarily want two-tier elements like that, but we need to give special consideration to apprenticeships, recognising the special status they are given by the Government in contributions towards training and given the risk that employers may take on.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and declare my interest as the chair of a small housing association, Look Ahead, where we employ a lot of care workers and are encouraging apprenticeships to keep people in care work and to develop proper careers. We have not yet got the Casey review on care workers, but we know that the Government intend to reduce visas for overseas workers in this area. However, when you go into care work, you always find a small proportion of people who, when they realise some of the challenges of giving intimate physical care, feel unable to go on with that particular work. That is perfectly appropriate for both the apprentice themselves and the people they are supporting. I urge us to try to reach an agreement on this that is more flexible, so that people can have the opportunity of an apprenticeship in care, while recognising that, sometimes, a different kind of work is more appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been such a valuable debate, for a number of reasons. We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lady Garden of Frognal. In many ways, it gives us an opportunity just to see where we are going, and to identify the fact that, for many of us, apprenticeships mean something deep and profound.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in his place. He probably will not remember but, 32 years ago, he came to see me when I had responsibility for this area of policy. Accompanying him was the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and they said to me, as Secretary of State for Employment, that apprenticeships needed to be brought into the modern age and that there had to be something deeper, wider and more productive for the individual than the idea of standing by a machine for five years and then qualifying. They were talking particularly of young apprentices. I was persuaded, and, slowly but surely, modern apprenticeships have evolved.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, remembers this, but that was followed by a cartoon in the Guardian, which my children still show me—I should not talk like this on my birthday. The cartoon demonstrates me getting into a large four-poster bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who was in the form of a large cart-horse—the cart-horse had the face of John Monks. This gives me an opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord. I suppose that the Guardian was saying that it looked as though the Conservative Government were listening to the TUC. We did, and modern apprenticeships have taken off ever since.
The levy though, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, reminded us, has shifted the emphasis and the whole intention, which was to encourage younger people to get more involved. In a way, we need to identify that—and I hope that the Minister will recognise that apprenticeships are the lifeblood of the new economy, in particular, provided that they receive that special status. It was very helpful that my noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us about age, and that perhaps 25 is a better age in this regard. My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston also put it much more into context, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, gave an additional dimension. It has been a valuable debate.
I remind the Minister that we are talking about specific instances where there has to be an apprenticeship contract containing often wide-ranging provisions but giving security and opportunity. So it is a balanced and measured amendment that acknowledges the critical reality that apprenticeships are not just simply jobs—they are a structured training programme, often the very first experience that a young person has of the workplace. For many of these individuals, particularly those youngsters, an apprenticeship is a gateway not just to employment but to the habits, responsibilities and expectations of adult working life.
We are already in a time, as many of my noble friends pointed out, when young people are struggling to access secure employment. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, reminded us about the serious problems affecting NEETs, which have cropped up several times in this debate already—and also the fact that, in other European countries, apprentices have a special legal status. In many ways, that is recognised in this amendment, because it talks about a contract. We can identify that we are talking about a very special situation, and I hope that the Minister sees that.
I will just add that, without legal clarity around probationary periods, particularly in the case of apprenticeships, many employers will be left uncertain—and uncertainty breeds hesitation. It becomes less likely that they will take on the risk of hiring an inexperienced young person, especially under a regime of day one unfair dismissal rights, with no allowance for the formative nature of apprenticeships. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that matter, on how the Government seek to balance the protection of apprentices with the practical realities of probationary periods. I support the amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to wish the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, a very happy birthday. It is a fine way to spend a birthday this evening.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, notably the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and for all the work that she has done in primary and secondary education—especially her book, The XX Factor, which should be read widely by every person involved in education policies.
This group relates to apprenticeships; a later group delves deeper into unfair dismissal and probation. The Government recognise the significant value of vocational learning, and on-the-job training will continue to be fundamental to building the skills that the economy needs to grow. We recognise that employers value building knowledge and skills through apprenticeships, and this Government are committed to apprenticeships.
The Government are providing day one protections against unfair dismissal to all employees, including apprentices. Maintaining a qualifying period for apprentices will leave them open to being fired without any recourse to legal challenge on the grounds of unfair dismissal during their apprenticeship. This amendment would not create a probation period, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said; it would deny young people their day one rights. The Government’s preference is for statutory probation to be a period of nine months; in some instances, when an apprentice completes their apprenticeship, an employer may not have a permanent job for them. Most apprenticeship contracts are around two years in duration; in this case, the apprenticeship contact will expire and the normal tests for unfair dismissal will apply.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I add my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for choosing to spend his birthday in support of my amendment, and I hope the rest of it is equally enjoyable. I thank the Minister for his response. I think all the speeches were in favour of the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made some interesting comments on how it could be further improved.
However, to me, one of the most important messages that came across—which many of your Lordships mentioned—was that apprenticeships are different; they are not the same as a standard contract of employment, as many other countries have recognised by having different legal frameworks for apprenticeships. I believe that flexibility is needed. I think it was my noble friend Lord Londesborough who talked about an unduly rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to employment laws. There needs to be some flexibility to cater for the special needs and features of apprenticeships.
I am concerned that we are looking at two options. One is apprenticeships with day-one employment rights—jolly good; the other is no apprenticeships at all, because the employers will not offer them on that basis. I hope that, between now and Report, we can do some more thinking. The Government may come up with more thoughts about how we can ensure that we balance the advantages of having full employment rights on the one hand and the necessity of having firms—particularly small ones—offering apprenticeships on the other. Hopefully, we can have further discussion of that on Report, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my noble friend’s name.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the general subject of unfair dismissal rights from day one, which we have just touched on in relation to apprentices. Many of the same arguments are going to apply more widely. For me, this is most damaging part of the Bill because the unintended, but well understood, consequence is that it will damage the life chances of the young and the most vulnerable. I thank the Ministers for their time last week; I am not sure if I persuaded them, but I will try again now.
At Second Reading, I asked why these changes are required. What is the evidence that there is a genuine problem, or that the qualifying period of two years is being abused in any material way? The Minister did not answer the question, so I have therefore given notice that I intend to oppose the question that Clause 23 and Schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, so that I can probe further into what problem these changes are intended to solve.
Rather than hearing my views on the subject, I am going to tell noble Lords what the Government’s views are, and what they think the impacts of these changes to the qualifying period will be. According to the impact assessment,
“it is likely employers will make changes to hiring, dismissal and management practises to minimise the risk of litigation for dismissal and minimise unproductive employee-job matches. The burden of these changes could be in the hundreds of millions per year”.
It goes on to say:
“The impact on businesses is expected to be negative and driven by familiarisation costs, and administrative costs from providing a written reason for dismissal, as well as the costs associated with additional early conciliation and tribunal cases, which is also likely to create additional burdens for the Employment Tribunal system”.
So, the Government agree that there will be a substantial cost to business, an increase in litigation risks and additional burdens on the tribunal system. They also state that these impacts will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. I assume that nobody in this Chamber thinks that any of those are a good thing.
More importantly, what are the impacts on employees, especially those who are trying to find work? The impact assessment is pretty clear on that too. It says that
“there is some evidence of a negative relationship between stronger dismissal protections and hiring rates … this suggests that if not implemented with care ‘Making Unfair Dismissal a Day One Right’ could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire (e.g., younger workers with less experience, ex-offenders, etc.)”.
It later says that
“there is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections, particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.
Again, I cannot believe anyone thinks those are good things.
The Government accept that this policy will create costs in the hundreds of millions for businesses, add burdens to the already stretched tribunal system and, most importantly, damage the hiring prospects—the life chances—of the very people we should be helping to get into employment. I hate the term NEETs, but we have heard a number of comments about the nearly 1 million young people who want to get into work. It goes directly against the Government’s admirable policy to get people off welfare and into work. So, why do this? Surely there must be some hard evidence that the current two-year qualifying period is causing some genuine problems, or evidence of material abuse, to justify these changes that will have all the damaging consequences that the Government themselves accept.
However, the impact assessment makes no such claims. It provides no evidence whatever that there is a problem. It simply makes a number of very vague and unquantified statements about people benefiting from increased job security. For example, it suggests a direct benefit to households driven by the welfare benefit arising from increased job security, with absolutely no attempt to quantify it. It also goes on to say that there are benefits from
“additional settlements and awards from additional early conciliation and employment tribunals”.
That last one really is extraordinary. This Bill has been described as a bonanza for employment lawyers; the Government appear to be confirming that, and actually seem to be suggesting that it is a good thing.
To read or listen to what the Government say, noble Lords would be forgiven for understanding that there are currently no protections from unfair dismissal for employees during the qualifying two-year period. That is quite wrong. There is a whole list of reasons for dismissal that are automatically unfair from day one. I will give a few examples, rather than go through the whole list—I do not want to keep everyone here all night. They include dismissal for reasons of a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, race or religion, et cetera; for being pregnant or on maternity leave; for being a trade union member or representative; for taking part in industrial action; and for being involved in whistleblowing. There are many others. So, let us stop this idea that new employees are unprotected from day one. It is just not true.
I ask the Minister, as I did at Second Reading, when she did not answer: why are the Government doing this? What evidence do they have that the qualifying period is really a problem? Presumably, there must be some tangible benefits from the policy to justify all these disadvantages that the Government have described. What are they?
The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt—and happy birthday to him—would require impact assessments of the changes, which I support, but surely it would be better to get this right in the first place. The impact assessment does say:
“The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”.
That is absolutely right, and that is what the rest of this group tries to deal with: to reduce the negative impacts of this change.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 says that the Secretary of State may make regulations about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which is generally called a probationary period. My Amendment 104, along with Amendment 334, is intended to make it a requirement that the Secretary of State “must” make, rather than “may” make, such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his support on this and other amendments. He sends his apologies that he is unable to be here tonight.
As the Bill stands, the two-year qualifying period can be abolished and not replaced with anything. I understand that is not the Government’s intention, and we heard earlier about the nine-month preference, but it is what the Bill says. Having no probationary period at all would be extremely damaging, so it is important that it should become a requirement that these regulations are issued, and not just a “may”.
My Amendment 108 would ensure that any probationary period is at least nine months long. What is important is that the employer should have adequate time to assess whether the new employee is right for the business, including by giving them a good chance to get up to speed through training and so on. I agree that the current two-year period is very long, and from discussions I have had with business groups and from my own experience in business, I am confident that the shorter period would be acceptable to most businesses. I think the Government’s suggestion of nine months is workable, and that is what I have proposed in the amendment, so I hope it is not particularly controversial from that point of view.
The other critical factor for a probationary period is that it must work in a way that enables an employer to give the person the benefit of the doubt, rather than acting as a disincentive to hire them, especially for the riskier hires that the Government described and that I mentioned earlier. For that to be the case, it is essential that the employer can dismiss them without having to give a reason during the probationary period.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I find myself wanting to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The reason is this. We arrived in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which, by the way, according to the Guardian a few days ago, is the most loving, caring place—the best in the country. Yes, maybe since I arrived it has become that; none the less, that is what it said. It is the most peaceful place to live in. Sometimes, we do not even lock our doors when we go out for a short period. In other places, they would know, word would get round, and you would be visited by people who think they should acquire your property, outside the law.
We had to find a plumber. The plumber was wonderful, the best in the town, and people said that to get him was quite costly. He was costly because, once you agreed to let him do the work, he would say, “I have an apprentice. I could pay him as the Government say and give him the national living wage. But he is at college and doing very well, and I would like him to graduate, and to succeed”. So, he said that a fee would be charged to the person who hires him. He showed that in his receipts—the amount you paid for the wonderful apprentice. That apprentice, Oscar, has grown in his job since being there for four years. When he graduates, he will be one of the best plumbers.
Apprentices need to be protected. My plumber will never just immediately say that the job is coming to an end, because he has been very wise. He is a single employer who works alone, and out of his business he is willing to pay the amount of money the Government have allocated. However, he suddenly realised that some of us would like to put in a little bit more for this apprentice. So, there will never be a day when he has not got money to keep that apprentice, even if business may not be coming in.
This is an example of an employer who employs an apprentice, and I am sure he is going to get another one. His apprentice learnt very fast: for three days a week, he had to go to college in the morning, and then come back to do the apprentice work—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is speaking to the previous amendment, which is about apprentices.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
This is the clause stand part notice. The previous amendment was about apprentices, which I think the noble Lord is speaking about.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am supporting this one, but also the amendments which come later, which are mentioned. That is what I said at the beginning.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 105 to 107 and 109 to 112 in my name, and I am delighted to have the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who has already spoken so eloquently as the mover of the first amendment in the group.
I agree with the noble Lord that this is the most damaging part of the Bill, which is why I have joined proceedings today. I support all that he has said, including his Amendment 334. The approach in Amendment 334 may reflect the Government’s intention on timing, so I look to the Minister to support this clarificatory amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for a very useful online meeting and for a speedy response to my queries from her excellent office.
My main current concern is the promotion of economic growth. It is also the Government’s stated main objective, with the Prime Minister saying that:
“Growth is the defining mission of this Administration”.
Yet, the need to drive growth conflicts with their manifesto promises on employment rights. These will slow growth and increase bureaucracy and inefficiency across the economy, especially the proposal to specify reasons if employees are let go in the period immediately after appointment, which is the subject of this group.
The Government cannot have it both ways, and with growth prospects so poor next year, changes must be made to the Bill. There is evidence to support this. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already quoted from the impact assessment. Careful reading of the DBT economic analysis of 21 October, written to support the Bill, admits in section 16, on unintended consequences, that:
“There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers, including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD”,
an external body,
“noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”.
In other words, it implies lower growth.
Noble Lords will know of my own background in retail and wholesale, working for many years at Tesco, a company that had a unique partnership with the trade unions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and I worked together, and I am delighted that he now sits on the Labour Benches and only sorry that he is not here today.
Retail is a sector that leads the way in employing the economically excluded and those who need flexibility in their hours and location of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, is sitting there, just not in his usual place.
However, I understand from the BRC, which has recently surveyed HR directors, that there could be a significant impact on hiring decisions, particularly for those starting in or returning to the workforce after a period of leave or inactivity. That includes those coming back from parental leave or those who have been unemployed for an extended period. The changes could reduce opportunities for entry level jobs—27% of the retail workforce is under 24—and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
As our birthday boy, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has already explained, it also jeopardises the vital increase in our apprentice population, which is desperately in need of a simpler and more flexible system —another reason to think again.
All this uncertainty is bad for the Government’s wider objective of growth and, very important, for getting hundreds of thousands off benefits and into work. Without a genuine probation period, employers, especially smaller employers, will no longer be willing to take a chance on people for fear of being stuck with bad or unsuitable employees or facing unaffordable compensation bills after a very short time.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentioned the OECD. Is she aware of the OECD’s employment protection index, which shows that countries such as Germany, Poland and Japan have stronger protection than the UK on dismissal, yet they have lower unemployment? I think it would be helpful if she agreed that there is no direct association between employment protection on dismissal and unemployment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that I agree. I have sat on a German company. Growth is very poor in Germany at the moment. A company I worked in exited France because of the difficulty with employment protections. Employment protection is not the only issue we are talking about. In my opinion, we are trying to find the right employment protection mix to make sure that the economy continues to flourish.
Before closing, I highlight two of the less obvious perverse effects. The provisions will require significant extra internal resources to ensure compliance, in addition to the cost of the various measures in the Bill. If anyone has been through the sad process of sacking someone, they will understand this point. It is necessary to be extremely organised and have a cast-iron paper or email trail to avoid losing in a tribunal. This approach will now be necessary for the 9 million employees who currently work for less than two years in a job. Even if the Government introduce a lighter touch probationary period—now expected to be nine months—it will still be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees, including in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital, deferred a number of times because of the difficulties businesses faced, look extremely easy in comparison. Above all, it will increase costs, thereby reducing investment and growth.
The second perverse consequence, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said, will be the increase in traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I met someone yesterday whose case has been listed in 2027. The changes look as if they will plunge the employment sector into the sort of chaos we saw in the past on passports and in several other areas as a result of Covid.
I am extremely keen to find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances and am open as to how the problem is resolved. The fact is that sometimes appointments do not work out and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within nine months. If the changes on unfair dismissal are to be workable, let alone a success, the Government must listen and come forward with firm proposals before Report. These can be consulted on in parallel, as has already happened in other parts of the Bill. This House cannot agree to delegate this vital matter to the Executive in a statutory instrument that we have not even seen in draft.
The proposed nine-month probation period is a welcome start. However, so far, the only way forward I can see is to amend the Bill to allow the termination of employment during a probation period without giving rise to an unfair dismissal claim, as proposed in our amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I also support all the other amendments in this group. Both the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend have already fairly comprehensively treated the issues that concern a number of us, so I will not repeat all those points.
I just underline three brief points. We are trying to look for a balance between the legitimate expectations of employees and employers, because we need those to work in harmony. At the end of the day—as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out—employers will be producing the growth that the economy needs, so their hiring plans will be critical and anything that harms this balance will damage the economy.
From an employer perspective, anybody who has undertaken recruitment as an employer knows that most employers approach this extremely responsibly—it is not a cheap process to get the right people into the jobs—but we also know that, however diligent you are in screening, interviewing and assessment processes, you do not always get it right. You can usually test whether a person has technical skills, although sometimes you need to see them in practice before you know whether they really have them. The important area is whether an employee fits with an organisation. That is really difficult to tell until the person turns up and starts working. Do they share the same values as the rest of the workforce? Do they have ways of working that are just not compatible with the culture of the organisation? This is particularly important for small organisations: if you have one employee who does not fit in a very small organisation, that is a significant proportion of the workforce and can be very damaging to the business of a small business.
The last point that I underline is that this Bill will make it much more difficult for the difficult categories of people who want to find a job but cannot. There has been much talk about NEETs, and ex-offenders are another case. Why would any employer want to take on an ex-offender with day-one rights? We know some of them make excellent employees but quite a lot of them do not. They can become quite difficult to handle in the workplace. If employers fear that they will not be able to easily overcome mistakes in recruitment they simply will not hire, which will harm people who want to work.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, as an employer who has employed people over the past 40-odd years, I know that the difficulty for an SME—any small business such as my own—is the ability to manage all the bureaucracy that is entailed with it.
For businesses in the social care sector, for example, unfortunately you cannot really understand how good or bad a care worker will be until they have worked a little while in the organisation, even with the training. However, if we are to give the rights from day one, the difficulty will be that we will end up with a sector already very short of workers needing to hire more workers in case any are not suitable for the role. We would have to release them, knowing that they may then apply workers’ rights on day one without proper probation periods and take us to tribunal. It is a difficult sector.
There are many sectors like the care sector, and it is particularly challenging for small businesses in the wider sector of delivering something that is so important. If the care worker is not the right fit, it does not really matter how big or small the organisation is—that person is just not suitable for the role. We need to have the ability to dismiss the person without having to go through the bureaucracy of all the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill. I therefore support my noble friend and the noble Lord on these amendments.
It is time to have a strong rethink about how we can come to a good middle ground, where employers are not fearful of employing. I have been talking to a lot of SMEs over the past few months, and the difficulty that noble Lords across the House will have found, when they have talked to businesses in their own communities, is the worry around what will happen when the legislation in this Bill is enforced.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of this group of amendments. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as the proud employer of 140 employees.
The removal of the qualifying period for a right not to be unfairly dismissed is not, and should not be, feared by good employers. Good employers should have systems in place to ensure that new employees have regular reviews to enable them to feed back to the employer and, likewise, for the employers to feed back to the employees. As an employer, I am aware of the protection that employees are entitled to, and rightly so.
When dealing with any employment issue, the word that always comes to my mind is “reasonableness”. Is it reasonable to totally remove the qualifying period? I do not think so. Employees should be protected from just being dismissed without proper procedures, review and consultation. I support this group of amendments on the probationary period, which is described in the Bill as the “initial period of employment”. There is very little detail in the Bill on what length the probationary period will be.
This lack of detail and clarity creates real uncertainty for employers at present, including myself. The probationary period is an essential time for both employees and employers to get to know one another. For the employees, it ensures that the job meets their expectations, including about terms and conditions, that the culture within the workplace suits them and that they are respected. For employers, it is time to ensure that the employee has the skills and knowledge—or the potential to develop their skills and knowledge—to fulfil the tasks required by the role in question.
The employees in our business can give one week’s notice that the job is not right for them. Likewise, the employer needs flexibility, if they feel that the employee is not right for their business for conduct, personality or capacity reasons. Therefore, employers do not need to go through a long and detailed process to end the contract when the employee has just started that job. In some cases, the procedure to dismiss an employee could take longer than the time they have been employed by the company. I acknowledge that the reason for ending a contract in this probationary period, as has clearly been said by my noble friend, should never be for a protected characteristic under any circumstances, which I fully support.
The group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seek—as other Peers have clearly observed today—to enable the termination of a contract without fear of unfair dismissal claims being brought during a probationary period. It gives employers the confidence to employ individuals, and at times gives employers confidence to take on an individual who may not fully meet all the criteria of that role but shows potential, thereby giving that individual the opportunity of work. Nearly every noble Lord has discussed young people and people possibly with a disability.
However, further details are required. It is essential that a minimum length of probationary period is detailed in the Bill. For my business, that is three months, but it may be longer for others. The extension of the probation is required when things are not quite going to plan. In that case, the employer needs to go through a process of extending it, which is essential for both the employee and the employer.
I support my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden’s Amendment 108, as it puts a minimum length to the probation period within the Bill and therefore gives employers confidence in the probation process. Nine months gives employers time to have an initial probation period and then extend it if need be. If then the employer wishes to terminate after that many months, they will still need to follow a detailed procedure, as the risk of unfair dismissal is still high if not followed. This is a benefit to the employee from the shortening of the qualifying period. Moreover, the probationary period cannot be renewed continuously, which is to the benefit of both the employee and the employer, as there is a time limit.
Within secondary legislation, the Secretary of State can define the length of an initial probationary period, for, say, a maximum of six months. With this time limit, as proposed in Amendment 108, it would allow for one extension to nine months. The initial period of employment is an important part for all employers, whatever size, but for the SMEs and the micro-business, as previously stated, it allows flexibility. It avoids time-consuming and very costly processes to end the contract of an employee who is not working out in terms of conduct, capacity or personality. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments or refine them before Report to give all employers the confidence to employ new people, but especially in the SME sector and micro-businesses.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support all the amendments in this group. I support the Government’s ambition to boost productivity, create good jobs and crack down on bad employers. However, as many noble Lords have highlighted before me, Clause 23 risks doing more harm than good. The letter from the UK’s five leading business organisations, cited repeatedly at Second Reading, sets out the long-term damage that this Bill, and this clause in particular, would do to business and the wider economy. Surely, they understand the risk better than anyone, and, if I may say so, better than most politicians. We really should listen to their concerns.
After Covid and all the additional costs, many small and larger businesses are struggling. This clause will hit them further, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. Are we really willing to push them out of business? I do not think that this is what the Government really intend to do.
Let me give noble Lords one example. A Ukrainian cabinetmaker whom I met 15 years ago—in fact, I was his first client—built a small business from scratch. He actually talked to me last week, and told me that rising costs and additional regulations are now threatening his business. He told me that, with this Bill, he might not be able to go any further and, especially, he will not be able to hire altogether.
Like many tradesmen, he cannot risk employing somebody based solely on their CV. He needs a clear period to assess whether this person can actually do the job and fit into the team, as noble Lords have highlighted before. Without a workable probation framework, he will not be able to take the risk. The Government have acknowledged this problem and proposed this nine-month statutory probation period with a “lighter touch” dismissal process. However, there is no detail, no definition and no guidance, and legal experts still question its compatibility with the ACAS code.
Worse still, this framework will not come into force until August 2026, leaving 18 months of legal uncertainty. How can employers plan or hire when they do not know what the rules are going to be? Therefore, if the Government accept these risks and have promised a solution, why is it not part of the Bill as it is? It risks killing job creation, driving away investments and weakening economic recovery. This is definitely not what this Government intend to do.
However, with that background, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who say that this clause may need to be taken out altogether; otherwise, we will need to take into account all these amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 107A in this group, which is intended to be an entirely helpful amendment for the Government, allowing them to put nine months on the face of the Bill but preserve all the flexibility they have there at the moment. I think that would be a small step forward in giving comfort to employers to know what is coming their way.
I understand that probationary periods are uncomfortable for people who want to take them—it would be interesting to try them in this House. None the less, when you run a small business, as I do, they are important. I have in the past employed prisoners; actually, every single one of those has worked out really well. I have employed promising young people who have turned out to be a total disaster. It is really hard to know. You cannot rely on references these days; nobody gives a truthful bad reference, because they would just get sued for it, so it is really hard to pick up warning signals. Everyone’s documents are compiled by AI, so they are beautifully written and answer all the questions perfectly. You cannot interview everybody, you have to take a chance, and sometimes it just does not work out.
To have to prove capacity or competence is hard. I do not know whether any noble Lords here have been involved in a school where the head has not quite worked out. It is really difficult to get rid of them on the basis of competence; it takes so long to negotiate their departure. If you are faced with that sort of disincentive for the ordinary, run-of-the-mill employees—“If get this wrong, I’ll be saddled with a £50,000 bill for unfair dismissal”, which is about the scale of these things if you are paying people decently—that is a big disincentive to employing people in the first place. It is certainly a huge disincentive to taking on people who have a question mark in their CV—a period of unemployment or something that looks odd about it—or who are just young.
We want people to take risks. I have enjoyed taking risks. It is wonderful when it goes right. You really feel you have helped someone in their career and have been part of building a life for them. They leave you, which usually they do, but you take pleasure in what they have gone on to do and the success they have made of their life, and perhaps you have done a bit there. But it is a risk, and to load that risk on to what is by its nature an inexact, uncomfortable and uncertain decision is a real incentive not to take that decision—not to hire.
I think it would be a mistake to go down that road, although I am comfortable, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, pointed out, with a shorter timescale. You ought to know, if you are paying attention, whether things are right within three months; you might want to give someone a bit of extra leeway if you think they can set themselves right—but not holding it at two years. I am totally in favour of that; nine months seems a decent figure. It has to be possible, as my noble friends have said, to dismiss people just because it has not worked out. In some circumstances that is the best you can say: “No, sorry—we both did our best and it didn’t happen”.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Very briefly, because we are talking about the time periods here, you have to be very careful because accrued holiday goes into that, and if you do not give people notice before the holiday is up, you cannot get rid of them. So be careful: it should be three months or less, and actually you have to knock off another week or so. This is from experience.
The other thing is the headmaster issue. I know one small school which had terrible trouble because the headmaster was incompetent. He knew it, so he got depressed and went on permanent sick leave, and of course the school was then saddled with the costs. There are a lot of problems such as that. It would be nice to clean them up at the same time if we could, but I do not think it will happen in this Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and endorse most of the arguments that have already been advanced. I will focus just briefly on tech scale-ups.
Noble Lords will, I hope, remember that the Communications and Digital Select Committee published a report just a few months ago on AI and Creative Technology Scaleups. These businesses are incredibly important to our economic growth. They represent the innovation that comes out of our universities and the talent that exists in this country, but they need a huge amount of support to get from being start-ups to scale-ups. However, if they are successful, the return that they then deliver to our economy is huge.
Our inquiry found that the UK is, in effect, an incubator economy. What we are seeing now is that increasingly the kinds of businesses that have the potential to turn into unicorns, or indeed become unicorns, are galloping away. They are doing so because of many things. Sometimes it is about access to capital growth and to highly competitive workforces. But one of the biggest challenges that we face is that our regime, whether it is regulatory or investment, is not supporting risk-taking. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said a moment ago, the measures in the Bill about day-one rights on unfair dismissal, along with many other things, are undermining risk takers.
As part of our inquiry—before the Bill was published—witnesses told us, in the context of hiring, that the costs of hiring and firing are already much higher in the UK than anywhere else, which is putting UK businesses at a disadvantage. In the context of the Bill and the day-one rights around unfair dismissal, the Startup Coalition, which represents the start-ups, talked in its briefing note about the chilling effect that these day-one rights around hiring and firing would have on start-ups, seriously undermining their potential for growth. TechUK, which represents tech businesses of all sizes, has raised a lot of concerns about some of these day-one rights, but in the context of unfair dismissal, one of its concerns, which I do not think we have heard much about so far, is the risk of fraudulent claims.
In the Government’s response to our report—while I am on my feet, I add a bit of advertising: the debate on the report is on Friday 13 June, so I urge any noble Lords who are interested in this to sign up and contribute—they referred a lot to their AI action plan and the forthcoming industrial strategy, saying that jobs will be “at the heart” of that strategy. If that is the case, I urge the Minister to think again in the context of what I have just argued. If jobs are to be at the heart of that strategy, and the Government are as keen to support tech scale-ups as they have declared themselves to be and have put this part of the economy centre stage in all their growth plans, but these kinds of measures are making it impossible or so difficult for these businesses to be willing to take the risks to hire in the way that they need to in order to scale, then the Government are introducing measures which are self-defeating and which will undermine their own objectives.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 104, 105, 106 and 107, but particularly Amendments 107A and 108, relating to day-one rights.
Getting into work helps people make the best of their lives and reach their full potential. It is good for them and their families, and, of course, employment helps businesses and, through the taxes that everybody pays, helps sustain our state. You would expect that it was a core role of the state to incentivise the creation of jobs in pursuance of economic growth, personal fulfilment and a reduction in the costs of worklessness. It sounds so obvious, but the Government need to be reminded of those simple truths, because the facts are that the well-meaning and superficially attractive suggestion that employees should have full rights from day one is full of perverse consequences that will reduce the appetite to take on staff and will particularly benight those with few qualifications and limited experience. Furthermore, it does not reflect the way in which the economy is changing and the world of work is altering, as people choose to work in different ways.
Taking on new employees is not something that organisations do lightly. For the most part, there is an application and interview process, and we have heard about this from other noble Lords. For most employees, applying for and getting a new job is a well-trodden path, as someone builds a career, gains experience and seeks promotion. But that is not how it is for the part of the workforce that does not have formal qualifications. We have heard about ex-prisoners and people without experience or a strong track record in a particular field. People get on the ladder only when an employer takes a chance on them. The muddled thinking behind this Bill will result in the perverse outcome of increasing not only the cost of taking somebody on but the risk of getting it wrong. The consequence will be to make a business think twice before taking a chance on the person with limited experience, people at the beginning of their career, or those with an impaired employment record. These people need the greatest help.
It is not just the youngsters who may suffer from these well-meaning but counterproductive proposals. Many people prefer a portfolio of part-time jobs nowadays, because it suits their lifestyle. The facts are that the relationship between casual, agency and temporary work in the UK suits those engaged in it for a variety of reasons. The temporary agency, Adecco, tells me in a briefing that 79% of UK temporary and agency workers rate the flexibility it gives them most highly, and two-thirds say that temporary or part-time work helps their work-life balance.
Because much of the temporary work is variable and unpredictable, it is incompatible with some of those other day-one rights, such as the offering of guaranteed hours over a reference period. Some of the employment that might fall under this ambit is weather-dependent work—there is not much call for an ice-cream seller on a wet bank holiday weekend in a seaside town, for example. Seasonal work—harvesting, for example—often depends on the weather. It has been very dry recently, and harvest is going to be earlier this year. If you think about the reference period, there is more likely to be work up until 30 June, rather than in the normal quarter, which would have been the successive quarter reference period. There is casual work, such as waiting at a wedding or manning the turnstiles at a stadium concert or event, for example. All of these are temporary things, and it is going to be very difficult on day one for the employer to commit to some of these rights, because it is out of the employer’s control.
There is another perverse consequence that relates to the wider umbrella of agency and temporary work, such as supply teachers and supply nurses—I notice that the noble Baroness who was the chief nurse is no longer in her place—and locum and sickness cover, where the employee determines their availability, not the employer, as it suits them. We see that some of these rights are actually going to put the employee in a worse situation, because they are going to lose their bargaining power.
I will move on, because I am conscious of the time. All I will say is that codifying many of these things will make it harder for people to take advantage of temporary opportunities and will counterintuitively reduce their bargaining power, removing the labour market liquidity that makes the economy work for all parties, and particularly the taxpayer.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly—I promise—in support of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and Amendment 113, from my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I begin by apologising for not speaking on Second Reading of this Bill.
We have heard many contributions in today’s debate about the impact that the provisions in this Bill around unfair dismissal and probationary periods will have on businesses, and I agree with the points made. I will focus on the impact of these provisions on potential employees—people not currently working who are seeking employment.
The Government clearly understand the need to get more people into work. Their recent Pathways to Work Green Paper and last year’s welfare to work White Paper demonstrate their commitment to getting 2 million more people into work. This is a subject very close to my heart. As president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register, I regularly meet with jobseekers, employers and the charities that help get people from welfare into work. In doing so, I have developed a good first-hand knowledge of the obstacles and friction in the process of potential employees finding meaningful employment.
Business leaders have raised concerns with me about the provisions in this Bill on unfair dismissal and the unclarity around the length of probationary periods. They have told me that the Bill, if passed unamended, would make them think twice about taking on what they describe as riskier hires. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would reduce these risks. One business leader, Michael Lorimer, who employs over 600 people and who gave evidence on this Bill in the other place, wrote:
“Today, making a hire from long-term unemployment comes with an element of flexibility. If it works out, everyone benefits. If it doesn’t, the employer has an exit strategy. As it stands, this Bill significantly erodes this flexibility”.
It is not just businesses and business leaders. Those working with charities in this space have also raised concerns. The Ascend programme in Sheffield helps people that the local jobcentre views as “difficult to place in employment”. About 75% of those who are taken on as part of the programme go on to get a job. Clearly, these jobs do not always work out. Without amendments to the Bill, businesses will be more reluctant to take on potential employees from initiatives such as the Ascend programme. These potential employees might well lose out on the chance of employment.
To conclude, it is right that we consider the needs of employees and businesses, but we should also consider the effect that this Bill will have on potential employees and their chances of finding employment. I support my noble friends’ amendments. I want the UK’s labour market to remain sufficiently flexible to ensure that Britain’s workers of the future continue to have the dignity, joy and independence that meaningful employment provides.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I do not doubt that critics of this part of the Bill speak with a lot of personal experience as well as commitment to their employees and the way they run their affairs. However, let me remind people that the argument that is really coming from the other side—that the qualifying period would be damaging to employment—is the argument as has been used against just about every bit of progressive employment legislation from the Factory Acts onwards. If noble Lords think that that is hyperbole, they should remember the national minimum wage and the campaign that was run against it. None of that came to anything like what was forecast from that side of the House. I have risen briefly to ask the other side of the House to remember that it was wrong on the minimum wage and to consider whether it might be wrong on this as well.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I get the impression that there is a bit of a misunderstanding around the nature of employment tribunals. I spent the first half of a long career at the Bar doing employment tribunal cases, many of them unfair dismissal cases. In fact, the first case I ever did—pro bono, by the way—was an unfair dismissal case in 1972, under what was then the very new unfair dismissal legislation. Unfair dismissal cases are difficult for employees to win. Most cases that go to a full hearing result in the employer being vindicated.
I want to make two points. The first is that employment tribunals now have robust procedures for weeding out vexatious cases; such cases never go to a full hearing. Secondly, I remind your Lordships of the law on unfair dismissal in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The test is in two parts. First, the employer must demonstrate that the reason for the dismissal is capability, qualifications, conduct or redundancy or the fact that the employment is in breach of some enactment. Once the employer has shown that that is the reason, the test for the tribunal—I shall read it out—is whether the dismissal is fair, which,
“depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”.
So all the factors that one would expect to have to be taken into consideration are taken into consideration.
The tribunal then has to determine that,
“in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case”.
The Court of Appeal has added yet another burden. When the tribunal decides whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably, it is not about what it considers was reasonable or unreasonable; it is about whether it considers that the dismissal fell within the band of responses of reasonable employers. It is at two stages removed. It is not like an ordinary negligence case where the court decides whether an employer was reasonable or not reasonable in putting a guard on the machine. It must decide. Even if it thinks that the decision was unreasonable, if it finds that, nevertheless, reasonable employers would say that it might be possible that the reason was fair, that would be legitimate.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord referred to the likelihood of cases succeeding if they got as far as the tribunal. Does he accept that the vast majority of cases that are initiated never get as far as a tribunal because there is a huge incentive in the system for employers to settle? The costs of taking a case right the way through are huge—not just in the monetary cost of employing clever employment lawyers but, in particular, in the diversion of management effort within the organisation. I have seen this in large organisations, where swathes of the management team can be tied up for long periods of time. Employers cannot afford that in the broadest sense. If you put that in the context of smaller organisations, they absolutely cannot cope with it.
Whatever happens at the tribunal and whatever the law says, the mere initiation of an action nearly always results in an economic decision, made by the employer, to settle. That is one of the most difficult aspects and is why extending that into the early period of employment causes so many worries for employers.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I absolutely agree that most cases never get to a full hearing; only a tiny minority ever do. The noble Baroness is right that many cases settle, of course. Many are conciliated, because there is now compulsory conciliation by ACAS, but many are withdrawn by the employee. You have to visualise it, as I am sure the noble Baroness does: most employees bringing an unfair dismissal claim are completely unrepresented. They are on their own, so all the expense, research and preparation that have to be done must be done by them personally. That is a huge disincentive. Many claims—tens of thousands of them—are simply not brought because it is not worth the employees’ while to do it.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the case is exactly the same for small employers? They too will be in the position of having to deal with tribunals in the same way—hence why, as often as not, the settlements are taking place.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Of course; that is always the way whenever there is litigation. Whatever the subject matter, people do not want the burden of defending the case and the people bringing the case do not want the burden of bringing it. That is just the reality of litigation.
I will say one last thing before I sit down. The argument that the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have put forward is all about what they perceive to be the consequences of this matter, which my noble friend Lord Monks just addressed. But nobody can seriously advance the case that employers should have the right to dismiss anybody unfairly and without recourse to the law.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that these are not simply arguments that people around this Chamber are putting forward but matters that are in the Bill’s impact assessment? It is the Government’s own statement that the Bill will have these impacts. It is not being made up by any of us: the Government accept that this will be the impact.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
That may very well be, but it still does not remove the fundamental point: what is being proposed is a category of worker who can be dismissed unfairly for the most extreme reasons without resort to any justice.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
I would like to take the noble Lord up on this, because I have had experience with this. When an employee has been behaving very difficultly and sometimes they want to go anyway, but you want to dismiss them, they say, “Right, we’re going to take you to a tribunal”, and the answer is they will settle for £3,000 to £4,000 just because it is cheaper for everybody. The trouble with that is, for the loyal employees who stay, it is a huge disincentive and causes a lot of aggro within the thing, and it is very unfair on everybody else.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I stand with some trepidation at this stage to support very much the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and indeed I support the other amendments in this group.
We have to think that any company—large, small, charity, whatever it may be—that hires a new employee takes a calculated risk. They are unknown. The company hopes that the individual, young or more mature, will integrate well into the company culture and be capable of handling the expected workload with the appropriate training needed.
I understand the Government’s position, as mentioned in a previous day’s debate on the Bill, that the employee also takes a risk when starting a new job or changing careers. They too must be confident that the role aligns with their skills and aspirations. A probationary period exists to serve both parties. It allows the employee to assess whether the role suits their interests, skills and abilities, while giving the employer time to evaluate whether the employee fits before making a long-term commitment. Is that unreasonable?
In my own place of work, I have seen this very much in practice. In fact, when I returned to work, I had a six-month probation period, and I had worked for them for 25 years before that. We once hired a seasoned practitioner with considerable market experience. However, for various reasons, they did not pass their probation. Should that individual be entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said? From the employer’s perspective, they are simply trying to safeguard their business, its culture and its ability to deliver results for clients. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as we have just heard and as, I think, the noble Lord accepted.
Is it right that an employee should be granted full employment rights from day one, when both sides are still in a learning phase? Is it fair that a company could face the threat of an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal if the probationary period is not successful, on which we have had a lot of discussion? Whatever happens, should it go towards that phase? Should it never reach the employment tribunal? It is a gruelling process for both parties, and an expensive one—emotionally, culturally, and potentially in the pocket.
The Government rightly seek to stimulate growth, as mentioned by the Minister on the previous group. For that to happen, businesses must feel confident in hiring. But, if the terms of employment are too burdensome, companies may hesitate to expand their workforce. It is imperative that the economy is prevented from becoming stagnant or, worse still, contracting. I simply do not understand why this clause is in the Bill. It does not propose anything that helps growth in this country.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
The noble Lord pointed to the daunting process that faces an employer potentially facing an employment tribunal accusation that would damage perhaps their reputation, as well as the daunting issues that also face the employee who is considering going down that course. My noble friend made some emphasis on that point.
The debate has been conducted as if this is a hugely common threat: indeed, as if it is a threat that, potentially, is going to do tremendous damage to our economy. But could I just point to the scale of the issue? In 2023-24, there were just over 5,000 unfair dismissal cases referred from the Tribunals Service to ACAS for the conciliation processes that my noble friend referred to. What is the size of our workforce in the British economy? Is it 25, 26, 27—
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Thirty-four million workers. Five and a half thousand cases. Why is the number so small? It has been suggested that it is because an employer’s immediate response is to offer a settlement to buy off the prospect of a tribunal. Some may make that judgement, but, given the evidence my noble friend has referred to about the unlikelihood of applicants succeeding with their claims, that does not seem a very wise response to give. There may be some, but for the individual, it seems to me, more daunting factors influence them to hold back because it is so painful and potentially stressful that they are reluctant to take their case in the first place.
This whole Bill is about giving people at work in Britain more confidence and there needs to be some sense of perspective about the scale of the issue we are talking about. Five thousand people.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
I am aware of a case of a small company that has got rid of four individuals in view of the legislation because those individuals are not doing a good enough job, but it could live with them if it had the ability to get rid of them. What it cannot face the thought of is having to go down any form of tribunal route or indeed threat thereof. That is not what we are trying to do with this Bill; we are trying to prevent that. We do not want to see those individuals leave employment. That is not what we want, and that is where it could lead a lot of people.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is one of the most important parts of this legislation, and I am very conscious of the Labour Party’s manifesto and its success in the election last year. However, at the same time, this is the same Government who want to increase the employment rate to 80%, which has not been achieved in a very long time. If we go back in history, we see that the Blair-Brown Government did not make changes to go to zero or day-one rights in the same way. Yes, they changed it from two years to one year. The coalition Government later changed it back to two years.
Yet we are now seeing—as has already been pointed out elegantly by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in response to some of the comments raised on the Government Benches—that this is the Government’s own impact assessment. If we look at the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment of these proposals, we see that it gives a very strong red rating on this element and suggests that, basically, there is no evidence that they are in any way needed.
There are aspects here of “What is the problem that the Government is trying to address?”. Lewis Silkin solicitors point out that if the only changes to be made were those referred to and we were still to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy read out, the different approaches on fair dismissal in the tribunal, the Government could just put forward a statutory instrument based on the existing power of the 1996 Act. However, they have not done so in the Bill; they are seeking to go much further in a variety of ways in Schedule 3. That is why I share the concerns of many other noble Lords who are worried about the unintended consequences. Nobody can believe that a Labour Government would want to see unemployment rise or more people on benefits, or not tackle the challenge of people not in education, employment or training—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Or the most vulnerable—and we can just keep going.
However, on whether people take cases to the employment tribunal, as has been referred to, we are not going to debate Part 5 tonight, but in this same Bill, where we have to consider a lot of these things in the round, the Government are proposing to give an unlimited amount of money to somebody to get legal aid or legal support so that they can go to tribunal. In fact, they are going further and saying that the Secretary of State or somebody they appoint can go to court on their behalf. In that case, in Part 5, we are talking about people who have not even started work.
So, rolling it back, on some of the concerns about which noble Lords on the Government Benches are suggesting, “Don’t worry about it, this isn’t going to happen”, actually, the entire Bill is opening that. That is why I hope the Government do not just listen to the real concerns of noble Lords in this House; they should consider their own impact assessment and the representations of all the business organisations that think that this is just wrong.
I support the amendments. There are a variety of them about putting in the Bill a defined time for what should be considered a probationary period. We have already had a separate discussion about apprenticeships but, going further, one thing that surprises me is that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, new Section 108A refers to:
“Employees who have not yet started work”.
You may think, “That’s very sensible. How can you have an unfair dismissal?” I have already referred to Part 5, coming somewhat later. Then there is a list in the Explanatory Notes. It is quite complicated—it tries to simplify it, but the legislation is complicated—but here we have one of the answers. A lot of the Bill is basically about trying to make sure that trade union membership goes up—that means more money going into the political fund and having to wait to opt out until the following January, for, in effect, finances. Indeed, paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3, as a consequential amendment, says that, in effect, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, before you have even started work, will not apply if you are a member of a trade union. That is what is going on in this legislation. I will read it out:
“Omit section 154 (disapplication of qualifying period for unfair dismissal relating to union membership”.
There are a number of activities here; it goes further in the Explanatory Notes. They include if you are on strike—I do not quite understand how you could be on strike if you have not started work, but perhaps one is on strike if one is in a different job. There are already protections in the disapplication in existing law—it suggests people who are pregnant and similar. There are a variety of things here where there are already protections, but these are now being extended in different ways. Sometimes, the Government Back Benches may not all have necessarily read the full detail of the Bill.
To that end, I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in saying, “Let’s get rid of this clause and this schedule”. There is genuinely a way to start this again. There is still time for the Government to go away and do proper thinking—there is plenty to get through in this debate before we get to Report—to really narrow in on what the Government are trying to do, rather than, frankly, giving a blank cheque to a series of employment situations. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral—happy birthday to him, by the way—has already deemed this to be the unemployment Bill. I know those are not the consequences that the Government are seeking to address, but the experience and the petitioning of business organisations is very clear that that is what will happen.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, there are two things that I can safely say. One is that I am unanimous in my comments tonight, and the other is that you cannot accuse the Liberal Democrats of extending the debate past a reasonable hour; we have done just over an hour on this debate. The debate has been quite sensible and both sides have ventured into the usual jousting, but the comments from the noble Baroness who just spoke were a bit disingenuous in saying, or intimating, that the real reason behind this measure is to increase union membership and generate money for the Labour Party. That could not be farther from the truth of what this Government are trying to do, whichever way you look at the Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Has the noble Lord read the later parts of the Bill that specifically say that? In the human rights assessment, there is a qualified comment from the Government that, basically, cites in particular the element about postponing any refunds until January. That is exactly what part of the Bill is designed to do.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I will reply to that. Yes, it is a technical question, and perhaps that wording sits there, but any person with an ounce of common sense who sees the Bill can see what the Government are trying to do. I do not think that the Bill, with over 300 amendments to it, is geared to do what the noble Baroness is intimating. That is cheap political point-scoring, and I think it is beneath her.
I have carefully considered the amendments put forward by noble Lords in this group, particularly those seeking to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3, including Amendments 23 and 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the series of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others relating to probationary periods, including Amendments 105 to 112. While I am not persuaded by those amendments or the case for removing the provisions or fundamentally changing the Bill, I recognise the need for greater clarity on probationary periods. Given the Bill’s current drafting, which relies heavily on future regulation, it is essential that the Government provide clear and firm guidance on how the provisions will operate in practice, especially for small businesses, which will find ambiguity challenging in difficult times.
Amendment 107A from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which proposes a default initial employment period but would allow the Secretary of State flexibility to amend that through regulation, offers a balanced concept that could be helpful in providing certainty while retaining adaptability. Likewise, Amendment 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which calls for a retention of the current qualifying period until suitable regulations are in place, reflects concerns about the smooth transition, and that deserves attention. However, I am less convinced by the calls for further impact assessments or reviews of the proposals in Amendments 103 and 123, which I believe risk delaying the necessary reforms without providing clarity.
In light of those amendments, I urge the Government to seize this opportunity to give definition and definite practical guidance on the provisions that the Bill will implement. It would be better if the Minister could say in absolute terms the length of time for which probationary periods will be set in future regulation after the passage of the Bill. That would be particularly important for smaller employers that need certainty to comply. Providing that clarity would help to ensure that the reform worked as intended, and it would help to strike the right balance between protecting employees’ rights and allowing employers the flexibility to manage probationary employments effectively. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lucas for their amendments and their thoughtful contributions in this group. It has been a most interesting debate. I will speak to my Amendments 103, 113 and 123.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it would be much better to get this right now rather than pursuing Amendment 103 in particular, which returns to the Government’s insufficient impact assessment. The assessment that has been produced states that this provision will have one of the highest impacts, yet, as we have mentioned before, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s analysis in this section a red rating. The RPC’s critique is not a matter of minor technicalities because it identifies serious deficiencies in the Government’s case for intervention in the options that they have considered and in the justification for the policy that they propose. The Government’s impact assessment admits that it lacks robust data on dismissal rates for employees with under two years’ service. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, there is no evidence for that. It proceeds regardless, however, with only superficial reference to “asymmetric information” and without any substantive analysis of any market failure.
The RPC highlights the impact assessment’s failure to consider how long-serving employees might view the equalisation of rights for new joiners—an issue of fairness and workplace cohesion that the Government have ignored. The impact assessment itself mentions that options such as reducing the qualifying period to 18 months or one year were considered and rejected without detailed assessment. No real exploration of probation periods was provided. That is not a balanced appraisal of possible alternatives; it is a justification for a predetermined decision.
On the justification of the preferred option, the impact assessment is again found lacking. The RPC calls for clarity on the costs to businesses—the costs of managing performance, handling disputes and the increased settlements to avoid tribunal risks. It also questions whether the Government have considered evidence from existing unfair dismissal claims and how risks might vary across sectors or job types, particularly in roles where reputational damage from a claim might deter employers from hiring at all.
More significantly, the Government have not addressed indirect and dynamic labour impacts, such as whether day-one rights might lead to more cautious hiring, greater use of temporary contracts or weaker overall job security. These are not abstract concerns as they go to the heart of how this policy might reshape employment relationships across the country. Noble Lords might be interested in a real example. I was talking this morning to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company. It is an exemplary employer in every way; for example, offering many day-one rights. But this year—partly as a result of the jobs tax but also in anticipation of the Bill—it has reduced its hiring by 84%. I repeat that for the record: 84%. This is not abstract or theoretical. This is real, this is now.
It is important to note that these likely labour market impacts are not accounted for in the £5 billion cost to businesses, so the real cost is likely to be significantly higher. The result is a policy with high ambition but little practical clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has just noted. How will unfair dismissal rights interact with a statutory probationary period? Will employers still have access to the same set of fair reasons for dismissal? Will there be a different threshold for acting reasonably during probation? Can probation be extended if needed? None of those questions has been clearly answered.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us of the light-touch, nine-month proposal, but what does that mean in practice? My noble friend Lady Meyer asked that. At the same time, the Government’s own analysis predicts that granting day-one rights for unfair dismissal alone will result in a 15% increase in employment tribunal claims. Using the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that is an additional 750 claims per year, on top of the 50,000 backlog already waiting 18 months to two years. The noble Lord argued that this is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance, but it is not to the 750 business owners who are being dragged through courts. That is a substantial impact. It represents direct costs to businesses in terms of time, legal risk and, of course, the chilling effect on recruitment.
The tribunal system itself needs to be looked at. Without significant new investment it is hard to see how the system will cope with this 15% increase. The result could be longer delays, greater costs and justice deferred for all parties. In an earlier group we heard about a case that is going to take more than two years to come before a tribunal. Yet the Government intend to bring these changes into force in 2026. On what basis? There is nothing in the impact assessment that explains why 2026 has been chosen or how the system will be ready by then. Businesses will need time to revise contracts, restructure probation processes and train managers on the new rules. What assessment has been made of whether 2026 is realistic, with all those things in mind? What engagement has been carried out with employers, particularly SMEs, about what implementation will require?
It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to explain how the timeline was determined and whether it is genuinely achievable, given the lack of clarity in both the policy detail and the supporting evidence. We all agree that employees deserve fair treatment, particularly in the vulnerable early stages of employment, but employers must also have a reasonable opportunity to assess performance, capability and suitability without the immediate threat of litigation.
We have established that there is no evidence for any of this clause. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was arguing his point, he said that it is very difficult anyway for employees to take a case to an employment tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, as I just mentioned, said it is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance. If there is no evidence, it is too difficult and it is a statistical irrelevance, why are we bothering at all?
I want to raise a final point that others, particularly my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, have referred to. It is not just about the policy itself; it is a more troubling concern. The policy will create unintended incentives, but for whom? It is not just about employers scaling back hiring overall but about who they stop hiring. If we remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and provide no workable probationary mechanism, we tilt the hiring incentives away from risk-taking, as we have heard. It will, in effect, stop employers taking a punt.
Right now, a small business owner might be willing to take that chance on someone with no formal qualifications, or from a non-traditional background, or re-entering the workforce after a time away. That chance exists because the employer has a short window to assess their suitability—and vice versa, of course—before facing the full weight of employment litigation risk. If that safety net is removed and exposure begins from day one and the probationary period lacks clarity or legal protection, that same employer will think twice. They will play it safe.
Noble Lords opposite should pay attention to those of us who have employed people. It is a simple fact. Who is going to suffer? It is not the already advantaged candidate with a polished CV. It is the young person with gaps in education, the career switcher with no references, the working parent returning after years out of the labour market, or the person coming back to work after a long period of illness. Noble Lords opposite should reread the speech given by my noble friend Lord Elliott, with his experience of the Jobs Foundation. He explained this much more eloquently than I just have. Those are the people who benefit from flexibility and second chances and who may now find those doors quietly closed.
This goes to the heart of social mobility and genuine workplace diversity. I would like to ask the Government a rhetorical question: have they considered the incentives this policy creates? If they have not—both common-sense experience of real working life in the private sector and, indeed, the RPC suggest that they have not—we risk designing a policy that sounds progressive but, in practice, reduces opportunity for the very groups that we should be helping the most. We need a decent impact assessment, and my amendment would allow for it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As there have been a number of questions about our intentions with these clauses, I think it would be helpful to clarify them and put them on the record.
Clause 23 introduces Schedule 3 and repeals Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. Schedule 3 further amends the 1996 Act, including the introduction of a statutory probationary period in legislation. Schedule 3 also removes the two-year qualifying period for the right to request written reasons for dismissal. Any employee who has been dismissed after the statutory probationary period will have the right to written reasons for dismissal within 14 days upon request.
The legislation will introduce a statutory probationary period that will maintain an employer’s ability to assess any new hires. Schedule 3 allows the duration of a statutory probationary period to be set in regulations by the Secretary of State following consultation. The Government’s preference, as we know, is for this probationary period to be nine months in length. Schedule 3 also creates the power to modify the test for whether dismissal during the probationary period is fair for reasons of performance or suitability for the role.
The Government’s intention is to use this power to set light-touch standards for fair dismissal during probation. The power will be limited to the following reasons for dismissal, which, under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, qualify as potentially fair reasons: capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. The Government will consult on the light-touch standards and proceed to set out in regulations what specific reasons relate to the employee and when.
Schedule 3 amends the delegated power to set the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal so that a different maximum can be set for dismissals during the probationary period and when the light-touch standards apply. It is our intention to consult before the introduction of any new cap on awards.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Forgive me if I am pre-empting the Minister, but given that she has just responded to my noble friend on the question of economic growth, what is her reply to the issues I raised about the specifics in the context of tech scale-ups, which are a priority for the Government’s growth agenda? What is the impact of these measures on that particular industry?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She will know that I share her ambitions for the tech sector. The UK remains the number one country for venture capital investment, raising $16.2 billion in 2024—more than either Germany or France—and since last July we have secured £44 billion in AI investment. Strengthening employment rights and giving day-one protections can help support talented people to take the leap into a start-up company.
I turn to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Setting a statutory probationary period during which light-touch standards will apply is a crucial part of our plan to make work pay. I can reassure the noble Lord that setting out the detail in regulations is fundamental to fulfilling this commitment. It is not necessary to make this a requirement in legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a number of questions. He, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked why the Government are doing this. The UK is an outlier compared to other OECD countries when it comes to the balance of risks and entitlements between the employer and the employee. We believe that it is an important principle that employees should have greater security at work. Our reforms will mean that around 9 million employees—31% of all employees —who have been working for their employer for less than two years will have greater protection against being unfairly dismissed.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I hate to interrupt the noble Baroness at this late hour, but that is just a repeat of what has been said before; it is not a tangible quantified reason for doing this. Yes, for a short period of time, they will have greater security in theory, but the downsides of this—they are in the Government’s own impact assessment—are really clear. The Government say that this will reduce the life chances of people who are riskier hires. It will cost business hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no quantification of that benefit against those downsides, and I am still not hearing that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks.
I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I never mentioned spent convictions; I referred merely to the risk of employers taking on ex-offenders. I cannot think of a point I could have made in relation to spent convictions. The issue is these categories of potential employees who a represent higher risk in terms of judgment to employers, and I was using former offenders as one example of that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point. I can only reaffirm the point I was making: with all these issues, there can be reasons for fair dismissal during the probationary period, and we have set out quite clearly what the grounds for that would be.
Amendment 107A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As always, he thinks outside the box and comes up with interesting ideas, including the idea of a probationary period here in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure we all have strong views about. Going back to the specifics of his proposal, the Government have expressed an initial preference for a nine-month statutory probationary period. We intend to consult with stakeholders and the wider public before committing to a duration, which will be set by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation after this consultation has taken place. Maintaining this flexibility allows the duration and calculation of the statutory probationary period to be adapted in light of future changes in employment practices.
Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would also amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. It is of great importance to this Government to get the length of the statutory probationary period correct. The Government have already stated in Next Steps to Make Work Pay their preference for the statutory probationary period to be nine months in duration. However, this is subject to consultation, and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on that matter.
On Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while I recognise what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with his amendment, I reassure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that the Government have no intention of removing the two-year qualifying period until the regulations setting out the statutory probationary period are in force. We will, of course, give businesses time to prepare, and we are engaging with them already. These provisions will not commence before autumn 2026, which will give time to prepare. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
I move on to address Amendments 103 and 123, from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, in respect of their mandates for further impact assessments. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, published alongside Second Reading, and based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, employees and the wider economy. Our analysis includes an illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting the record straight about the impact of tribunals, and the thorough ways in which they conduct their proceedings. Many cases settle in advance, and we want to encourage more cases to reach a settlement with proper advice and support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Barber for putting the scale of the problem in perspective, with only 5,000 cases referred to ACAS in 2023-24.
We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament, to the extent that those changes significantly change the impact of the policy on the enforcement system. This impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation.
To follow up on the impact of this, we acknowledge that the policy is expected to benefit close to 9 million employees, driven by well-being benefits arising from increased job security for those with under two years of tenure. There will be costs to businesses, including familiarisation and compliance costs, from this change. However, businesses could benefit through improving their people management and hiring practices, which could deliver medium to long-term benefits, such as higher labour productivity. In addition, increasing employee well-being could increase worker productivity. These benefits will be tested further during consultation.
The Government have also pledged to conduct a consultation on unfair dismissal policy, to collect feedback from employers and employees. Specifically, the Government have outlined that we will consult on the length of the statutory probationary period, and the potential cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal occurring during the statutory probationary period. I can reassure the House that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement. We will be updating our impact assessments in any case, alongside the consultation on implementing the various provisions in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are not proposing to expand the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal that have been a central part of employment law for decades. An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in the early stages of their employment or otherwise will have to be underpinned by a fair dismissal reason, such as capability or conduct. It stands to reason that these would be the most likely dismissal reasons when employees fail their probation.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. I therefore ask that Amendment 103 be withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, we are being promised a blizzard of consultations, but can the Minister give me any idea when those consultations will take place? Can we also have some assurance that all the employer organisations will be consulted on this occasion? From our conversations with many of them, they do not feel particularly consulted up to now.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
First, on the issue of consultation, I assure the noble Lord that there have been a considerable number of consultations, not only with the main employer organisations but in terms of working parties working on particular aspects of the Bill, and those will continue. That consultation will continue—and I have now forgotten his other question.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Will the Government consult with employer organisations?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister has not addressed the fact that there are already powers in existing legislation to modify the qualifying period. The Minister talks about going into consultation, but that consultation on the probationary period could start right now with the SI, and that element. I struggle to understand why we have to wait such a long time when, actually, the Government could get on with their policy a lot more quickly.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That has reminded me that that was the other question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.
As we have said before, we are working on an implementation plan, which we hope to share with noble Lords as soon as we can. It is in my interests as well as noble Lords’ interests that they see it sooner rather than later, but there is no point in sharing something that is not complete. Noble Lords will see that—and it will set out exactly what we are planning to do and where the consultations will fit in with all of it. I hope that when noble Lords see it, it will reassure them.
To go back to the particular question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we see this as a wholesale package. It is right that it is introduced to employers as a package; it will have appropriate timescales in it. We do not want to do things on a piecemeal basis, we want to do them in the round. That is why we are attempting to address this in the way that we are proposing today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Unfortunately, that is our concern—that we do not know what the detail is, and we are being asked to pass a Bill without all that detail, as I said in my speech.
There was a more technical point that I wanted to raise with the Minister, if she wants to come back to me. I set out how having to cover an extra 9 million employees is going to lead to huge amounts of extra compliance costs. She emphasised the benefits for the workers, but she did not at all address the monumental amount of paperwork. My noble friend Lord Sharpe raised a similar point. As he explained, all managers in all companies are going to have to prepare for this and work out how they treat their employees from day one and what paperwork is required. I am not convinced that there is any understanding of that.
When we had similar consultations on the minimum wage, when I was in business, which the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, there was a great deal of detailed consultation very early on on how it would work. I said in another debate how I was consulted about whether we could put it on the payslips—and I explained that it would cost us £2 million, so it would cost the whole economy an awful lot just to put the minimum wage on the payslip. That sort of detail is incredibly important, if you are bringing in regulation that affects all employers and potentially benefits all employees.
I urge the Minister to think about these things and not say that it is going into the long grass and that we will get an impact assessment ex post, but think about how employers will actually manage this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that not only have we thought about this but we are working very closely with the business sector to get this right. We understand that some of these things will take time. It takes time to change systems, and a lot of it is about changing computer systems for processing and so on. We are aware of this and, when the noble Baroness sees the implementation plan, it will reassure her that we have allowed space and time for it, as well as proper consultation with those who will be affected.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it has been a long debate so I will try not to detain the Committee much longer. I thank the many noble Lords across the Committee who have contributed. It has been long because this is really important. I confess that I come out of the end of this debate feeling somewhat depressed. I still have not heard really why we are doing this, and what the real, tangible benefits are, to offset against the very real negative impacts, particularly on those who are looking for employment and are perhaps disadvantaged in one way or another: they have not worked before, they are young, they have a gap—we heard all the various examples. The Minister did not really address that point terribly clearly in her speech, and it is so important.
This may be, as the Government have regularly called it, a Bill for workers. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is not a Bill for people who want to work—the potential workers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. He stole my Charlie Mayfield quote, but I will not worry about that. It is true that Denmark has much easier hire and fire, and he was using that as a paragon of virtue because it allows people who are harder to hire to get into employment, which is so important.
In the interests of being constructive, I hope the Minister understands the real concerns about those people and the impact the Bill is going to have on them, and the negative impacts this section of the Bill will have. I hope that she will be prepared to spend a bit of time with us between now and Report to try to find solutions to those negative impacts, to minimise the problems and downsides that they will cause. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks: I am not making this up, or crying wolf, as with the national minimum wage, as the noble Lord suggested. This is what the Government say will be the impact. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is not me saying that; the Government say this will be impact. If we can try to work together before Report, to try to find ways of knocking the edges off this and reducing the negative impacts, that would be very helpful. With that, I will not oppose Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Sharpe limit the application of the clause to cases where the employer sought, without good reason, to vary the employee’s contract of employment in relation to their pay or benefits.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we move to consider Clause 26, I believe Amendments 113ZA and 113B bring essential clarity, balance and proportionality to the Bill’s treatment of contract variation.
In last week’s debate, we discussed how recent changes to statutory sick pay might prompt employers to scale back or modify enhanced sick pay schemes. Such adjustments would require changes to contracts, and under the Bill’s current wording could be caught by these provisions. This raises the question: is it really the Government’s intention to classify necessary contractual changes prompted by those reforms to statutory sick pay as grounds for unfair dismissal?
The Government’s plan to make work pay rightly criticises cases where these practices have been used to enforce lower pay or to reduce terms and conditions. That is a legitimate concern. However, as currently drafted, Clause 26 goes far beyond this intention. It would cover any contractual change, no matter how minor, technical or reasonable, even those entirely unrelated to pay or benefits. This creates serious practical problems. Employers would be exposed to legal claims of unfair dismissal, even when seeking to modernise contractual terms; for example, aligning shift patterns with contemporary trading hours or updating disciplinary procedures drafted decades ago. In effect, this clause could fossilise employment contracts, preventing businesses from adapting to economic, operational or technological change, unless they meet a narrow and restrictive test.
I acknowledge that the phrase “without good reason” in Amendment 113ZA may introduce some degree of ambiguity. However, any dispute from it would fall to the employment tribunals to determine. While we have previously argued—and I maintain—that the Government have no credible plan to resolve the serious backlog and underfunding of the employment tribunal system, the fact remains that these tribunals will be the ones to judge whether a variation was sought with good reason.
In the current economic climate, businesses may need to make reasonable changes to pay structures to remain viable. Without these amendments, I believe employers may be deterred from offering pay increases or promotions, unless employees accept other contractual changes, potentially creating a two-tier workforce. In more extreme cases, employers might choose to make roles redundant altogether, rather than risk costly litigation over sensible and necessary variations.
I will speak also to Amendment 114 in this group. The clause’s reliance on language such as
“the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”
and “financial difficulties” implies that only in the most extreme circumstances—insolvency or imminent closure—can dismissal and re-engagement be considered. That is surely far too narrow a test. Businesses are not static and responsible employers must often adapt to evolving market conditions, consumer behaviour and, of course, technological innovation. These changes are not about survival, they are surely about growth, competitiveness and investment, as we expressed in earlier debates.
Medium and large businesses may face particular challenges here. They may need to apply changes to specific segments of the workforce, not the entire business, yet the Bill appears to treat the business as a whole, creating further uncertainty and limiting proportionate action.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain how the Government define business. The revised wording in this amendment, “could reasonably be expected”, better reflects how responsible employers assess risk and manage their operations. It would give them the legal certainty to act proactively to avoid crisis, rather than reactively once a crisis is already upon them. The existing wording could penalise businesses for prudent foresight, discouraging early intervention and increasing the likelihood of greater harm to jobs and continuity of business.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 113A of this group, which is a very minimalist amendment designed to deal with circumstances in which, for instance, the company needs to change its registered address. That does not in any way affect the employee, but in the current wording of the Bill it would constitute a variation of the contract, and if the employee refused it—they do not have to be reasonable in doing so—we have found ourselves in difficulties for no good reason. I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Hunt has been saying, but my amendment is just to try to avoid creating difficulties where there should be none.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 115 in my name, and I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register as set out in the previous group.
Employer businesses sometimes need to change, to adapt to the changes in the marketplace, to their customers’ needs, and sometimes to changes in society. Therefore, on occasions, employers need the ability to vary their employees’ contracts. This process should be done through consultation, negotiation and finally, agreement with their employees, at all times respecting the rights of those employees. I will quote from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s website, which refers to the current legislation:
“In exceptional circumstances, where there are genuine and pressing business needs and agreement cannot be reached, employers can sometimes be justified in unilaterally changing workers’ terms and conditions by terminating their contracts and re-hiring them on new terms and conditions”.
That comment and others that I have heard would suggest that the current legislation has been working, other than in exceptional circumstances and by some terrible employers. There will always be employers and people in society who will manipulate the law to their own advantage. This certainly was the case with the notorious P&O Ferries, which undertook an outrageous fire and replacement of their employees. Also, sometimes employers will certainly threaten employees with a fire and hire to gain advantage in negotiation. I recognise the value of unions and other employee organisations to assist and support employees when employers undertake varying contracts as a last resort.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately away today, on NATO business I believe. Tomorrow, no doubt, he will pore over today’s Hansard. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, will be available then. I cannot unsee the picture of him in a four-poster bed with the trade union man climbing aboard, and will have to try to explain down the telephone to my noble friend Lord Fox, “It was quite humorous”. We will see what happens with that tomorrow.
My noble friend Lord Fox’s concerns include his Amendments 116 and 121, which offer much-needed clarity and balance to the protections around contract variations and unfair dismissals. The issue of predatory fire and rehire, as seen in the widely condemned P&O Ferries case highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is an unacceptable, serious and pressing concern that employment legislation rightly needs to address now. No worker should be threatened with dismissal simply to impose worse terms and conditions on that person.
My noble friend Lord Fox’s proposals to exclude routine non-detrimental contract changes from triggering automatic unfair dismissal protections, as in Amendment 116, and to safeguard reasonable flexibility clauses expressly agreed in contracts, as in Amendment 121, would help ensure that protection against abuse is balanced with the practical realities that employees face. His further clarification in Amendments 117 and 122—that dismissals linked to redundancy with offers of suitable alternative employment and the lawful use of fixed-term contracts should not be unfairly restricted—rightly recognise that not all contract variations are harmful and that employees must be able to operate flexibly and fairly.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would facilitate contractual changes for financial organisations or workforce-related reasons. Although the intention is understandable, it is crucial that the Government provide clear guidance to ensure fair protection for workers, particularly those in smaller businesses. The approach to seasonal and variable-hour workers also requires careful consideration to safeguard their rights. We will return to that in a later group.
These amendments collectively illustrate the careful line that the Government must tread. Although it is crucial to clamp down on unfair and predatory fire-and-rehire tactics, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendments, we must equally recognise the legitimate need for flexibility and contract review in a changing economic landscape. I commend my noble friend’s amendments for their clarity and fairness in this regard, and encourage the Government to consider how best to incorporate these protections. At the same time, I urge the Committee to approach other proposed changes—as in Amendments 115 and 115A, which seek to clarify reasonable adjustments and productivity improvements—with a measured and practical mindset, to support both workers’ rights and sustainable business operations. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. This Government are absolutely clear that the use of unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices must end. Employers should not be able to impose contract changes through threats of dismissal, except in the most limited and justified circumstances. We recognise that, at times, businesses may need to restructure to survive and protect jobs. The legislation accounts for such cases where there is genuinely no alternative and a business faces immediate financial difficulty. Fire and rehire may be used, but only following a proper good-faith process, grounded in open dialogue and mutual understanding.
Let me begin by addressing Amendments 113ZA, 113B and 118 from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, Amendment 115 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 116, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. These amendments aim to exclude certain types of contract variations from the clause, such as those relating to terms other than pay, benefits, hours or location, or to allow changes made for good or operational reasons. When a change in contract is essential and the employee will otherwise become redundant—for example, due to a move in location—or where the changes are necessary to reflect a change in the law, the employer will still be able to explain to the employee when proposing these changes. However, such changes should always be a result of meaningful consultation. Employers and employees must reach mutual agreement, allowing both sides to understand and assess the impact of the proposed changes. Open dialogue is key.
I turn to Amendment 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 115. These propose broadening the permitted use of “fire and rehire” to include changes that are reasonably necessary to improve workforce productivity. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay. We are supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward. Alongside this and a new industrial strategy, the Bill will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.
The Government do not support these amendments. We believe this practice should be allowed only where an employer faces no reasonable alternative and is under imminent financial threat. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned what happens if a company is facing insolvency. I am sure most noble Lords know that insolvency does not come straight away. There is a whole process, and it is during this that consultation should happen between the employer and employee. When it comes to the last resort, when until and unless something happens the company is going to go belly-up, there may be a practice of “fire and rehire”, but before that, there should be consultation along the way.
These amendments would significantly widen the exemption and make it necessary for employers to use “fire and rehire”. That is not our intention. While businesses can still agree changes to boost productivity, such changes must come through proper negotiation, not coercion, as I just mentioned.
I now turn to Amendment 119, also from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which proposes allowing “fire and rehire” if the changes are reasonable and supported by a majority of affected employees. This issue here is subjective. What is reasonable for one employee may be deeply unreasonable for another. Our goal is to protect individual rights. Clause 26 is designed to reduce the use of “fire and rehire” as a means to push through significant changes without individual consent.
I will address Amendments 117 and 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. They focus on whether dismissals for redundancy or the end of a fixed-term contract should be considered automatically unfair under Clause 26. The Government’s position is that, where a role is no longer viable under current terms, employers should follow due process, including meaningful consultation to seek agreement to vary contracts. If employees do not agree, and if the employer no longer requires the work to be done, redundancy may still be appropriate. In such cases, redundancy procedures must be followed, including consideration of alternative roles. Where the principal reason for a dismissal is redundancy, the dismissal will not be automatically unfair under Clause 26.
Now I turn to Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which concerns variation clauses in employment contracts. I wish to reassure the House that existing case law already governs the enforceability of such clauses. This clause applies only where there has been a dismissal, and so would not apply where a lawful variation clause has been lawfully exercised. Courts and tribunals will not uphold variation clauses if they are oppressive and exercised unreasonably. This amendment is therefore unnecessary as a legal protection already exists.
I now turn to Amendments 120A and 120B, which relate to the factors a tribunal should consider when assessing the fairness of a dismissal under the clause exemption. It is appropriate that tribunals should consider where the employer offered the employee something in exchange for agreed-to changes. Fair contract variation should be built on dialogue, not pressure. It is right that the Secretary of State should have the power to specify additional relevant factors for tribunals to consider in future. These regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, Amendment 113 from the noble Lord, Lucas, seeks to limit the clause to only substantial contract changes. We reject that. Even minor-seeming changes can have major consequences for individual employees. Individuals must be allowed to consider proposed changes without facing dismissal threats. That principle underpins the clause.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I have a feeling that although the Minister was doing his best, he was reading from a script that had been drafted before this debate took place. I listened to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Goddard of Stockport. They were just giving ordinary examples that need clarity. We did not get from the Minister a clear exposition of how, in those individual cases instanced by colleagues in the debate, they could prevent the Minister’s overall objective. We all agree with him that we have to try to prevent the sort of situation that arose, which we all condemned, ever happening again. But do not let it be so wide that it will stop just minor organisational changes.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The principle here is that we have to consult with employees before the final resort. Fire and rehire should be the final resort and remedy. Before we even reach that, the whole process of consultation and sitting down and finding a solution should be an underpinning principle.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I think we are all in agreement, except that the Bill goes too far. For a minor change of address when a company moves offices to be caught by all this in the way that we have exemplified—I think we need greater clarity. But, of course, the hour is late and I do not want to prolong the debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.