Tuesday 3rd June 2025
(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VI(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Sixth Marshalled List) - (3 Jun 2025)
“Prohibition of unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) “No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons participating in a scheme designed to provide work experience for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.””(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert— “41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking work experience(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to a person undertaking work experience with the same employer for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months, beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking such work experience who has ceased to be of compulsory school age, but has not attained the age of 26, is eligible to receive the national minimum wage at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (Meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.), and also includes any organisation which provides an individual with work experience;“work experience” means observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation, industry or work-related activity.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that unpaid work experience cannot be used to avoid National Minimum Wage regulations.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whose amendment this is, has waited and waited to be able to debate it, but now, when the big moment arrives, he is prevented from taking his place in the Chamber by an unbreakable commitment—so the Committee has me.
This amendment is an attempt to address the wretched, exploitative workplace faced by far too many people wanting to enter work. It attempts to create a new definition of “work experience”, which would ensure that participants are educated, and not exploited, as they attempt to join the workforce. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it is important for new entrants to spend time in a workplace, finding out whether they like the work environment and, even better, whether they are seen as a possible fit for the company.
Much energy has been spent focusing on how to get young people, and people returning to employment, back into the workplace. I am glad that there has been reform and improvement to the apprenticeship schemes, but that is for those who want training in a specific sector. However, many people do not know what they want to do and, for them, internships have been a way to discover whether they can engage with a particular industry and whether it can engage with them. Unfortunately, so many of these internships have turned out to be exploitative.
I have worked in the creative industries all my career, so I have first-hand experience of young people coming in to find out about the industry, only to discover that they are expected to work for either no pay or well below the minimum wage. This is happening not just in the creative industries but across the economy. I have been told about a strengthening coach, working for a major professional sporting body, who was initially on a short-term internship, which became a two-year, daily commitment. During all that time, he was not paid. He loved what he was doing so was afraid to ask for payment and was forced to take a second job to sustain himself.
Internships are essential, and they are covered by the National Minimum Wage Act, so any intern who qualifies as a worker, under the criteria laid out in the Act, should be paid. A new survey by the broadcasting union BECTU reveals that 49% of people joining the creative industries have been pressurised to work for free. In their desperation to get into this competitive industry, many succumb and work for free. The highly respected Sutton Trust found last year that 61% of internships undertaken by recent graduates were underpaid or unpaid. The largest percentage of these jobs are in the south-east, where accommodation is notoriously expensive. It means that those people from the regions and nations, or from more socially disadvantaged families, who cannot afford the accommodation, are prevented from taking up those places. For a Government who are determined and dedicated to getting people into work in well-paid jobs, this is a failure that must be rectified rapidly. Social mobility realises the talent of the whole population; it is the only way to ensure that our nation succeeds economically.
The body charged with enforcing the minimum wage Act is HMRC. Part of the problem is that if the intern is not paid, they do not appear on HMRC’s radar. This is not helped by the fact that so many small companies do not have anybody focusing on personnel issues and, even when they have an HR department, surveys show they are not well enough informed about the law. I ask the Minister: how many prosecutions against employers have there been under the National Minimum Wage Act for unpaid internships?
Amendment 129 is an attempt to sort out the complicated and often exploitative system for those trying to get into the job market. It is crucial to ensure that there is a difference in law between interns, who should be paid, and those undertaking work experience, who should not. Proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment sets out a new legal concept of “work experience”, defined by
“observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation … or work-related activity”.
The most important criterion for what constitutes work experience is that it is voluntary, and participants are not under the control of anyone else. It has to be a learning experience, and must ensure that participants are shadowing and not actually doing the job. Work experience is already part of many T-level courses for young people. Some universities facilitate work experience, but not nearly enough of these places are available. It is a crucial pathway into work life. At a time when we are hearing of so many people who are out of the workforce, it is important that this stage of their career is clearly established and legally defined.
I am pleased that the amendment has a time limit on what counts as work experience. A maximum of four weeks seems like a good duration. It would allow the participant sufficient time to get a grip on what happens in a specific workplace and to decide whether they want to embark on a career there, but, in my view, is not enough time for them to become established as an unpaid intern. So many underpaid or unpaid internships carry on for many more than four weeks, and this amendment would ensure that that does not happen.
The highly respected Sutton Trust says that access to the workplace is a central obstacle to social mobility. I beg the Government to take the suggestion in this proposed new clause seriously. I ask the Minister to examine it as part of a possible solution to the crisis facing new entrants to the creative and other industries. I hope your Lordships will discuss this further when the Committee gets to my noble friend Lord Clancarty’s Amendments 286 and 287 on establishing a freelance commissioner.
Meanwhile, this amendment is focused on the many thousands of young people who want to get into work but do not know what they want to do. If the Government take up the work experience category laid out in this amendment, it will give those people a taste of the workplace, which is crucial to engaging them and crucial to getting them engaged in the job market. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, as somebody with long experience of campaigning against unpaid internships, I have a huge amount of sympathy with the motivation behind this amendment.
Certainly, it is true that a key reflection of the reversal of social mobility in this country has been the growth of unpaid internships. It started with the creative industries, where, in the past, a young person from a working-class background used to be able to start as a runner in broadcasting, or as a cub reporter on their local newspaper, and then found their path to national newspapers or progression within broadcasting blocked by the parachuting in of very often young people from wealthy backgrounds, often to senior positions, on an unpaid internship that nobody from a working-class background could afford to take. It costs thousands of pounds, particularly if the position is located in London and you do not live in London. I absolutely agree that unpaid internships have been a block and a major barrier to young working-class people’s progression.
My concern is that, from my perspective, the problem is not the law but the enforcement of the law. As trade unions, we have campaigned to get HMRC to take this seriously. There was a flurry of action around cracking down on unpaid internships, but, since Covid in particular, there has been an uptick—you have only to scan any recruitment agency website and you will see that they are brazenly advertising unpaid internships that lock young working-class people out of the professions, and doing so in flagrant abuse of the law.
Sadly, I cannot support this amendment. I fear that bad employers would be able to offer rolling unpaid internships, shoving young people through a revolving door of not getting paid as they are entitled to be for the productive work that they do. They should be paid at least the national minimum wage. What I would support is the proposed fair work agency launching a major crackdown on young people being robbed of their dreams and opportunities through the exploitative practice of unpaid internships.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 129, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, ably articulated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I also have some sympathy with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on the matter.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for tabling this amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, with his perspective from the creative industries, for introducing it so well.
This amendment highlights an important issue: ensuring that work experience opportunities do not become a means to circumvent minimum wage regulations, thereby protecting young people and others seeking to gain valuable experience in the labour market. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, noted, it is important to recognise that many charities, non-profit organisations and others rely to some extent on unpaid work experience placements, partly to deliver their valuable services but also to provide opportunities for individuals who might otherwise struggle to enter the workforce. We must acknowledge that many young people who leave education not knowing what they want to do, as the noble Viscount noted, find them a useful way of testing various sectors. The practical impact of this amendment on such organisations merits careful consideration to ensure that their ability to provide meaningful work experience is not unduly restricted, while maintaining fair treatment for those undertaking such experience.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but focused and interesting debate. I too regret that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, was unable to attend; with my Whip’s hat on, I note that perhaps if we had made better progress on earlier days of Committee then we would have heard from him directly. I pay tribute to him for tabling Amendment 129, which seeks to prohibit unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for stepping into the breach and making a more than worthy understudy in moving the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for contributing to this debate. This is an important issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others are right to raise it. I pay tribute on the record to his previous work campaigning on this issue, not least through his Private Member’s Bill in the 2017-19 Session.
This Government made a commitment to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This includes tackling unfair working practices. As we heard from the noble Viscount, there are examples not simply in the creative sector—although that area of our economy is rife with them—but beyond it. This Government absolutely stand by the national minimum wage, and on 1 April delivered an increase of 16.3% to the 18 to 20 national minimum wage rate to make it £10 an hour—a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, making progress on closing the gap with the national living wage. This is an increase of £2,500 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the NMW. It was the first step in the Government’s plans to remove the discriminatory age bands and ensure that all adults benefit from a genuine living wage, making a real difference to young people.
I think it is worth saying in passing that we welcome, on this side of the House at least, the Conservative Party’s conversion in recent years to supporting the national minimum wage. However, as a member of the party that introduced it in the first place, in the teeth of some quite vehement opposition at the time, I assure noble Lords that this Labour Government are absolutely committed to supporting it and making sure that it applies in all cases where it should.
Work experience or internships can offer individuals, especially younger people, invaluable opportunities and experience. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities, but we do want to ensure that they are open and fair. Most importantly, where workers are due payment, they should be paid the wages they are entitled to, and I have to say that the current legislation already protects them.
As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway—to whose years of campaigning in this area, through the TUC, I pay tribute—said, there is an aspect of this amendment, very well-intentioned though it is, that would create unintended consequences and raises the spectre of, as she put it, rolling internships of four weeks, on and on.
As we know, according to the Department for Education’s 2022 employer skills survey, around 5% of employers had offered internships, either paid or unpaid, in the preceding 12 months, and there were around 200,000 people on internships. The vast majority of these—88%—were of two weeks or more in duration, and nearly 30% were over six months. It is only right that these people should be paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.
As we have heard, the national minimum wage legislation provides for a number of exemptions to recognise the importance of gaining work experience. It is important to recognise that these examples have a strong and firm place in the economy, including students on placements for up to one year, as required as part of a UK course of either further or higher education, pupils below the compulsory school age, participants in certain government programmes to provide training, work experience or temporary work, and—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, made this point—voluntary workers employed by a charity or voluntary organisation, providing they receive no monetary payments, except for expenses.
The Government are committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of an educational or training course. Because of the way legislation is drafted, they are already largely banned. For national minimum wage purposes, the crucial fact is whether someone is considered a worker due to the nature of the work they do. Employers cannot simply call someone an intern or say they are doing work experience and not pay them. What matters is whether the arrangement they have makes them a worker for minimum wage purposes. However, one valid exception is work shadowing, which is where individuals are observing others perform tasks and are not performing any work themselves.
There is a risk that the broad-brush nature of this amendment could create loopholes, leaving interns or individuals on work experience open to abuse. Where an intern is carrying out tasks, they are a worker and therefore entitled to the national minimum wage. Accepting the amendment could mean that these individuals could be recruited for short-term roles and lose their entitlement to the minimum wage, even if they are performing work. The Government will be consulting on this issue soon. We want to engage with businesses and individuals who carry out internships or work experience. This is how we introduce change to ensure that individuals are protected and treated fairly.
We have heard from both the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady that enforcement is the issue here. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked about the number of prosecutions. I am afraid I do not have that number to hand, but I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Viscount. Enforcement of any law is important, and I am sure that part of the consultation will cover issues of enforcement. Creating more laws but not solving the problem of enforcement would not actually get to the heart of the issue, which is making sure that, when people work, they are paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.
In that vein, I hope that we can deal with the issues the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address most effectively outside the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw Amendment 129.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate and I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed. I listened very hard to the comments from both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on making sure that we enforce the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage has been in force since, I think, 1998. That is a long time for it not to be enforced, and it includes a time when there was a Labour Government. I very much hope that this will be an extra nudge to make sure that it is enforced and HMRC is given very direct instructions to make sure it happens. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the lack of enforcement is very deleterious to getting working class people into work.
On the noble Baroness’s and the Minister’s concern about it creating a revolving door, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of us to work out that, after you have done your four weeks of work experience, you are not allowed to go back or to stay—that is why we have a four-week block. It is useful to carve out a particular role for people who are there just for educational or work experience reasons, which is quite separate from being an intern.
I hope very much that the Minister and the Government will take on board this amendment and these thoughts as they contribute to the effort to stamp out unfair work practices. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Right of refusal to undertake instructions which would lead to inaccessible goods or services(1) A worker has the right to refuse an instruction or direction from his employer or anyone acting for his employer such as a manager which would—(a) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the creation, development, deployment or sale of an inaccessible good or service,(b) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the development, deployment or sale of a good or service, previously accessible, made inaccessible as a result of this instruction.(2) Any worker receiving such an instruction described in subsection (1) may report the nature of that instruction and their reason for refusing it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we have already heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond cannot be with us today, so I will move his amendment on his behalf and speak to the others in this group. In doing so, I declare a past interest as a consultant to the Royal National Institute of Blind People. For many years, I worked with Ian Bruce CBE, who was the director-general for many years, to promote access to work for those suffering blindness. That is particularly relevant to Amendment 297, but I will speak first to Amendment 131.
Amendment 131 raises important questions about accessibility, accountability and the role of workers in upholding inclusive standards in the goods and services we create and deliver. The principle at the heart of this proposal—that workers should not be compelled to participate in making a product or service less accessible or in producing something that excludes by design—is serious and worthy. As technology and infrastructure continue to evolve, ensuring access for all, including people with a disability, is a matter not merely of compliance but of basic fairness and social responsibility. The amendment seeks to give workers a right of refusal where they are being asked to carry out work that would knowingly—that is, knowingly to them—result in the development or sale of inaccessible goods or services. It also establishes a route for reporting such an event to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I can certainly see the intent here to empower those on the front lines of design and delivery to raise concerns and to prevent regressions in accessibility. There are of course many questions about how this would operate in practice, particularly around definitions, scope and the safeguards needed to ensure clarity and fairness for both workers and employers. These are not reasons to dismiss the amendment, but they suggest that further discussion may be needed around implementation, enforcement and the supporting mechanisms that would then make such a right meaningful and workable.
We all have a role to play in embedding accessibility into our systems and structures. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will engage with the substance of the proposal and give thought to how the principle behind it might be taken forward, whether through this amendment or through other means.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 131, 297 and 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, so movingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Each of these amendments seeks to address long-standing inequalities that disabled people continue to face, particularly in the context of work and access to goods and services. Amendment 131 raises the important principle that workers should not be compelled to contribute to the development or sale of products that are knowingly inaccessible—which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised. I hope that the Government, through the Department for Business and Trade, will publish clear guidance on what constitutes inaccessible products and services. Such guidance is needed. It would be invaluable in informing decision-making for businesses and helping workers recognise when they may be asked to contribute to the creation or sale of goods that fail to meet accessibility standards.
Amendment 297, meanwhile, calls for a royal commission. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, I veer towards saying that we do need something formal such as a royal commission to investigate the persistently low employment levels among blind and sight-impaired people, a disparity that deserves serious attention. The questions that these amendments raise are valid and warrant a considered response from the Government.
I am also interested in the reasoning behind Amendment 314, which calls for a programme and timeline to develop an action plan aimed at closing the disability gap. Recent research from the TUC revealed that the disability gap stood at a staggering 17.2% in 2024, which was an increase on the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from 2023. The same figures do not reoccur every year—they are going up—and these figures show that. The amendment represents a measured and practical approach, reflecting a growing consensus on the need for greater transparency and accountability in tackling workplace inequality.
Even if the Government are, unsurprisingly, not minded to accept the amendments in their current form, I hope that Ministers will consider how their intent may be taken forward through alternative means—and there can be alternative means. These are not radical demands but thoughtful suggestions for achieving progress in areas where it is long overdue. I hope that the Government’s heart will be in favour of the reasoning behind these amendments, and that we can all work together towards bringing the legislation into line with what our conscience is saying.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his amendments in this group, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for introducing them on his behalf. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his contribution.
There is no doubt that those with disabilities, including blind and partially sighted people, face different challenges in the workplace, and the more we can do to increase awareness and representation in the workplace for these people and these groups, the better. We must also recognise that for many disabled people, the challenges begin long before a job interview. Structural barriers, from education and training to transport and technology, can compound over time and create a labour market that is harder to enter and harder to stay in. If legislation can help remove those barriers and create conditions for more equitable access to work, it is our responsibility to act.
It is also important that employers are supported and not penalised, so legislation should provide clarity and encourage inclusive practices. It should offer the right incentives and should not raise the cost or the perceived risk of hiring somebody who may already face disadvantage. Unfortunately, some elements of current legislation do just that.
I hope that the Government and the Minister listened to the concerns that were so well articulated by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. These are not radical demands, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, and I hope the Government will address them.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving Amendment 131 and speaking to Amendments 297 and 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I go back a long, long way. When I was in the T&G, he was frequently instructed by my union to defend workers, so I appreciate that he is absolutely on the right side of this agenda.
Of course, this is an issue that we have been debating for a very long time. I particularly pay tribute to the late Alf Morris, Lord Morris, who absolutely focused on this agenda and was responsible for the Disability Discrimination Act, which has been the foundation of all the other changes since then.
On Amendment 131, it is important to be clear that the Equality Act 2010 already places a duty on providers of goods, services and facilities, and persons exercising public functions, to make reasonable adjustments for disabled service users. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Great Britain’s national equality and human rights body, safeguards and enforces the laws that protect people’s rights to fairness, dignity and respect. In the context of this debate, it monitors and has powers to enforce the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination, harassment and victimisation in a variety of settings, including work. The commission has been active in monitoring disability equality, including as part of its regular comprehensive reviews of how Britain is performing on equality and human rights, as well as its work in monitoring compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The commission’s powers do not extend to monitoring the accessibility of manufactured goods or the development of services and, as such, it would not be able to respond to reporting of the kind suggested in the new clause. Therefore, the Government are unable to support the amendment.
Turning to Amendment 297, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking to this amendment and drawing attention to this important issue, and of course I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who has been a strong voice on this and recognise his contribution in championing the rights of blind and sight-impaired people. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can go back to the days when my union heavily supported the National League of the Blind and Disabled—a union that had been representing blind and disabled workers for nearly 100 years, certainly when we were engaged with it.
I agree that addressing the level of employment for blind and sight-impaired people is still an important issue, which is why we have a range of existing specialist initiatives in place to support individuals, including those who are blind and sight-impaired, to stay in work or get back to work. Our existing measures provide tailored support to disabled people more broadly and are designed to be flexible to meet the range of needs, including the needs of those who are blind and sight impaired. I repeat the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made: existing measures include work coaches and disability employment advisers in jobcentres —working with employers, absolutely right—and access to work grants, again to facilitate and support employers in doing this, as well as joining up health and employment support around individuals through employment advisers in NHS, talking therapies, individual placement and support in primary care, as well as WorkWell.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, who always responds positively to any suggestions that I make, particularly in the corridors of this House. I should have declared not only my long-standing work with the Royal National Institute of Blind People but the much-appreciated instructions that “Brother Hunt” used to receive in substantial form from the Transport and General Workers’ Union. I was delighted, when I was Secretary of State for Employment, to be invited to the retirement party of Mr Albert Blighton, who was much cherished by all those who worked so hard for him.
I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. We disagreed a little about royal commissions. I recall being told that they took minutes but wasted years—I think it was a previous Labour Prime Minister who said that. There is a problem in that, as soon as you set up a body, you are postponing the opportunity to make the key decisions that are necessary. I guess the Minister did recognise that in his response; we do need to move on. These statistics have been at a seriously low level for a long time, and we have to find a way to break through so that people with disability are much more widely recognised as people of great talent who can contribute to the growth and competitiveness that we all so desperately want to see.
I recognise that the Government have taken a number of initiatives, and I will consult with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond as we consider how to approach this issue on Report, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Independent advisers(1) Section 288 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (restriction on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (4)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (4B) insert—“(4BA) In subsection (4)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (4BB).(4BB) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(4BC) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4BB) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(2) Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (restrictions on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (3A)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (4) insert—“(4A) In subsection (3A)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (4B).(4B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(4C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (4B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(3) Section 49 of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (restrictions on contracting out) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (5)(c) insert—“(ca) if they are a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and have been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (7) insert—“(7A) In subsection (5)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (7B).(7B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(7C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(4) Section 58 of the Pensions Act 2008 (restrictions on agreements to limit operation) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (6)(c) insert—“(ca) is a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body and has been certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice, or”;(b) after subsection (8) insert—“(8A) In subsection (6)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (8B).(8B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(8C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”(5) Section 147 of the Equality Act 2010 (qualifying settlement agreement) is amended as follows—(a) after subsection (4)(c) insert—“(ca) a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or other Professional Body certified in writing by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development or, as the case may be, other Professional Body as competent to give advice;”;(b) after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) In subsection (4)(ca) “Professional Body” means any organisation which is authorised by a regulation made by the Secretary of State pursuant to subsection (6B).(6B) The Secretary of State may make a regulation or regulations authorising any organisation as a Professional Body for the purposes of this section.(6C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (6B) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.””Member's explanatory statement
This clause expands the independent advisers who may advise employees and workers on a settlement agreement.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 132 as a probing amendment to highlight some of the concerns from the perspective of small businesses. Amendment 137, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, may perhaps be a different side of the same coin. I refer the House to my register of interests.
The intention behind the amendment is to explore the scope of possible options for better supporting both employees and employers, particularly small employers, who often lack access to in-house HR support, legal expertise or representation from trade unions. This legislation rightly seeks to strengthen workplace protections, and with that comes the need to ensure that small employers are equipped to meet their responsibilities fairly and confidently without being overwhelmed.
A one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the structural disadvantages that many small businesses face in navigating employment disputes or resolving workplace issues informally. One concern in this context is the potential for so-called ambulance chasing. I use the phrase cautiously, but it reflects a genuine anxiety among small employers. In the absence of good advice or proper guidance, a small employer may feel compelled to settle a claim, not based on merit, but because the cost, stress and complexity of the legal process makes fighting it feel simply unviable. That can undermine confidence in the system for everyone.
The aim behind the amendment is to consider how we might increase the availability of qualified independent advisers—professionals who can support employees in entering into a settlement agreement with full confidence and understanding, but in a way that is accessible, affordable and proportionate for small businesses too. This could help reduce the number of cases that unnecessarily escalate into formal litigation.
The presence of a well-informed independent adviser can give both parties clarity and reassurance. In such circumstances, access to credible professionals of the kind that organisations like the CIPD can recommend or help bring forward would seem both helpful and sensible. I fully acknowledge the concerns raised by colleagues on these Benches, particularly the risk of diluting the role of unions, especially in larger workplaces, where collective representation plays such an essential role. I value constructive conversations with colleagues and recognise the importance of safeguarding that voice and that function.
At the same time, I believe it important that the voice of business, particularly small business, is heard clearly from these Benches. Too often, the debate around employment rights can polarise into assumptions of employer versus employee or big business versus organised labour. But many of us bring experience from the front lines of running businesses that are small, community based and deeply invested in treating their staff fairly. It is essential that these perspectives are represented not to dilute rights but to ensure that they are designed in a way that is practical and sustainable and that supports good employment outcomes for all.
I also welcome the Government’s broad commitment to improving the enforcement system, including through proposals for the fair work agency and reforms to the tribunal process. These are important developments, and I hope that they lead to a more accessible and efficient workplace landscape for all parties.
Nevertheless, I believe that the specific issues raised here, particularly those that affect small and micro-businesses, merit further reflection. We know that many small employers genuinely want to do the right thing but, without access to the right structures or advice, they may find themselves exposed. That can have an effect on not just the business owner but employees, who may not get the resolution they deserve. Just as we rightly ensure that employees feel heard and protected, those of us with business experience also want to ensure that employers’ concerns are reflected, especially where they lack the infrastructure to manage complex processes alone.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment following the debate and the Minister’s response, but I hope that the reflections it prompts will help shape the implementation of the Bill in ways that are proportionate, inclusive and fair to businesses of all sizes, as well as to the people they employ. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 137 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, said, is probably the other side of the same coin.
My amendment seeks to expand the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. As it stands, the law allows workers to be accompanied by only a fellow employee or trade union representative. My Amendment 137—the other side of the coin—would broaden that right to include individuals certified by a recognised professional body as having relevant experience and training in supporting workers through such processes. It also provides for the Secretary of State to regulate which organisations may be authorised as professional bodies for this purpose to ensure that a proper standard is maintained.
At the heart of any disciplinary process is the need for transparency, fairness and due process. This is especially true in the workplace, where livelihoods and the professional reputations of individuals are at stake. Workers should never have to undergo the difficult procedures of disciplinary or grievance hearings alone. The presence of a colleague, union representative or other chosen companion ensures that employees not only are supported but have a safeguard against any unfair treatment or misunderstandings during the process. Not every individual is able to cope with this on their own. Some may well do, but they will need some help.
In fact, the presence of a properly trained professional companion is often the difference between an employee being able to make their case cogently or being denied a fair hearing. The law currently goes some way towards recognising this, but I am afraid that it is increasingly inadequate for the 21st century.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise with the soothing balm of cross-party collaboration to support the excellent amendments put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. I declare at the outset an interest as a member for more than 20 years of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, an estimable professional body. More importantly, I have been made redundant twice. My experience of redundancy is that it is often a difficult and traumatic experience if you are working for a small company or if you are relatively new to the company. I certainly had a great deal of sustenance and support from my trade union representative in securing and expediting a reasonably successful outcome in what could have been a very difficult period financially for me in that situation—this is many years ago.
I think the benefit of these amendments is that they look from the perspective of the small employer in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, and from the employee’s perspective in the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I think that, for people who have, for various reasons, chosen not to join a trade union, it is important that not just anyone, not their mate from the pub, but a professional accredited person can accompany and support them in this.
Normally, I would not want to amend a Bill unnecessarily, but I genuinely think it would not be administratively and financially onerous for these amendments to be added to the Bill, and in fact they would improve it. I would not say they are cost free, but they would be important in saving potentially significant amounts of money if, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, has said, they would alleviate or ameliorate the possibility of an escalation to expensive litigation and an employment tribunal. Having an expert in the room with you can sometimes dissipate the anger, the frustration and the sense of a battle between two sides, and in that respect it is sensible.
For those reasons, with the proviso that I have experienced these issues myself, I think the amendments are sensible and I look to the Minister to give them due consideration. They would not add to the burden of businesses, and in the long term they would save significant amounts of money.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Amendments 132 and 137. Both of them seek to expand the list of organisations recognised in law to represent workers. Amendment 132 relates to representation in reaching settlement agreements, while Amendment 137 refers to representation in hearings at workplace disciplinary and grievance hearings.
At present, the law specifies that individuals can be supported by trade unions, fellow workers or, in respect of settlement agreements, lawyers or other qualified people from, for example, the respected network of citizens advice bureaux. Both amendments propose that the right to representation be extended to professional bodies specified by the Secretary of State, and Amendment 132 refers in particular to CIPD members. I have to say I am genuinely puzzled about which other professional bodies would wish to take on this new role.
In short, the law should rest where it stands. Workers should be represented, where they are present, by workers’ organisations—trade unions—that, where appropriate, can provide legal representation. The CIPD is widely respected as an organisation of HR professionals, but it essentially represents employers’ interests and would surely be conflicted if it were to take on this very different role.
I know my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley is motivated by a wish to ensure that people working in small and medium-sized businesses without trade union representation should have relevant expertise available to help resolve difficult workplace issues. I support that aspiration, but ACAS—which I chaired for six years, to declare an interest—has the responsibility and the independent, impartial expertise to conciliate in such matters, and a considerable track record of success in doing so. Far better to ensure that it has increased resources to provide this vital service in the interests of both parties in any such dispute, rather than muddying the water on the issue of who is competent and appropriate to represent workers. I hope that both these amendments will not be pressed.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it seems that, yet again, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and I are not going to quite agree. I support both these amendments, particularly the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.
I would like to look at the amendments from the point of view of the employee. When an employee finds themselves in a disciplinary or grievance hearing—we heard from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough earlier—it signifies a profound breakdown in their relationship with their employer. It is a moment fraught with stress, uncertainty and fear; one where an individual may feel their professional life is unravelling before them. They may question how they will continue to support their family, whether they can afford to remain in their home, and what their future may hold.
Large corporations, such as the one I work for, have the benefit of HR departments to guide them through such proceedings, ensuring that their position is well-organised and profoundly represented. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to make people redundant; it is not fun, even with HR beside you, but they had nobody. In smaller companies, personal relationships between employer and employee can add an additional layer of complexity to the situation. In either case, the individual facing the hearing is often isolated, and struggling to recollect past events and present their case clearly.
These amendments, particularly Amendment 137, propose a fair and practical position: the right to have the assistance of a certified individual—someone equipped to review the facts dispassionately, organise events in logical sequence and provide the employee with a much-needed sense of reassurance. As we have heard, the trade unions already fulfil this role, particularly in large companies. However, many employees, myself included, choose not to join a union for a variety of personal reasons. The absence of union membership should not mean a lack of support in such critical moments. This amendment would ensure that every employee, regardless of union affiliation, has access to a certified individual who may provide guidance when facing disciplinary proceedings, fostering a fairer and more balanced process. For this reason, I support these amendments to uphold the right of fairness in our workplaces.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing their Amendments 132 and 137.
As has been said, not all workers have or want access to a union representative. In fact, the latest statistics that I have from the Department for Business and Trade suggest that only 22% of all employees are unionised. Not all workers have access to or can afford legal advice, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, pointed out, those in smaller workplaces or those performing more precarious roles. Allowing trained, certified HR professionals to provide advice could help ensure that more employees are supported when making important decisions about their rights.
It is important to recognise the valuable support already available through organisations such as ACAS—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barber—citizens advice bureaux and others, which provide free and impartial advice. This amendment complements those services by seeking to expand the range of qualified advisers accessible to workers. The principle of widening access to competent support is a reasonable one, especially where safeguards are in place through certification by recognised professional bodies. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, if nothing else, that ought to serve to ease pressure on employment rights tribunals, which, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Committee, are stretched to breaking point.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, that that was a classic case of the TUC advocating for a closed shop, and I applaud him for that. However, not so many employees are now members of trade unions, as I have pointed out, and the majority of trade union members are in the public sector.
The question of genuine independence will be critical, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that. I would also say, perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that, without wishing to quibble too much with his amendment, I think that as currently written it gives the Secretary of State rather too much discretion in determining what is a professional body. If he wants to have a think about that, I am available for a chat.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Before I turn to the amendments, may I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a speedy recovery? I am just sorry that he was not cast in the next “Mission: Impossible”. I wish him a speedy recovery and return to the Committee, as we miss him here as well.
I turn to Amendments 132 and 137. Amendment 132, tabled by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, seeks to expand the scope of independent advisers who can advise individuals entering into settlement agreements. Settlement agreements in this context are a way in which employers and workers can settle potential claims. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, had such a great experience with his trade union rep and got a really fair settlement. I hope he was pleased with that experience.
However, it is important that individuals understand the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and its effect on their ability to pursue claims in an employment tribunal. That is why legislation requires individuals to receive advice from a relevant independent adviser. Legislation outlines a range of advisers that can be used, including qualified lawyers and authorised officers of an independent trade union.
My noble friend’s amendment would expand the list of relevant independent advisers to include a certified member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, an association of human resources professionals. This amendment would also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to include other professional bodies whose members would also be capable of giving advice.
While I understand that my noble friend has put forward this amendment on behalf of the CIPD, we believe current arrangements are working well and strike the right balance. I appreciate my noble friend’s passion and thank him for his contribution to this debate. We are happy to engage further on this issue at another time, but we do not think this amendment is required.
I now turn to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, which seeks to expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings, as supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe. The law already provides that, when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary or grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion in disciplinary or grievance hearings. Employers can now allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed earlier —for instance, a professional support body, a partner, a spouse or a legal representative.
The current law seeks to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces, given that they are one of the initial steps in resolving tensions in a worker-employer relationship. Expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at disciplinary and grievance meetings could lead to these hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. This would therefore increase the costs of these hearings and reduce the chances of an amicable outcome. In addition to introducing legal expertise at these hearings, it could also reduce the likelihood of ACAS conciliation or mediation as the next step to resolve a dispute, as legal arguments will have already been made during an internal hearing. This could increase the likelihood of a tribunal claim being made. An amicable solution is, therefore, the fastest way to justice, as set out by my noble friend Lord Barber.
It is unclear where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces would benefit. There are, of course, certain organisations, such as those that provide casework and legal services, that would benefit. But, as I have already set out, should an employer wish to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers, they can set this out in the terms and conditions of their workplace.
I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 132.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important debate. I appreciate that my amendment may seem controversial to some, not to mention unfeasibly long, but I believe it is vital that the voices of all in the workplace are heard. I am pleased that they have been today. I emphasise that small employers are just as committed to their workforce as larger firms, and they want to attract and retain the best people too. This Bill is, in my view, both pro-worker and pro-business, and we should keep all sides in mind when we shape its final form.
I particularly appreciate the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I reassure him that I do not raise this amendment in the spirit of confrontation, as I am sure he knows, and I am sure these are conversations that we will continue. I know that we both want to achieve the best for all workers. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Impact on farm businessesWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act on farm businesses in the United Kingdom.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 133 in my name.
I have to start by saying that the family farm tax introduced by this Government is a disastrous policy. According to the NFU, it has put 200,000 jobs at risk—a staggering number that should have stopped Ministers in their tracks. I am disappointed to see noble Lords opposite are laughing at that number. A recent economic report on the combined effect of these measures lays the facts bare. It estimates the direct cost to the Treasury at £1.9 billion by 2030, stemming from lost tax revenues and increased benefit claims due to job losses and reduced productivity. More than 60% of farmers are expected to cut investment by over 20%, choking off future growth and innovation. The cost to the wider economy will be staggering—a staggering £14.8 billion blow to gross value added, all for the sake of political posturing masquerading as employment reform. The effect on food security alone could be catastrophic.
I must also highlight a concern that has been brought to light by recent tragic events and official responses, and that is the case of a farmer who took his own life just before the Government’s Budget, which is a heartbreaking example of the immense pressures our rural communities face. These pressures are exacerbated by the looming inheritance tax changes that threaten the very future of family farms.
Despite the seriousness of this issue, the official statistics on farmer, landowner and family business owner suicides are woefully inadequate. There is a significant delay, often of years, before accurate data is published. This delay means we will not see reliable figures for suicides in 2026 until 2028 or later, and that is simply unacceptable. Without timely, detailed data, broken down by occupation, policymakers cannot fully understand the human cost of these policies. Would the Minister acknowledge the urgent need for this and commit to working with the Office for National Statistics and other relevant bodies to improve the frequency and detail of suicide data by occupation, particularly for farmers and rural workers, so that we can properly address and understand this crisis without delay?
Turning to this legislation, it represents a further devastating blow to British agriculture. This Bill introduces unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment without a shred of evidence that it is workable in sectors such as farming. The extension of unfair dismissal protections from two years to day one of employment is being pushed forward with no clear guidance, no transitional arrangements and no defined probationary period. There is only speculation, and speculation is not a legal framework.
The Minister will say that this is currently being consulted on, but in the meantime farms are exposed. Every hiring decision becomes a legal and financial gamble. If a worker turns out to be unsuitable, which can happen quickly in physically demanding and safety-critical environments, the employer may be already too late to act without risking litigation. In farming, where work is seasonal, strenuous and sometimes requires immediate action, farms cannot afford to spend months navigating HR processes. They cannot afford legal exposure every time a hire does not work out, and that is exactly what Bill sets out.
Then there is the matter of zero-hours contracts. This Government, in their detachment from rural life, believe that these contracts are exploitative, but on farms they are essential. Harvests do not run on clocks, and weather does not obey timetables. Labour demand swings sharply: one week it is quiet, and the next week it is all hands on deck. Therefore, flexibility is all. Without zero-hours contracts, many farms simply cannot function, so replacing them with rigid guaranteed-hours contracts is not just unrealistic but destructive. The Bill would force the farmers to guess months in advance how many workers they will need—or pay the price when nature does not co-operate.
Rural employers, particularly farms and estates, rely heavily on seasonal and zero-hour staff to meet unpredictable and time-sensitive labour demands. That is not a loophole but a necessity born of reality. But the Bill introduces a new legal obligation that completely fails to take account of how agriculture works. Under the proposals in Part 1, if a casual worker ends up working a regular pattern—say, 20 hours a week over a few months—the employer will be legally required to offer a guaranteed-hours contract reflecting that pattern. That will fundamentally alter the nature of seasonal hiring.
Instead of flexibility, farmers will be locked into fixed commitments, which mean guaranteed pay even if the work disappears. In farming, it often does: crops cannot be harvested in a thunderstorm, livestock routines change, and machinery breaks down. Labour needs fluctuate by the day and employers have to adapt. The Bill removes that option, forcing them to guarantee wages based on past patterns and not future needs, and the result of that inevitably will be higher staffing costs, less flexibility and more legal risk. Farmers will no longer be able to adjust hours week to week based on workload and may instead reduce hours across the board, or simply hire fewer workers to avoid triggering these new obligations. That is not security for workers; that is lost opportunity.
Then we come to flexible working—another ideological insertion into a sector where it simply cannot apply. The Bill increases the burden on employers to justify denying flexible working requests. But who in this Committee honestly believes that lambing can be done from home or that dairy herds can be milked on a four-day week? Farming needs people physically present on time and able to adapt to sudden changes. This measure will destroy farms and open the floodgates to legal claims, rather than improve their working conditions.
I turn to another deeply flawed proposal in the Bill: the changes to statutory sick pay, which will hit farm businesses with immediate and unsustainable costs. Under the current system, employees are entitled to SSP only after three consecutive days of sickness absence. That allows employers, especially small family farms, to absorb short-term minor absences without being penalised for every cold, sprain or missed morning. The Bill proposes to remove that protection entirely, and statutory sick pay will become payable from day one of absence. For most farms, this is not just a technical change but a fundamental shift in financial exposure.
Agricultural work is physically demanding, often outdoors and highly seasonal. Casual absences are common and often unavoidable. But, under the Bill, every single one of those absences now comes with an automatic cost from the very first missed shift. Under the current rules, if a farmhand calls in sick on Monday and is back by Wednesday, the farmer pays nothing. Under the Bill, the employer must pay statutory sick pay from day one. Multiply that by three or four casual workers, each with intermittent absences through lambing or harvest, and you have a significant unpredictable cost burden for a farm with already razor-thin margins.
It does not stop there: the Bill also proposes to reduce the lower earnings limit—currently £123 per week—meaning that even fewer workers on minimal-hours or short-term seasonal contracts will now be eligible for sick pay. These are precisely the workers whom farms hire during calving, lambing, crop picking and harvest, often working flexibly as needed. Under this system, a farm might be required to pay sick leave to a casual labourer who worked only a handful of hours the week before and might not be scheduled for any in the week ahead—that is not financial protection.
Farmers are also now expected to put in place formal absence tracking and management systems. That means logging each instance of sickness, reviewing attendance histories, holding review meetings, drafting improvement plans and, if things do not improve, potentially going through a formal dismissal process. If that were not enough, we now face the proposed cancellation payments. Farms will be penalised for calling off shifts at short notice, even when the reason is pouring rain or a late-season frost. These changes will force employers to choose between operating at a loss and paying people not to work, and in what rational universe is that considered progress?
The Bill, particularly Part 1, is not reform but sabotage. Amendment 133 is therefore essential. It does not block the Bill or repeal any of its measures; it simply demands what the Government have utterly failed to do, which is to deliver a detailed impact assessment of how these reckless changes would affect UK farm businesses. If the Bill proceeds unexamined, the consequences will not be theoretical: more farms will close, more jobs will disappear, and rural economies will contract. The very people this Government claim to support—working families, small businesses and so on—will be left to pick up the pieces. I reiterate my point about the necessity of food security in troubled times.
If the Government have nothing to hide, they should have no objection to analysing the impacts of this legislation on farm businesses, and they should accept Amendment 133. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I hope the Minister listened with great care to what my noble friend said. I declare an interest as a partner in a small farm. I was walking the fields only yesterday, looking at the disastrous effects of the fact that we have had practically no rain. It is not much more than a year ago that I had to look at the disastrous effects of having too much rain. We are an organic farm, and therefore we have looked after the soil very carefully and suffered less than others during that period. But many farmers were not able to get a harvest or plant because the weather was so bad, and they therefore lost two years.
I believe that we have a real problem of diversity here. We often talk about diversity as if it is about race or ethnic minority, but it is so interesting that no member of the current Cabinet represents a rural constituency or is, as far as I can discover, a country person at all. There are 9 million people who live in the countryside and who are hardly represented at all. To be perfectly fair, the shadow Cabinet does not have, as far as I can find out, anybody who is a country person of the sort we are talking about. This is something that has happened to our society, and we who are country people find it extremely difficult. Therefore, I want to say to the Minister, who is known for his generosity, that it is crucial for this Government to show that they are listening to and thinking about this section of the community.
The seat that I once represented is now represented by a Labour Member. She must find it very difficult to appeal to many of the people who voted for her because it does not appear that the Government whom she supports have really understood how the countryside works—in other words, what agriculture is. I could, of course, make a great statement about the terrible situation of the IHT changes, which were rather peculiar given that no previous Labour Chancellor has ever thought them a good idea. I could make all those arguments, but I want to tone down what I might have said to one single concept: Governments can get the support of the nation only if the nation feels that they understand it—not just bits but the whole of it. The introducer of the previous amendment, who I am afraid is just leaving—I was going to be polite about it—rightly talked about the Bill having to represents both sides of industry. I ask that the Bill also represents different parts of industry, and one of those parts is the rural agricultural scene. My concern is that this has not been looked at through the eyes of the countryside.
It may be that, when the Government do that, they do not want to make any changes, but it does not seem possible for the Government to convince people that those changes are not necessary unless they have done what Amendment 133 asks them to do. All we ask is that the Government look in detail at the effect of the Bill on the agricultural industry.
In ending, I want to say something true and really serious. We are entering a period in which food security will be crucial. Climate change means that we will have less and less opportunity to import from wide areas of the world. I remember, when I was Minister of Agriculture, being interviewed by the cleverest man in Europe, Peter Jay, who said, “We don’t need a Minister of Agriculture because we’ll always be able to import food from somewhere else”. How madly wrong that was. Climate change will mean that we find it more and more difficult to fill our shelves at home. Nothing undermines a Government more than two or three days of people being unable to eat what they want to eat.
Therefore, I say to the Government that I hope that this is a helpful amendment—and, if the Government say that they will not do what it asks, that says something to the 9 million people who live in the countryside and, even more, to the many people who keep food on our plates. No farmers, no food. If farmers are to do the job properly, the Government have to recognise that the weather that farmers deal with, which has always been the thing that is different about agriculture compared with any other industry, is now going to be a difference that is made very much worse, as we have worse and worse examples of more extreme weather. In general terms, the Government—unlike other parties—have been extremely good on climate change and I ask them not to let themselves down on this but to say, “Yes, we will look and see exactly what these provisions will do for agriculture—and, if we find that they need alteration, we will be able to come back with the facts”.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 133 from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Deben. In doing so, I draw attention to my registered interests, in particular as a dairy and livestock farmer.
I am most grateful to my noble friends for their supportive comments for British farmers. I have asked in Written Questions and in debates whether the Government would commit to keeping detailed and timely data on the number of farmers and family business owners taking their own lives in the run-up to the introduction of the reduced inheritance tax reliefs, due in April next year. So far these requests have been denied or ignored. We know that a number already have taken that dreadful step—and, as the deadline approaches, the risk will only rise. It would appear to be callous in the extreme that the Government refuse to take responsibility for this tragic human cost of their Budget decisions. Will the Minister commit to keeping and publishing the data in a timely manner?
Farming has unique employment challenges, as others have already mentioned in this short debate—and as indeed the whole country is now aware, thanks to the popularity of “Clarkson’s Farm”. Arable crops and silage need to be harvested when the weather allows and when they are ready for harvest. This leads to high-pressure operations at short notice and often at anti-social hours. It is not unusual to see harvesters and wagons operating well into the night until the dew starts to form. If staff are not available to operate that equipment at the optimum time, it can lead to reduced yields, higher drying costs or even the failure to harvest a crop at all.
In the livestock and dairy sectors, staff are also required to be available to work flexibly. In livestock, this can mean being available for callout to inspect the health of animals, assist in lambing and calving, and recapture escaped animals. In dairy, cows need to be milked at regular intervals from one to three times a day, depending on the system being employed. If that regular schedule is not followed, animal health can be threatened and milk yields suffer.
In the fruit and vegetable growing industry, the fruit and vegetables need to be picked when ripe and when the market demands it. Contracts governing the supply of these goods to retailers and processors can be highly onerous and punitive when conditions are not met. It is essential for this industry that it can employ workers to meet these needs and contract terms.
Unfortunately, agricultural employers need to have staff who are committed to working flexibly, and access to staff who are willing to work when the work is available. The Bill makes it more difficult for employers to refuse employee submissions for flexible working requests. While these submissions can already be made from day one, employers can refuse them on the grounds of inability to fill the gap from reduced hours, or the detrimental impact on business performance or meeting customer demand. The higher bar set by the Bill is likely to make it harder to protect the business.
The Bill applies unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment versus the two years currently in law. We are yet to see the timetable to be proposed, creating significant uncertainty. I have first-hand experience of the damage that a new, unsatisfactory employee can do to a business, even without any malice, and being able to remove them at short notice when the poor performance is revealed is critical. In that case, due to the nature of dairy farming, it took over a year for the poor performance to come to light. The widespread industry reliance on casual workers is threatened by restrictions on zero- and low-hours contracts and the potential for those to obtain a right to guaranteed-hours contracts.
Paying fees for cancellation of shifts at short notice is also impractical in farming. While it is easy to see why the Government might want to penalise employers for potentially capricious and harmful decisions around shifts, the timing of work in farming is often not predictable. Therefore, it does not make sense to penalise farmers even more than they are already for changing weather.
The Bill is a massive threat to the viability of British farming. The extent of that threat will be known only when the Government have decided when employees’ probationary periods will end, when a casual employee gains permanent employment rights, and when notice has to be given of a shift cancellation. I ask the Minister why this work has not been done already and why are we debating a Bill when the extent of its negative impact is unknowable.
The English farming industry has been targeted by this Government, with dramatic reductions in delinked payments, the abrupt cancellation of SFI applications, the imposition of inheritance tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant being the highlights. We now read in the papers that the spending review is likely to slash the farming budget, offering little hope that government support will improve. Farmers also now face greater competition from heavily subsidised overseas farmers with little or no environmental obligations. On top of that, as my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted, our arable farmers are struggling with low crop prices and extremely dry weather damaging yields.
Let us at least accept this modest amendment to the Bill to allow an open appraisal of the impact on the sector after a full annual cycle, when the terms of the Bill are fixed and in force, and ensure that the information is available to make changes that might prove necessary. This Government have claimed to be pro business and pro growth. Will they, at last, show some support to this business? I hope that the Minister will listen to this debate, depart from his brief and offer encouragement.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I rise with some trepidation to comment on the proposal of an impact assessment for farming businesses, as I am not a farmer and have never lived on a farm. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that there are lots of people who support the farmers and the culture, as well as the steadfastness of an industry that is so reliant on the weather. I do not think that any other industry has to try to run a business, make a living and make a small profit with the weather this country has—unfortunately, I cannot blame the weather on the Government, or on any Government. It is literally the force of nature.
In considering the implications of the Bill, it is important that we pay close attention to the needs and circumstances of the UK farming sector. Agricultural businesses operate within a complex and fragile environment, where changes to employment law, however well intentioned, can have disproportionate effects. Recent debates around the family farm tax further highlight concerns about the punitive financial pressures on farmers, underscoring the need for careful assessment of any new burdens placed on this sector. This amendment proposes a structured approach to understand the impact through a formal assessment within a defined timeframe. While views may differ on whether such a provision needs to be set out in primary legislation, the underlying concern is legitimate and should be supported. We should ensure that policy changes do not inadvertently place additional strain on a sector already facing considerable challenges.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened to every noble Lord’s concerns. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Defra and my fellow ministerial colleagues at Defra, I should say that they are in regular contact with the farming community and farmers. The Secretary of State has recently spoken at the National Farmers’ Union conference. My noble friend Lady Hayman comes from a farming community and understands the problems that noble Lords have raised.
I turn to Amendment 133, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As I have repeated multiple times throughout the debate in this place, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments, based on the best available evidence, on the workers likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment of the economic impacts of the Bill, including impacts on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. We intend to publish further analysis in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and, as I have said previously, further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet Better Regulation requirements. The 23 amendments on impact assessments tabled by the Opposition would pre-empt work that the Government are already planning to undertake.
It should also be mentioned that this Government are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry. It is why we will invest £5 billion into farming over the next two years, the largest amount ever directed to sustainable food production in our country.
It is with immense sadness that we hear about suicides in the farming community, and I agree with noble Lords that we need to have accurate and timely data. I promise noble Lords that I will speak to my ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS as far as their request is concerned.
It will be no surprise to the noble Lord that we oppose Amendment 133 and ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Roborough for their expertise, which I think noble Lords around the Committee will agree shed great light on this tricky subject. I also greatly appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what is a very modest amendment, and I am therefore disappointed with the Minister’s response, although pleased that he will consult Defra further.
On the subject of inheritance tax, the noble Lord asserted that Defra has been steadfast in its support for the farming community, but it is not clear that the farming community has recognised that steadfastness, because over a dozen leading farming organisations, including the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, have condemned the Government for a lack of transparency. Those groups have written directly to the Treasury demanding the release of modelling and evidence behind the policy.
When pressed to explain why they rejected the fairer clawback option for inheritance tax reforms, Treasury Ministers offered nothing more than vague assertions—no consultation, no published impact assessment—and when challenged under freedom of information laws, the Treasury responded by saying that it was
“not in the public interest”
to disclose this analysis. How can the Government possibly claim this is not in the public interest? Are they really arguing that the means of food production and all that pertains to it are not in the public interest? We are talking about reforms that could rip through the foundations of multigenerational farms, force land sales and strip the viability from small rural businesses.
If this Government’s approach so far was not reckless enough, a fresh report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has added yet more weight to the call for caution and transparency. The cross-party group of MPs has urged the Government to delay its proposed reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief for two years, pushing back the implementation date from April 2026 to April 2027, with any final decisions postponed until October 2026. That is because the reforms are intended to tighten inheritance tax reliefs on farms and agricultural businesses and were introduced without adequate consultation or any formal impact assessment. The committee highlighted that rushing ahead without proper analysis risks serious consequences, including impacts on land values, tenant farmers, family farms and food production, and it warned that this could disrupt the food supply chain, potentially driving up supermarket prices and hitting consumers across the UK. Noble Lords should take seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s warning about food shortages and what it does to government popularity.
What is particularly striking is the committee’s citation of a March 2025 survey which found that 70% of farmers were optimistic about their rural businesses before the Autumn Budget, but that figure plummeted to just 12% afterwards. That collapse in confidence speaks volumes about the uncertainty and fear that these policies have created within rural communities, and the same attitude is now evident in this Employment Rights Bill. Once again, we are seeing major legislative changes with profound economic impacts pushed through without proper consultation, without proper published impact assessments and without any serious recognition of the realities facing British farmers, and that is precisely why this modest amendment is so important.
At the bare minimum, before further damage is done, we should demand an independent, published assessment of how these employment law changes will affect UK farm businesses—not months after the fact and not hidden behind opaque Treasury memos. It is in the public interest, so it should be within 12 months of this Act passing. That is a modest, proportionate and entirely reasonable request. I will withdraw the amendment on this occasion but reserve the right to return to it. Again, I refer to my noble friend Lord Deben’s suggestion, or perhaps warning: 9 million people are watching.
Lord Lucas
“Notice periodsWhen—(a) an employee’s contract of employment contains a notice period of more than two weeks,(b) the employee gives notice of their intention to leave, and(c) their employer enforces any part of the notice period beyond two weeks,the employee may require the employer to pay them, for the enforced notice period beyond two weeks, at whichever is the higher of their current rate of remuneration and the remuneration offered to them under any new contract of employment that they have secured.”Member's explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to incentivise shorter notice periods.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I thank Tim Leunig for drawing my attention to this proposal. The standard in the UK when a person has a job and contracts for a new one is that he or she has to serve a three-month notice period. In the United States, notice periods are typically two weeks. There is no legal requirement, but that is the convention and any longer is considered unreasonable. It is quite clear, looking at things in the round, that three months is not necessary to run a dynamic and effective economy—it is inefficient. Shifting the notice period down would be a contribution to productivity and a benefit to workers. Most people get a pay rise when they move jobs. Getting it 11 weeks earlier would mean a direct rise in the individual’s income, as well as a rise in GDP and tax revenues. It is of all-round economic benefit.
The most important effect is indirect. If notice periods are short, a dynamic company can scale up more quickly and easily than is currently possible. It can go out and bid for contracts knowing that it can get the staff in time to honour them. If an entrepreneur has a good idea, they can make it happen. If demand rises for one firm, it can respond more easily. Making it easier for dynamic firms to grow quickly is definitely an economic benefit.
Finally, knowing that employees can leave more quickly would give firms an incentive to think more carefully about them. If their leaving is a big nuisance, firms will want them to stay, and will therefore have an incentive to think more about pay rises, promotions, new training opportunities and other things that make the employee feel that his current job is worth having. In contrast, allowing firms to set long notice periods helps incumbents, particularly firms not seeking to grow and that do not want to respond to growth opportunities. That is not a productivity-enhancing strategy.
My amendment suggests a gentle way of seeking to change current practice in the UK—to incentivise a change without requiring anything. If the Government can see a better way of getting to the same outcome, I should be delighted to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this amendment raises questions about notice periods and how they are handled under employment contracts. I make no particular case for or against it, but it draws attention to a more pressing issue: the complexity introduced by this Bill around notice periods and contractual exits. For many employers, particularly those without specialist legal support, understanding and implementing these new requirements will not be straightforward.
I am appreciative that this amendment attempts to bring some clarity and firmer parameters to that part of the framework. Striking the right balance is crucial: while shorter notice periods can support quicker recruitment and flexibility, they may limit employers’ ability to ensure a smooth handover or maintain continuity in key roles. Any reform should therefore weigh the benefits of agility against operational realities.
If the Government want compliance, they must ensure that the legislation is not only sound in principle but clear in practice. That means providing details on how these provisions interact with existing arrangements and what precisely is expected of employers. A complex system with vague guidance helps no one. That is not the first time we have made that point to the Government tonight, and we will keep doing so.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and the gentle way in which he introduced what could be a very important move to simplify what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us is becoming a hugely complicated employment situation, with so many differing, complex and contradictory requirements.
It could be said—and is being said by a number of HR departments—that this is just the sort of Bill that will give an enormous boost to human resources as a profession. There are already queues of people lining up to join HR departments. My noble friend seeks a simple aim: to incentivise shorter notice periods and avoid situations where individuals are financially disadvantaged for moving jobs, especially when their employers insist on enforcing long notice terms.
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 noble Lords for this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 140.
When we were developing the plan to make work pay, we were clear in our ambition to establish a fair deal that balances employees’ rights and protections with employers’ confidence to hire the talent, skills and expertise they require to grow their business. A notice period is a period of time put in place to ensure a smooth transition, allowing the employer to manage minimum disruption to business requirements while the employee hands over their responsibilities. We therefore feel that, in the round, our proposals are beneficial to employers and fair. Many employers do not want their staff to leave too quickly, so that fairness is built in. Although the statutory minimum notice period that an employee must give an employer is currently, after one month’s employment, no less than one week, often a longer contractual notice period is agreed between the employer and their employees. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I do not recognise three months as the standard; for many workers, it is considerably less.
This is all about fairness and balance. In practice, employers and employees recognise that both parties require stability and certainty to maintain a fair agreement. Of course, if an employment contract specifies a notice period longer than the statutory minimum, an employee is entitled to receive that longer period of notice, but the employer sets that out in the contract at the outset.
The current minimum notice periods legislation entitles an employee to their normal contractual pay rate during a notice period, as you would expect. This measure would require an enforcement mechanism of employees’ rights to increased notice pay, which would result in more disputes being taken to employment tribunals or the fair work agency. It would create a requirement for an employee’s current and future employer to confirm their salary offer, adding an additional step in the process of offboarding an employee. It also presents the possibility of increased financial burdens on employers.
So, the Government feel that it is not necessary to make a further assessment of this. They have not made an assessment of the costs and the impacts of making this change to employment rights. To do so would require careful consultation with employers and employee representatives. However, we have not received lobbying or any suggestion from employers that they particularly want the sort of proposal that the noble Lord has put forward.
The Bill is delivering the commitments made by the Government to improve workers’ rights in the plan to make work pay. I have listened to the noble Lord, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, that we want a simple process. Our process is simple. It is also fair to both sides: to the employer and to the employee. If those arrangements need to change, by and large, that can be done within the workplace, based on negotiations—so we do not feel the pressure to make the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing, but I thank him nevertheless for the suggestion.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sorry she does not feel sympathy for the direction I was taking. It seems to me that when you are addressing the question of productivity in the economy, there are no big solutions. It is rather like the way British cycling came to win: you make a very large number of very small improvements, all in the same direction.
This was intended to be one of those, to increase productivity but at the same time to make life a bit better for employees. I am inclined that way. I spent last weekend at a Premier Inn. Premier Inn does not provide toilet brushes. I do not see why the cleaners who come after me and other people should have to scrub out the toilet bowls when I could do that myself. Having a campaign with Premier Inn to change its policy on that would be worthwhile. It is a small change but, by making small changes enough times, you make some progress. Indeed, one of the secrets of this House is to make small changes. So I am sorry that this small change has not appealed to the Minister, but I will try again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Prohibition of unpaid trial shifts(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons working trial shifts. (3B) In subsection (3A), a “trial shift” is any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.”(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert—“41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking trial shifts(1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to persons undertaking trial shifts.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking a trial shift is eligible to receive the national minimum wage for the period of that trial shift at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.);“trial shift” means any form of work which a person undertakes in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that persons are paid for trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I rise to move Amendment 141 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is, about now, talking about net zero to students at Oxford University. It was an engagement that was made some time ago, but she wishes to express her thanks to the Minister for arranging a meeting to discuss this and later amendments, and for the constructive dialogue that followed.
This amendment speaks for itself, but I would like to describe a case where it would have been applicable. It is that of 19 year-old Ellen Reynolds, from Glasgow, who worked a five-hour shift in a restaurant. She told the BBC:
“I ran food and drinks to customers … I cleaned the tables, set up the tables, swept the floor, took people to their seats … took a few payments on the card machine”.
Before that shift, she had to buy a shirt and trousers as a uniform, costing £20. Then, she got paid nothing, and she did not get a job out of it.
The Department for Business and Trade’s guidance on national minimum wage eligibility includes a section on unpaid work trial periods, which discusses to what extent the national minimum wage applies to work trials undertaken as part of a recruitment process. It says that work trials can help employers to
“decide whether the individual has the skills and qualities … for the job”,
and that unpaid work trials can be a
“legitimate practice”,
so long as they are not used
“to obtain work or services for which at least the minimum wage should be paid”.
That, I believe, is an invitation to abuse: the kind of abuse that Ellen suffered, being expected to work for nothing—not getting less than the minimum wage, but getting nothing at all. We hear reports of employers who do this to a succession of workers.
For those who would like to explore this issue in more depth than I have time for today, I point them to a debate in Westminster Hall on 29 March 2023, secured by Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP. That followed the introduction by the same MP of a Private Member’s Bill in 2017 seeking to achieve the same outcome as this amendment. That Bill that won the backing of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Students, among others. The commendably persistent MP reintroduced it last year. So, it has been an issue that has been around a long time but still has no solution.
If the Minister feels that the amendment is not properly drafted, I have been assured by my noble friend that she is in no way attached to the detail of how it is written, although she thanks the Bill Office for its assistance so far. The point is to act and to actually create a solution for an abuse that is enacted on people who can least afford it.
I have heard some very familiar phrases in the past few groups: we need more information, this is not the right time, there is legislation elsewhere that deals with this and this is not the Bill. But if not now, in the Employment Rights Bill, then when and how? We have to protect workers such as Ellen. They are often young and vulnerable, and sometimes English is not their first language. Surely the point of an Employment Rights Bill is to protect people from exploitation such as unpaid work.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment. There are risks of exploitation, which the noble Baroness has just set out. Where I am somewhat more concerned and have more sympathy with the amendment debated earlier today is about how people continue to do these sorts of jobs and still do not get paid.
To give a real example, the Department for Work and Pensions runs a programme called SWAP. It is quite a short-term programme and it is not quite the same as a boot camp, principally run by the DfE. It is often for people perhaps wanting to go into a new sector or who are open to new experiences, so there is an element of training. However, a key part of the SWAP is that you work and try out. There is no guarantee that, at the end of that, you will get a job with that specific employer, but what really matters is that it will give you a sense of aptitude and of getting back into the workplace, while you continue to receive benefits.
Let us not pretend that receiving universal credit for a week is necessarily the same as being paid the equivalent of a national minimum wage. But my principal concern with this amendment is that, while wanting to avoid exploitation, it would unwittingly or unknowingly shut down these broader opportunities and programmes which the Government run to help get people back into the world of work. That is why it needs to be considered carefully by the Minister, but ultimately rejected.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I will speak briefly to this amendment, which proposes to prohibit unpaid trial shifts by ensuring that those who undertake such shifts are paid at least the national minimum wage. This issue echoes concerns raised in earlier debates on unpaid work experience.
The amendment seeks to clarify that shift trials, defined as work undertaken in the hope of securing a temporary or permanent position, should be fairly compensated. This would address that potential gap in existing legislation and offer clearer protection for workers, ensuring that their time and labour are respect and valued. Such clarity is important for both workers seeking fair treatment and employers, and in maintaining transparent and ethical recruitment practices.
At the same time, it is important to consider the practical implications for employers who may rely on trial shifts as part of their recruitment process. I therefore invite the Minister to consider carefully whether this amendment strikes the right balance between protecting workers’ rights from exploitation and allowing employers reasonable flexibility in assessing candidates.
I look forward to the Government’s view on the best way to achieve a proportionate and effective approach that serves the interests of all parties involved.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively brief group. I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey. At first glance, the idea of banning unpaid trials seems fair, because no one wants to see people, especially young people, exploited under the guise of a try-out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out when she was introducing the amendment.
However, we also need to be honest about the likely effect of the change, particularly for those very people it is trying to protect. In many sectors—in particular hospitality, retail and care—trial shifts are often the only realistic way for somebody without a formal CV to show that they can do the job. Trial shifts can therefore open doors for young people, school leavers and those coming back into work.
If we start requiring every short work trial to be paid at minimum wage then the reality is that many of them simply will not happen at all. Employers, especially small ones, may decide that they are just too risky or costly. The obvious result will be fewer opportunities and fewer chances for somebody to get in front of an employer to show what they can do. I worry that this amendment, although well intentioned, could have the opposite effect: closing off relatively informal routes into work for those who need them most. The measures in the Bill already create the wrong incentives, and we do not need any more of them.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this short debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for stepping in very ably. There seems to be a pattern of noble Lords needing to step in during the groups I respond to, but I very much appreciate her moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
We are somewhat repeating the first debate we had today on Amendment 129. Amendment 141 seeks to ensure that persons are paid for the trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position. It basically boils down to the same thing: how do we make sure that people are not exploited when they are in a position where they need to be flexible to try to gain work? It is very much the Government’s objective to ensure we can get more people working. However, it is also our objective to ensure we make work fair and make fair work pay.
That is obviously the intention underlying Amendment 141. In that light, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue and for using the case study of Ellen to outline how vulnerable people in vulnerable situations can be exploited by unscrupulous employers. I assure the noble Baroness that that is absolutely not the intention of the Bill nor, indeed, our attitude towards the amendment. However, I will go into detail as to why we are taking our position on this amendment.
As I have said, we are committed to making work pay, and we have been delivering on this promise through the actions we have taken since the Government came into office last year. At the risk of repeating myself, I note that we have delivered an increase in the national minimum wage of 6.7% to £12.21 per hour for eligible workers aged 21 or over. We have also, as I said, delivered a huge uplift for the lower national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20 year-olds, which has increased by 16.3% to £10 an hour. That is a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, and it closes the gap with the national living wage, because, as I have said, a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.
However, hand in hand with fair pay is the flexibility for workers and employers to decide whether a job is right for the candidate and, indeed, whether the candidate is right for a job. Government guidance sets out helpful and practical information on how the national minimum wage applies in the context of unpaid work trials. The guidance is clear that employers can ask individuals to carry out tasks or trial shifts without payment only if it is a genuine part of the recruitment process.
Short, genuine work trials—such as the DWP scheme that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to—whether paid or unpaid, give employers and individuals an opportunity to test whether the role or the candidate is right for them. They empower individuals to seek out and test whether the role is suited to them and their needs. They allow employers to test whether a candidate can do the job and reduce the risk of taking on someone who might not have the right skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, rightly said, it is about finding the right balance.
Unpaid work trials can also provide a stepping stone for individuals who have been out of work for a long period of time but might want to get back into the workplace, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said. There are also government schemes where individuals in receipt of benefits can participate in an unpaid work trial and continue to receive their benefits. The flexibility of genuine—I stress “genuine”—work trials can benefit workers up and down the country, and the Government feel that an outright ban would see these opportunities for individuals diminish. However, I repeat a point I made earlier because it is worth emphasising: employers cannot rely on unpaid trial shifts for free labour. If someone is carrying out work that goes beyond a short demonstration of their suitability for the role, they are most likely to be entitled to the national minimum wage.
We are committed to protecting workers and will monitor this issue closely. If changes are needed, those issues should be dealt with outside the Bill, so that the national minimum wage legislation can remain clear on how unpaid work trials can be used and ensure workers are protected.
As noble Lords will be aware, HM Revenue & Customs is responsible for enforcing the minimum wage legislation and ensuring that employers meet their legal obligations. Any individual concerned that they have worked on a trial shift or period that does not appear to be part of a genuine recruitment process can and should complain to HMRC, or they can contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for advice.
In the light of the safeguards that already exist in legislation, and despite the fact that we very much agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, we ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 141.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. If this amendment is so similar to Amendment 129—I was not in the Chamber during that debate, I am afraid—I wonder why they were not grouped together. That might be something to think about.
The Minister talked about genuine work trials. I argue that “genuine” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there: how on earth do you judge whether something is genuine if you are not monitoring it extremely closely? He also mentioned a “short demonstration”. How long is that? Are there criteria for them? Are they only two hours long, for example? In Ellen’s case, she worked for five hours—that is a fair amount of continuous time to work.
In speaking to this amendment, I am influenced by the fact that, in the Green Party, we are not allowed to take any unpaid work at all. We have no unpaid interns. If we have an intern, we pay them, and we pay them properly. This influences my attitude towards anyone working for nothing if they do not intend to do so voluntarily.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that there might be fewer opportunities, but workers are still needed and companies still have to find those workers. If companies cannot afford to pay the national minimum wage to somebody on a work trial, they are not solvent businesses, so perhaps they ought to go out of business. I have no sympathy for employers who do not pay for work.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, gave me conditional support, but I am not really sure; perhaps he will on Report.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that an amendment can be written to cover such schemes as the government scheme she mentioned. It does not necessarily exclude paying somebody for genuinely working for five hours continuously.
On balance, this is a good amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Right to disconnect(1) All workers have the right to disconnect from work-related communications outside their working hours.(2) An employer must not—(a) require a worker to monitor, read or respond to any work-related communications outside the worker’s working hours;(b) contact a worker outside the worker’s working hours except in an emergency as defined in subsection (6);(c) take any action to the worker’s detriment, or treat the worker less favourably, because the worker has exercised or sought to exercise the right in subsection (1).(3) Every employer must—(a) establish a written disconnection policy, in consultation with workers or recognised trade unions,(b) specify the technological and organisational measures implemented to ensure respect for the right to disconnect,(c) establish clear protocols for necessary exceptions, and(d) provide workers with information about how to report violations of the right to disconnect.(4) The right to disconnect does not apply where—(a) a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty,(b) a worker has explicitly agreed to be available during specified periods outside working hours, with this agreement recorded in writing, or(c) in genuine emergency situations affecting public health, safety, or essential services.(5) A worker may present a complaint to an employment tribunal that their employer has infringed their right to disconnect under this section.(6) In this section—“emergency” means a situation that—(a) poses an immediate risk to health, life, property or environment, or(b) requires urgent intervention to prevent serious harm to the business, customers or other workers;“working hours” means the hours a worker is contractually required to work, including any agreed flexible working arrangements.(7) The Secretary of State must issue a statutory code of practice containing guidance on the implementation of the right to disconnect within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a framework for a “right to disconnect”, whereby workers cannot be required to handle work related correspondence outside of their working hours.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will again speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Amendment 141B is a no-brainer; I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to it as blindingly obvious. It would give workers the right to disconnect, which is already available to French workers; I am sure that many noble Lords have heard about that, since its introduction was seen to be world leading at the time. I am sure that many British workers expected to have exactly the same right as a result of this Bill, given the widely covered promises that the Labour Party made over recent years before it was in government.
I quote the Labour Party 2022 Green Paper on employment rights, as it is unequivocal on this issue. It says:
“Labour will bring in the ‘right to switch off’, so working from home does not become homes turning into 24/7 offices. Workers will have a new right to disconnect from work outside of working hours and not be contacted by their employer outside of working hours”.
That is very clear. By June 2024, the party had fleshed that out with an explanation in the document, Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay:
“The pandemic has led to a step change in flexible and remote working practices in many workplaces, which … inadvertently blurred the lines between work and home life”.
That is extremely worrying. The headline in that 2024 text is: “Right to switch off”.
Unfortunately, backtracking is already evident, but the promise to the electorate is more equivocal:
“We will follow similar models to those that are already in place in Ireland or Belgium, giving workers and employers the opportunity to have constructive conversations and work together on bespoke workplace policies or contractual terms that benefit both parties”.
However, the headline was: “Right to switch off”. I think most people would have read that and hoped for a more balanced and less harassed life.
The Green Party is always keen to help any Government. Here, we would like to help the Government live up to the promises they made to an exhausted and overstretched group of workers, who find themselves trapped with a boss who expects them to answer emails from the sideline of their child’s netball match or to take a client’s call when they are on holiday. The promise from the Government has been that they intend to introduce a statutory code of practice instead. That does not mean that such contact will be illegal or even prohibited, but if an employee can prove that they are routinely being contacted outside of their contracted hours then this can play a role in an employment tribunal payout. On the previous amendment, the Minister mentioned that it is possible to make complaints. Most people do not do that; it takes too long and they do not have the expertise to do it, and they may not even have the energy to do it—that is fair enough. Tribunal cases are possible but they are extraordinarily rare and extremely slow.
We have a health crisis in the UK—an overworked crisis—and a huge imbalance in the power relationships between employers and employees, as many other parts of the Bill point out. In the Green Party, we are always constructive. This amendment provides the Government with a chance to live up to their promise to the electorate to empower workers and to help them remain healthy and engaged in their family and community lives, not for ever distracted by having to check their phone. After all, the economy is there to serve people; it is not for people to serve the economy. I beg to move.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly clarify the situation. I have just checked with my party, and we are not in coalition with the Green Party, that is for sure. But the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes a valid point. It is valid because of the societal change post Covid, where the number of people working from home now is exponential to what it was before Covid.
I go back to my days as a British Gas engineer, when I had a bleeper and was on call. We would dread the bleeper beeping, but I was on emergency calls and so I had to go out and do it. That was then and this is now.
There are so many people who are working from home who cannot switch off—the emails and alerts come through on their mobile phones. There needs to be some recognition of that within the legislation. Clearly, some organisations may need to contact people, but that should be by an arrangement that is agreed and supported by both parties. We are almost in a cowboy society again, where an unscrupulous company director of a small business with a small number of people wants to get things done and the deal has got to be made tonight—at 10 pm or 11 pm, when children are in bed—and so the phone goes and you have got to do it. If you do not, you face the consequences. These employees are probably not unionised, so it is difficult for them to resist. It is a never-ending circle.
I would like the Government to understand the importance of considering the framework set out in this amendment to provide a fair and practical approach that looks after the worker but protects the legitimate needs of the employers. It comes back to this idea of reasonableness and proportionality—the thread that seems to run through all this legislation. If it is reasonable and proportional then by and large it is fairly acceptable, but you have always got the unscrupulous person on either side. I have seen employees on call who have not replied when they should have, and they have been disciplined. That is correct; if you have an agreement and are on call, but you do not do it, there is a price to be paid.
The pendulum swings very slowly one way but very fast the other, to all those people who are working from home now and have no protection from the unscrupulous employer who just wants results 24 hours a day. We live in a 24-hour society—there is no escape from it. It happens with Ministers, spokespeople and friends I know. I have to turn my phone off—sometimes at 9 pm I switch the thing off until the morning, and then I get messages asking why I did not answer it. My answer is, “Because it was quarter to one in the morning and I was fast asleep”. These messages are from friends and colleagues. If you put that in the context of a work environment, where it is about your livelihood, marriage and children, it comes more into focus. I want the Government to look at this and see that there must be a way that we can strike a balance between the needs of an employer and the rights of a worker.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is an interesting debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has pointed out, this idea was in both the 2022 Green Paper and in the paper that the Labour Party published during last year’s election. Clearly, there is an expectation that this needs to be addressed in this huge Bill, the main purpose of which, as I have said to this Committee before, could have been achieved through a statutory instrument.
However, one of the important things in the amendment, which has been carefully written by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, sets in place the idea that:
“The right to disconnect does not apply where … a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty”.
In trying to get into this debate, which is a fair debate to have, we find that the legislation already addresses the majority of situations where this would already happen, and so all that would happen if this were to become law is that contracts would be written in such a way that, in effect, if necessary, everybody would be on call—which would not be a desirable outcome.
I want to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to a variety of anecdotes and his personal experience. Personal experience matters in considering how a good employer can act. For what it is worth, in my private office, which was very busy, and in my parliamentary office when I used to employ people, I required everybody to have their “do not disturb” setting on. The setting works such that if somebody really needs to get hold of you—if you are a Minister, say—switch will get through to you eventually. I have to say to the people on the Front Bench that that is the case even if you do not have your phone on. Those situations are already addressed.
One of the things the Bill is trying to do overall is to get that balance. However, it is fair to say that not everything needs to be put into legislation. It is about having a positive relationship, and some of that can be done through ACAS and in other different ways, such as guidance. Trying to micromanage every single relationship that the millions of workers have directly with their employer risks overcomplicating things. The fear that I have, given that this is in the Government’s manifesto, which they seek to put in place—it will be interesting to see how they want to make this happen—is that this will make for very tricky legislation. Although there may be instances where this would work, ultimately, it comes down to employment tribunals and somebody else’s judgment.
For what it is worth, we have an evolving variety of workplaces. A lot of people who used to work at home have now come back to the office so that they can leave their job behind, as opposed to feeling that they will open something up after dinner or whatever.
I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how the Government are planning to fulfil their manifesto commitment while trying to make sure that they do not micromanage every single element of how a job can be done in the workplace.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness said, because this is about fairness and making sure life works. There are a lot of companies, big and small, where, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working. However, there are a number of instances—including somewhere like where I work—where I do not think this would work.
I will just give your Lordships one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge insurance broker. We had a client in the United States who by 5 pm had not decided whether to renew his insurance contract in London. If he had not renewed it by 1 June—which I guess was a Sunday—he would have had no insurance on that specific part of his business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word—he was probably out and about with the phone in his pocket—and the call came through at some time after 9 pm. Looking at the way the clause is drafted, I am not sure whether that would be considered enough of an emergency to get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak. Equally, that company might have had to stop working, doing whatever it was doing in the oil and gas industry—I know that will not endear me to the noble Baroness, but that is a fact. But we had to bind that insurance contract once we got the order. It was all ready to go; it was just a question of sending a number of emails to say that it was done. So there are huge swathes of the country where it is in fact in place already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has said, but in some of the big City environments where you are working across time zones particularly, it is extremely difficult to enact.
On working from home, we all worked at home for some time; personally I loathed it—I am back in the office almost as much as I can be. However, I have members of staff who like working at home, and, let me tell your Lordships, they know how to turn themselves off when they do not want to talk to us anymore, and they are good at it. So they should be, and I respect them for it. But if you really need them, you can always find them.
Finally, you can turn the damn machines off. Be it a telephone, a computer, an iPad or whatever it is, there is an off button out there. Certainly when I was a child, we were told never to call anybody after 9 pm, and that was friends and family. So there are some unwritten rules out there that are already very effective.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing us to a fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put us in touch with the real world, and then my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Ashcombe reminded us about what happens in real life. I suppose I have immediately to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. My phrase, which I always used to share with Albert Blighton, was that I was available 168/52. The number 168 is 24 times seven. So you quickly appreciate that, as a solicitor, you have to be available all the time.
When I won the contract to represent cricket with the England and Wales Cricket Board, they wanted to know whether I would be available on a Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match, and I said, “Yes, of course I would”. So it is very much up to the individual to make themselves available.
When I was asked to join the Front Bench in the House of Commons in 1977, I do not think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an Adjournment debate, even though it might have been at 3 am, which it was on one occasion. Therefore, you set your working parameter in the way in which you develop your own workaholic tendencies, but you should not expect it of everyone, and I think that is what the amendment is all about.
Do you have the right to disconnect? Although I am sympathetic to the idea that you should be able to switch off, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, put in context, when the Bill is already introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around shift notice periods, payment for cancelled shifts and wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, we have to be very cautious about layering on yet another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation.
The noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal, giving workers a right not to respond to emails or calls outside their contracted hours, but in reality, as the Government have quickly realised, despite what they may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions. What does “working hours” mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, in customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, and in businesses operating across time zones?
Employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs. This would add yet another administrative requirement. There would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect, a consultation process, enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims. So, we must ask: is this really the right moment to introduce such sweeping regulation?
The Bill already creates new rights and obligations that will take time to bed in. There is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effect of this amendment would be to increase that uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly. A blanket legislative approach risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught, especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 141B, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
We firmly recognise the vital importance of achieving a healthy work/life balance. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, can be confident that we will indeed introduce a right to switch off. We understand that, in today’s fast-paced world, it is more important than ever to ensure that individuals and families are able to manage the demands of their work alongside their responsibilities and needs at home.
Our close consultation with businesses and civil society since the election has shown how important it is that we develop this policy in collaboration with those who will be affected: workers and the firms who employ them. The right to switch off must account for the full diversity in types of employment and sectors that exist in our modern economy. It represents a substantial shift in the way some businesses operate. This amendment does not account for that diversity and the need for collaboration. That is why we have decided to take a careful and considered approach to introducing the right to switch off, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe.
The focus for now is the Employment Rights Bill, which contains decisive and immediate action, such as reforms to flexible working that will make it easier to strike a better work/life balance. These reforms are not just policies; they are practical steps to support everyday lives and help people to draw clearer boundaries between their work and personal lives.
To add this amendment to the Bill would not do the right to switch off any justice. As drafted, it could create unnecessary burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Significant new requirements in proposed new subsection (3)(a) to (d) would force all employers, no matter their size, to produce written disconnection policies and specify new technological and organisational measures and protocols, while also establishing reporting systems for any violations. These new rules would be onerous and inflexible.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed, and I say how deeply disappointed I am in the Opposition. I am trying to hold the Government to account to actually bring in a measure that they promised to do, and they have given them an easy ride, I would say. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that she is being far too kind to the Government, in my view. I am sure they are very grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was much more supportive of this amendment, so I thank him very much.
To the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, I say that we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also pointed out, in a very privileged position. The noble Lord sounds like a very kind man and is probably a very nice employer, so probably his employee would be free to say, “No, I can’t do that”, if they had to pick up a child from school or something like that. This is to protect people who do not have that sort of privilege, who feel obliged to do the things that their employer tells them, or supposedly asks them, to do. This is to protect the most vulnerable, the people who are not in our sort of position. I do not want to be here now, quite honestly. It is seven o’clock. I would much rather go home and have something to eat. I certainly did not want to be here at 10.35 last night—I would rather have been home in bed—but I do it out of a sense of duty, and I do it willingly. There are people who would not be able to do this but would not be able to deny their boss that work.
To the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I say that I am always very dubious when people start talking about “real life”, and I wonder how much real life they actually have. I grew up in a very poor working-class family, and I still have a lot of friends from my childhood who are not in the privileged position that I am in now, so I get a taste of real life when I am at home. In real life, there are people who would not be able to deny their employer this sort of overtime, or whatever.
I thank the Minister very much for his response. I am very glad to hear that the Government are going to introduce it. But, if this is too prescriptive and premature, why did the Labour Party commit itself to that? Why do the Government not just do what they promised? This is something that I struggle with. We see parties, before they are in government, promise all sorts of things and then they scrap them, and it is just not right. It is betraying the voters, and I do not understand why. Consult, by all means, but do it in a sensible and fairly fast way and just get it done.
By the way, nothing I have said in the last five minutes is to do with my noble friend Lady Bennett, so noble Lords should not blame her for it. I very much hope that she will bring this back on Report and that we will push it to a vote, because if you promised, you should do it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“(B1) Subsection (A1)(a) shall not apply where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings.(C1) Where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings, the duty to consult shall arise only in accordance with subsection (1), by reference to the number of employees proposed to be dismissed at a single establishment within a period of 90 days or less.(D1) For the purposes of subsection (B1), “relevant insolvency proceedings” has the same meaning as in regulation 8(6) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that employers in formal insolvency proceedings are not subject to the new entity-wide redundancy consultation trigger. Instead, the existing “20 or more at one establishment” threshold would apply. The amendment relies on an established definition of insolvency proceedings, consistent with Regulation 8(6) of TUPE 2006.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 141BA to 142B stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Collective redundancies often occur in the context of an insolvency. Increasing the penalty for failure to inform and consult will exacerbate the difficulties for insolvency practitioners. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, administrators are required to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. However, keeping employees in employment beyond the 14-day window afforded to administrators to decide whether to adopt the contract, to carry out an information and consultation process, in effect makes those employees super-priority creditors. This would elevate their claims above those of other creditors and reduce the funds available for ordinary creditors. In some cases, the resulting employment costs could make administrators reluctant to take on their role. This may lead to fewer contracts being adopted, increasing the liabilities that ultimately fall on the National Insurance Fund. Amendment 141BA gives insolvency practitioners clear legal guidance to apply the single establishment rule during consultations. This helps them make faster decisions without dealing with complex, entity-wide assessments, reducing delays and protecting insolvency processes. It supports rescuing businesses and, of course, maximising creditor returns.
I turn to Amendments 141C and 141E. Clause 27 significantly expands the duty to consult on collective redundancies. It requires employers to start a consultation if 20 or more redundancies are proposed in total across multiple establishments, even when those redundancies are unrelated. This overreaches, because simultaneous job cuts can result from distinct decisions, such as automation in a warehouse, reduced demand in customer service or restructuring in head office, affecting different people in different locations. Yet, under Clause 27, those decisions could be swept into a single mandatory consultation process simply because the total number affected crosses the arbitrary threshold. This means that HR and management teams would have to delay necessary action while they co-ordinated across unrelated departments. This means that representatives and employees would be dragged into consultations about matters with no relevance at all to them, and it risks undermining the quality of consultation itself by overloading it with conflicting priorities and timelines.
This would introduce legal uncertainty, particularly for mid-sized employers who may not have the resources to second-guess whether redundancies in different divisions are connected enough to trigger a combined consultation. If they get it wrong, they will face a protective award. If so, the risk-averse approach is to consult everyone about everything all at once. These amendments would make it clear that where redundancies across different establishments arise from a common underlying business reason, or from a connected series of events, a combined consultation is indeed required. However, where they are unconnected, made independently and for distinct reasons, the employer may conduct separate consultations at the level where the impact is felt.
Moving to Amendment 141D, we have continued to make the point that the one-sized central planning approach that this Bill uses is not appropriate. Many sectors rely heavily on seasonal or fixed-term workers. Agriculture, hospitality, logistics and retail businesses scale up and down, predictably, year in, year out. They take on workers for peak periods—the summer season, the Christmas rush, the harvest—and release them at the end of the contract. These are not sudden decisions; they are built into the business model and are clearly understood by all parties. For example, a national employer may let 12 seasonal workers go at a distribution hub in the north in July. A month later, it may make seven short-term administrative contracts redundant in the Midlands. In September, it might end six fixed-term roles in a tourist-focused retail unit in the south. Those are unconnected, expected and localised decisions. However, under Clause 27 as drafted, those 25 redundancies must be aggregated, triggering a full collective consultation process across all three events as if they were part of one co-ordinated business strategy. Is that really the policy intention?
Amendment 141F tackles the risk of retroactive liability—the possibility that employers who have already commenced consultations in good faith could be told after the fact that their earlier actions were invalid or insufficient, simply because the later redundancies pushed the total over the threshold. This problem arises from the way in which the 90-day window operates. It is measured forwards and backwards from any given proposal, which means that an employer making a set of redundancies today must ask, “Did I make others 30, 60 or 89 days ago?” If so, they now need to be bundled into a new retroactive consultation process. Let us say that an employer consults properly with a small team—five redundancies, full process, representatives informed; and then some weeks later, it identifies the need to make redundancies in another part of the business. The total now crosses the threshold and suddenly, it faces legal uncertainty. Was the earlier consultation valid? This creates a legal trap for employers acting in good faith. It penalises those who move early, communicate openly and begin consultation promptly—the very behaviours the law should be encouraging.
This amendment would bring common sense to the process. It says that where meaningful consultation on a proposed dismissal has already begun, whether individually or collectively, those redundancies are not to be re-counted towards a later threshold. It prevents the law demanding the impossible: that employers retroactively reconvene consultations that were lawfully and properly carried out before a threshold was even triggered.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, good evening. I rise in support of Amendments 141BA, 141C and 142B, and it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on these amendments. I declare an interest as a businessman and as one who wishes to see the wheels of commerce and thus the economy moving smoothly and not unnecessarily clogged up.
As far as insolvency goes, this Bill presented an opportunity—one that I still urge the Government to grasp—to make insolvencies more efficient and less destructive of the economy. The law currently says that, in most cases where workers are to be made redundant, a 90-day consultation is required, regardless of insolvency or not. But, if a company is insolvent, consultation is necessarily spurious. The employees have lost their jobs, period, and the receivers have to move instantly, not wait 90 days to realise the assets. So, they do not wait 90 days and, because of this rule, they then break the law, because they are required to give 90 days. Two laws are in conflict with each other and one of them has to be broken. The more swiftly the assets of a failing organisation can be reorganised, the more likely it is that productive economic activity can be continued from these assets.
In the US, where these things are done much better, a study some time ago found that only 4% of assets were lost in a bankruptcy: 96% went on to be productive assets under a new organisation. Anyway, because the law has been broken, necessarily, in these cases, because the receivers are doing their duty to achieve a speedy liquidation, the lawyers move in.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, who I am delighted to see is in his place, referred earlier to ambulance chasers. There are many lawyers in this House and every single one of them is, of course, honourable and valuable; but we are talking about no-win no-fee lawyers, who can be deeply pernicious in both practice and effect. These lawyers advise all affected employees that they have a case they can take to the employment tribunal because they have not been consulted, and that they will certainly win that case. These no-win no-fee lawyers refer to this case as “free money”: “Dear employee, you’ve got free money because you haven’t been consulted on a 90-day period”. These employees already get their redundancy money, their statutory sick pay, their holiday money and so forth. They get it all ahead of any other creditors. They are not disadvantaged.
This 90-day money that they get by going to the employment tribunal is three months’ bunce on top of everything else. I do not think that can have been intended, but it is certainly what the outcome has been. Who pays for this—because, as we know, there is no such thing as a free lunch? If the company was truly insolvent, there will not be enough money for everybody, so there will be losers when this money is paid to the employees: losers such as suppliers and HMRC, also known as the taxpayer, of course. And they will lose more as those workers get their 90 days’ pay.
I refer to one of many examples, Go-centric, a Glasgow-based call centre that suddenly went bankrupt on 19 December 2022, laying off around 600 employees just before Christmas. There is a whole story behind that that all of us can derogate. The receiver was faced with 600 employees who had to be laid off immediately. That is what receivers do, and they are honourable people running a very important economic activity for this economy. Enter the lawyers into this Go-centric situation, writing to redundant workers and advertising “free money”. That is what they actually wrote in the letters to employees, which the employees replied to. They went to the employment tribunal and the money was obtained for 200 workers who had already received all their statutorily due redundancy payments. I really do not think this can have been intended when the legislation was written, but so it was.
Now we have a wonderful opportunity in the Bill to rectify this, most likely unintended, clash of legislation by removing the 90-day consultation requirement in an insolvency, since, as we know, consultation is irrelevant, indeed impossible, in a liquidation. Have the Government wisely seized this opportunity? Have they rushed to validate their claims of fiscal prudence? They have not—far from it. Indeed, they have, bizarrely, proposed in the Bill to increase the 90 days to 180 days. A full six months of free money on top of statutory redundancy money, taking precedence over HMRC, suppliers and others. This all makes it more likely that their claims cannot be met, potentially precipitating further bankruptcies among suppliers. Noble Lords will have heard many pitiful stories of suppliers stiffed out of payments by a larger company going bankrupt and themselves then having to go bankrupt. This provision makes that more likely. There is no free 180-day lunch here.
We have a further problem, which may not have been considered by the Government in putting forward the Bill, which is that, if these payments fall short, which necessarily they will in many cases, the redundancy fund is called upon to pay moneys to workers. That is the redundancy fund that reports to HMRC, which reports to the Treasury. Have the Secretary of State and the Minister informed the Chancellor that they are legislating to increase the Treasury’s outgoings by a significant amount in future years, not to mention increasing the nation’s welfare bill, which the Government actually have a commitment to reduce? I suggest that the Government should speak to themselves and have a discussion about that.
The same concerns apply to the extension of the limit to 20 employees across an organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, and to encompass distressed businesses—businesses that are in distress, which are calling for financial advice, but have not yet gone into immediate insolvency. An opportunity is being missed to sort all that out.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s amendment and have little to add to what he and my noble friend Lord Moynihan have said. I emphasise that we ought to support such amendments for reducing the levels of collective consultation for companies involved in insolvency proceedings. We should do so in the interest of reducing the escalating costs to a company as a result of compliance and protracted timing. I support these amendments for that reason.
As we have heard, the Insolvency Act 1986 obliges the administrator to act in the best interests of the creditors. The more time and compliance are demanded of a company, the more it will cost and the less there will be for creditors. These costs will escalate under Clause 27 as drafted. As a result, the creditors will have less available to pay their bills and their employees. We will see a domino effect on companies left short of cash flow and on their ability to pay their bills and their employees. These amendments are very important, because we cannot afford a domino effect, with businesses left short of cash because of the compliance costs and protracted timings posed on companies facing insolvency proceedings. They are suffering anyway; their bills have not been paid. In the end, the less that is available to pay them, the worse the outcome will be for the whole economy, for employment levels as a whole and for the cost of living.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak on this really quite interesting clause. I have carefully read Hansard from the other place in trying to understand what it is really putting in place. I am concerned by aspects of the comments made by the Minister at the other end, Justin Madders. He said that it really means only that businesses have to consult on their location and only with trade union representatives, and that, “By the way, these things get sorted in legal debate in the courts, and we hope the courts will understand”. That is not good enough when we are writing primary legislation.
In thinking this through, it is important for the Committee to consider what is happening here. Why is this needed? It has apparently been done to reduce the pressure on people with a vulnerability. Let us take the example of a pub chain, which has quite a big estate and has decided that it is going to reduce its number of hours. That could be a consequence of some of the other measures being brought in by the Government or just a trend that is happening. So it starts to think about what it is prepared to do in terms of how many people it employs in its pubs. It may not want to do that straight away; it may want to think about it in different sections and to leave that discretion to local managers. The man or woman in the street would think that that is perfectly sensible.
However, the businesses that gave oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee are worried—which the Minister recognised in saying that they should not worry—because that is exactly what the legislation is saying they will have to do. They could be undertaking consultation at huge expense, right across the country, while recognising that some of those situations could be very localised.
We already have sensible measures in place. When there are going to be significant redundancies across the country, it is already a legal requirement for them to go before Ministers, whether from the Department for Business and Trade or the Department for Work and Pensions, who can then mobilise local jobcentres and the like to prepare for those redundancies. Imagine going back to the business considering the impact of that on what can be quite localised operations. The Explanatory Notes are silent, frankly, which is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons.
I am concerned and would be grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach and how, despite the uncertainty still left in this legislation, the Government want this to be in place. Instead, they should accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt to make sure that these situations are well considered and that we do not end up in a situation where, despite the primary legislation, we have to go to an employment tribunal again and again. For that reason, I hope the Minister accepts my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for tabling these amendments. We have been listening to feedback from businesses on the clause as introduced. It requires collective consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies are proposed to be made across an employer’s organisation. Businesses told us that this would put them in a constant state of consultation. That is why we have made amendments in Clause 27 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; they aim to limit the burdens on employers while still expanding protections for employees, by ensuring that collective consultation is triggered when a threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across an entire organisation.
The purpose of Clause 27 is to strengthen collective redundancy rights. The Government worked with stakeholders, including businesses, to address their concerns, which include not counting employees who are already being consulted on redundancy. We will set an appropriate threshold number in due course, via secondary legislation, following further engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. We will look to balance the interests of both employers and employees when setting this threshold. Business stake- holders have welcomed the Government’s engagement on this clause and the opportunity to input to the threshold number via a public consultation.
Amendment 141BA seeks to exclude employers going through insolvency proceedings from the scope of a new trigger for collective consultation. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, about how one expects an employer which is going insolvent to consult employees across the entire organisation. The Government believe that collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. The benefits of consultations are felt by both. I heard what the noble Lord said, and I must say that employees are an important part of the organisation, as are the suppliers and the whole supply chain. Whatever is due to them should be paid, as is the same for other creditors.
The law already recognises that consultation may not always be fully practical in insolvency situations. That is why Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a special circumstances defence for employers to depart from the collective redundancy obligations where it is genuinely justified and they have shown that they have taken all practical steps to comply. That flexibility should be applied on a case-by-case basis, not by removing that duty altogether.
Amendment 141C seeks to ensure that obligations are triggered only where redundancies are linked to a connected reason. We recognise that collective consultation will be most productive when workers and employers are focused on a common issue. However, employers and unions have told us that they believe it is not possible to define what is connected or “common reasons” in a suitable, clear way and that this could lead to more litigation. They tell us that attempting to restrict these new rights to connected redundancies in this way would create further burdens, rather than relieving them.
Amendment 141D seeks to exclude seasonal workers or those on fixed-term contracts from the scope of collective redundancy measures in the Bill. First, it may reassure the noble Lord to know that the expiry of a fixed-term contract at the end of its term does not trigger collective consultation obligations. Therefore, any fixed-term contract expiring at the end of its term will not add to the running total for the new threshold introduced for collective redundancies. We will consider further how employees on fixed-term contracts should be counted for the purposes of calculating an employer’s overall workforce that might be needed for the purposes of a national trigger for collective redundancies.
Amendment 141E aims to avoid an obligation to combine consultation by inserting two new subsections into Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but new subsection (2A) already strikes the right balance here. Employers will be well placed to determine how to divide consultations appropriately where the national threshold has been met. We agree that each group should receive meaningful collective consultation and intend to set up guidance on this point in a new code of practice.
On Amendment 141F, it is already the case that where collective consultation on redundancies has already begun those redundancies will not be counted when determining whether subsequent new redundancies reach the threshold for collective consultation. We do not believe that this should be extended to exclude employees who have been individually consulted, as individual redundancy consultations have a different character and purpose from collective consultations.
On Amendment 142, we agree with the noble Lord that the threshold number that will trigger collective consultation should be proportionate and not overly and unnecessarily burdensome on employers. However, this amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to address this issue.
On Amendment 142A, the term “establishment” has already been settled and is well understood in employment law. It works well in practice, so we consider that attempts to change the definition here would create confusion and lead to more litigation with very few clear benefits in return.
Finally, Amendment 142B would undo the Government’s extension of the protective award period to 180 days. This change was made following a full public consultation in October 2024 and has been carefully considered. It makes it harder for unscrupulous employers to price in non-compliance with their collective consultation obligations, as we saw in the case of P&O Ferries. The Government are committed to strengthening employment rights in this landmark legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 141BA.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister started off by referring to government amendments. I just wonder which amendments he is referring to, because I am not aware that any other government amendments to Clause 57 are planned.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I apologise. I can be much clearer. I said the amendments tabled in the other place which are now under Clause 27.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
This has been a very valuable debate on a very important clause, Clause 27. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, who gave some practical examples, particularly of the unintended consequences of previous legislation. A lot of questions have been raised by the Minister. I do not want to prolong this debate now, so I summarise by saying that there are many questions that we still want to ask and we will be returning to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.