Tuesday 24th June 2025
(1 day, 21 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Impact on new business entrantsThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and annually thereafter, publish an independent assessment of how this Act affects new business entrants and small start-up enterprises, particularly regarding the impact of increased administrative or financial burdens on market entry and growth.”
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319.
If I may start with Amendment 311, I stress that productivity is vital for growth. The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill is lacking in many areas, but it correctly identifies productivity as a problem in the UK workforce and reveals the fundamental weakness of their approach. They state quite explicitly:
“there is little quantitative evidence about the knock-on impacts on productivity”,
and conclude:
“On balance, we believe the impact on growth could be positive … but the direct impact would be small in magnitude”.
Most tellingly, they admit that
“the impact on average productivity will be small”.
To paraphrase, the Government seemingly admit that productivity will not be significantly improved, if at all, by this legislation. This raises a fundamental question that goes to the heart of economic policy: how does one achieve high levels of productivity?
High productivity emerges through competition—genuine, unfettered competition—where businesses face lower regulatory burdens, can compete effectively for the best workers and possess the freedom and flexibility to innovate, to adapt and to respond to market signals. Productivity growth stems from technological innovation, capital accumulation and, as we have just heard in the questions on the previous Statement, investment in skills and productivity—skills above all. These improvements occur naturally when markets are allowed to function, when competitive pressures incentivise businesses to innovate or perish and when the price mechanism can operate without distortion.
Competition drives productivity by creating what economists call “creative destruction”—the process whereby inefficient firms are displaced by more productive ones. When businesses have to compete for workers, they invest in training, technology and better working conditions. When they have to compete for customers, they innovate and improve efficiency. When they must compete for capital, they demonstrate their productivity gains to investors and offer competitive returns.
So what will this legislation achieve in practice? I regret that it will impose additional regulation, create additional burdens and constrain the very competitive forces that drive productivity improvements. This of course comes on top of the tax rises announced by the Chancellor—measures that undoubtedly constrain business investment and growth. The increase in national insurance contributions is particularly damaging in this context. Higher employer NICs directly squeeze the possibility of productive investment. Investment that would otherwise create jobs in productive areas of the economy will now not take place. Capital that could have been deployed to improve productivity, whether through new technology, training programmes or research and development, will instead have to be diverted to meet higher tax obligations and burdens. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how productivity improvements occur. Productivity does not increase through regulatory mandate or government directive; it increases when businesses have the freedom, the incentive and the resources to invest in productivity-enhancing activities.
This brings me to Amendment 319 and what I can only describe as a profound contradiction in government policy. The Government committed just months ago to a 25% cut in the regulatory burden. They reaffirmed this, as we heard, in the published industrial strategy. Yet here we have legislation that introduces what can only be described as a raft of new regulatory burdens. The question that demands an answer is this: how will the Government achieve this 25% reduction in the regulatory burden? How will it be measured? How will the Bill, which manifestly increases regulatory compliance costs, align with that stated target?
I turn to Amendment 310. A truly competitive market must make it simpler, not harder, for new businesses to enter. Yet there is no consideration in the Government’s impact assessment for how this legislation affects barriers to entry. I believe that this represents a profound oversight because, when businesses cannot enter a market because of costs imposed by government regulation, that fundamentally alters the competitive dynamics driving productivity improvements. The economic logic here is straightforward but crucial: when entry barriers are low, existing businesses face constant competitive pressure from potential new entrants. This pressure has to keep them on their toes, forcing them to remain productive, innovative and responsive to consumer needs. They cannot afford to become complacent because they know that more efficient competitors could emerge at any time, hot on their heels and full of competitive energy. But when government policy raises the cost of market entry through complex regulations, compliance burdens or increased operational costs, it can effectively insulate existing businesses from this competitive pressure. The result is predictable: established firms have less incentive to innovate, less pressure to improve productivity and less need to compete aggressively for the best workers.
Turning to Amendment 312, I come to a particularly important point about wage competition. In a competitive market, businesses compete not only for customers but also for workers. When entry barriers are low and competition is fierce, employers must offer competitive wages and working conditions to attract and retain talent. This competitive pressure naturally drives wages upward as businesses bid for the best employees. When regulatory burdens prevent new businesses from entering the market, however, this wage competition diminishes significantly. Existing employers face less pressure to offer competitive wages because workers have fewer alternative employment opportunities. The reduced threat of labour mobility gives established businesses greater power in wage negotiations.
I believe that the costs imposed by this Bill will exacerbate this problem in two distinct ways. First, the direct compliance costs and increase in employer national insurance contributions will pressure businesses to control their wage costs more tightly. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these costs will deter new business formation, reducing the competitive pressure that would otherwise drive wages upward. Of course, the Government may want to point to the increase in the minimum wage as evidence of their commitment to higher wages, but that misses the fundamental point about how competitive markets operate in practice. The minimum wage affects only a small proportion of the workforce—those at the very bottom of wage distribution; for the vast majority of workers, wages are determined by market forces and competition between employers for their services.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, calling for an impact assessment requiring an independent analysis on different measures. I have added my name to three of them. Amendment 310 asks for an impact assessment on business, new entrants and start-ups, while Amendment 311 asks for a productivity impact reporting, and Amendment 319 asks for a new clause on assessing the impact of the regulatory burden on businesses.
Amendment 310 would require an impact assessment on new business entrants and small start-ups, including the impact of administrative and financial costs. Why do we need this? We know from ONS data that the story of business start-ups from 2016-17 to 2023-24 was one of steady increase, from 664,750 new start-ups in 2016-17 to 800,000 in 2022-23. We know from other data, from an analysis for NatWest bank and the Beauhurst Group, that for the last calendar year 846,000 new businesses were registered, bringing the total to a record high of 6.63 million last year. Just under one-third of that, 248,000, in the first quarter was, sadly, a figure not sustained by the end of the year, with a 25% drop in business formation as the year progressed.
Of course, headline figures should be read with caveats entered. Here are just three. Quite a few new companies do not survive their first or indeed their second year. One tech and computer entrepreneur once told me that you would expect in his sector at least one or two failures until you got to a success; it was almost the necessity to fail that brought success. Difficult circumstances, such as an economic slowdown due to exceptional causes or external shocks, may have an impact on new start-ups taking off. Indeed, some companies will simply be reformations of existing organisations and businesses.
These may be the ordinary reasons why we see start-ups not doing so well, but one common obstacle to getting a new business off the ground or making a success of it is the burden of too much of the wrong—and unnecessary—regulation. The Government and the public will need to know the impact of this measure, after a year or at a period to be agreed between the Government and opposition parties, to see whether the decline in new applicants that we saw at the end of 2024 will continue in the first year of operation and, if so, what steps we may need to take to mitigate this. New businesses are our lifeblood. They help replace the stock of zombie businesses which go out of business and rightly fail in the competitive economy to which my noble friend Lord Hunt alluded.
This Bill, as others which the Labour Government have proposed or enacted since 2024, penalises employers and businesses and introduces a device of damaging politicisation and ideologically driven changes to favour certain vested interest groups over the interests of business, the whole UK economy and the people of this country, who depend on a strong, prosperous and competitive economy to find and keep a job to pay their bills and to pay the tax revenue on which their public services depend.
The Bill’s burdens on all will impose a multitude of additional costs—through employee rights without corresponding obligations or duties, and additional duties and costs on employers—uncertainties, as many of the proposals in the Bill will be decided by regulation, and costs to businesses trying to plan. They weigh the law against and involve cost and compliance burdens for an employer or business, as my noble friend has explained, not only in respect of the rights of employees but through procedures that vary from record-keeping and handling equality action plans in Part 2 to the new law on industrial relations, which is in favour of trade unions and changes or repeals measures that have been around since 1992 and, by and large, have brought peace and harmony to the labour market of this country and the prosperity we need.
These burdens will make for grave uncertainty, given the range of powers that will be exercised, as I have mentioned, by a Minister who may reflect the ideological bent of the current Government to direct their powers against business, employers and the UK economy in favour of those who pay for the Labour Party through political funding—we have had many a debate on that in this Chamber. They are to be finalised through consultation and announced later. Surely, it is not too much to temper such militancy by giving the public and the Government of the day an analysis of what the costs of the regulatory burdens will be so that any adverse impact can be measured and mitigated.
Amendment 311 calls for an assessment of the impact of the Act on productivity. My noble friend has said that the Government recognise in their own impact assessment that the productivity gain will be small. UK productivity is already significantly lower than that of our competitors in the G7—the US, Germany and France—but we will discuss international competitiveness later so I will not speak on that now. However, as a result of this Bill, we expect productivity to decline further by sector and by employee. We know that around 70.9% of workers in the UK work in firms with labour productivity below the mean. It is very difficult to envisage that productivity will increase as a result of the regulatory burdens in this Bill.
If growth is the aim of this Government, we need to increase productivity dramatically. This will not be achieved through an ever-shrinking workforce and the contraction of business activity; at my last count, our labour market had lost 115,000 workers since this Government came to power. Nor will it be achieved by burdening business—and, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned, its capacity to invest in new people, plant and technology—by increasing the money needed to pay for the extra compliance and regulatory costs of this Bill, rather than investing in the production of goods and services, and the training of the people who produce.
I support this amendment, as I do the others, so that we shall have a real measure, based on independent, impartial data, that will shed daylight on the impact of the Bill on these three counts and help the people of this country—and the Government—to press for change, should we need it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in both consultancy and the hospitality industry. I have really come to help the Government on this bit of the Bill, because the problem they have is that very few of those who are working on the Bill run businesses. I have run businesses all my life, except for the time when I was a Minister, and, as I read the Bill, I am very concerned that it has been written by people who have not run businesses. They do not understand the damage that they do to employment and new business. I hope every Minister will admit that to themselves, whether or not they have run businesses and met these problems. Have the civil servants who advise them, or the political advisers from their parties, run businesses and seen these problems for themselves? If the answer is “Not much”, “Not many” or “Not overall”, surely they ought to see whether they have got it right.
Frankly, I do not think they have got it right, but I am very happy to be proved wrong. I do not think they have got it right because I know what has happened in the businesses with which I am associated. I know that we are employing less, because that is the only way we can pay the increased demands on employers. I know that the balances that we have to make now are not to the advantage of staff recruitment. Above all, I know that if I were starting a new business, the temptation not to do so would be very much greater because of the complications that the Bill, and previous actions of the Government, place on us.
That puts me in a position in which I do not think the Bill is, in large measure, a good one. But I am prepared to be proved wrong if, by clear investigation, we look at the results of what happens and take account of it. The problem is that if this Government are going to carry out effectively many of the policies with which I agree—more than I agree with some of the policies on this side of the House—they must prove to the public that they listen and are prepared to look at the facts.
I came to this debate to plead with the Government not to say, “Oh well, this is what we are told by people and we think it is a good idea. It fits in with our obligations and our attitudes”. Instead, they might say, “We will argue in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and at the end of it we will see whether we were right. We will see whether the Opposition were right or we were. If we show we are right, we have a really good position to say to the public, ‘There you are, we said we were right and we have been proved right’”. They might say now that they are not even going to find out whether they are right, not going to measure it and not going to accept these amendments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I disagree on most things. Both of us, though, think that it would be a good idea to check to see where we are. I do not understand why representatives of the trade unions are not getting up and saying to the Government, “Look, we think we’re right and we think you’re right, so check it and independently show that it is right”. Instead of that, the Government are admitting, frankly, either that they do not know or that they fear they would be proved wrong. I want a Government who are brave enough to say, “We’ll actually put it to the test. We’ll actually accept these amendments and we’ll find out who’s right. If we’re wrong, we’ll change it. If we’re right, we’ll crow like mad over those people who told us we were wrong”.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I agree with almost everything that my noble friend said. When I was growing up, my father, who was in business, suffered the three-day week, and I understand the impact it had on his business and many like his. I also understand that productivity needs to be improved and increased. We need to look at what is happening across the world to be competitive enough.
I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, has a business and understands business. If he were sitting on this side of the Chamber, I suspect that he would be arguing in the same vein as we are. It would be right and proper not to shirk away from proper impact assessments and proper comparative assessments of what is happening across the world, because we all want a competitive country where we are leading at the helm. Denying and disagreeing just for the sake of denying and disagreeing does not do this debate any good.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, unusually, I completely agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Deben; he and I are both surprised by that. That is not because I am a business owner—that has never been my shtick—but because I am worried about the unintended consequences of the Bill. I too simply want an opportunity to check—and if I am wrong, that is fine.
This group of amendments is very important because it will give the Government a chance to think again, to assess and to reflect. It does not have to be a U-turn; it can straightforwardly be something that is accepted at this point in the Bill that would then mean that those of us who are nervous about the Bill’s consequences can be proved right or wrong.
I am particularly concerned about the impact the Bill will have on productivity, and Amendment 311 is therefore key. I am concerned that the Bill is not doing what it says on the tin and will have a diametrically negative impact on workers’ rights, jobs and wages. I am interested in Amendment 312, which simply asks for real wage impact reporting.
Of course, the big amendment that would cover all the things that have been argued for so far is Amendment 319, which calls for an impact assessment of the regulatory burden of the Bill on businesses. In the past, people who have complained about overregulation have been considered to be on the right of politics—the idea is that those people are so irresponsible that they do not want any regulations and are prepared to take risks. I have never understood it like that at all.
I was therefore delighted to find that I agreed with the Government and the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, when he made some tub-thumping speeches about the problems of
“the regulators, the blockers and bureaucrats”
stopping investment and growth. He called them an “alliance of naysayers”, which I thought was good, because I have always been worried about this. I am not from the Tory fold, but that goes along with what I thought. I was genuinely excited that the Labour Government were embracing this way of understanding what can get in the way of economic development and growth, which is necessary for workers to have jobs, wages and rights under an industrial policy that we are hearing about today—all the infrastructure things.
Last December, the Prime Minister infamously blamed Britain’s sluggish growth on
“people in Whitehall … comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline”.
As we have been going through the Bill, I have felt like I am in the tepid bath of managed decline at the heart of Whitehall and Westminster. Therefore, I urge the government representatives here to remember their own Prime Minister’s words when deciding how they should approach the Bill, rather than just being partisan.
Between 2015 and 2023, the Conservative Government set themselves the target of a £19 billion reduction in business costs through deregulation. Instead, the Regulatory Policy Committee watchdog calculated that even exempting most Covid regulation, the regulatory burden increased by £18.4 billion in that period. I am saying this because people keep declaring that they are going to tear up the regulations getting in the way of growth, industrial capacity and so on, and then, the next minute, unintentionally, regulations grow. The Bill is so jam-packed with regulations that workers’ rights do not stand a chance of breathing.
One of the fears I have about the Bill, which I have raised in a number of amendments and which I hope Amendment 319 will address, is that it is a recipe for huge amounts of lawfare. Day one rights and protection from unfair dismissal both sound progressive and admirable, but the Government’s own analysis predicts a 15% rise in employment tribunal claims. There are already huge backlogs of between 18 months to two years, even before the Bill is enacted, so there is a real threat of a litigious clogging up of the system. Of course it is important that employees are treated fairly. As I have argued throughout consideration of the Bill, I am not frightened of trade union and workers’ rights at all, but I am concerned about this growth, encouragement and incentivisation of the use of lawfare.
I have just read a fascinating report, which I will send to the Ministers, entitled The Equality Act isn’t Working: Equalities, Legislation and the Breakdown of Informal Civility in the Workplace, produced by the anti-racist, colourblind organisation Don’t Divide Us, which assesses the unintended consequences of the Equality Act. Nobody thought this would happen, but it has led to a real fractiousness in the workplace: people are suing each other, all sorts of things are going wrong, and, in many ways, it has clogged up the system. The last thing we need is the Bill adding to that burden, leading to lawfare and people taking matters even further by suing each other.
Either an impact assessment is going to show that some of the concerns raised are overhyped, or in some instances ideological or raised by nay-sayers; or the Government can take the opportunity to say, “We never intended the legislation to do this, but we have seen that in some areas, it needs to be tweaked to make sure that it is not over-regulatory, damaging workers’ rights and wages and so on, in which case we are prepared to be honest and hold our hands up”. That is the very least legislators should do when they introduce a law that is going to bring huge change the whole business and workplace arena.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, as somebody who does business from time to time and tries to encourage business, not least through my deputy chairmanship of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is trying to grow business right across the Commonwealth, it strikes me that the Bill comes at an unfortunate time. Of course, we should always look at regulation, and there will always be an argument about what is over-regulation and what is under-regulation. But at a time when so many jobs are threatened by AI, we should surely be looking at a low regulatory framework. I urge the Government to take this into consideration during any impact assessment.
The Minister knows about business. He is a businessman and has a successful business, and I too suspect that he identifies with many of the points we are raising, although he cannot say it. But it strikes me that, just at a time when people are very fearful about their future and the uncertainty of having a job at all, let alone when they get older, so they can raise a family, have a mortgage and so forth, we should be looking at ways to encourage businesses to employ more people. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he saw every good reason not to employ more people. That is really bad news. If businesses are now saying it is simply not worth the candle, that will contribute to the unemployment that will surely follow as many of these jobs are replaced by AI anyway. So I urge the Government to look at that.
Equally, at a time when many countries around the world, not least in Asia, are spending much more money, time and effort on advanced mathematics and the other things you need nowadays for coding and so forth, we in this country seem to be lowering the standards, particularly in mathematics—dumbing down at a time when we should be raising up. So by all means, let us properly protect our workers, but let us not overregulate to the extent that we do not have any workers to look after or to regulate.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will address Amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319, which collectively seek greater transparency on the economic consequences of this legislation.
Although I am afraid that I take no firm view on the amendments themselves, which were explained in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and spoken to by other noble Lords, who expressed reservations—obviously, there are reservations—I welcome the principle that they reflect: that we must remain vigilant as to how new laws affect businesses, wages and productivity. No one else has said this, but I appreciate that the Government are already undertaking much of this work, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how that work is progressing and informing policy development.
Amendment 310 raises a valuable and timely question about how new and small businesses might fare under the Bill. As the noble Lord knows, and as I know from a working lifetime as a chartered accountant, these enterprises often lack the resources, legal support and regulatory expertise of larger firms. It is only right that we ask whether the framework we are putting in place enables them to enter the market, grow and succeed on fair terms.
If the Government are serious about delivering long-term economic growth, they must pay close attention to the conditions facing new business entrants and small start-ups. These businesses, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, are not only a vital source of innovation and competition but key to job creation, skills development and regional regeneration. The barriers they face—and there are increasing barriers—whether through opaque processes or disproportionate compliance costs, can limit their contribution to the economy. By reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and ensuring a fair and accessible regulatory environment, we can help unlock their potential.
Growth will not come from productivity targets or ministerial ambition alone; it will depend on everyday decisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, made by entrepreneurs and small business owners around the country. We should support them accordingly. As mentioned previously, I do not readily back these amendments themselves—I do not think I agree with them—but I hope the Government will take careful note of the arguments they raise, particularly the point made in Amendment 310 about the effect on new and small businesses, which deserves further attention and consideration.
There are going to be economic consequences of this part of the Bill, and the Government should tell us how they view the impact of those. Noble Lords have spoken about increased costs. We all know—anyone who has been involved with business knows—that there will obviously be increased costs. Laws that we have put in over the years have added to those costs, but most businesses have managed to increase efficiency to try and mitigate them and make more profits. You have to adjust to what is happening in the world.
These amendments, and this part of the Bill, are about impact assessments and regulatory burdens. Are we putting too many burdens on people, or are those regulatory burdens helpful to the economics of this country? We must do things which increase productivity, and that is part of what the amendments are about. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he had run businesses, and many of us in this Chamber have run businesses or advised them. I hope that he is going to be proved wrong—he asked to be proved wrong. I await the Government’s answer to the comments that he made in this debate.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord for their contribution, and I have listened intently to each and every one of them. I thank noble Lords for their kind words about my previous business career.
We return to the important issue of impact assessments. I appreciate the continued efforts of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, here. It will be no surprise to your Lordships’ House, given the number of separate debates—I think there have been about eight now—we have had on this topic, that the Government view these amendments as unnecessary. Let me recap. We have already published 27 impact assessments, available on GOV.UK, which have been updated where needed as policy has been added to the Bill during passage.
Academics at Warwick University, Oxford University, MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research. For example, Simon Deakin, professor of law at the University of Cambridge, said:
“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that gains are distributed more widely across society”.
All this evidence is laid out in our impact assessment, which was developed in consultation with external experts. Business supports the view that this will be good for productivity. In a survey undertaken by the Institute of Public Policy, seven in 10 employers said that strengthened employment rights will boost productivity, compared to just 7% who disagreed, and six in 10 employers thought stronger employment rights would have a positive impact on business profitability, while fewer than two in 10 disagreed.
We have worked hand in hand with businesses, trade unions and civil society to understand the impacts of this Bill—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
There is no doubt that people who are happy at work are likely to contribute positively to the workplace. Nobody, I think, is arguing against that and wants miserable workers with no rights. However, what we are trying to explore is not whether people will have job satisfaction but whether they will have jobs. It is about the unintended consequences of the Bill that might mean that people are not employed; or, indeed, that new jobs are not created because productivity will not go up; or that it becomes too risky to employ, for example, young workers, and so on.
With all due respect to Warwick University’s academics—I went there and I know some of the people who wrote that research, and I am sure that they are happy in their workplace—the truth is that if some piece of legislation ended up unintentionally closing down Warwick University, they would not be happy and productivity would not go up. That is what we are concerned with. It is not a theoretical academic argument about how being happy at work makes you work harder—I know that. But if there is no work, then you are not going to be happy, you are not going to do any work and productivity will go down.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution. If she can be a bit patient, I have some more positive news for her.
We have worked hand in hand with businesses and trade unions, as I said earlier, to understand the impacts of the Bill on industry and will produce further analysis as required under the Better Regulation Framework. It is worth noting that more doors are opening than closing. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created, up 2.8% on last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%. This Government are backing British businesses and British workers, and our Modern Industrial Strategy, published yesterday, is making that real. To give one example, we have boosted the British Business Bank’s capacity to £25.6 billion, unlocking billions for innovative firms, especially SMEs. For the first time, the British Business Bank will be able to take equity in fast-growing tech companies. This has never happened before. That is helping crowd in tens of billions of pounds more in private capital, fuelling growth, creating jobs and driving long-term prosperity. I hope that gives comfort to the noble Lord, Lord Deben.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am very pleased with all the research that was done before the Bill and all the research that has been done with it. The only question is: when the Bill goes through, why do not we do the research to make sure that we were right? I cannot understand why we draw the line the moment the Bill is passed, except in the generalities of better regulation. Will the Minister, whose business knowledge is considerable, please accept that businesspeople normally measure by results? Why cannot we measure the results?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. I ask him to bear with me—patience here. We are already seeing the results. Just this morning, Amazon announced a £40 billion investment. This means that it has resounding confidence in the UK Government.
Baroness Verma (Con)
We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses too, and they are not all going to be tech companies; they are not all going to be Amazons. They are small or medium-sized companies that keep most cities and towns going.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that. I, together with my ministerial colleagues, speak to businesses every day, whether they are tech companies, other businesses or whatever. Yesterday, I had a conversation with Small Business Britain, and we talked about this Bill and most of its members have confidence in this Government. We talk to all businesses.
I come back to Amazon: basically, what it means is £40 billion. It is creating 4,000 new jobs across the UK, which is a major boost to our tech and logistics sector. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows that business confidence is at a nine-month high, with a rise in hiring expectations among businesses. This is proof that our plan for change is working. Britain is open for business, and the world is taking notice. There is simply nothing more I can add to the noble Lord’s argument. This analysis—and we will continue to do impact assessments—will be done, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 310.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify whether he said that 90,000 jobs were created in the first quarter of 2025, or was it 290,000? I missed the exact figure. It is my understanding that, in the first quarter of last year, with which the comparison has been made by the Minister, there were 248,000 new entrants. The Minister spoke of new jobs, but our impact assessment is on new entrants to the market and there were 248,000 in the first quarter of last year. If the 90,000 refers to new jobs as opposed to new entrants into the workforce, that is a different comparison.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say this again. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created. Business creation was up by 2.8% over last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been such an important debate. We have been throwing statistics around the Chamber as if they had just been invented. The very latest statistic that I have in front of me, published in Business Matters, is that:
“Britain has recorded its highest number of company closures for two decades, with the final quarter of 2024 seeing 198,046 businesses struck off the official register”.
That is hot from the press. We have really been debating—
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I must challenge the noble Lord. There are many reasons for business closures. Companies get struck off for all kinds of reasons. Unless we drill deep down into what that figure is comprised of and whether the reasons are insolvency or companies being dormant, it will be difficult just throwing figures around.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Is that not exactly why we need to measure the impact? That is what this debate has been all about. The Minister has done my job for me, but he has not accepted any of the amendments.
I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor very much indeed, not only for the facts and figures that she gave us but for how she stressed that there has been, is perceived to be and is taking place an increase in the regulatory burden. Looking ahead, there are more compliance costs to come. Why does the Minister not accept that there is a need for an independent impartial measure? That is what these amendments seek. My noble friend Lord Deben, with all his unrivalled experience in building up businesses, is arguing that we need to check, to look ahead and to ensure that we can measure the impact of this legislation. Who is going to be right? The Government are saying, “Trust us, we’re right, we know what’s best, this will increase growth”. Yet their own impact assessment says that it will not.
Therefore, when you analyse all the facts and statistics that are coming forward, surely there is a very strong argument that we need an independent impact assessment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Verma that, if our roles were reversed and the Minister, with all his experience, was sitting on this side of the House, these are the amendments that he would be pressing for, because he knows how important it is to measure the impact of legislation and regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, spoke of measuring what is happening now against what the Prime Minister promised in cutting the amount of regulatory burden and reversing the managed decline. It was good that she reminded us of those key words. Yet, as she said, this legislation is jam-packed with regulation. Her warning that this legislation is a recipe for lawfare is a warning to us all.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Swire that there is a need for a low regulatory framework at a time when our competitors are embracing artificial intelligence and all the new techniques while we are increasing the regulatory burden. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, got the answer that he was looking for from the Minister. Although he may not agree specifically with each individual amendment, he does believe that there is a clear message here that we must take on board.
Lord Monks (Lab)
I was just sitting here looking at the noble Lord, a member of Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, with another one over there, the noble Lord, Lord Deben. When they passed a major piece of legislation, were there were any cases where you went to Mrs Thatcher and said, “Can we have an independent assessment of whether we have done the right thing?” I cannot remember anybody ever doing that, but perhaps the noble Lord can tell me otherwise.
Lord Deben (Con)
Can the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mention any occasion on which the Official Opposition of the time demanded it?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My noble friend is quite right. I was going to make a rejoinder by demonstrating that, with Margaret Thatcher assessing, when you proposed a piece of legislation, you had to make sure that you had done your homework and carried out every possible impact assessment, as you would be closely cross-examined on each and every piece of legislation. I worry that this Bill has been rushed through in the first 100 days and no one has carried out the sort of test that Margaret Thatcher would have imposed. Therefore, I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for reminding us of that criterion, which we ought to bear in mind.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
The noble Lord has lured me into asking a question about impact assessments and the historic impact of the Thatcher Government. Which impact assessment said that there was a legislative decision made incorrectly during that period?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
We were subject to parliamentary scrutiny each and every day of the 18 years that we were in power. It was good that this accountability to Parliament was treasured by those in Parliament. However, I worry, certainly so far as secondary legislation. The noble Lord served with me on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and joined with me in saying, “Please let us make sure that every piece of legislation that we pass has a proper impact assessment”. Perhaps we learn from history that it is vitally important to have that impact assessment always ready there to prove, as my noble friend Lord Deben put it, whether we have got it right or wrong.
I worry that this Government have not done their homework. The fact that they resist these amendments suggests that the cut in regulatory burdens is not going to be pursued with any real determination. That 25% target is destined to remain a headline-grabbing announcement that quietly disappears when submerged under the reality of real-life policy choices. I hope that the Government reconsider, because these issues will come up over the next few years of this Government. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Social mobility impact reportingWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an independent assessment of its impact on social mobility.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, in some ways, we are continuing a theme with Amendment 313 in my name. The Government have talked about supporting those on the fringes of the labour market; this is a goal that I hope we all share. We know that different individuals face different work challenges, whether due to educational background, employment history, health circumstances or socioeconomic factors. The question before us is whether this legislation achieves that laudable objective or whether it inadvertently makes it harder for precisely those individuals whom the Government claim they want to help.
I start with the day-one right concerning unfair dismissal, and I pose a fundamental question: why would any employer take on what might be considered a high-risk hire? Why would they take a chance on a young person seeking their first opportunity? Why would they hire a student who did not attend a top-tier university? Why would they consider a person from a lower socioeconomic background, who may lack conventional credentials but definitely possesses untapped potential? When employers face immediate legal liability for dismissal decisions, they naturally become more risk averse in their hiring practices. They gravitate towards candidates with proven track records, established credentials and minimal perceived risk. This is not callousness; it is rational economic behaviour in response to the regulatory environment.
The Government’s refusal to include a meaningful probationary period at this stage compounds the problem significantly. I have little doubt that, fairly soon, the Government will be arguing that they intend to consult and to continue with a light-touch probationary regime, which, it is suggested, could last for up to nine months. That is all well and good, but what does it mean in practice? What does the phrase “light-touch” mean and how will it be defined? Who are they going to be consulting, and on what? What are the Government thinking about this? It needs to be in primary legislation. Make no mistake: this uncertainty is affecting business decision-making now.
It looks as if the Government fundamentally fail to understand that employment relationships involve mutual discovery. In the short term, virtually all jobs represent a cost to business. Employers hire workers not because they are immediately profitable but because they are confident that, over time, these workers will develop skills, reach their peak performance and productivity, and ultimately become a net benefit to the company or employing organisation. This process of development and mutual learning requires flexibility. It requires the ability for both parties to recognise when a match is not working and to part ways without excessive legal complexity. By removing this flexibility from day one, the legislation creates a powerful incentive to hire only the safest and the most predictable candidates—precisely the opposite of supporting those on the fringe of the labour market.
The same perverse logic applies to the day-one right to sick pay. Consider the position of someone who has been absent from the workforce for an extended period. There are businesses that will make a point of hiring such individuals, recognising their potential and being willing to provide them with opportunities. But now the cost calculation has fundamentally changed. An employer considering such a hire must now factor in the immediate liability for sick pay from day one, combined with an inability to part ways if the employment relationship proves unsuccessful. The rational response is fairly obvious: avoid the risk entirely.
This is not theoretical speculation; it is how labour markets function when faced with regulatory constraints. No amount of academic opinion can state otherwise. I urge the Government to review the impact on social mobility, so that they can adapt the legislation to avoid the unintended consequences I have highlighted. Like my noble friend Lord Deben on the last group, I would like to be proved wrong on this. If I am, I invite the Government to gloat to their hearts’ content about that, but I think we need the evidence. I beg to move.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s excellent amendment, as we reach the end of Committee. Before I get into the substance of that, I will offer some praise. Noble Lords know that, last week, I took issue with the Government Front Bench about the potential lack of response to letters from individual noble Lords who had raised specific points during Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is no longer in her place, took some issue with that, resiled from my analysis and said that it was not the case. However, over the last few days, I have received a plethora of epistles from the Government in my email. As Private Eye may have said in the past, are those two occasions by any chance related? That was my praise; I thank the Government for coming forward with those letters and we will hold them to account when we reach Report. I am grateful for small mercies, nevertheless.
I commend to the Government the excellent report of the Social Mobility Commission, State of the Nation Report 2024: Local to National, Mapping Opportunities for All. I probably say this at every juncture, but my noble friend’s amendment is helpful, because there is a cross-party consensus that we should all be working to help young people in particular into work, innovative employment, and skills and training. As we all know, and as has been found by apolitical third parties such as the charity the Sutton Trust, which focuses on improving social mobility, there are disparities across the country. There are sectoral and geographic disparities, and disparities in people’s backgrounds, race, ethnicity, age et cetera. As far as is practicable, we should be designing legislation that tackles issues around improving life chances, training and skills, and innovation.
More fundamentally, we need to be designing legislation that tackles endemic, entrenched inequalities, and that is what this amendment is about. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is absolutely right that this is about opportunity cost. Many employers, given the chance, will try to help young people by giving them a chance to improve their life chances and skills, and by paying for their exams and training, et cetera—via apprenticeships, for instance. But the legislative regime will be such that they are encouraged not to employ that person, because they may have a disability, may be late to the employment market or may not be socialised—they may not understand the protocols of going to work each day, of being on time and of being dressed smartly, which are very basic things that we take for granted. That risk aversity, employers not wanting to employ those people, will have a negative effect as the corollary of this Bill.
Ministers have a chance at least to engage with this amendment and, when we come to Report, I hope to accept it; it would make a real difference to the lives of people who find it tough to enter and stay in the employment market. I encourage Ministers to look at the report to which I referred, and at the work that has been done to support the Bill and its laudable objectives. My noble friend offers this amendment in good faith in order genuinely to improve the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will look on it favourably and incorporate its ideas into the finished Bill.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I could not support this amendment more; I heartily support it. A social mobility impact assessment is vital.
I want to illustrate this with a few brief words on the retail sector. My noble friends have referred to the many reasons why people are excluded from employment in the retail sector, such as a lack of social mobility. When this Bill was coming forward last year, the British Retail Consortium expressed great concern and doubt about its ability to offer jobs. The BRC indicated that 61% of those consulted said that the Bill would reduce flexibility in job offers, 10% were unsure and 23% said that it would have no effect.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in a previous life, I used to work in further education with many young people who were non-traditionally successful. In more current times, I have worked on matters relating to prison reform and I am very interested in former prisoners gaining employment. In all the instances of working with young people who did not have traditional qualifications or were trying to get into work, or with former prisoners, you were in a situation where you were talking to local employers and asking them to take a punt—a risk—on people. You would say, “Look, the worst that can happen is that you try this person out, it doesn’t work out and no one’s lost anything, but actually I’ve got every faith they will be brilliant”, and so on and so forth. You had to say, “Take a risk”, and I am afraid that in all the responses from employers they are saying, whether we like it or not, that the Bill—if enacted as it is presently constituted —will mean they become risk averse and will not take risks on a former prisoner or a young person who is a bit of a scally. So it is key to assess social mobility.
In addition to that group of people, one of the key ways in which work contributes to social mobility is often through young entrepreneurs or young people who, again, might not be conventionally the kind of people who will pass the Civil Service exam, will not necessarily fit in as an ideal employee and might be slightly eccentric or risk-takers, but who will set up their own micro-business. We know that they are the kind of people who might well be successful, although sometimes they might not be.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, there have been a lot of amendments tabled about micro-businesses—not SMEs, as they are traditionally still quite large businesses whereas micro-businesses have around 20 staff, or even two, three or four. If you talk to young entrepreneurs—the sort of young men who drop out of college but set up semiconductor manufacturing organisations, like some people I know, a builders’ business or a small hairdressers’ business—they realise that many parts of the Bill, which I have opposed throughout, will affect them. They do not have huge HR departments, they are not lawyers and they do not know what they are going to do, but they will be held liable for swathes of regulatory rules mandated by the Bill about the way they run their micro-businesses.
Those people are part of the great success of social mobility. They start out and make a success of it, but now it might not be worth it. They are not always poor and impoverished people. It can be young people making good through small businesses.
If it is the case that this is scaremongering about the worst fears or people just being paranoid, fair enough. But this Labour Government, of all Governments, should want to assess whether the Bill inadvertently, not intentionally, damages social mobility via employment. I therefore urge the Minister to accept this harmless but important amendment.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who covered quite a few of the points I planned to make. I want to speak specifically about young people.
Speaking very recently in front of a committee, Employment Minister Alison McGovern said that
“the situation for young people is a big worry for me at the moment”
and that:
“A lot of our young people—nearly 1 million—are effectively on the scrap heap”.
Those are not words I would have chosen myself; they are her words to a cross-party committee.
We have heard a lot of statistics during today’s debates. I will just add a few more. There are 1 million people not in education, employment or training, which includes a lot of young people. In addition, we have massive numbers of people receiving sickness benefits. All these young people will be a risk for employers.
The Minister is quite right that there has been an uptick in new businesses starting, but there is a serious downturn in the number of jobs created; unemployment is rising year on year, month on month since this Government took power; and the tax rises in the Autumn Budget are beginning to really kick in. We have seen that in the written submissions by numerous business organisations to the Government, other groups and Peers in this Chamber, begging—pleading—with us all to make their case about the significant costs they are already facing due to the national insurance rises. We can see it in real time. This amendment is a request to monitor the situation and come back with an impact assessment on perhaps the most vulnerable people in our society.
To show that these young people really want to succeed and want to have an opportunity, I will read the Committee a couple more numbers that the Minister is probably already well aware of. Some 60% of young people under the age of 30 would love to start a business, 9% of them have done so and 18% more of them would like to do so this year. These are the most vulnerable young people in our society. They are our future, as our demographics are getting older, and we are going to become more and more reliant on the economy that they generate. I have said it before, and I will say it again and again in this Chamber: Governments do not create growth; businesses create growth. We are now looking to these young people to start businesses and take risks on employing others. I urge the Government to, at the very least, come back having monitored that there is no impact on them and no further impact on the loss of employment that could ensue.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about letters. I assure him that it is no coincidence that when we make a commitment and say that we will write, we write. I make sure that my officials write to everyone to whom I have promised a letter within 10 working days. If the noble Lord has not received letters from us, I welcome the challenge of being put on the spot to ask why the letters are not there.
I have a couple of points. I am a firm believer in social mobility. When I exited my business, some 20 years ago, I was very much involved in a social enterprise that went into state schools to ensure that state pupils were able to get out of their shell, be better and make something out of their lives. I am a firm believer in social mobility, and this Government take social mobility seriously. We do not just talk about it; we action it.
To support our commitment to ensuring that everyone, no matter their background, can thrive, we will commence Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England:
“Public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities”.
As an example, the socioeconomic duty will require specific public bodies to actively consider how their strategic decisions might help to reduce the inequalities of outcomes associated with socioeconomic disadvantage. We are also now taking forward work to make sure that commencement of the duty in England is as effective as possible in driving efforts across the country to break down barriers to opportunity and making sure that there is no glass ceiling on people’s ambition.
I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We debated unfair dismissal and probation periods on day five of Committee, which was 21 May. We debated sick pay on days two and three of Committee, which were 8 and 13 May. We have debated some of these points at length.
I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about some of the 1 million young people who are not in employment, training or education. We recognise that, and we are doing something about it. Since the general election, 500,000 more people are in work. At same time, we are improving access to NHS appointments; some 3 million people have been seen by medics in NHS appointments.
Baroness Cash (Con)
I would like some clarity regarding the employment numbers, because unemployment has been rising and is higher. We know from a number of City firms that graduates are struggling to get jobs, even in supermarkets. We have 33% fewer jobs for graduates. I just want the Minister to clarify the increase that he referred to and where that is coming from.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that remark. I will get officials to write, setting out the detailed analysis of where this unemployment is and where new jobs are being created. I want to make absolutely sure that we get this right. We have already improved the NHS waiting list, and something like 3 million people have already accessed their appointments.
On the point about the impact assessment, which I will not labour, this analysis, as I have set up in many preceding groups, will be done. That includes social mobility. There is no point me standing here and repeating what I have just said. All this will be done. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 313.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answer. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Jackson, Lady Lawlor and Lady Cash for their supportive comments and to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who raised some very interesting points.
I gently suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, that we are not just talking about it either; we are proposing to do something about it. We want to protect social mobility, which is why we have tabled this amendment. He sounded disappointed that we have to keep returning to this debate—so are we, but we do not feel that we are getting meaningful answers on the subject of the consultation, which we have brought up on numerous occasions. Until we get those meaningful answers, we will continue to return to this debate.
The Government may not deem a comprehensive impact assessment necessary for these provisions, but they have not given a satisfactory response to the serious concerns raised about social mobility and opportunity creation. In our opinion, this represents a failure to engage with the economic realities of how the employment market functions, and the Minister knows this as well as I do.
We must judge policies by their results, not their intentions. Results are not dependent on the nobility of our intentions but on the incentives that policies create in the real world. This Bill creates the wrong kinds of incentives. It incentivises employers to become more risk-averse, not more inclusive. It incentivises the hiring of safe, conventional candidates over those who might bring fresh perspectives but lack traditional credentials. It incentivises the protection of those already in employment at the expense of those seeking to enter it. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, it disincentivises taking a punt.
Do not just take my word for it, take those of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Its most recent survey stated:
“Members say that, at a time when the government needs business to drive growth by taking risks, the Bill, along with these other pressures, will make businesses more risk averse. ‘We worry businesses will start playing it too safe, choosing a “safe pair of hands” over bold, innovative talent that could drive real change’”.
These are not the incentives of a modern, dynamic economy that seeks to maximise opportunity and social mobility. They are the incentives of a system that entrenches existing advantages and fundamentally will make it harder for those without them to break through. We think that is a tragedy. This legislation will be judged a failure because of the standards its proponents have set for it. When employment opportunities for young people decline, social mobility stagnates and those on the fringes of the labour market find doors closing rather than opening, we will see the true measure of these policies, and that will be regrettable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
“Guidance for small businesses(1) The Secretary of State must publish a document containing statutory guidance for businesses with fewer than 50 employees on their employment and legal obligations under this Act.(2) The document must include, in particular— (a) an overview of the relevant legal duties placed on employers under this Act, (b) a practical framework outlining how such businesses can meet those duties, and(c) guidance on best practice suitable to businesses of this size.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance for small businesses in adhering to the employment and legal requirements of this Act.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I note the sorry absence of my noble friend Lord Fox, whose contributions on these matters have always been thoughtful and constructive. Unfortunately, the Committee has me instead. I will focus in particular on Amendments 317 and 329, both tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, which aim to provide much-needed clarity and certainty to small businesses as they seek to understand and comply with the provisions of the Bill.
Amendment 317 would require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance to support small businesses in meeting the employment and legal obligations introduced by this legislation. This is a modest and reasonable ask that would have a significant practical benefit. For many small businesses, compliance is a question not of good will but capacity. Unlike larger firms, they do not have in-house legal departments or external consultants on retainer. They need clear, accessible, authoritative guidance that they can rely on from day one. This amendment is not about watering down the law, nor is it about shielding firms from responsibility. It is about enabling small businesses to do the right thing without having to second-guess the detail or bear disproportionate cost in trying to interpret it.
Amendment 329 would build on that principle by making the commencement of the Act contingent on the publication and parliamentary approval of such guidance. It is important to say that we on these Benches understand the mandate that the Government won at the last election, and we have no intention of delaying the Bill beyond our duty to scrutinise it. However, this amendment reflects a deep concern about the real-world impact that the legislation may have on small businesses if clarity is not in place from the outset.
It is not necessarily about the measures in the Bill itself but about how they are communicated and implemented. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that well-intentioned businesses will fall foul of the law through no fault of their own. These amendments offer the Government a constructive route to avoid that outcome. I hope that Ministers will engage with them in that spirit. We are just trying to make it so that businesses, like the Minister, would know what they have to do. They need it to be set out. I hope that the Government will feel this is a possibility that they will consider before Report. I beg to move.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 326 in this group. I begin by saying again how gracious it was of the Minister to meet me to discuss my amendments in advance a couple of weeks or so ago. My Amendment 326 is on the same theme of the need for impact assessments before provisions are brought into force. It provides that:
“Regulations which would amend primary legislation may not be laid … unless an assessment of the impact … has been laid before Parliament and three months has elapsed”
from that date.
Delegated powers that can amend primary legislation are, of course, known as Henry VIII powers. This derives from the Statute of Proclamations in 1539 when Henry VIII persuaded the Commons to include a provision in a Bill that would permit him to issue decrees having the same effect as an Act of Parliament and thereby bypass the normal parliamentary process.
Henry VIII powers can be draconian and raise real questions as regards compliance with the rule of law. This is not just my view. In his much-lauded Bingham lecture on 14 October 2024, entitled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, was obviously right when he said that excessive reliance on delegated powers, including Henry VIII clauses
“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law ... but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”—
issues that
“raise real questions about how we are governed”.
These are wise words indeed and very welcome, but I find it difficult to reconcile them with our Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out at Second Reading, there are around 163 delegated powers in our Bill and 12 Henry VIII powers. As he powerfully put it:
“Ministers are, in effect, asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide to do, whenever they decide to do it”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1845.]
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report of 24 April, described various Henry VIII powers in the Bill as, “overly broad”, “inadequately justified”, and an
“inappropriate use of the … affirmative process”.
As it said, Henry VIII powers are subject to far less scrutiny than primary legislation.
And this is the heart of the problem. Much of the legislation needed is yet to come, but it will not be capable of being scrutinised as it should be because of the reliance on Henry VIII clauses. It is a symptom of a rushed agenda but also, more worryingly, of a growing acceptance that Henry VIII powers are okay. They are becoming the default option.
The Select Committee on the Constitution, in its report, points out that Clause 24, “Dismissal during pregnancy”, and Clause 25, “Dismissal following period of statutory family leave”, both
“contain and extend Henry VIII powers that … act as placeholders while the Government consults further on the specifics of the measures to be implemented”.
This can mean only that
“substantive policy decisions have not yet been taken”
on those issues. But it also means a lack of certainty about how the provisions will operate in practice, which the Select Committee-considered to be “particularly concerning”, given that the provisions enable primary legislation to be modified.
In addition, Schedule 7 contains a list of extensive legislative powers in connection with labour market enforcement, under Part 5, which are passing to the Secretary of State. Paragraph 35 confers on the Secretary of State a Henry VIII power to add by regulations any enactment which affects the rights of employees, trade unions and the duties of employers.
These extensive enforcement powers in Part 5 also need to be considered alongside Clauses 151 and 153. These clauses contain a power to make any consequential provision, which may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify
“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same session as … this Act ... and may make different provision for different purposes or … areas”
or
“contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision”.
The Government may respond that the power to make consequential provision is confined to what is purely consequential. That is true, but what is purely consequential turns on the scope of the provisions they are said to be in consequence of. Combining these consequential powers with the wide powers in Part 5, for example, would seem to give the Secretary of State the power to confer on his enforcement officers even wider powers when entering offices to search and seize documents, if they are in some way connected with the operation. I think even Henry VIII would have been impressed. His 1539 Statute of Proclamations allowed him to amend legislation by decree, but even he was not permitted to prejudice
“any person’s offices, liberties, goods”
or “chattels”.
Then there is the power to make provision for different purposes or different areas. What is the need for that power? When I was in government as a lawyer, parliamentary counsel would probe closely as to why we needed this power, and we would have to justify it. My amendment is therefore designed to bring some transparency and due diligence to the use of these Henry VIII powers before they are laid and debated. It would simply provide that, before such regulations could be laid, there would need to be an impact assessment laid before Parliament for three months to enable a bit more parliamentary scrutiny. This would give time for reflection and, if the Government decided to proceed with laying the regulations, it would serve to enhance the level of parliamentary debates on the regulations that subsequently take place under the affirmative procedure.
I give the last word to the great Lord Judge, who spoke strongly against such clauses when he was Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. He said:
“You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. ‘Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty’”.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Carter of Haslemere, for their amendments in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, commented, it gives us the chance to send further good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a speedy recovery. We look forward to seeing him back in this Chamber to discuss this vital Bill.
Dealing with Amendment 317 first, the Government have already acknowledged that the vast majority of the costs associated with this legislation will fall on smaller businesses, but it is not just the obvious headline of which we must be mindful. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, there are significant hidden costs too. These include the need to hire legal professionals, expand human resource capacity, and navigate increasingly complex compliance requirements, which many smaller firms simply cannot afford. That is why statutory guidance specifically tailored for small businesses—those with fewer than 50 employees—is not just helpful; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that it is essential. These businesses are the backbone of our economy. They do not have in-house counsel, nor the luxury of large HR departments, yet they are bound by the same obligations under this Bill as any large corporation.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Fox, for Amendments 317, 326 and 329, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is on guidance for small businesses. Ensuring that businesses are supported to implement these reforms is fundamental to the successful delivery of the plan to make work pay. We have committed to providing guidance to ensure that all stakeholders have the information required to make necessary adjustments. We are engaging closely with employers of all types from a range of sectors to understand how the Government can best support them in their preparations.
Support may look different for different sectors, sizes of company, regions and so on. We want to make sure that we properly consider the needs of different employers and respond in the most effective way. This could include a variety of tailored guidance and support. The amendment risks preventing the Government taking the type of tailored approach that we hope will be most effective. Our forthcoming implementation road map will set out our plans for consultation and implementation of the Bill’s measures.
Our Employment Rights Bill delivers the most significant upgrade in employment rights in a generation, creating a modern, fairer labour market. We will continue to consult and engage to make sure we get delivery right. We will produce guidance, provide support, allow time to prepare, and ensure the enforcement landscape works. I make it clear that I agree with the noble Lord that it is in everyone’s interest that small businesses are properly supported to implement the Bill, and the Government are committed to doing so.
Amendment 329 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would make commencement of all the Bill’s measures contingent on the approval and publication of statutory guidance. This would unnecessarily delay commencement of measures that can be delivered more quickly. We are committed to supporting small businesses and will ensure that timely and targeted guidance is delivered where relevant.
I turn to Amendment 326 from the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I have read the entire Bingham lecture from my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. Nowhere in his speech did he say that statutory instruments should not be used. As most noble Lords know, employment legislation uses true statutory instruments because they save parliamentary time, as mentioned in the Attorney-General’s speech, so that we can get more of this on the statute book.
I reassure the noble Lord that the Government have sought to limit the use of the Henry VIII powers within the Bill and believe our approach to their use is proportionate. I can also reassure the Committee that the Government already have robust plans in place to assess and review the impacts of this Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment would add unnecessary bureaucracy to this and other necessary powers in the Bill. It would also, in effect, duplicate work that the Government are already committed to undertaking.
Take, for example, the power in Clause 132(6). This allows the Secretary of State to update, expand or otherwise modify the list of bodies specified in Schedule 9 to the Bill with which information may be shared by the fair work agency. It is a Henry VIII power, subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government believe this is an entirely appropriate use of such power and the DPRRC also raised no concerns.
Specifically on the power in Clause 151, I reassure the noble Lord that, where possible, amendments to other pieces primary legislation that are required as a result of the Bill’s provisions have been made in the Bill itself. This includes amendments in Schedule 1 that are consequential on the provisions regarding zero hours in Clauses 1 to 5; those in paragraphs 5 to 19 of Schedule 3 that are consequential on the changes regarding unfair dismissal; and the provisions in Schedule 10 that are consequential on the provisions in Part 5. However, it is possible that further provisions will be identified that require consequential amendments. Allowing these to be made by regulations will mean they can be made without delay and with appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny. The power is constrained as it will allow amendments only where they are consequential on the provisions already made in this Bill.
Supporting employers to understand the requirements of the Bill is key to achieving the objectives of the plan to make work pay. I hope noble Lords are assured of the Government’s firm commitment to effectively and appropriately support stakeholders in preparing for employment rights reform.
This will be my last time speaking in Committee on this Bill, so—
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
If this is the last time the Minister is going to speak, I should point out that he started off by telling us about the road map, which his noble friend promised we would see shortly. In his closing remarks, would he like to tell us when we will see it? Will it be tomorrow, or next week? We would like to see it as soon as possible; indeed, we would love it if he could publish it now, before he finishes his closing speech.
Lord Leong (Lab)
It is tempting, but I can assure the noble Lord that it will be published very, very, very soon. How is that?
Like I said, this is the last time I will speak in this Committee. I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their extensive engagement and the robust way in which we have debated this stage of the Bill’s passage. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and to the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Palmer, for standing in so ably for him. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, well in his recovery and look forward to welcoming him back.
Let me be clear: this Government welcome scrutiny—that is the purpose of this House—but scrutiny must be grounded in the present and focus on the issues at hand, not lost in the echoes of decades-old political arguments. Some contributions, regretfully, seem to have been more intent on reviving grievances from the 1970s than addressing the needs of today’s Britain.
This Bill delivers on a clear manifesto promise. It is part of our plan for change, built not on rhetoric but on the practical need to provide security for working people and long-term renewal for the country. This is where our focus lies—not on refighting the past but on fixing the future. We continue to welcome serious challenge, and we expect debates to be robust, but we also expect them to be proportionate, honest and forward-looking.
As we approach the end of Committee this evening, we on this side look forward to constructive and collaborative meetings and engagement with all noble Lords ahead of Report. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 317.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Fox, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support, which was so eloquently put. I also thank the Minister for his detailed reply.
When the Minister started speaking, I thought he would use his valedictory remarks to say that he was actually going to agree with something. There was great promise that he would agree to the amendments—these reasonable amendments—as all they would do is give guidance to small businesses to show them what the legislation is. Then, I lost: he will step down without going out on a positive note, which is very sad. His argument was that all the amendment would do is delay things. Sometimes, delay is good. Delay can be good if you get it right. Too often things are done precipitately, and delay is the better alternative.
What is the answer from the Minister? We shall have more statutory instruments. I have dealt with statutory instruments in the 15 years I have been in this House. Quite honestly, we discuss them, but we never vote. There has been no vote that I can remember, and statutory instruments are a means for the Government to tell us what they are going to do, and we have to nod in agreement.
Where do small businesses stand in all this, without any real guidance? They are left in a morass. The Minister has gone off in a cloud of glory, but I still do not have an answer as to whether anything will be implemented. Sadly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment of my noble friend Lord Fox.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Rights of dependent contractorsAfter section 230 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Employees, workers etc), insert—“230A Rights of dependent contractors(1) A dependent contractor is an individual who—(a) is engaged to perform work or services personally for an employer or contractor of services;(b) primarily or substantially relies on a single employer or contractor of services for their income;(c) is not classified as an employee under a contract of employment, nor as an independent contractor operating a fully autonomous business;(d) is subject to a degree of control by the employer or contractor of services regarding the manner, timing, or conditions under which the work is performed.(2) A dependent contractor, as defined in subsection (1), must be entitled to the following rights statutorily accorded to employees— (a) payment at or above the National Minimum Wage for all tasks performed;(b) paid annual leave and shall be subject to the record-keeping duties as outlined for employees in this Act;(c) statutory sick pay;(d) family leave entitlements including parental leave, and bereavement leave;(e) protection from unlawful deductions from pay and protection against discrimination under applicable equality legislation;(f) the right to request fixed hours after a qualifying period of continuous service with the same employer or contractor of services;(g) the right to and on terms to be defined in regulations, mirroring the rights afforded to zero-hour workers and those on similar contracts.(3) Dependent contractors, as defined in subsection (1), are not entitled to—(a) statutory redundancy pay;(b) minimum notice periods for termination unless otherwise specified in their contract.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make further provision in respect of the rights and obligations of dependent contractors, including defining qualifying periods for certain rights.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment aims to define dependent contractor status by reference to existing employee rights particularly those related to flexible working arrangements and family leave.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will see my noble friend Lord Fox tomorrow and I will tell him what he has been missing. I think the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is already making history by using the phrase “very, very soon”—or was it “very, very, very soon”? In my experience, I do not think I have heard that, so it is probably arriving tomorrow morning.
Amendment 318 seeks to introduce specific provisions for dependent contractors. It proposes the insertion of a new section into the Employment Rights Act 1996, by way of a new clause after Clause 150. It is intended to address a significant gap in our current employment law by recognising essential rights and extending them to a growing segment of our workforce. This is a serious and rather surprising omission from the Bill; certainly, it is a gap my party promised to fill in its manifesto last year. I feel an obligation to put this amendment forward today.
The Minister spoke about employment rights in a modern labour market. I do not believe we can secure proper employment rights in a modern labour market without addressing the issue of the dependent contractor. We know that the nature of work has changed and is changing. More and more individuals are engaged to perform work or services personally, relying primarily on a single employer or contractor for their income, yet they fall outside the traditional definitions of employee and fully autonomous independent contractor.
These dependent contractors are often subject to a degree of control over how, when and where they work, leaving them in a precarious position, without adequate employment protections. No doubt this Committee will be familiar with many of those who work in the gig economy—delivery workers, contracted drivers, piece-rate workers, home workers and even consultants who work almost exclusively for a single client. Granted, some Uber drivers and Hermes couriers went to court and managed to establish that they are in fact workers and not independent contractors, but more needs to be done. We need explicit statements about the status of such workers and explicit rights set out in this Bill.
The amendment seeks to rectify the situation by defining dependent contractor status clearly within the Employment Rights Act. Crucially, it proposes to extend several key employment rights to these individuals, treating some of the measures in the Bill as applicable to them. Specifically, this amendment would ensure that dependent contractors are entitled to the rights set out in proposed new subsection (2) of my amendment. This includes payment at or above the national minimum wage for all work performed; the right to payment for cancelled, moved and curtailed shifts, which mirrors the vital protections the Bill introduces for zero-hours workers; statutory sick pay from day one of sickness, aligning with the Bill’s improvements to SSP; day one rights to paternity and parental leave, and the new right to bereavement leave.
The amendment also includes a statutory right to disconnect from work-related communications outside of normal working hours, and protection from detriment for exercising this right, as the Bill establishes for other workers. It also includes protection from unlawful deductions from pay, and against discrimination. It further includes an entitlement to guaranteed hours if regular and predictable hours are worked for a defined period, moving beyond just the right to request and aligning with the new provisions for qualifying zero-hours workers.
It is also important to note that this amendment respects the distinct nature of dependent contractor relationships. It acknowledges that, unless specified otherwise in their contracts or by future regulations, dependent contractors would not automatically be entitled to statutory redundancy pay or general minimum notice periods for termination, so there would continue to be a distinction between employment and dependent contractor status.
Furthermore, the amendment would empower the Secretary of State to issue further regulations to define key terms and the specifics of these rights, ensuring flexibility and the ability to adapt to evolving working practices. It would also mandate the issue of guidance, including an online tool to aid in determining dependent contractor status in disputed cases. By accepting the amendment, we would have the opportunity to bring fairness and greater security to a significant and growing portion of our workforce. We could ensure that individuals who are deeply reliant on a single employer received fundamental employment rights reflecting the modern realities of the work. I very much hope that the Government will support this vital addition to the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment. As we consider this legislation, it is timely to reflect on how it would interact with one of the most significant shifts in our labour market in recent decades: the rise of the gig economy. This sector has delivered considerable benefits, including increased flexibility, new income opportunities and innovative business models. It has allowed many individuals to engage with work on terms that suit their circumstances, whether as a primary or supplementary source of income.
However, with any new form of work comes a degree of legal complexity. Our current employment framework was designed largely in a different era—one where work tended to take place in fixed locations, during fixed hours and under traditional contracts. The gig economy challenges many of those assumptions. For businesses, this complexity can lead to inconsistencies in regulation, administrative uncertainty and litigation risk; for individuals, it can mean uncertainty about rights and entitlements, and for policymakers, it raises the broader issues of whether and how the legal definitions of employment need to evolve to reflect modern working practices.
The Bill, while not focused exclusively on the gig economy, touches on matters such as workplace rights, regulation and the role of secondary legislation that will inevitably affect it. We should therefore consider whether the legislation provides sufficient clarity for businesses operating flexible models, whether it supports fair and predictable frameworks for all parties, and how future regulations will ensure that any changes to employment classifications or entitlements are based on clear, evidence-led analysis.
The question before us is not so much whether the gig economy is good or bad—it is part of the modern labour market, and it will obviously continue to grow and remain so. The more pressing question is whether the labour market is equipped to keep up with that evolution, and whether the Bill provides the right foundation for doing so. In that context, thoughtful and measured discussion about emerging work patterns such as dependent contracting, platform work, freelancing —which we discussed the other day—and other hybrid models are not only appropriate but very necessary. I look forward to further discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, on this subject.
Before I sit down, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for the great courtesy with which he has always conducted himself in his discussions and deliberations with our side. I enjoyed his valedictory remarks. I felt that he was perhaps slightly irked by the fact that we have had some relatively lengthy debates—perhaps because he did not agree with the premises of some of them. I would say very gently that that is the point of Committee; we are not supposed to agree, we are supposed to probe. As a former Home Office Minister, I have to say that these debates are not long; they are brief. These debates are like Usain Bolt; ours were like Mo Farah.
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 the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for tabling Amendment 318. He raises an important issue. As we have been discussing, the changing nature of work and the gig economy are a real challenge for us, and we recognise the complexity and shortcomings of the UK’s current employment status framework.
I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government have committed to consulting on a simpler framework for employment status, and this remains our intention. We have been clear that, as a result of the complexity, some of the reforms in the plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We want to get the potential changes to the framework right, and we will consult on the fundamental aspects of employment law before taking action. I think that in part echoes the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who recognised the complexity and the need to think it through before we get it right. We are determined to follow this through and take action.
I am sympathetic towards the noble Lord’s aims to extend the protection of employment law. The self-employed make a huge contribution to the UK economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, while many enjoy being their own boss and the flexibility that self-employment brings, others can find themselves highly dependent on one particular client with little choice, which can bring them challenges and problems.
I appreciate that the noble Lord is seeking to address this with his amendment by introducing a new employment status of “dependent contractor” and extending employment protections to those individuals. However, the amendment would further complicate what is already a highly complex area—one where, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, there have been several high-profile Supreme Court judgments in recent years. We want to avoid introducing an additional employment status before we have had the opportunity to reflect and consult further.
In addition, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are committed to supporting and championing the self-employed. We have already announced a package of measures to help the self-employed thrive in good-quality self-employment, including measures to tackle late payments to small businesses and the self-employed. I urge the noble Lord to listen to our reflections and our determination to look at the whole issues around the gig economy, and to give us a little bit of space to do that. For this reason, I ask him to withdraw Amendment 318.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Can the Minister say what the status is of the consultations she mentioned? She offered very reassuring words and said there was a consultation on employment status. Is that under way? Would that mean the idea is to eventually have an Employment Rights (No.2) Bill, which we would all look forward to debating? What is the exact status of what the Minister is reassuring us on?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
This has come up several times in the debates we have had on the different aspects of employment status. We have said that we need to do further work on the employment status elements of the plan to make work pay. I do not think it is intended to come back and put that in this legislation. The consultation has not started yet, but there will be a thorough consultation. We are going to carry out a detailed piece of work on this, and we will come back with further proposals on how we are going to address it in due course. I hope that answers the noble Lord, even if not completely.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, that ministerial “in due course” is not quite as good as “very, very, very soon”. I sense an awful lot of goodwill coming from the Minister, but this is a really important part of the economy. I appreciate the thoughtful comments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I did not expect a resounding endorsement of my amendment, but what he said about the evolution of employment rights and the need to make sure that our employment law is equipped to keep up with the way the modern economy is evolving is really important.
The Minister clearly recognises that we need to move forward in this area, but it is the pace and the fact that so many people—an increasing number—are now part of the gig economy. We see them passing every day: they do deliveries and are couriers—every form of the gig economy—and they have very few rights unless they have litigated, like Uber drivers or Hermes couriers, to establish them.
“Maximum pay ratio(1) A worker must be remunerated by their employer at a rate which is not less than one tenth of the remuneration made by the employer to the highest-paid employee.(2) The remuneration referred to in subsection (1) includes—(a) salary or hourly pay;(b) bonuses;(c) employer pension contributions;(d) shares, options, or other entitlements;(e) benefits in kind.(3) If a worker receives remuneration which is less than the entitlement referred to in subsection (1), the worker is taken to be entitled under their contract to be paid, as additional remuneration in respect of the period concerned, the difference between their entitlement and the remuneration actually received.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would implement a maximum ratio of 10:1 between the highest- and lowest-paid employees in an organisation.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my Amendment 320 sits in glorious lone splendour in this group. I am not responsible for degrouping it; that was the way it was arranged. Noble Lords will see that this is a proposed new clause to introduce a maximum pay ratio. I thank the Public Bill Office for assisting me with the drafting.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, took us into celebrity land with Usain Bolt and Mo Farah. I am going further into that space with a forthcoming event from this week: the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez in Venice. I am relying here on the interesting reporting in the Guardian from Zoe Williams, who has been spending time with the campaign group No Space for Bezos and finding that in Venice there is considerable resistance to a billionaire taking over a city and totally disrupting the life of that city for three days. Williams quotes one of the local campaigners:
“We really wanted to problematise the ridiculous and obscene wealth that allows a man to rent a city for three days”.
Williams reflects in the article that
“when wealth itself is seen to be acting in its own interests, and it has accumulated to the degree that its impact scars every poorer life with which it comes into contact”,
we have a problem.
This amendment sets out Green Party policy—yes, this is long-time Green Party policy—but I am really aiming to assist the Government constructively here, and to assist the Committee as well as perhaps our national debate, by demonstrating that it is possible to lay down bridges to cross the deep fissures in our society. They are not just in Venice and they do not just involve Amazon—although I note that the Government have been applauding an expansion of Amazon here in the UK. We might think about how many of the small businesses we have just been talking about might go out of business as a result of that. I posit that it is essential to start to bridge these chasms, to tackle the poisonous inequality that so affects our political landscape.
Bringing the context closer to home, noble Lords may perhaps have expected me to cite research out only a week ago from the High Pay Centre, which analysed five years of mandatory pay ratio disclosures across the FTSE 350. This was a previous modest legislative attempt, hoping that shining a light on the level of inequality might have some impact in reducing that inequality. The study clearly showed that the attempt to do that has failed. The figures have basically bobbled around since 2019, and the current ratio of median CEO pay to the median UK employee was 52:1. That has been at a similar level ever since the ratio started to be recorded. I note that it is even worse for the FTSE 100, where the median CEO to median employee pay ratio was 78:1. Those are the middle figures but, if we take the widest measures, we go to the security and catering group Mitie, where 575:1 is the ratio not to the lowest-paid employee but to the median employee. At Tesco it is 431:1. This situation is doing huge damage to our society, and I put it to the Government that they surely have to tackle it.
A 10:1 ratio is Green Party policy. I know from the discussions that the Minister kindly had with me before this debate that she will not leap up and support my amendment, but I hope she may be able to provide some response, at least to acknowledge that we have a problem. The pay differentials also react to the low-pay environment in which those essential to the success of a business are not getting the respect, as well as the pay, that they deserve. Meanwhile, a few at the top are incentivised to chase short-term profits and share price valuation at long-term cost to society but also to the businesses that they head.
The impact on communities is evident in towns and cities, where the vast bulk of workers are now trapped on or very near the minimum wage, while money is shovelled away to faraway company headquarters. Companies defend these sums as reflecting performance, but all too often, as we have seen with the water companies, that is far from the case. Why is it that every worker does not benefit if a company is doing well, as they have all contributed?
I finally note that, yes, this is also an environmental measure. To take just one element of the CEO lifestyle, the wealthiest people in the UK burn through more energy in flying alone than the poorest use in every aspect of their life. Environmentally, as well as socially and politically, we cannot afford a society split between a few have-yachts and the majority have-nots.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment and, frankly, to express a degree of disbelief that such a proposal should have been made. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that this amendment is a serious contribution to the debate on fair pay or responsible corporate governance. It is a piece of performative and ideological showmanship—a throwback to a worldview that sees profit as a vice, wealth as inherently suspect and enterprise as something to be managed, limited or downright punished. The idea that government should impose a legal maximum pay ratio—a flat arbitrary ceiling of 10:1 between the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees in every organisation—is not just unworkable but, I believe, economically illiterate.
First, this proposal would be a gift to bureaucracy and a curse to business. Every company, from high street shops to high-growth tech firms, would have to monitor and police every single form of pay—salary, shares, bonuses, pensions and benefits in kind—just to ensure that they do not cross an artificial line. Do we really want our job creators to spend their time calculating compliance spreadsheets instead of investing, innovating and employing? Secondly, it would actively disincentivise growth and ambition. High-performing individuals—those who drive investment, lead exports and create jobs—would simply leave and take their talent elsewhere.
The noble Baroness mentioned Amazon. I join the Government in welcoming the further investment that Amazon is making. As a matter of record, Amazon employs circa 75,000 people in the UK. No one is on zero hours, and the minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000 a year. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which allow parents, grandparents or carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. It offers paid parental and bereavement leave. Amazon also offers guaranteed hours from day one, and employees have the choice of full-time or part-time contracts. It is important to put the record straight. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64,000 million in the UK, and £12,000 million in the last 12 months, and supports a network of around 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness has given me to put the record straight.
To go back to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it would mean that employers would be forced to avoid hiring lower-paid staff altogether, just to protect the ratio. What would be the result? There would be fewer jobs, less opportunity and more outsourcing—the very opposite of what a fair and inclusive economy should look like, hitting the least well-off, the most vulnerable and those at the margins of the labour market.
My third point is that this is not fairness; it is levelling down. It is virtually saying, “Don’t succeed too much, don’t reward excellence, don’t grow too big or too fast or be too profitable”. That is not fairness—it is anti-growth, anti-aspiration and anti-business. I must tell the noble Baroness that this amendment looks like it would be more appropriate in a Maoist economic manifesto, delivered to his revolutionary cadres, rather than a serious proposal for modern employment legislation. What this amendment reveals is not a serious attempt to solve a policy problem but a mindset that is suspicious of success, dismissive of wealth creation and entirely detached from economic reality. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will agree with mine, that this is an amendment that should not be accepted.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, let accord break out across the Table. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 320. I do not share the disbelief of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in hearing it, but only because I probably have more than the passing acquaintance with bits of the Green Party manifesto that he perhaps does—and that is the only reason for it.
It is right that companies should be sensitive to wider workforce pay when setting pay for those in the boardroom and other senior leadership positions. Company law and wider regulation already address that point. First, the Companies Act requires that UK listed companies must disclose and explain each year the ratio of their CEO’s pay to that of the company’s lower-paid and average-paid employees. Secondly, under the UK Corporate Governance Code, listed companies are asked to review workforce remuneration when setting directors’ pay and engage with employees to explain how executive pay aligns with wider company pay policy. Taken together, these measures provide important transparency and accountability in how UK listed companies deal with pay and incentives across the whole employee base.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this has been a short but very clarifying debate on the political divisions in our society. I will be fairly brief in responding, but there are some points that I must pick up.
The response of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, really sounded like something from a debate out of the 20th century. I started with the story of what will happen in the coming days in Venice because we are in the 21st century, where raging pay inequality is a huge political issue. If you are not prepared to acknowledge that that is an issue that is significantly shaping our politics, you really are not in the 21st century.
To pick up some specific points the noble Lord made, he said that the amendment would force people to monitor and police. However, as the Minister rightly said, all this monitoring and reporting already happens in FTSE 100 and FTSE 350 companies. It is the law already, so there is no extra paperwork to be done here at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the amendment would disincentivise ambition, but ambition exists right across the board in companies. We have millions of cleaners, caterers and new apprentices out there who have huge ambition. Their ambition and the contribution they make absolutely need to be recognised.
I have to pick up the Amazon point. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, missed a couple of things out about Amazon, which I describe as the great parasite. How many jobs has Amazon destroyed? How many ambulances get called to Amazon warehouses, where workers are worked beyond human flesh and blood in trying to keep up with robots? That is the reality of Amazon.
Finally, I come to the point the Minister raised about economic competitiveness and the best business talents. Yes, we need the best talents, but we need them across the board. One person as the leader of the company is a small part of that company. On the idea that this is a pyramid—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said these are the people who create jobs—I am sorry, but it is the whole of our society that creates jobs. You can put one of these CEOs on a desert island and they will not make a penny. The infrastructure, the workers and the customers—that is where the wealth comes from, and if we do not have a functioning society then we do not have successful businesses.
However, I am aware of the time and that there are some people in the Chamber who are undoubtedly waiting for next business, so I shall restrain myself from going on further. I shall look to come back with perhaps a more moderate amendment, but I will seek to hear from the Government what they plan to do about pay inequality, because I am afraid that I did not hear in the Minister’s response any answer to what they plan to do about that raging problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of safe homeward transport for workers(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review of whether workers should be entitled to access to safe homeward transport.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include—(a) an analysis of transport options generally available to workers who finish work after 11pm;(b) an analysis of the costs, in absolute terms and as a percentage of pay, to such workers of taking the available transport options;(c) best practice examples of employers who provide homeward transport for workers;(d) proposals to ensure that workers can travel home safely after 11pm without excessive cost.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Government to review the safety and affordability of workers travelling home after 11pm, and make recommendations. It includes reviewing best practice, such as City firms who pay for homeward transport for workers late at night.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, this amendment would require the Government to review the safety and affordability of workers travelling home after 11 pm and to make recommendations, including reviewing best practice. I note that some City firms already pay for workers to travel home.
This is based on work being done by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the “Safe Home” worker-led initiative launched in 2018 by the Better Than Zero campaign and supported by Unite the Union and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union. It was launched following a women in leadership course in which workers from the hospitality, fast food and retail sectors shared their frightening experiences of getting home after a late shift. They included sexual assault, verbal harassment, violence and stalking.
Large numbers of workers in these sectors are not able to get home safely. Your Lordships’ House is very well aware of how limited late-night public transport can be—perhaps more than we would like to be. We currently have nearly 9 million night-time workers, of whom 15% are in low-paid roles, compared to 10% of employees as a whole. When you take into account restaurants, pubs and entertainment activities, that rises to 38%. Low-paid workers, many of them female, finish work at 11 pm, midnight or 1 am. How do they get home? This is a modest and constructive amendment which seeks to say that, if you are working hours during which society does not provide the transport to get you home safely, your employer has the responsibility to do so. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this amendment requiring a review of safe homeward transport for workers. I also welcome her back from her brief visit to the Maoist utopia on her last amendment. The safety and well-being of workers, particularly those finishing their shifts late in the evening, is a matter of significant importance. Many sectors operate outside traditional working hours, and the challenges faced by employees in securing safe and affordable transportation home after 11 pm are real and varied.
Understanding these issues is crucial, especially for vulnerable groups, including women and girls, for whom late-night travel can present heightened risks. It is also important to recognise that safe transport arrangements can contribute positively to worker morale and retention and may even play a role in reducing crime or accidents. The review has the potential to shed valuable light on current practices and challenges and provide a basis for informed discussion about how best to support workers who face late-night journeys home. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 321. We recognise the concern underpinning the amendment and agree that workers finishing late at night should be able to travel home safely and affordably. We are aware that for some workers, particularly those in hospitality, healthcare and security, late shifts can pose challenges when public transport options are limited. We also acknowledge and welcome that some employers, including firms in the City of London, have taken proactive steps to support their staff with safe transport home.
While we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate for a review at this time, I hope I can reassure your Lordships’ House that we are committed to supporting workers’ well-being and safety. That commitment is evident throughout the Bill. For example, as we discussed on the second day of Committee in early May—another opportunity for a history lesson, it seems so long ago—the Bill strengthens the right to request flexible working from day one of employment. This flexible working provision empowers workers and employers to agree working patterns that better suit individual circumstances, including, where appropriate and reasonable, avoiding late finishes. We are also taking steps to improve enforcement of existing rights and to ensure that employers meet their obligations to provide safe working conditions.
Although it is not the subject of this legislation, the Government are also committed to reviving, rejuvenating and investing in public transport, not least through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the creation of GBR, improvements to rail services and the huge amounts being invested across the country, particularly in the north, in new transport projects, all of which will provide a greater level of options and service for not just people working late but those who want to enjoy the night-time economy and to use public transport more generally.
While we cannot support this amendment, we share the underlying concern and will continue to work to ensure that all workers are protected and supported. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her Amendment 321.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank those who have participated in this brief debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and I can agree that there is an issue here and I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think that offering flexible working will really work with a pub or restaurant—that option will not be available. On public transport, for the workers affected, overwhelmingly we are talking not about grand infrastructure projects but local buses, which have been massively decimated over the last decade. None the less, the point has been made and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.