Lords Chamber

Thursday 27th March 2025

(began 8 months, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:06
None Portrait Oral questions: Providing exemptions for certain funds associated with foreign powers to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first My Lords, first oral My Lords, first oral question.
11:06
11:07
11:08
11:09
11:10
11:10
11:10
11:11
11:12
11:12
11:13
11:13
11:14
11:15
11:15
11:16
11:17
11:18
11:18
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
None Portrait Oral questions: Moral implications of the policy of reducing Official Development Assistance to 0.3 per cent of gross national income
-

Third Oral Question. Lord Carey of Clifton.
11:27
11:28
11:29
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:32
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Assessment of Project Willow in securing the Grangemouth oil refinery and the jobs of the skilled workers currently employed there
-

Third oral question. Paper.
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
White then did the party opposite not allow fracking to take place, my Lords? And pure hypocrisy to attack us for a decision that we made firmly that we will not allow fracking to take place. I would say to him, I take the point about energy security, but reliance on energy security, but reliance on imports. I would say to the noble Lord that the UK government is required to hold stocks of oil as a member of the International Energy Authority.

At the end of January 2025, we have the equivalent of 130 days of that imports. This is substantially higher than the required 90 days set by the IEA. There is no complacency here. We

**** Possible New Speaker ****

keep that under very close review. Energy security is always going to be our number one priority. I conclude Oral Questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I conclude Oral Questions for today. -- That concludes Oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions for today. Shall we take a moment for those

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shall we take a moment for those who wish the to leave the chamber to who wish the to leave the chamber to do so question mark -- shall we take do so question mark -- shall we take a moment to allow those who wish to Questions Questions on Questions on a Questions on a statement Questions on a statement made Questions on a statement made in Questions on a statement made in the Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on the Spring Statement.
11:50
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
Let us start by standing back and considering this statement, really an emergency budget, and the government's actions more generally against their stated economic objectives. The main one, emphasised by ministers many times as growth. Fine. We all want growth. One would expect, therefore, that the government's policies and actions would be consistent with that objective. But they are not. First, the Chancellor and other ministers talked down the economy ruining morale then she chose to put taxes up by £40 billion, depressing animal spirits further and taking tax in the UK to its highest level in the last 50 years.

The most egregious were the wholly unexpected jobs tax of 25 billion, devastating businesses and social enterprises, like hospices. Also come out of the blue, the firm's tax, imposing inheritance tax on family businesses and undermining confidence across the country. The government also gave large pay rises to their friends in the unions without any productivity strings. Even today, they are proceeding with the Employment Rights Bill which will undoubtedly have negative effects on the supply side and hence on growth.

Interestingly, the OBR have said, I think ominously for the government, that they have yet to take a view on the bill's effect on growth should it pass. Of the growth -- if growth is the main objective, these policies are quite simply incoherent. They also animus about the position of the OBR. The OBR are given a status by the government above anything warranted. UK fiscal policy now appears determined by the need to meet detailed targets derived from the government's rules and the OBR's estimates.

Instead, the government need taking forward commonsense choices that promote growth and crucially confidence in our economy, using best estimate as a guide to sensible behaviour. Entered, the Chancellor appears wrongly to believe that openly fiddling with the numbers to please the OBR leads to positive economic outcomes. It does not. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute of fiscal studies, concluded yesterday by saying that the Chancellor has all but guaranteed another six months of damaging speculation and uncertainty over tax policy.

It doesn't take an economist to see that these conditions are damaging for growth. There damaging for business and damaging for people across the country. Our economy needs certainty and stability. The Chancellor's statement leaves our country vulnerable and it will be British business and the taxpayer who pick up the pieces when her plans come in contact with the relative. So my first area of questioning as this. How well the Treasury react to adverse events, for instance, if the UK were to become a victim of tariffs, which seem all the more likely this morning? They have no reserve for a rainy day.

The OBR's model suggests that the interaction of terrorists -- tariffs could overwhelm the fiscal mandate. So ask the Minister this. Which taxes will the government hike or which services will be cut to keep in line with the Chancellor's recklessly tight limits? We are not in a good place, as can be seen from the numbers published yesterday. Public spending is far too high as a share of GDP. It's forecast to rise to 45% and 2526 -- 25 to 26.

Debt interest is an appalling 100.9 Debt interest is an appalling 100.9 Debt interest is . The prospects for improving the position are mothers. The OBR has halved its forecast for growth, from 2% to 1% this year and growth remains relatively anaemic, despite some welcome policy changes, which I will come unto. As we have discussed in previous occasions, growth and productivity are intimately linked and we desperately need productivity to grow, especially in the public sector. The measures announced so far not go very far to improve it.

If we want growth, we need a step change in the public sector and a bigger share of the economy and a more productive, private sector. Defence spending was a key element of the statement. We on these benches support an increase in funding for our forces. However, the Chancellor has not been clear about where the money from overseas development aid is actually going. -- For our armed forces. We support -- For our armed forces. We support planning and bar housebuilding on which the growth forecast will depend.

However, ask the Minister whether this can be realised quickly. The plan is to realise social and affordable housing. Lower than the average under the last government. I do welcome money to train up more construction workers. However, with my experience of the sector, have doubt as to whether the proposed changes will speed up planning sufficiently to provide the skills needed in the building and planning trades quickly enough to fill current gaps and fire up major expansion. We also believe welfare reform is necessary but must be done in the right way, and the process in the run-up to the statement was frankly shambolic.

For a very complicated subject, this is no way to proceed. Before I some of, perhaps the Minister could cleanup one puzzle. I can't understand how the OBR can legitimately assume, see the table on page 10 in the green book, employment is going to rise by 400,000 people this year when everything seems to be going in the opposite direction. The Chancellor possible decision to leave itself -- to leave herself with such little headroom means that the government's fiscal policy is not about making the right decisions to support our economy in the long run.

It's about fiscal fine tuning which leaves us inflexible and vulnerable to external events and prone to future tax rises. Since the budget, our economy has been wallowing. Unemployment is up. Businesses are staring down the barrel of upwards national insurance hikes. We need to be clear when we are discussing all of these technical terms and percentages, that what the Chancellor announced yesterday will hit taxpayers in the country hard. They will notice the effect of the statement on the everyday lives.

That includes those affected by our welfare changes, those who will be made redundant as a result of the national insurance hikes, and those who might find themselves paying more tax come the budget later this year. It is these factors which affect living standards. We need to build an economy which supports investment rather than encouraging some of our most talented entrepreneurs to move overseas. To see high levels of employment, to allocate money sensibly, to show flexibility in the light of external events.

And so directly to improve the lives of people across our wonderful country. I'm afraid that the statement delivered by the Chancellor yesterday did not meet these standards. We need a Treasury and the Chancellor willing to make the decisions needed to support business, to promote growth, to promote confidence and to make Britain productive again. Britain productive again.
11:58
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, when I listen to the Chancellor yesterday, the only thought that Chasing through my head was, this is someone who is completely out of touch with the real experience of people today. The whole statement glossed over having of the growth forecast for this year to 1%. I glossed over the reality of benefit cuts. These and ongoing high inflation, an average of 3.2% forecast for this year, are pain that people will actually experience in their daily lives now. The average loss for an individual on PIP is 4500 -- sorry, £4.5 thousand per year.

A couple on Universal Credit, where one is disabled and the other is a full-time carer, they could lose £10,300 a year, according to the Resolution Foundation. Now, we all agree that people need to work if they can, but this is not primarily are back to work programme, it's a cutting programme, and it doesn't ask it -- just hit vulnerable individuals, but it hits their communities, particularly the disadvantaged areas in the country. It looks to me that very much of the cuts are frontloaded and back to work support is back loaded.

Could the Minister tell me if that is correct? As a result of the cuts, 1/4 of a million people of working age will now fall into poverty and worse, 50,000 children will fall into poverty. And I'm using the government's own numbers. Was this really Labour's goal? Shouldn't this be the time to revive the bank levy, raise tax on online gambling, close capital gains loopholes and increase the digital services tax? I will say more on that tax in a moment. Even at the end of the forecast period, despite all the pain, borrowing is expected to be 3.5 billion higher than forecasted in October and the Chancellor will be faced with very little headroom.

Only 9.9 billion. Could the Minister tell us how much of that headroom disappeared just last night, with 's Tariff last night, with 's Tariff Announcement? -- -- Trumps tariffs. Spending Cuts Were Not Ended by the Statement. That Uncertainty Will Further Undermine Any Possible Growth Scenario. Small businesses face a crunch in just a few days as the rise in employer's NICs kicks in. It's no wonder it is reported that there are the lowest levels of confidence since COVID.

The Chancellor spoke of cutting red tape. She could have focused on the end of this Brexit red tape. If she had announced negotiations on rejoining the customs union and removing the current trade partners -- tariffs, small businesses could plan to go back to exporting to plan to go back to exporting to And there was nothing for other services, crucial to the NHS and the return to project. But which are return to project. But which are making cuts now, as higher employers NICS hits home.

Let me press the government, this is not a windfall tax of some kind or a special punishment for tech companies, it is a modest attempt to crawl back a portion of some 800 million this year, of aggressive tax avoidance, while the mega US tech companies. Indeed, we just voted into law in the Finance Bill and under tax profits rule, which would let us clawback indeed much more of that money lost to tax avoidance, by this group. In a range of something from 2 pounds-3 billion per year.

Now, the government is sending the digital services tax will be cancelled and the UPR, that is the under tax profits rule mothballed, if they offend the Americans, and I refer the Minister to a Treasury press release on January 17. My Lords, the Chancellor spoke, she should, of reducing tax avoidance by British people and companies. Why should American firms be exempted? Will the Minister give me an answer? Is the government going to turn a deliberate blind eye to aggressive tax avoidance, by the US mega tech companies in the fake above winning favour with President Trump, while at the same time, the government slashes benefits to disabled people, burdens social care and small businesses, eviscerate overseas aid, and needs to increase spending on defence.
12:03
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses Lady Neville- Rolfe and Lady Kramer for the questions and comments. Let me start with economic growth. This governments number one mission. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the global context and the Spring Statement, the Chancellor yesterday quite rightly pointed both to the rapidly evolving global threat and the global economy The OCD recently downgraded their forecasts for every G-7 economy ratio, yesterday, the OBR devised on their growth forecast for 2025 from 2% to 1%.

The noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe blade did this on the decisions taken -- Blames this on the decisions taken in the Budget, which prepared the finances from the mess we inherited. They were not easy decisions but the truth is they were the right decisions. Because imagine right now, we were facing this global economic uncertainty, still with a £20 billion black hole in the public finances. What confidence would that have given to the Bank of England to cut interest rates. What signal would that have sent to investors about the stability and resilience of our economy? What flexible it would have provided for the government now to increase defence spending in the face of this changing world.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, says we need stability but opposes any action to get that stability. It is incredible to say we should have prepared our public finances or rebuild the foundations of our economy. Are we satisfied with the growth forecast? Of course we are not. Which is why we are taking serious action needed to grow our economy and the future, to go further and faster, to invest in infra structure, with the planning and info structure bill, which the party opposite opposes, and 1/3 runway at Heathrow, with pensions reform and the new National Wealth Fund, dismantling red tape and burdensome regulation in every sector of our economy.

This is a serious plan for economic growth, with the right long-term decisions. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe, focus on future growth, but Rolfe, focus on future growth, but Of the offers of which are responsible to yesterday scored one of the central planks for our plan for growth, including our planning reforms will permanently increase the level of GDP by 0.2% by 2029 and by 0.4% of GDP within the next 10 years, that is the biggest positive growth impact the OBR have ever reflected in their forecast, foreign policy with no fiscal cost.

The Chancellor, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, doesn't mention this. They have acquitted their forecast next year, and every single year of the forecast thereafter, so that by the end of the forecast, our economy is larger now, compared to the OBR's forecast at the time of the Budget. Noble Baronesses Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer ask about tariffs, as they will know, we are pursuing an economic agreement with the US and discussing what this means for the UK. That is our focus.

We will continue to stand up for free and open global trade because tariffs would damage both of our economies. Those conversations continue. I am not going to give and commentary, but we should see where we get to in the next few weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer ask me about the digital services tax, the Chancellor said yesterday very clearly, it's up to the UK government to set tax policy for the UK economy. Digital services tax was intended to be temporary, so there was a global agreement as part of pillar one and pillar two of the ODC pillar one and pillar two of the ODC agreement, but we believe government should pay tax in the countries they operate, which is why we introduce the digital services tax and a space in our views on that have not changed.

The noble Baroness book about living standards, but she failed to mention they have grown at this year, double at the time of the Budget, and will rise twice as fast in this parliament compared to the last. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, ask about inflation, having peaked at over 11% of the previous government. The OBR forecast and CPI inflation will rise by 0.2% this year, followed quickly to do .1% next year, and meeting the inflation target of 2% from 2027 onwards. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, ask about employment for some the OBR! Deployment to increase by 1.2 million over this forecast period, and when implemented fall to 1.4% by 2029.

The Chancellor yesterday also set out the consequences that increased global uncertainty has had on our public finances. The noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe spoke about the fiscal rules. I was disappointed to hear they follow dealers trust path of avoiding responsibility. The fiscal rule of the body meant of this government's unwavering commitment forcibly, because we saw in a dealers trust many Budget what happens when a government loses control of the public finances. For which working people are still paying the price. That is why our fiscal rules are nonnegotiable and we will always deliver economic stability.

The Chelsea yesterday restored, in full, Removing Removing to Removing to the Removing to the service Removing to the service of Removing to the service of £9.9 billion in 2029-34 Lady Neville- Rolfe and indeed Lady Kramer as well said this was insufficient, but it is considerably higher headroom than the 6.5 billion headroom, left by the previous government, and of course we are not now carrying a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. We believe that we have got the balance right, and nobody should be in any doubt about how seriously we take the fiscal rules.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville- Rolfe asked about the savings reforms to welfare, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions set out the government's plans, she rightly said the final costings will be subject to the OBR's assessments. They anticipate the package will save £4.8 billion in welfare budget. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer in her assessment ignored the fact we are investing £1 billion to help people back into work, and she also notes the impact assessment she referred to doesn't take account, in any way, of the consequences of that £1 billion investment.

Doesn't take into account any of the consequences of anyone getting back into work. She will rightly know the OBR will rightly do that assessment and come back in the autumn with updated figures. The noble Baroness, lady Neville Rolfe ask about our spending plans. She said spending is too high, I would be fascinated to know now where she intends to cut spending from, the spring statement confirmed day-to-day spending is growing in real terms every single year of the forecast period. By an average of 4.2% per year in real terms from 2025-29, and the spending review is fully protected for that means we are spending £50 billion more on day-to-day spending in 28- 29, than the previous government's plans.

I would be interested to know what a £50 billion the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would like to cut. In the budget last October, we increased capital investment by £100 billion over the course of the Parliament. Including investing in transport, the delivery of 1.5 million homes, supporting new industries, protecting record R&D funding. The OBR have looked at the gross impact across a decade, they are clearly particular capital investments, which the party opposite oppose, that will lead to a significant 0.4% increase in growth, but we are not cutting capital spending, as the party opposite time and time again, because that choked off growth.

The noble Baroness, leader Neville Rolfe, ask about tax, I know she wouldn't expect me, even if I could, to write the next Budget now. The government is delivering on the fiscal strategy set out last October full story are going further and faster on growth, because our planning reform show that changes to tax-and-spend policy are not the only way to strengthen the public finances. My Lords, over the past nine months, the has restored stability to our economy, giving the Bank of England the confidence to cut interest rates three times since the general election.

We have going to rebuild our public services with record investment at the NHS, bringing waiting lists down for five months in a row for staff we increased the national living wage, to give 3 million people a pay rise from next week the backdrop to the Spring Statement was a world changing before our eyes. The responsible decisions we have taken mean that we can now act quickly and decisively, in this more uncertain

**** Possible New Speaker ****

world to secure Britain's future and deliver prosperity for working people. I have doubled the time available

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have doubled the time available for backbench questions to 40 minutes. The House once short sharp succinct to the point questions, not speeches. We will go around the chamber seeking to get as many noble chamber seeking to get as many noble Lords as possible. Please note, when noble Lord asks a question, I would like the next question come from the
12:12
12:13
12:14
12:15
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm great Fulton my noble friend for highlighting what I think is a very important point. The governor of the bank of England in his speech last week highlighted the link between productivity growth and living standards. So, we know how important it is to increase productivity. I think in terms of public sector productivity, it is one of the few issues the noble Baroness, lady Neville Rolfe and I agree on, I know she is very focused on increasing public sector productivity. The difficulty being the previous government spoke about but never actually took any measures to do anything about it.

Yesterday, the Chancellor announced a £3.25 billion transformation fund to increase the productivity in our public sector, so we can spend more money on the frontline, and get money in public services where it is needed. In terms of the private sector, I think an answer to my noble friend's question, the thing I would point to is the capital spending. Another continual cuts to capital spending under the previous government seriously restricted our productivity growth. The IMF consistency said was public sector investment was a serious barrow -- Barrier to growth in our economy, so protecting yesterday, £100 billion of capital spending that we put in the budget, I think is an absolute essential point to getting productivity for I think the other thing I would point to a skills investment, we know we need the higher skills workforce in order to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the Minister agree that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With the Minister agree that neither the Autumn Budget nor the Spring Statement mentioned trade that all. I've been appointed as the
12:16
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:25
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:31
12:31
12:32
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:36
12:36
12:37
12:38
12:39
12:39
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:43
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord for his question and I was lucky enough to work with him in the Treasury when he was an official there, so I know very much that he knows what he was talking about. Clearly, there are risks, as I sit at the noble Lord Lord Forsyth. The job of the government is to mitigate those risks, to pursue a growth policy, to ensure we have sufficient growth to be resilient to the challenges we are going to face. We have to get our public finances in order so we have that resilience.

We have to fish used ability, we have to pursue investment, we have to pursue reform. We are doing all of those things to ensure we have the resilience. In terms of tariffs, as I say, we are engaged in a conversation with the United States administration, so we are doing what is necessary. We have rebuilt the headroom in full. And we have provided the resilience needed to provided the resilience needed to cope with the ever-changing and uncertain world. The noble Lord, the Minster, has repeatedly quoted figures on living standards for could he tell the House what impact yesterday's statement will have on the living standards of the porous half of our population?? Poorest., as I say, the impact assessment has been done so far does not include the £1 billion reinvestment, so I'm not sure we can look at that and those figures right now, in terms of disposable income, she notes, living standards will now grow, this year, double the rate expected at the time of the budget, and she was a Treasury minister, she was a Treasury minister when we saw the worst ever Parliament for living standards in history.

Living standards in this parliament will now rise twice as fast in this now rise twice as fast in this parliament, compared to the last.
12:44
12:45
12:46
12:46
12:47
12:47
12:48
12:48
12:49
12:50
12:51
12:51
12:52
12:52
12:53
12:54
12:55
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Second reading of the Second reading of the Employment Rights Bill, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, about to move that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, about to move that this bill be read a second time. When this government came into office, we made a commitment to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers rights in a generation. A commitment and particularly supportive of, given I have been a proud member of Unison for many, many years. We promised to for many, many years. We promised to introduce a bill focused on improving workers rights and creating the necessary conditions creating the necessary conditions for long-term economic growth within 100 days of taking office.

This was delivered in October last year, fulfilling a key manifesto commitment. This bill addresses the pressing issues faced by workers today. Workers who have waited too long for change due to the legislative stasis over the past decade or more. Average salaries barely increased under the previous government and the average worker would now be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading up to the 2008 financial crisis. This lack of action means that today there are far too many people in low paid and insecure work.

As few as one in six low-paid workers move into and then stay in better paid work. 2 million employees report feeling anxious about hours, work or shift changing unexpectedly. This is why Labour committed to making work pay as a key pillar of our election manifesto last year. And that manifesto, we were clear that our core mission as a government would not just be economic growth but growth which raised living standards in every part of the United Kingdom. This means working people would have more money in their pocket.

The mandate that the ink -- British people returned was clear. Further pulling since the election has yet further highlighted that there is a broad and Swann -- strong support across the political spectrum for the policies in this bill. British people have waited long enough. They now urgently want to see protections in their workplaces from day one of their job. They want an end to exploitative zero hours contracts and they want greater flexibility so that work works around their lives.

This legislation was developed in close collaboration with business and trade unions and we are committed to ongoing engagement to ensure all stakeholders, including SMEs, receive appropriate time to prepare for the ensuing changes. The improvements it offers in terms of improving workers well-being, increasing productivity, reducing work this conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits with billions of pounds per year. This bill seeks to address the gaps and updated provisions in the current employment law framework and helps us turn the tide on the debilitating trend of in work poverty.

I will now speak to the specifics of the bill. Part one introduces changes to various high- profile areas of employment law. And here we make good on our commitment to end exploitative zero hours contracts. The government is committed to ending one-sided flexibility, ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability so workers can better plan their lives. The changes set out will require employers to offer qualifying workers guaranteed hours, reflecting the number of hours they work regularly during a reference period.

This will be set out in regulations but is expected to be 12 weeks. We will also require employers to provide in scope workers with reasonable notice of shifts as well as payment for shifts that are cancelled, curtailed or moved at short notice. Corresponding rights for agency workers who may also experience that one-sided flexibility. These changes could improve the security of work for around 2.4 million people, approximately 8% of all the people approximately 8% of all the people On flexible working, this will be made the default except were not feasible.

To benefit workers and their families. Distances also benefit from this change as it will help give them access to a larger pool of candidates. However, we recognise not all workplaces can accommodate requests for flexible working. Businesses will still be able to reject unfeasible, provided the decision is reasonable and based on one of eight business grounds. On sick pay the government's view is simple. No one should feel forced to struggle through work when they are unwell. This legislation will mean that 1.3 million of the lowest paid employees will have access to the safety measure of sick pay at a rate of 80%, or the flat rate, whichever is lower.

We are removing the waiting period for SSP, meaning employers will be able to access it from the first of sickness, benefiting millions of people. The previous government took steps to improve the law around tipping. The building on this by strengthening the law to make it mandatory for employers to consult with workers at the place of business when developing their tipping policies. Turning to entitlements to leave. We will improve access to maternity and unpaid parental, by making them day one writes, and by allowing paternity and shared parental and pay to be taken in any order.

This will give employees the peace of mind that changing jobs will not affect the access to the sleeve and it will provide working parents with greater flexibility. We will also establish a statutory entitlement for a day one right to bereavement leave. Under this, at least 900,000 workers will benefit from bereavement leave, following the death of a loved one every year. This sensitive issue is one we will consult on with the detail to be set out in secondary. Regarding harassment in the workplace, it remains a sad reality that too many people, often find their workplace and say.

This can have a detrimental impact on people's lives and careers and this is particularly true for women. We are clear as a government that we will do all we can to tackle this. We are legislating to strengthen the legal duty for to take all reasonable steps to stop sexual harassment before it starts, including harassment by third parties. We will strengthen Protection for Whistleblowing Act to make it clear that if an employee speaks up about sexual harassment, they can qualify for whistleblowing protections.

We are making changes around dismissal as well. Firstly, we'll make it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women and mothers during maternity leave and for a six-month period after they return to the workplace although there will be exceptions to this in specific circumstances. Secondly, we will create a new automatic unfair dismissal right for employees that have been as good risky fired and rehired, or five and replaced, ending the unnecessary threats of these practices. And thirdly we will ensure that all employees are better protected from unfair dismissal by making it a day one requirement benefiting nearly...

Turning to part two, changes will be made to collective redundancies. These changes will ensure employers fulfil collective consultation obligations, which will be triggered where firstly 20 or more redundancies are proposed at one establishment, as is currently the case, or two, a threshold number of employees are supposed to be made redundant across the organisation. The threshold number will be set in regulations following consultation with those at stake in good employee, employee employer relations. And will set the threshold for this requirement at a level that balances the needs for growing business and protecting employee rights.

We are amending notification requirements so employers must notify the government now proposing to make employees redundant across the business and when they meet the new threshold. This will ensure employees acting in bad faith cannot circumvent the consultation obligations by proposing small numbers of redundancies across multiple worksites, allowing more employees to benefit from those collective consultations. And we are closing loopholes in the maritime sector to ensure seafarers have the collective redundancy protections that they deserve. We will also deliver on our commitment to reinstate and strengthen the two tier code on workforce matters.

This was first introduced by the last Labour government and repealed by the coalition government 2010. By reinstating the code, you are taking a step towards ending unfair two- tiered workforces where employees hired from the private sector to work on an outsourced contract have less favourable employment terms and conditions than those transferred from the public sector. Our country has a national gender pay gap that stands at over 13% so we are also taking overdue action to action plans.

These plans will require employers to take action to improve gender equality as well as better support staff during the menopause. This is good for women, good for economic growth and good for our country as a whole. Milos, turning to part three, this addresses pay and conditions in specific sectors. Chapter 1 will reinstate the schools support staff negotiating body to give a voice to support staff who make up roughly half of the school workforce. Not only will this body negotiate pay and conditions but it will also advise on training and career progression to make properly recognised the vital role that the staff undertake.

Whilst an important part of reinstating the body is to improve consistency, it does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach. Our intention is for support staff in all state funding -- state-funded schools in England to benefit from a corporate and conditions offer, while allowing the flexibility for all schools to respond to local circumstances above minimum agreements reached. We will be consulting on this over the summer. The body will help address the recruitment and retention challenges that state schools are full types faith and drive up standards to ensure we give every child the best possible chances in life.

Chapter 2 will establish a framework for FairPlay agreements in adult social care in England. And after constructive discussions with the Scottish and Welsh governments, this will be the case for the adult and children's social curse sectors in these nations, too. This will help workers representatives and trade unit officials, employers and others in partnership to negotiate pay terms and conditions. The introduction of sectorial agreements aims to ensure that care professionals are properly rednosed and rewarded for the important work and rewarded for the important work they do.

It will help tackle the long-standing workforce issues in the sector and improve the situation for both workers and those for whom they care in and across Great Britain. Chapter 3 focuses on two measures relating to seafarers. Together these changes will benefit our seafarers who are the present- day standardbearers of the UK's crowd maritime history. It will send an important signal that we continue to be a world leader in international maritime employment law. The first change will deliver a legally binding seafarers charter, achieved by expanding the scope of the seafarers sacked to provide powers to empower harbour authorities to request safe working and renumeration declarations from operators in scope.

It will require operators to confirm that they are meeting the requirements of these declarations, the exact details of which we will consult upon in due course. Secondly, we will give effect to international conventions, the UK has ratified, such as the maritime labour convention, which will fix a powers That has been left following the UK's exit from the European union. -- A powers gap. Part four focuses on trade you the right to take industrial action. We will introduce a legal duty for employers to inform workers about their rights to join a trade you.

This aligns with the government's focus on empowering workers by ensuring they are fully informed of ensuring they are fully informed of their rights. We will also be providing for a right of access for trade unions. This will provide a framework for the negotiation of access agreements between employers and trade unions. Once an agreement is reached, trading officials will be able to access the workplace to represent, recruit or organise members and to facilitate collective bargaining. These arrangements also cover digital forms of communication.

Changes will be made to the conditions for trading recognition, too. Where an employer refuses to recognise a trading voluntarily, currently it can apply to obtain statutory union edition. There are unnecessary hurdles that apply to the process which into the recognition process. This bill will tackle those hurdles, for example by deleting the current requirements for unions to have the support for at least 40% of the workforce, in the proposed bargaining unit, in a trade union ignition ballot. In future, unions will only need a simple majority of those voting to ensure that they get greater process, fairness in that process.

Other changes we are making include one strengthening the existing right to reasonable paid facility time for union rep resistive to carry out their duties. Two, simplify the information required for industrial action notices three, the law around blacklisting, ensuring those lists produced by predictive technology cannot be used to discriminate. Four, protecting against detriment for those that take industrial action. And five, protecting against dismissal for taking suction action. -- Such action. Turning to the punitive trade union legislation passed by recent government, will be making appeals to the trading act 2016, to effectively return the law to its pre-2016 position.

There are three exceptions to this. Firstly, we will retain industrial action ballot mandate, expiration date, but extended to 12 months. Secondly, we will shorten the notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 days, rather than the seven days it was before 2016. And thirdly, we will retain the independence of the certificate office from control. We appealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act that has failed to prevent a single day of industrial action. The framework set by this government will foster a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions, employers and the government.

The current system of state enforcement is fragmented and inefficient which is complicated for workers and employers. So part five focuses on the enforcement of labour market legislation and lays the groundwork for the establishment of the fair work agents. This agency will deliver upgrades to enforcement of workers rights. It will bring together existing state enforcement functions including the relation of employment agencies, National Minimum Wage enforcement, Gangmasters (Licensing) Act action against serious labour exportation and the unpaid tribunal penalty scheme.

This will supervise the overall enforcement process and include access to rights for workers while levering the playing field for the vast majority of businesses that already operate in good faith. We also expect the agent to be able to make more effective and efficient use of the resources currently used by fourth and bodies. Creating this agency is more than just shuffling deckchairs. It will have a wider remit than just the body such as enforcing holiday workers. This will help to ensure non-compliance does not pay.

That is fair for workers and several businesses to. Finally, part six contains provision to part six contains provision to increase employment tribunal time limits forming claims from 3 to 6 months. This will benefit both employees and employers by providing more time for disputes to be resolved internally, potentially reducing pressure on the employment tribunal system. The additional time will support employees to consider the merits of bringing a case to the employment tribunal, which will help improve the quality of claims entering the system.

This bill is a significant upgrade to legislation. And I look forward to the forthcoming debate, including maiden speeches from a noble friends Baroness Gray and Baroness Berridge, and the noble Baroness Baroness Cash, and that noble Lord Lord Young of Acton. When placed in the context of our ambitions to make work pay, I hope noble Lord will agree that this government is delivering on improving workers rights. I emphasise this legislation seeks the benefit employers and the economy by levelling the playing field between good employers and those who already go beyond the measures in this bill and the less previous ones.

These benefits are recognised by many businesses that we have engaged with throughout the development of the bill and passage to date including Centrica, the cup, and Thomas Newland Cove. In the words of Nick Cooper, managing director of magister's based SME, " fair treatment and job security and luxuries. They are the foundation of a high performing workplace". --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When less scrupulous businesses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

When less scrupulous businesses are being challenged it is the other businesses that will benefit. This will improve the lives of millions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will improve the lives of millions of people and grow the economy. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is this Bill will
13:15
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

now be read for the second time. My Lords, I begin by drawing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interest as detailed in the register. In particular as a in the register. In particular as a . I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for opening the debate. We now look forward to the maiden speeches of my colleagues, Baroness Cash and Lord Young of Acton. But also Baroness Berger and Baroness Gray of Tottenham. I have always fervently believed in worker rights and trade unions. Indeed as a young solicitor, I often acted for the transport and General workers Union in a wide variety of cases.

By the late 1970s however, by which time I was a member of Parliament, it had become abundantly clear something had gone seriously awry with the trade union movement. They seemed to be abusing their powers, pursuing not only the legitimate interests of their members, but also an overtly political agenda. I remember in the House of Commons, in the other place, in the final year of the James Callaghan government, the unions all but brought the country to its knees.

So a new settlement was needed. Then successive Conservative governments between 1979 and 1997 gradually changed the nature of the social contract between employers, employees and unions. Days lost to strikes tumbled. From tens of millions a year down to a tiny fraction of what they had been. Thanks to the more flexible market we had created, renewed economic growth brought a dividend, rising unemployment and falling unemployment. Far more quickly than anyone expected. That wasn't the wild West.

Indeed worker rights and protections were often extended. Not diminished. The last Labour government under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown broadly accepted that renewed social contract. They embraced the flexible labour market, which serves both employers and employees so well. So what has changed? Furthermore, what has changed during the passage of this bill? It has a brief lifetime. But we have already had 160 government amendments at committee stage in another place, including 11 new clauses and two new schedules.

This farrago was followed by another 40 new clauses and five new schedules at report stage. It was an extraordinary decision to run the progress of this bill in parallel with a series of directly connected public consultations. Ministers used their majority in the other place to defeat some very sensible amendments from my own party, but also from the Liberal Democrats. More amendments are now promised or should we say threatened. Nobody can convince me that there has been fair, effective and comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation, which is scandalous when we think of the profound effect it is bound to have on British business and how our businesses operate.

To date, 11 government bills, including this one, have included Henry VIII powers. This bill contains 11 such powers. So great is the uncertainty this creates, that a meaningful second reading debate is almost impossible. What in fact are the principles of this legislation? Whatever they are today, might they change significantly with more amendments or when the Henry VIII power's are triggered? Ministers are effectively asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide, whenever they decide to do it.

Apparently in total, this bill contains 173 delegated powers. I was just amusing that if Henry VIII were alive today, he might be tempted to use this kind of skeleton legislation to legalise all kinds of things. Whatever. I ask ministers why they are disdainful towards the concerns expressed by the Attorney- General in his lecture on the rule of law last October when he warned "excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive ".

He recommended "a much sharper focus on whether "a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards". But perhaps the most chilling warning about the specific inadequacy of this bill came from the Regulatory Policy Committee. Which identified eight of the government's individual impact assessments as being not fit for purpose. Six of them were in the highest impact measure category. Surely it is the principal responsibility of ministers to fully think through the potential impact of legislation before unleashing it on the world? This government has failed in that basic task.

Meanwhile the recruitment and employment Confederation voice of the worker campaign vividly reminds us that temporary work is often a choice made by workers and not an enforced compromise. It's a survey of temporary agency workers found 79% of respondents appreciated the flexibility temporary work provides. While more than 66% believe that it affords them a better work balance. These values, flexibility and balance, should be celebrated and supported by us all. Not jeopardised by half baked laws.

Workers should be empowered to engage in the workforce in ways that best suit their personal circumstances. We must make sure that legislation does not restrict their ability to do so. While the intention may be to increase security, these measures risk over regulating agency workers, who are already well provided for under the Agency Workers Regulations. Under current law, these workers are made aware of permanent vacancies and enjoy protections that balance flexibility job security.

Additional regulations could well tip this balance too far. Ultimately harming the very workers that this bill seeks to protect. I also wonder whether ministers have fully considered the financial, economic and social impact the measure would have on public bodies. Especially in the national health service. Let's also consider the proposal around statutory sick pay eligibility. Reducing the eligibility criteria and requirement for SSP to just one day would increase financial pressure on employees, particularly, on employees, particularly those who employ workers on temporary contracts, or in sectors that rely upon flexibility.

Employers also face the prospect of greater tribunal risk when managing employee sickness leave, which could act as a further deterrent to hiring. Small and medium-sized enterprises are so often the driving force in our economy. Delivering growth in the production and jobs. They need our encouragement and support. Not new burdens. They will inevitably be more hesitant about taking on new employees if they fear facing immediate legal risks from day one. I do implore ministers to always look at proposals from the point of view of an employer making a marginal decision on whether or not to take on that extra employee.

The proposed recognition rules would also hit SMEs disproportionately. In our view on these benches unnecessarily. Then let me turn as the noble Baroness did to strikes and ballot thresholds. Under current law, unions must provide 14 days of notice before a strike. Allowing employers sufficient time to prepare a contingency and managed the potential disruption. The proposed change to reduce this notice period to only seven days raises significant concerns. Will this help to generate the much desired and much needed economic growth about which we hear and have heard today so much? In response to the latest ONS labour market data, the Inst of directors shared deeply troubling data of its own.

That data shows that 47% of business leaders facing higher National Insurance bills plan to reduce employment as a result. Business hiring intentions over the next year remain around lows last seen at the height of the COVID pandemic. Even the feeble impact assessment of the government A 5,000 million pounds cost on business. What do they offer in return? Unfounded, optimistic speculation that this legislation could lead to growth. No evidence. No guarantee.

Their own declared primary mission is economic growth. Yet they have put forward a policy that actively undermines it. My Lords, this bill is not only antibusiness. In my view it is antiworker. If it passes in anything like its current form, it could be more appropriate to call it an unemployment bill. The measures in this bill will make it harder for existing businesses to thrive and near impossible for new businesses to emerge. The result? A stagnating economy.

Diminished opportunities. Worse outcomes for workers right across the country. The only growth this bill would deliver would be growth in industrial strife, administrative cost for business, growth in uncertainty, and ultimately growth in unemployment. Unless it can be seriously improved on these benches, we will oppose this bill all the way. In the best interests of the working people of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this country. My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute to this important second contribute to this important second reading today. I acknowledge that unlike the noble Lord Hunt, this bill does contain several provisions which if implemented properly could which if implemented properly could which if implemented properly could have a significant, positive impact on many individuals. However, as we deliberate, I am mindful the bill deliberate, I am mindful the bill presents both promise and areas of concern. In particular I would like to focus my remarks on the to focus my remarks on the challenges faced by carers, and often overlooked but integral part of society and their needs as the bill progresses must not only be considered but prioritised.

I will rely on my noble friend Lord Fox to deal with many other aspects of the bill other than the bits I am While the government is committed to reviewing the carers league action
13:30
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
2023 question why we are denying a measure that is both necessary and beneficial. The government beneficial. The government recognises that carers inability to recognises that carers inability to work costs the economy £37 billion annually, in light of this, paid annually, in light of this, paid carers leave should be a priority, carers leave should be a priority, not just an afterthought. This is not an expensive proposal. Carers UK not an expensive proposal. Carers UK estimates that introducing paid carers leave would cost between £5.5 billion £5,500,000,000.30 £2 billion per year depending on the level of compensation.

In return, over 2 million working carers would benefit businesses would save billions, to improve staff protection, and workforce participation would increase. Given these clear advantages, could I ask why the government has excluded this measure, during the passage of the carers leave out, members of the government challenged the submission omission -- The omission. It is striking while they have not privatised themselves. To neglect the opportunity of our both carers and the economy. Beyond paid leave, employers should be required to consider employees with caring responsibilities in their quality action plans, alongside commitments to closing the gender pay gap and supporting employees experiencing supporting employees experiencing menopause.

We are serious about work facing equality. We must acknowledge the specific challenges that carers face. Furthermore, the government must prevent discrimination against carers. One solution will be adding good characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Many carers face workplace marginalisation and are penalised for their responsibilities. Will the government explore this reform? My Lords, every year, 200,000 people leave the workplace to take on caring responsibilities. Costing the economy £8 billion annually. By failing support carers properly, we harm their well-being and weaken economic potential.

Paid carers leave would help carers stay in work, strengthening both market and the economy. Another issue in the ignition of kitchen carers. I recently heard of a couple catering for their grandchildren out of love and duty. Yet they received none of the employment rights or support given to foster carers. Is this not an injustice? The government must consider extending employment rights to kitchen carers. Additionally I support the bills, unlike, and have said by the Minister, the provisions on third-party harassment in the workplace, I have heard from young women in retail and hospitality who feel sick with anxiety knowing they will face harassment during their shifts.

The employers must have a duty to protect them, while the bill takes steps in the right direction, and I acknowledge that, direct and strong action is needed to stop non-disclosure agreements from silencing fiction. I now turn to rationally period. 's approach is needed to protect both employees and employers from unnecessary tribunal costs. I note would the Minister said, noble Lord the Minister, on statutory sick pay. Will the government consider a standardised probationary period of, say, 3 to 9 months, to provide greater certainty? My Lords, may I ask whether this bill will generally drive economic growth, and a judge from the noble Lord Hunt it won't, I would say there is possibilities.

This one of the government's cornerstone ambitions to have economic growth. Business leaders and HR professionals I have consulted welcomed the Bill's aims but question whether it strikes the right balance between ploidy rights and employer obligations. It must not stifle economic activity not admit opportunities for meaningful reform. The noble Lord Hunt spoke about the number of amendments in the other place, and I will not repeat those remarks, but they do show, I think there were 200 government amendments at this stage which does show a certain amount of indecision.

My Lords, this bill is driven by noble intentions. But it driven by noble intentions. But it risks becoming a tangled quagmire of complex employment bureaucracy, with uncertainty over whether it will genuinely recalibrate the balance between employees and employers in a way that promotes fair employment. One member in the other place likened it to snowwhite's Apple, appealing in appearance but ultimately sending the economy into a slump. Let us ensure this bill is not a missed opportunity but a transformative step forward for carers, families and our nation? Economic future.
13:36
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
I have four minutes so will not good. -- Will not beat about the bush. While I understand the need to clamp down on unscrupulous purchases, this bill is fundamentally out of touch and will wreck the spirit of enterprise. It will damage jobs, productivity and wages across both public and private sectors, that's not just my view, but the OBR's. The impact assessment but the OBR's. The impact assessment in claiming the bill will have a net positive impact on growth is guilty of fin de siecle mix, suggesting its authors have little feel for or experience of creating jobs developing careers or even meeting payroll.

Perhaps most troubling is that all the clauses within this 300 page bill, 200 pages of expansion notes, apply to all employers without exception. Whether you are UK multinational with a workforce of 100,000, a start-up with 10 staff, or a family business with two employees. Once I. Whether we are talking A1 rights, probationary period, guaranteed hours flexible working. This bill shows scant regard for building a competitive economy with modern working practices. It discriminates against SMEs, our country's engine of growth, and offers nothing for freelancers and self-employed.

For freelancers and self-employed. For which perhaps we should be grateful. My views are shaped by my lived experience, over 30 years as an entrepreneur and employer. From a start-up with two employees around the kitchen table to building a workforce that gritty 10 staff, and eventually to 300 employees +100 freelancers. I help people develop their careers from junior to management, from internship to becoming an equity partner. I took risks and made many mistakes along the way, from hiring the wrong people, holding onto staff or too long, overpaying, underpaying, growing to quickly, and having to downsize.

The rough-and-tumble of the free market. But here's the thing. I never once ended up in an employment tribunal and experiences with staff and freelancers were overwhelmingly positive. Driven by common mutual interest, and without the need to resort to owner as employment manuals, interfering HR departments, or indeed, employment lawyers. My Lords, this bill suffers from overreach and will kill entrepreneurial spirit. Coming as it does on the back of the misguided next bill on which I have fought hard to protect -- the NICs bill.

I will go into battle again on their behalf for this bill, mindful that the Federation of Small Businesses reports that two thirds of their members say the proposals in this bill will make them care powering, two thirds. There are two professionals who will benefit from the bill, HR practitioners and employment lawyers. But in terms of productivity, this bill is terribly timed and represents another giant vampire squid sucking the life out of our economy.
13:40
Lord Bishop of Newcastle Portrait The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
Milos, I'm glad to speak in the second reading and look forward to the maiden speeches and welcome new members to your Lordship's House. Some years ago, I undertook research on the impossible pool and work. All was never one to shy away from hard work and spoke of the personal cost of his tent making business, describing it as wearisome and fraught with challenges of local politics. 2,000 years later, we continue to live amidst diverse uncertainties. The desire to make work pay and improve workers rights is proposed in this bill, plus pay attention to the obvious.

People who work are human beings. A strong economy needs resilient workers. As his good noise this legislation, we do so affirming that workers matter. If we get this right, we can move closer to a society in which people are viewed value and dignity. When people are valued and supported in what they do, they contribute to greater economic flourishing. Noble Lords will know that in work poverty has risen significant Lee, particularly in the north-east region. With those in the secure work much more likely to be experiencing poverty than those whose contracts offer basic protection and guaranteed hours.

The disproportionately negative impact on the lives of children is well- documented. With the north-east Child Poverty Action Group heightened concerns following yesterday's spring statement. With the bill before us today, legislating against exploitative contracts is a step forward. In ensuring that every person can access good work, plan ahead and provide themselves and their families. But there may be unforeseen consequences. I welcome reforms to Parental Leave & Absence strengthen flexible working. I would like to see a statutory right to paid kinship care leave par with adoption leave.

The point made by Lord Palmer. A right to paid leave enable kinship carers to make time to make necessary adjustments and continue in paid employment. This is a matter I have already raised with the noble Baroness the Minister and I was very grateful for her time in listening. I raise this matter again here today, and look forward to further conversations. My Lords, as a time when SMEs face additional pressures, the challenging economic environment and additional costs, through rising national insurance contributions for employers, I urge the government to continue listening to the Assembly sector, many of whom are part of that social and economy, adding to community and individual resilience.

There is deep concern amongst SMEs about the potential impact of union access to the cohesive nature of employer relations, points made by noble Lords already. In conclusion, while I welcome this bill and extending basic rights, protections and entitlements to workers, concerns do remain as to how these individual protections will truly enable collective flourishing and a strong and resilient society for the confident future desired by everyone.
13:43
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
... A very bad bill for many reasons and I will have to ration myself to just two areas. First and foremost this bill is unequivocally bad for businesses and therefore bad for growth. It is not progrowth to impose £5 billion of costs on businesses. It will be pretty bad if this bill existed in isolation but it is not in isolation. It is part of a triple whammy which also involves the jobs tax which will add over £20 billion to private sector wage bills and the National Minimum Wage increases which will add many more audience.

The government seem to have forgotten that they need private-sector businesses to grow, if the government are to achieve their overall growth objective. The economic impact analysis which accompanied the bill claims the possibility of a small positive impact on growth. But the probability is a big negative impact, as suggested by the OBR in their spring forecast yesterday. For that reason alone, the government should have killed this bill at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Most businesses are expecting to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Most businesses are expecting to raise prices, reduce pay increases and reduce employee headcount. Leading to inflation, lower employment, reduced profit and employment, reduced profit and reduced taxes. It creates an environment in which businesses will environment in which businesses will not invest. Hobbling another leg of not invest. Hobbling another leg of the growth ambition. A key plank of the UK's ability to attract inward the UK's ability to attract inward investment has been the flexibility of our labour markets. This bill destroys that competitive advantage.

It is an economic disaster zone. SMEs are particularly hard hit by this bill. The economic impact assessment is clear about this. Of course anything which is bad for SMEs is also bad for growth. But policies bearing down excessively on SMEs are particularly destructive to the foundations of the way in which we do business in this country. At the last count, there were more than 5.2 million micro-businesses with less than 10 employees. And another less than 10 employees. And another 220,000 small businesses with 10-49 employees.

Between them they employ almost 13 million employees. Why would the government want to put this huge group of employees at risk? I will be looking at amendments to protect SMEs from excessive burdens. I look forward to working with the noble Lord Londesborough on this. My second area is this bill is bad for some significant employee groups. For example, people with a history of health-related absence, or young health-related absence, or young people with no track record will be less attractive as employees because of day one rights and higher sick pay.

There are many people who value pay. There are many people who value But they may be deprived of that opportunity because of the way in which employers will try to avoid the risks of getting involved in conferring rights to guaranteed hours. This bill will make life worse for many who want to work. There are many aspects of this bill which need to be explored in detail. We have a responsibility to ensure that this bill at a minimum does no harm. That will be a difficult task.
13:47
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
Because this bill is deeply flawed. But we must try. But we must try. In their maiden speeches and look forward to listening. Employment legislation needs constant updating to reflect the changing needs of society. Therefore if you is necessary from time to time but does necessary from time to time but does this bill reflect a balanced view this bill reflect a balanced view for both employees and employers? I note my interest in the register of being a part owner of a small-and medium-sized company, employing hundred and 30 people.

As a relatively small employer, part of the bill is my focus. Not to be unfairly dismissed and the removal of the qualifying period will generate uncertainty for employers and especially SME employers who do not have significant HR resources. The changes are not bad and will focus employers to get systems in place to ensure individuals they employ can fulfil the roles with the skills and knowledge required and the right attitude for the business and job. I ask the noble Baroness the Minister, we need more clarification regarding the As already spoken about by Lord Palmer.

This is essential to allow employers the flexibility at the beginning of the contract to see if a new employee does perform or fulfil the needs of the job for the business, and if treated responsibly, a contract can be terminated. Mac irresponsibly. A non-unfair way is stressful for employees and employers. -- Irresponsibly. Can the government review the impact on occupational health services? This sector is commonly needed and relates to breakdowns between employees and employers. The second area I wish to address will need to be researched further before committee stage, dismissal for failing to agree a contract, more commonly known as fire and higher.

The question is why the change to the current system is needed as it appears to be working. Having been through the process, requesting variation to individuals and employee contracts, improving efficiency and services to clients, the current rules certainly make sure we treat them fairly and with respect and it allows us the flexibility to change things. These change proposals will make it very difficult for employers to make small, reasonable changes to contracts. As the new demands are so unclear and demanding on businesses. The third area of concern is regarding sexual harassment and powers to make provisions and reasonable step.

The change to all reasonable steps adds fear and uncertainty to employers who want to protect employees that currently have no clear guidance. I asked the noble minister to provide more clear details in the future of what is meant by all reasonable steps.
13:51
Baroness Berger Portrait Baroness Berger (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it is an honour to rise to contribute to this debate and to to contribute to this debate and to join this house. I begin by extending my sincere thanks to all the people in this place who have been extraordinarily generous in Black Rod, the doorkeeper's comedy special advisers, catering staff, mailroom team, the clerks, reception attendance, tech and security specialists. Everyone has been so accommodating and helpful while I walk around in circles, trying to navigate this side of the estate or trying to tap my phone to vote instead of using bypass.

My special A warm and smiling face every time I have gone for a cup of tea in Millbank House. I am grateful to my introducers. My noble friend Baroness Smith of Basildon, I am in all of her leadership in this House and look forward to learning much from the noble Baroness in the coming months and years. My noble friend Lord Mitchell has been a dear friend and mental to Thiago Silva two decade. I thank the chief whip, If Southwark for his extensive guidance.

And to members from all sides of this house, thank you for your kindness. I look forward to working with you on the mutual areas of interest and expertise. I am speaking in this debate because of this vital legislation and it speaks so much to what is important in our country. Motivation for me getting The experience I have amassed. I grew up in Wembley Park and spent the weekend studying at Brent town Hall library. I love the diversity of my neighbourhood. My dad is from Northampton.

Where all his family worked in the markets across the county. I started my working life helping my grandfather on a market stall, selling ladies fashions and Refurbishing shop. I am confident I was never paid the minimum wage in the family business but I gained an opportunity to listen and connect with so many different people. At Birmingham University, I engaged in the separate debate with my labour economics tutor, as I advocated for worker rights. Much to the amusement of fellow students. I immersed myself in student politics.

I joined the Labour Party because I passionately shared their values and goals of striving for equality, social justice and a world free of discrimination. Labour also spoke to my core Jewish values. How to adequately take action to improve and repair our communities. I went on to start my working life in roles for the commission for racial equality. Various central government departments and the NHS Confederation. I aspired to and am proud of my family's political heritage.

My great, great uncle, he was a national trade union official before he was first elected to the other place in 1922 and was later elevated to your Lordships' House in 1970. Lord Shinwell would have warmly championed the bill we are scrutinising today. Which will bring the UK's outdated employment laws into the 21st century, turning the page for our economy which for too long has been blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay. As a solo parent to Emily, aged eight and Xi'an, aged six, and in my role as chair of the maternal mental health alliance, I applaud the commitment of this government to bring forward tactical measures to support working parents.

I'm delighted this bill will establish day one rights for parental and paternity leave. I strongly support the measures to ban exploitative zero hours contracts. It was a privilege to represent the people of Liverpool Wavertree and in my 9.5 years as their MP, I had so many constituents coming to my surgery adversely affected by awful contracts. They could not plan their lives. Childcare or finances. These damaging practices impacted upon people young and old and any mental health challenges were exacerbated Work.

I can still hear my former constituents words ringing in my head. I cannot layout to buy a belt because I do not know if I will be earning money next week or the week after to cover my bills and basic food. The provisions in this bill are foundational to the dignity and well-being of the workforce and I know this legislation will make a difference to thousands of people in I hope to make a difference in this place and will endeavour to do it slightly differently from my great great uncle.

Lord Shinwell resigned the Labour whip in 1982 in protest at left wing militancy and sat as an independent until he passed away just before my fifth birthday. I never wanted to leave the Labour Party during the dark years when anti-Semitism was rife and I am so glad to have been able to return to my political home under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer. Lord Shinwell famously had a piece of the ceiling of this place fall upon his head. During my time here, I hope to protect my skull.

Of course he was also the last person to throw a punch in the other chamber when a member told him to go back to Poland. I will never shy away from necessary challenge but I will also aim to use the power of my words rather than my fists. He was born rather than my fists. He was born into a world of revolution and he once said he chose Parliament over the barricades. In a world today of increasing violence and populism, where dark elements threaten, it is here in our Parliament the painstaking work of democracy is done.

As part of that work, I will dedicate myself to serving in this House and the people beyond it with humility and diligence and all the humility and diligence and all the passion and insight I can offer. passion and insight I can offer.
13:57
Baroness Hazarika Portrait Baroness Hazarika (Labour)
-
-
My lords, it is a great honour to be able to be the first to congratulate Lady Berger on that wonderful maiden speech. There is no doubt her great uncle would have been beaming with pride and it sounds like he was quite a character. He would have been good at our group meetings. It does not feel like much has changed when it comes to maintenance of the building either. I look forward to the many others maiden speech is here today. I first came to know Baroness Berger in 2010 when she was first elected for a waiver tree.

I greatly admired her professionalism and passion for raising the issue of mental health. -- Liverpool Wavertree. It was not then a fashionable topic. We became very good friends, very dear friends and we have been through so much together. Music festivals, hen socials, riding the infamous pink bus in 2015. I stand by her. We have been through the good, the bad and the ugly together. None more ugly than the shameful years when she suffered untold misery, abuse and threats simply for being a young Jewish female Labour MP.

It is a time which really shamed our party and on behalf of all of us, I am so deeply sorry for what she had to endure. Her dignity, her strength, Her determination in that time was inspiring. She did not hide. She stood up to the bullies, the antisemite, and she made the Labour Party and the wider world take action. We on these benches are so lucky to have her. As are all of us in this house. I know that she will make a brilliant, principled and fearless contribution.

On a selfish note, I look forward to spending the next 30 years hanging out. Maybe 40 years in your case. We are also living proof Muslims and Jews can be very good friends. Which I feel is timely. I now turn to the topic of our debate. There are many speakers, many experts, especially from the trade union movement who will have more detailed points but I wanted to make some broader arguments. We have seen and heard predictably negative discourse about this bill and the It does feel that people are saying it is all too much, that giving people workers rights mean the pillars of the temple will somehow full done, I remind my colleagues the same was said about the introduction of the National Minimum Wage, about giving parents more rights.

We are having a discussion about why it is people are reluctant to go back to work and why that's a terrible thing for society, which I agree with, so why can't we join up the dots? If you want to encourage as many people back to work and into the workplace, you have got to make sure that workplace and that they have decent conditions. We were all appalled when P&O Ferries sacked 800 workers in the most dehumanising and appalling way. We have all been shocked and disgusted at how those women at Harrods were treated and subjected to sexual abuse and I know my good friend Lady Kennedy will raise the issues of NDAs which silenced women and as we have heard we know the difficulties of zero hours contracts when you're trying to plan your life and your family life.

We all need to recognise that having a workforce which is happy and treated well as a workforce which will be motivated and productive. We also need to stop demonising the work that trade unions do and pitting them against business. We should regard decent employment rights as part of our growth and Industrial Strategy. I consider myself very lucky to have known the late great trade unionist and MP, Jack Rumi. Who taught me so much about industrial relations. Always make the case that good bosses and good business leaders understood the need for spot partnerships with workers and trade unions, particularly in big, heavy duty sectors like car manufacturing.

We are all very fortunate to have made it to this place. Many of us have lawyers or headhunters or even agents in my case who can help us make sure we have good terms and conditions. Why shouldn't other people have some of that? If we want growth, decent standards are not a luxury. They are an imperative. And we should support trade unions to do that. As Jack Dromey said, a good train union is like having a strong friend at work.

That is something we should always strive for in a civilised, modern society.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First of all I want to congratulate the baroness on her excellent maiden speech and which are well and I look forward very are well and I look forward very much to the remaining maiden speech is to come. Ever since this government were elected in July last year we have been told growth is the key marker for success and the bill key marker for success and the bill we are debating today does therefore seem completely counterintuitive to
14:03
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Portrait Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-affiliated)
-
-
that state of desire. Of course employees need to have rights in the workplace and these have developed in a sensible and proportionate manner over the years, whether in connection with pay more with conditions of employment. But this bill completely unsettles the balance required for competitiveness, for growth, for productivity on the one side, and the rights of employees on the other. That can only lead to discontent, a lack of investment and will inevitably lead to a full in growth and productivity, not an growth and productivity, not an increase.

This bill comes after hits have been made to businesses across the country already, the recent increase in the Minimum Wage Act in the face of it is a good thing but when taken with an increase in national insurance contributions at the same time, it is not hard to understand how many small firms are struggling. If we take one sector, the retail sector, retail conducted a survey published in February, establishing 86% of those surveyed expect council expansion fans following the increase in employer NI contributions and the rise in the Minimum Wage Act also found 74% of those surveyed were planning to reduce the number of employees and other staff following those announcements.

These are significant figures and cannot be ignored or brushed aside. Governments certainly listening to the voices of trade unions but are they balancing that by listing the voice of job creators. Speaking of that unions small business owners are very concerned, very concerned, about how this bill allows access by unions into workplaces, almost regardless of their size. As one small business in England said to me, typically small businesses are running in the small businesses are running in the spirit of teamwork, with a drive and vision for business to succeed.

The difficult trading environment, small businesses can easily be overwhelmed businesses can easily be overwhelmed by this legislation and indeed, and especially the need to proactively engage with unions to comply with the law. I hope that His Majesty's Government will clarify that not intending to burden businesses of less than 250 staff with these proposals. In the time left, I want to concentrate on one aspect of the bill which I think is highly detrimental to growth and will really need to be revisited.

That is the ability to gain full employment rights on day one of employment, that's definitely going to slow down business expansion and slowdown growing the workforce. I would also argue it will impact on investment in research and development and innovation as there is little incentive to innovate when the costs are prohibitive when it comes to growing the workforce. Because in a survey carried out nationally by the FSB on this issue, the largest issue was that issue of the worry of unfairly dismissed employees from day one, 75% of small business employers listed as the number one concern, followed quickly by the removal of current three-day waiting period, the Statutory Sick Pay will be payable from the first day of absence at 74%.

The Northern Ireland we have the additional problem of a poor economic inactivity, 6% of the workforce. If we cut the opportunities for more jobs then how can we deal with that issue, never mind the issue of the unemployed? Government alone does not grow the economy but it should facilitate the private sector to grow, to be competitive at home and internationally, we must give businesses the tools and environment to grow and I don't see that presently in this bill. I look forward to the detailed examination of the bill therefore, where hopefully we can deal with some of the issues raised.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. It is a huge privilege

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. It is a huge privilege to stand here today. I wish to start by thanking noble Lords on all benches across the House for the benches across the House for the warmth of their welcome thank you also to my supporters, the noble Lord Lord O'Donnell, and the noble Lord Lord O'Donnell, and the noble Lady Lady Harman for their personal encouragement and of course my noble friends the leader of the Lords and the Chief Whip. I also wish to thank all the House staff including the all the House staff including the doorkeepers, digital services, catering, post and cleaning staff for their patients and force ably show me the ropes these last few weeks.

My job today is to introduce myself and my background and hopefully make a small contribution in today's debate. My mum and dad came to London from Ireland in the 1950s stop moving into a rented flat in Tottenham. The place I came to know as home. I grew up surrounded by aunts, uncles and cousins, who all played an important part in my life. My parents were proud to be Irish and this was not the easiest of times to be Irish. But they also embraced life Britain, working hard
14:08
Baroness Gray of Tottenham Portrait Baroness Gray of Tottenham (Labour)
-
-
to provide for their family and creating a home. My dad had a creating a home. My dad had a minimum of two jobs and my brother and I were instilled with a strong and I were instilled with a strong work ethic, built on values of fairness, community and respect for fairness, community and respect for others. I left school before completing my A-levels, on the early and unexpected death of my dad. My brother and I also had support our brother and I also had support our mum.

He struggled with her mental health before taking her own life health before taking her own life some years later. The deaths of our parents had the biggest impact on our lives. My Lords, I joined the Civil Service at the most junior Civil Service at the most junior grade and it is why I chose today's debate and I commend the work of my good friend the Deputy Prime Minister, and her team, for the work and consultation put into this legislation. On joining the Civil Service, I was not on a mission to work my way to the top.

This is bubbly best illustrated when I took a career break which has been much commented upon. Put this way, although the Civil Service encourages its future leaders to get outside experience, running a pub in Newry, Co down in the 80s, was not on their list. But a pub is a great place to get to understand unities. Their needs, their worries, and their aspirations. -- To understand communities. Have learned to take the words of the late Jo Cox, we have more in common than that which divides us.

On returning to the Civil Service, I did indeed start working my way up. Some of the issues I worked on included creating the propriety and ethics function, which included conducting one or two high-profile investigations. Establishing public inquiries into Grenfell Tower and infected blood where I wish to pay huge credit to the noble Lady, the former Prime Minister, Baroness May of Maidenhead. For her steadfast commitment to ensuring the truth was told. Initiating the scheme to bring prison levers into the Civil Service where my path first crossed with the trailblazing Lord Timpson who recognised the importance of giving people a second chance.

The boardroom apprentice scheme to encourage people from all backgrounds to serve on the boards of public bodies, and an important part of the reform agenda, and goes to the heart of the opportunity's mission. I wish to acknowledge the work of the noble Lord Lord Maude of Horsham and the noble Lady Baroness Finn. He provided a positive backdrop to allow the initiatives to be developed and flourished, thank be developed and flourished, thank you. Between 2018 and 2021, I undertook the role of Permanent Secretary in the Northern Ireland's executive Department of Finance.

A very different experience for me. And demonstrates again the range of opportunities that exist in the Civil Service. The return of the executive brought its own challenges of working in a mandatory five party coalition which made the 20 turn coalition seem remarkably straightforward. -- The 2010 coalition. Returning to Whitehall allowed me to put into practice the benefits of close and collaborative working where devolved governments and mayors. Devolved government is an important and integral part of the architecture of this country and the noble Lady Lady Foster will understand.

I will continue to be a strong advocate for it for my position in your Lordship's House. The number of the senior officials I had the privilege of working with on our members here and I wish to say personal thank you for their support. I also want to remember three important people in my career who are sadly no longer with us. Baroness Stroud, Lord Prescott and Lord Hayward. Examples of the very best of public service. I would also like to thank those who guided me in a challenging last few years of my career in and around Downing Street, whether working in it, or investigating it.

This includes Dave Penman and the FJTA, and I'm not sure what it is about the mention of my time in Downing Street that rings me to the issue of job security and employment. But more seriously, I want to return to my first set of jobs in what was the Department for Social Security, working in employment support, as I think it is employment support, as I think it is highly relevant today's debate and the future of our Civil Service. Back then, I worked with truly heroic and committed people, striving everyday in very difficult circumstances to help people in even .

They were the Civil Service at its best. On the frontline, as far away from Whitehall's machinations as it's possible to be. Today, I see the same sort of brilliance, what these and other civil servants are doing is central to the government's and the nation's mission to bring back growth into our economy and security to our society. That is why I would caution all of us to be careful, not just about our decisions but about our language. When we hear the phrases, of pen pushers, axis, chainsaws and other implements, they hear it, too.

Difficult decisions are needed of course the Civil Service will be course the Civil Service will be keen to be part of any reform journey but we need them and other public servants to succeed. I will continue to support a progressive Civil Service. I hope others will do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the same. Thank you. My Lords, I'm delighted to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm delighted to follow Lady Gray. And to be able to congratulate her on her fascinating maiden speech. She has long and successful background in the Civil Service, described today some of the Service, described today some of the things that affected that things that affected that experience. To ministers is that they would be well advised to take her advice when it comes to how to her advice when it comes to how to get the best out of the Civil Service because she has been remarkable in it.

I first met Baroness Gray when she was running for the propriety and ethics function within government, chairing information investigating the Freedom of Information Act was working as intended. The group of journalists who spend their time looking at FOI stories regarded her to be the most powerful obstacle in to be the most powerful obstacle in
14:15
Lord Burns Portrait Lord Burns (Crossbench)
-
-
That was before she was in the public eye. Maybe she wanted to stay there. There was a period when it appeared that no politician could go on television and face the question without saying "that was an issue for Sue Gray". She carried out her task with great skill and courage. A person of immense integrity. A delightful colleague. She will be a very valuable member of this house. I have to say that I enjoyed also the speech of Baroness Burt year.

Somewhere I have a photograph of myself with Manuel Shinwell in County Durham aged 16 or thereabouts. I have very fond The speech of Lord Young of Acton. He has swelled the ranks, it is a very small group in this house, who have families who support Queens Park Rangers. He is very welcome. I enjoyed his match report. I doubt if the manager of the team always feels the same about them. But I suppose that is freedom of speech. I look forward to hearing from Baroness Cash and I hope she will enjoyed the experience.

Turning to this bill, I will deliver my comments on trade union finances. Clause 59 would change the way in which trade union members pay. All members would automatically pay a levy unless they personally take the decision to opt out. Concentrating on this, because I have been there before, in 2016 the trade union bill introduced by the newly elected Conservative government was a proposal to do exactly the opposite. They proposed to move to an opt in system with union members being required to opt in, in writing, if they wish to pay a political levy.

Following the second reading, the then leader of the and tabled a moment -- motion to consider the impact of clauses dealing with trade union political funding. The motion was agreed. A committee was appointed. I was asked to be chairman. We were given a very short deadline for report. We took evidence and came to the view that this could have a sizeable, negative effect on the number of union members participating and that there would be a significant reduction in union payments to the party.

The conclusion was the opt in system should apply to all new members. New members would be required to actively opt in to pay the political actively opt in to pay the political There was disagreement in the committee if the opt in should apply to existing members as well and whether they would remain in an opt out basis. The majority thought the opt in should not be extended to existing members. Unless it was part of a wider reform of party funding. The report tabled amendments that new members should opt in and existing members should remain on the opt out basis.

This was carried on an almost 2-1 basis. Then the government accepted these amendments, despite some significant unhappiness on their own side. Given the history, I have to say that I am surprised the new government wants to move back to the pre- 2016 position whereby all members automatically pay a political levy, unless they opt out. I had hoped the issue had been laid to rest for the time being but it appears not. I have some questions for the noble Lord the Minister.

There is a long tradition of Labour government legislating for opt out while Conservative governments in turn legislate for opt in. Do we want this opt in and opt out ping-pong to go on with every change of government? Does the government want to take the risk of the future funding of the Labour Party the next time there is a change of government? Is it not better to let the issue rest where it is and maintain the compromise we reached

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in 2016? My Lords, it is truly an honour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is truly an honour to take a place on these benches and to take a place on these benches and to make my maiden speech today. I would like to start by congratulating the noble Baroness Berger and Baroness Gray for their Berger and Baroness Gray for their excellent maiden speeches and they excellent maiden speeches and they are not easy act to follow. But I do not need to worry too much, I believe. Because I am truly just the warmup act for Lord Young today.

Somebody who is already starring in many of his own features and a fine colleague. I look forward also to hearing his maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord on all sides of this House with the warmest welcome. It is truly what everybody says about the courtesy and the embrace when one arrives here. I am grateful also to all the officials and staff. Particularly the dedicated door keepers. I'm grateful to my sponsors. Some of the finest
14:20
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
academic minds and most principled people I know. Baroness Falkner. people I know. Baroness Falkner. Also my chair at the HRC and Lord Godson, also a dear friend for almost 30 years. I am grateful to almost 30 years. I am grateful to Baroness Flynn and the noble Baroness Flynn and the noble Baroness of Bolton. I have not dared Baroness of Bolton. I have not dared to ask why people thought I might need double supervision but I thank my friends for their courage in my friends for their courage in stepping up to do it.

Since learning I would be joining your Lordships' House, I have received many kind messages and kind words. Including delightfully from my primary seven teacher and that reminded me that when I was 10 years old in his class, he had also once trusted me to make a speech on a subject of my choice on the day of a school Unaccustomed as I am and always have been to public speaking, I relished the prospect. He was confident that this particular child would not let him down.

When I ran into him 20 years later, the horror was still palpable on his face when he described how I stood up in front of the class and announced cheekily that I am not giving a speech today. His heart sank and there was the most terrible pause until I produce from behind my back a hand puppet and proceeded to lecture them on the ventral clericalism. -- Ventriloquism. I will not be as random today. I have chosen this debate because I have a life some of you do not know much about.

I have been lucky to know some of you in parts of my career as a barrister, parliamentary candidate or indeed a policy nerd, something I still love. What is less well known is that I have for 10 years, prior to now, chaired the UK's leading behavioural science business. Which in fact when we took on to the stock market, and during that time I have seen first- hand the challenges of running an SMG. We confronted the pandemic. We SMG. We confronted the pandemic.

We then had cost pressures and salary insecurity as a result of Ukraine and now we are looking forward to really strangulate ink increases in National Insurance. I also know from running that business, we work a 62% of the FTSE 100 and most employers do want the best for their employees. It is not them and us. Kindness is what makes business work and they are highly valued by the majority of people. It saddens me enormously to know that so many people in business are being spoken about in some of the ways that we have heard in the other place.

But this was not my first experience of business. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. That was at the height of the troubles. It was also a low ebb for the economy. I spent my early years in a tiny Newsagents run by my parents. They work incredibly long hours while my father also held down a full-time job. It was not easy and costs were high. Those micro-businesses, and I own my parents thanks for the way in which they worked in theirs, but those micro-businesses provide 33% of the workforce.

They employ 33%. It is an enormous number of businesses. The consequences of some of the changes introduced in this bill, subjecting tiny businesses to some of these new ideas, is to strangle them. Mostly at birth. Costs are rising. Taxes are rising. Profits, that dirty word, profits for them are falling. Profits for those businesses are the difference between a pair of trainers for their children, the hope of a family holiday, and are we really going to do that to 33% of the providers of our workforce? From the CBI to the Federation of small businesses, every group, every representative group is warning, pleading that the implications of this bill mean a disaster for growth in this country.

It is not all bad. Of course we want more fathers taking parental leave. There are good things. But the overall direction of travel is to create unintended consequences. If I have learned anything from leading a behavioural science business for 10 years, it is that often the things we want to achieve, a certain outcome, have the exact opposite effect. This bill is destined to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

destroy our growth. My Lords, it is truly a great honour to follow on from my noble
14:26
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
honour to follow on from my noble friend, Baroness Cash after her maiden speech. When I asked those last few years how they would describe her, there was absolute unanimity in their responses. The first thing they all talked about was her courage will stop brave as a lion. Possibly a lioness. Perhaps learnt as we heard from growing up in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles. They all said there is no issue that is too hard for my noble friend to tackle and anything she tackles, she tackles with single-mindedness and rigour.

She was described by the Observer as a modern freedom fighter and without question, she has been a tireless and very effective advocate for free speech and Western values. The second word that is used when talking about my noble friend is talking about my noble friend is forensic. Colleagues had described her to me as intellectually one of the most rigourous and honest people they have worked with, as well as a consummate professional in her approach. That of course has been borne out by her track record.

My noble friend excelled in many different areas. In her work as one of London's most distinguished human rights lawyers. Upholding the equality on the board of the HRC. Her leadership of practical approaches to support parents and promote social mobility. But finally, colleagues talk to me, and friends, about my noble friend's compassion and modesty. Modesty that we heard in her opening words in your Lordships' House today. Crucially for her ability to build alliances. Something all of our snow is so important in our work here.

I know that all noble lords across this House will like me look forward to working with my noble friend and agree that we are fortunate to have somebody with exceptional experience and skills. Turning to this legislation, I will confine my remarks to two specific areas. The first relates to the proposed reintroduction of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. The second that the bill present in terms of an opportunity to clarify the On these benches we support measures to improve the pay and conditions for school support staff, so vital to the effective running of academies and schools.

But we do have concerns about the impact of government proposals in practice. Our worry is government proposals will lead to a significant increase in workload and costs for academies, taking funding away from the front line. For example reviewing and allowing working hours based on a 12 week's reference. Will create administrative complexity, particularly. On the variable hours or term time only contracts such as midday supervisors, invigilators and music tutors. Without exemptions for term time or education specific roles, this will lead to higher costs and cumbersome recording and averaging systems.

The majority of academies do comply with the council for local government services terms and conditions while retaining a degree of flexibility where needed over local terms and conditions. County noble Baroness reassured the House that this local flexibility will be retained and the system will not be one size fits? -- One-size- fits-all approach in my experience there are using this to improve conditions for staff. For example using the apprenticeship levy to allow all support staff to achieve level three qualifications, offering support staff 18 weeks of full maternity pay and eight weeks of Rather than Rather than uniformity Rather than uniformity we Rather than uniformity we need Rather than uniformity we need a system that encourages innovation and that benefits pupils and staff and this is particularly true if we are to deliver the reform of the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities system where we must retain the ability to innovate and be flexible with our workforce.

And finally the reduction in thresholds for strike ballots and the removal of minimum service levels legislation increases the risk of strike action which puts the education of our children at risk and will require greater investment and contingency planning. Trusts typically have very good relations with the unions at a local level but national negotiations are outside their control and risk straining staff relations unnecessarily. Turning to the employment status offers to carers, the Minister in the other place himself a foster carer stated, it would not need a new clause but a new bill to address this.

But as the noble Baroness the Minister will be aware, there are serious concerns among foster carers and among local authorities about the need for clarity on the status to prevent piecemeal definition by the courts. And without this, there is a real risk of a decision at an employment tribunal effectively ending. Revision as we know it. I would really urge the government not to take this risk and for the noble Lady to clarify firstly that the government has no intention that foster carers should be defined as employees and secondly that she will agree to introduce amendments to this legislation which address this important matter.

I would just like to congratulate all those noble lady's who have already spoken and if I may, offer an apology to the noble Lady Baroness Gray, who I pestered remorselessly in the many months where I was waiting to know whether I was actually coming to your Lordship's House of whether someone had changed their mind. She was the only email address I had to contact. I think she had more important things to worry about but I'm very grateful for her patients.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Could I begin by expressing my congratulations to the noble congratulations to the noble Baronesses verger, grey and cash, for that maiden speech is today. And
14:34
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
for that maiden speech is today. And I look forward with interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord young. My Lords and Ladies, I rise to express my wholehearted support for this landmark piece of legislation which aims for the first time in a generation to rebalance the labour market in the direction of fairness. This will not only eradicate some of the greatest injustices suffered by far too many p in recent years, but also drive higher standards across the world of work, in place of the race to the top.

Decent employers have nothing to fear from this. Instead, they will be protected from being undercut by rogue competitors, as Churchill said, where there is " no organisation, no parity of bargaining, a good employer is undercut by the bad. And the bad employer is undercut by the worst. " Were those conditions prevail, you have not condition of progress but a condition of progressive degeneration. Well, the objective of this bill is nothing less than establishing a condition of progress.

There are so many groups of workers who stand to gain if this bill is enacted. Those workers who have been fired only to be offered to rehiring if they accept a savage cut in their terms and conditions of employment. Those workers aren't able to get a mortgage or even plan their week to week household budget because their income under a zero hours contract is completely unpredictable. And can disappear altogether at the whim of the employer. Victims of sexual harassment, let down by the employer, and prepared to accept their responsibility, to take the necessary actions to prevent this kind of totally unacceptable behaviour towards the employees.

Many of the provisions in the bill strengthen the legal rights of countless workers currently feeling powerless and vulnerable. But the bill is more ambitious than that. Because it rightly recognises that the most powerful force to hold bad employers to account, and to uphold workplace legal rights, is effective trade unionism. This reality is agonised around the world and upheld in the conventions of the international labour organisation -- is recognised around the world. It's a matter of shame that governments led by the party opposite have been found, too often, to be in breach of these international obligations, as a result of crude and unworthy attacks on free trade unionism.

It is wholly proper that the rights for unions to secure employer recognition for bargaining purposes should be strengthened to allow workers to make three tourists. And right, too, that trade unions should have proper access to workers, without rogue employers being able to bully them out of exercising their right to effective representation at work. Of course, there are countless good and responsible employers who recognise that respecting and valuing their workforce is the right way to achieve success.

They should not be undermined by the irresponsible. Surveys have shown how populist package for progressive changes within the unity at large. Millions of people are crying out for change. So let us get this bill on the statute book and begin to change the world for the better.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to congratulate my noble friends, Baroness Cash, who I've friends, Baroness Cash, who I've known for 35 years, when we were students together, and she was eloquent then and will continue. I'm eloquent then and will continue. I'm in for to my noble friends young of actin as I'm sure he will certainly actin as I'm sure he will certainly spice up, as we can judge by some of his past publication. I extend my graduations to the noble Baronesses Baroness Berridge and Baroness Gray Baroness Berridge and Baroness Gray of Tottenham.

I do consider them to be friends, recognising coming into the House together but also working with the noble Baroness grey into government. I'm sure they will continue to be staunchly upholding the principles as well as contributing to national debate. In terms of national debate, this Employment Rights Act spill into the other house after 100 days of into the government with 149 pages, after committee there were 191 pages and
14:39
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
now there are 299 pages. Which I think it would be generous to get through in seven days of committee consideration but in today's contribution I want to focus on a contribution I want to focus on a handful. Clause 59 relating to union finances, I do agree with an open Lord Burns, I really do not understand the trend of all the consumer and legislation protection consumer and legislation protection we put in encouraging people to have to opt into contractual to opt into contractual arrangements, the default now-large is that you are automatically opted out and I believe that should be continued.

Especially when there is an legislation that suggest members who have not opted out should only be reminded every 10 years they have the opportunity to do so. In terms of the consideration of small businesses, the FSB is particularly concerned in two matters, the day one risk in terms of their being no statutory probation period, but also in terms of statutory. It used to be the case that SSP would be abated to all employers, I know that was when I worked at Mars I used to fill out forms every year however that got taken away, recognising improvements to be made in a conventional health.

With the shift today one, it really is important the government reconsiders that at least does an impact assessment in its consideration. Turning to getting automatic rights on day one of employment, about unfair dismissal, this already applies to the Equality Act, the situation of people with disability and other protected characteristics. I do support the measures have the right to try and trying to get people a job, well perhaps the same should apply to jobs, to employers. They have a right to try out employees and I do right to try out employees and I do believe that the statutory period of notice should be put in the face of the bill and not left to regulations.

It is important we continue to work started of the observational task workforce in order to make sure we have that positive arrangements in terms of thinking about how people can start and succeed in work but we do need to remove the uncertainty and as I do fear, companies will simply choose not to grow and I know that from my experience in Suffolk, thinking of potentially some of the flexible working practices which I understand why the Labour government has chosen to perhaps put even more controls on.

Nevertheless, without the support of small businesses we will not get the growth both in productivity and indeed economic growth more generally. In terms of farepaying agency, completely welcomed the construction of this combination of regulators, I think it's a sensible approach but I do point to what I consider to clause 113 to be novel, when I asked the Minister of the other House, Justin Madders, he seems to suggest the EHRC had similar powers. When I looked at the Equality Act, Ashley gives the same powers as what happens in clause 114, where legal assistance can be provided including advice representation and other forms of assistance but not the situation where the farepaying agency could take the case on behalf of the worker -- the farepaying agency.

Or somebody who isn't even a worker, somebody has applied for a job and is taking it on their behalf. Of course there will be aspects of recovery, legal costs and understand that, the government may want to recover the funds, but the regulations do need to change to affirmative rather than negative. It includes clause 114, who is going to get the money to take people's cases get the money to take people's cases to court? Is it going to be a bunch of law firms? It doesn't feel like the approach we should be seeking to do with taxpayers' money admittedly other ways of strengthening rights.

I should say to the government I have nothing against trade unions. I actively encourage people to join them. They can do valuable work. I have never felt the need to do one myself although it is in my blood, I looked at the 1921 Census, my grandfather was an apprentice shipbuilder. I also noted in the census he was on strike. It certainly runs through the veins. But I do think we need to be careful we do not end up destroying growth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rather than promoting it. I must first apologise, I need to honour a long-standing commitment which might oblige me to the windup which might oblige me to the windup switches, declare a lifetime member of the first division Association. Our first warmly congratulate the Our first warmly congratulate the maiden speeches, the three so far, and anticipate interest the next. It's a pleasure to return to the intricacies of employment law which
14:44
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-
intricacies of employment law which I spend much time on while ago. To welcome this bill, which puts right so many injustices. I won't rehearse the range of provisions which will give back much of the security whose deterioration has so adversely of the well-being of so many working people, they will be widely welcomed. They are being widely welcomed. I would like drawing also on my experience as a former member of employment tribunal is to ask my neighbour from the Minister questions in two areas.

First, can she set out in a bit more detail how the new arrangements for the protection of seafarers, the charter, will be devised? Quite a few seafarers on British ships do not speak English. So how will they and their representatives be consulted? Ships are very dangerous places. And containerships for instance, so important to our trading economy, seafarers have a high rate of mortality and of injuries and ill-health than workers on land, significantly so among the lower ranks. But much less legal production against expectation, endlessly long hours, less access to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a matter of pride we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a matter of pride we can right these wrongs after so long so clarification would be welcome. In many cases of tribunals, cases of many cases of tribunals, cases of sexual harassment or sacking while pregnant, they were settled after the first hearing and never the first hearing and never proceeded to a full hearing. I have heard of court cases with similar outcomes where there was a nondisclosure agreement instead. In nondisclosure agreement instead. In some instances, an immediate settlement was so important to the victim and this was preferred, even though the sums might have been paltry.

In some cases, the outlay for carrying on was prohibited and quite severe allegations of behaviour, very damaging to all concerned, and I only ever saw women in these cases. They went unacknowledged and the perpetrators were never brought to book. That is injustice. I was heartened to see in the other place the Minister said "we will continue to look at the issues ". Can might noble friend the Minister tell us when we can expect this injustice to be addressed with a provision to nullify a nondisclosure agreement if the My noble Lords, I would like to say how difficult my task is because I have to follow three such excellent maiden speeches.

I would like to congratulate Baroness Berger, Baroness Gray of Tottenham and my noble friend, Baroness Cash. I would like to thank Baroness Cash and all the noble lords who have welcomed me with warm words, particularly the noble Lord Burns, my fellow QPR
14:47
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
I asked various people for advice I asked various people for advice before thinking about what to say in my maiden speech. I was given three quite strong pieces of advice. Thank the doorkeeper is, praised the people who introduced you and keep people who introduced you and keep it short. For inspiration, I looked up the maiden speech of my father, Lord Young of Dartington. He was Lord Young of Dartington. He was made a life peer by the late noble Lord Callaghan of Cardiff in 1978.

But his maiden speech proved not to But his maiden speech proved not to be terribly helpful. He forgot to thank the doorkeeper is. Did not praise the people who introduced him and he spoke for 18 minutes. My noble Lord will be reassured to know that in this respect at least I do not intend to follow in his footsteps. I would like to thank the doorkeeper is. Black Rod and her staff. The Clerk of the Parliaments and all of the clerks and all the wonderful people who work here and who have gone out of their way helped me when they found me wondering, lost along one of the corridors.

I heard the expression corridors of power. I did not realise there were quite so many. I have no sense of direction. And have made various errors trying to navigate this place. Schoolboy errors. For instance, I entered the chamber the other day and I remembered to bow to the throne. I took my place with what I thought was the minimum fuss. I congratulated myself on having done it I thought with some style and a From Lord Effingham which read "Lord Young, on the basis you have taken the Conservative whip, may I suggest you sit on the Conservative benches?" I had not noticed I was When my elevation was announced, I wrote an article in the Spectator.

I said I thought I was only the second child of a life peer to be made a life peer with the other being Lord Brooke of Sutton, the late Lord Brooke of Sutton. It turns out that I am not the only child of a life peer to sit in this House and I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to the following. Lord Maude of Horsham, Lord of Southwark, Brampton, fletching, Apsley guys, Baroness Bonham-Carter, Baroness Chisholm, Baroness Paddington, Baroness Clooney, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, whose mother is also someone who sits in this House and Lord Vaizey of Didcot.

I should have remembered that one. Because his father, the late Lord Vaizey of Greenwich, was one of the two people who introduced my father in 1978 and who he forgot to thank. I do not want to make that mistake. I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea and the noble Baroness Lady Fox of Buckley, who I am also proud to call my close friends. I would also like to thank my excellent supporters like my excellent supporters like Baroness Cash.

I would like to thank my noble friend Lady Evans and of course Lord Borwick. A little bit
14:51
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
Was disclosed, I am a keen fan of QPR and a season ticket holder and editor-in-chief of the daily editor-in-chief of the daily sceptic, a news publishing site I set up in 2020 and associate editor of the Spectator. Though I have written a weekly column for about 25 years. I am interested in education. years. I am interested in education. Having co-founded one of England's first free schools and three other free schools and the multi-academy free schools and the multi-academy trust that they now sit within alongside five others.

I am the founder and general secretary of the Free speech union. A mass membership public interest body that stands up for the speech rights of members and campaigns for free speech more widely. In the last five years with the help I should say are extremely able chairman, Lord Biggar, in the last five years the FSU have come to the defence of more than 3,500 people. Not all of whom share my political views. The NSU really is a nonpartisan organisation. I often find myself defending people whose views I do not agree with.

For example I have been a lifelong supporter of Israel ever since my father sent me to a Jewish establishment age 17. My father escaped from Prague in 1939 by the skin of his teeth. He was Jewish. I was one of the cofounders of the Jewish friends, sorry the British friends of Israel shortly after October 7. And yet the FSU has defended several people who found themselves in trouble for outspoken support of the Palestinian cause. Before I sit down I want to say a few words about the bill.

One misunderstanding I think has arisen about the extension of liability for third party harassment. This bill does not extend employer liability for the sexual harassment by third parties of their employees. Employees are already protected from third-party sexual harassment by the employment rights act 2024. What clause 20 of this bill does is extend employer liability for the non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties. I fear that will have a chilling effect on free speech.

If you think about it, how will the owners of hospitality businesses, Republicans -- how will the owners of pub protect in this way given the employment tribunal has defined harassment as including indirect harassment, which includes overheard conversations which are not necessarily directed at them? How will they be expected to protect employees from overhearing conversations in pubs by customers that they may find offensive or upsetting in virtue of their protected characteristics? When it was suggested in the other place pubs might have to employ banter bouncers to police the conversations of customers, as one of the reasonable steps expected to protect employees from indirect harassment, employees from indirect harassment, it was met with derisive, dismissive laughter by government benches as a ludicrous strawman.

But I don't think it is a strawman. Before you dismiss those concerns as unduly alarmist, I draw attention to a briefing published earlier this week by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, ably chaired by the It was pointed out employees would have to balance the rights of third parties to express their legally protected beliefs with the rights of employees not to be harassed. That is an extremely complex area of law and I don't envy anybody trying to get their heads around that.

To quote the briefing, the interaction of the third party protection from discrimination and employees protection from harassment is complex and likely to be challenging for employers to navigate. Challenging for employers to navigate. For challenging, read "expensive". Since they would have to take legal advice on how to limit liability. I wonder how many will decide in the face of all of their other difficulties that this new duty, the cost of compliance and the additional risks entailed will mean the game is no longer worth it? According to the campaign for real ale, pubs are closing at the rate of 37 per week.

I hope your Lordships will think carefully before approving the clause in this bill which I fear will accelerate the erosion of a vital part of our history and heritage, the good old British pub.
14:56
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, what a privilege to follow the fourth out of those outstanding maiden speeches. I reassured the noble Baroness that I do echo her sense that Baroness Berger's humanity and dignity in the face of extraordinary provocation was inspiring not only to the many people who have the best and most decent tendencies in the Labour Party but to everyone in this country who values tolerance, civility in public discourse and the supremacy of parliamentary life and I hope I will not destroy her credibility when I say that of all the people in the Independent group, she was the only one I was secretly rooting for in that bizarre moment of political life.

What a pleasure to follow my honourable friend of 35 to follow my honourable friend of 35 . I remember seeing a picture of . I remember seeing a picture of my noble friend I think in the Observer in about 2009 with an extraordinary array of left-wing lawyers, including Baroness Chakra party if memory serves and also Baroness Kennedy. They were making a great defence of liberty. That I think has been a core belief throughout her political career. -- Chakra party. -- Baroness Chakrabarti.

It there is one precept that this country has developed and exported and contributed thereby to the happiness of humanity, it is personal autonomy. My real privilege is in following and welcoming my noble friend Lord Young. He is I think a one-man advertisement for the hereditary principle. It is an unfashionable cause to be making at a time like this. He did not mention that his father was a Labour peer. You would have got it if you were listening between the lines and his father was best known for a book called meritocracy.

Which he was against. My noble friend I think has had a career that tests the outer limits of what we understand by meritocracy. Right from the start he got into Oxford on the basis of having received an acceptance letter in error. They posted it by mistake even though he failed to make the grade. He then argued they had a moral obligation to take him anyway. So he went on to have this extraordinary career which I can only describe as a cinematic. In that a film was made up my noble friend's life, played by Simon Pegg in 2008.

The only other person I can think of who had a bio pic before he was elected to anything is the current vice president of the United States. But I will not push that resemblance. My noble friend then went on again and again to show that quirky independence of character and courage which is I think one of our greatest virtues as a people. I mean no disrespect to the political system when I say you can get to this chamber by being careful and correct and conformist in views.

I know one two people who made it to the top by waiting until everybody else has spoken before they expressed their views. Knowing how to nod sagely and talk slowly. Nobody would describe my noble friend in such terms. Andy two causes with which he has been most recently associated, free speech recently associated, free speech union, and the anti-lockdown campaign showed extraordinary moral courage. Not the simple courage which some people have and some do not but a readiness, intellectual not but a readiness, intellectual readiness to be very unpopular but to standby a position you know to be right.

I had to sell lockdown, I remember the days when people accuse him of being a massmurderer and all the rest of it with every day that has passed and he has come to be has passed and he has come to be more and more vindicated. I'm afraid I find this bill contains absolutely I could go on a lengthy budget repeating what we have already heard, not least might Noble Friends the Baroness Barran, I will focus on just one solitary provision which is the right to work from day one.

I think that we are in real danger of having more and more workers rights and fewer and fewer workers. Because here is a unpopular truth, something that people very very elected admitted never really like to verbalise, the way of encouraging people to hire is to make it easier for them to fire. The way in which you encourage employers to take on more staff is to give them the reassurance that they will not be stuck with duds or embroiled in weeks and weeks of acrimony for the price of a second class stamp or an email by somebody who they had then to remove.

And that, my Lords, has been the secret of our country success for some three decades. Whatever the world has thrown at us, the global financial crisis, the pandemic, structural employment has always been there. Because we have this relative flexibility in our labour market which means we bounceback very quickly from downturns because companies are prepared to take people on and I think that is ceasing to be the case now. I speak as the father of two children who are just entering the workplace and I listen to what their friends are saying and there was a palpable freeze now, and uncertainty among employers in anticipation both of this bill which we are discussing now and the related rise and I have a fear that those 30 years of structurally low unemployment are about to come to an end.

We will be able to look back at my word and laugh at me if I have got this wrong, but I suspect that we are at the beginning of what is going to be a sustained and secular rise in unemployment. As I say, I hope that I am mistaken about that, but as Scotland's national poet once said, Scotland's national poet once said, We wait like buses for one nipple peer to come along. I rise to speak in support of this and I refer the House to my registered interest.

Firstly, I want to congratulate all those who have made their first contributions today. The House is blessed with elegant and distinguished new members and it is of particular joy to be joined by my Noble Friends who acquitted themselves so well and I look forward to getting to know Baroness Cash and Lord Young. As an employer
15:04
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town Portrait Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Labour)
-
-
and entrepreneur and through my work with business improvement districts and workspace provisions I have seen first hand both the challenges and responsibilities of employing responsibilities of employing people. Good businesses do more than create jobs. They foster opportunity, stability, prosperity in our communities. Foremost, responsible employers, the principles behind this bill are nothing new. Anyone who has run a business knows that keeping and supporting a great team is a daily concern. Whether it is offering flexibility, ensuring fair treatment, or helping staff through difficult times, most employers already do much of what is set out in this bill not because they have to but because a happy, motivated team is the foundation of success.

Businesses thrive when their people thrive. That said, rising unemployment costs are a reality. Businesses have adapted to hire minimum wages, pension involvement and other well-intentioned interventions, all of which adds to the cost of employing people and while these measures bring benefits they also create pressures and particularly for small businesses as we have heard already today. The government's impact assessment acknowledges this, but we must be mindful that if costs rise to far, businesses may turn to automation rather than hiring staff.

This is not an argument against the bill, but a reminder that we should show support to both employers and employees. In that spirit, could we do more to improve access to insurance products? To help businesses manage employment risks such as covering Statutory Sick Pay? Such products seem rare to me and it may be worth engaging with people like the Association of British insurers to ensure better provision in this area. We should also consider practical support for businesses adapting to new employment obligations. Code advisory services or incentives help them implement best practices? A culture of shared responsibility between Government, businesses, and employees will be the key to ensuring these measures work in practice as well as in principle.

Ultimately, this bill strengthens workplace rights in a way that is fair and balanced. It reflects what responsible employers already do while ensuring bad practice is tackled, creating a level playing field for all. Businesses that uphold high standards should not be disadvantaged by those who do not and legislation like this helps good employment practices and helps to make good employment practices? It is a step forward and I supported.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I add my congratulations and I think that people will look forward to future contributions that they
15:07
Lord Monks Portrait Lord Monks (Labour)
-
-
to future contributions that they make in this House. I want to pitch my remarks, though the messages coming from across the chamber, almost why have we got the bill in the first place when our wonderful flexible Labour Party is doing so well. But actually, for me, a key justification for this bill is deep concern about the U.K.'s relative position in the world. Just a couple of OECD figures, 40 major economies, we are the most affected by rising inequality, in Europe only Bulgaria and Lithuania fare worse.

The gap between top and bottom earners across in this country continues to saw to some eye watering amounts which are not always linked to corporate success. When it comes to worker participation in management decision-making, the OECD wrangles 26, the OECD wrangles 26/28 European countries propped up only by Latvia and Estonia doing worse. We are not in the Premier League on these particular measures. And of course if we had been standing economically as the advocates of deregulated labour markets in the 1980s hoped, if our productivity and investment record had been better, you could justify high unemployment, high inequality and poor participation in management.

Perhaps it would have been a price worth paying. But the result has been that we are currently 20% poorer, on average, than workers in France or Germany with very different labour markets and a much greater degree of regulation. I could go on making these depressing and unfavourable comparisons, but if some people thought trade unions were all the mighty subjects in the 1970s and 1980s many people did do so and still do so and unions can do with a good dollop of restrictive legislation, I hope that today they will honestly acknowledge that British workers have made -- payday very heavy price for what has happened since.

The fixable labour market and its dark sides acknowledge that for some people in certain circumstances there are many dark sides for others who have very little choice, lower pay, lower protection, lower skills, poor productivity. This is not a happy picture for our nation. They are determined to do something about it. Now, Mrs Thatcher did not expect the flexible labour market to produce some of these awkward facts but they have to be, actually, phased by her successes. And the bill strengthens the workers voice in the workplace and I hope that will echo rooms across the country.

It needs to as it prospers as effective communities and teams, the bill should boost job security and it should reduce bad behaviour in a number of areas, a number of abuses in the workplace at the present time. I commend to Lord Holmes who I am happy to renew dialogue with after many years to have another look at the coffee of Stanley Baldwin to see what he did after the general strike. No, this will take on and I do not apologise for that, as it goes through in its present form and it can help tackle inequality and help improve, I believe, through that productivity, so we need the bill and we needed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

soon. I also would like to add my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also would like to add my thanks and congratulate the four maiden speakers on their excellent speeches. This bill marks a speeches. This bill marks a significant milestone in the campaign to strengthen employment rights in the UK. For many workers,
15:11
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
rights in the UK. For many workers, the measures it contains, day one right, enhancing pay, unfair dismissal, represents long overdue reforms. But we must ask how do these reforms serve the backbone of our cultural economy? Our freelancers. In the creative industries, over one third of the workforce is freelance. I declare my interest as a freelancer in the individual arts. In sectors such as theatre, film, publishing and design, it is more than 50%. Freelancers contribute billions to our economy and underpin the U.K.'s global cultural reputation.

Yet this legislation, while welcome, still leads to many of them in their margins. The bill includes small measures such as distinct protections, enhanced health and safety requirements, and the right to a written contract. But otherwise offers little in the way of contrary protections for freelancers. There is no guarantee of their pay, no enforcement of later payments, and no formal reason to challenge exploitative contracts or to clarify issues around single worker status. While further consultation is welcome, it must safeguard the creative autonomy that IP rights that freelancers depend on.

The blanket reclassification could cause real harm. I support calls from across the sector by organisations such as Dax, ALC S, creative UK, and the cultural policy unit, for the creation of a freelance Commissioner. The dedicated advocate is needed to ensure freelancers are included in future reforms. Too often they are out of school, out of protections, and out of pocket. However, we must also maintain the balance between protecting individuals and supporting the viability of organisations that employ that Commissioner.

That balance is increasingly fragile. Consider the Royal Society of arts, where polarised disputes between unionised staff and leadership overpaying has spiralled into reputational damage and breakdown in trust. Or the Tate, the DCMS sponsored body which cut nearly 7% of its workforce to manage deficit. The Royal Academy of arts is fond of cuts of 80% of its staff. Many cultural organisations are operating on the brink. With commercial income still in recovery and reserves depleted. Faced with new obligations, some employers may delay hiring, turn to long-term contractors, or shift work offshore.

For agencies and studios hiring freelancers may appear less risky. Potentially increasing short-term opportunities. But without protection, this shift may only deepen insecurities across the sector. This underscores the need for phased consultative implementation. And enhanced public funding records. Rights must be matched by resources. Without support, organisations may reduce opportunities or close altogether. We must act strategically. That means sector sensitive collective bargaining, better enforcement mechanisms, and targeted support for small and mid-sized bodies. This bill opens a long overdue chapter in employment rights.

For the UK as well as leading creative industries and the freelance workforce which, they depend, it must not be the final word. Let us ensure that these reports support all workers, however they work, and provide the resources needed to sustain culture that we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have heard four excellent

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have heard four excellent maiden speeches this afternoon. I add my congratulations to Baroness add my congratulations to Baroness Gray and Baroness Berger. And the Gray and Baroness Berger. And the noble lady, Baroness Cash and the
15:15
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
noble lady, Baroness Cash and the noble Lord, Lord Young. I would like to start by reminding the House that this big package of improvements to employment rights has been a long time coming. Governments since 2010 made promises to upgrade employment rights. There have been some improvements, but for the most part, the promises made were watered down, delayed or abandoned. But this Labour government is delivering on its promises. As my noble friend the Minister said in her introduction, there have already been extensive consultations on this bill.

Linked with all interested parties. Including of course businesses of all sizes. Much of the bill we now have in the present form represents a balance between different points of view and different interests. In my short time I have, I will focus on the early part of the bill, aiming to end one-sided flexibility. These are the clauses that give workers a right to guaranteed hours and reasonable notice of shifts. They introduce payments where shifts are cancelled or curtailed at short notice which does happen frequently.

These provisions mirror recommendations made by the Low Pay , in a report that was commissioned by the then government, who at that stage recognised the problems in the precarious parts of the labour market. These recommendations were not taken forward. Around 2.4 million workers in the UK are on zero hours or lower our contracts or zero hours or lower our contracts or in agency jobs. -- Low hours contract. There has been an increase in zero hours contracts. These contracts of course suit some workers as several noble lords have already said this afternoon.

And of course people value flexibility in employment. But if you are not in control of that flexibility, a zero hours contract can put impossible pressures on you. The reforms in this bill aimed to remove some of these pressures. They will help to solve the real problems that I came across with increased frequency over 10 years, serving on the Low Pay Commission. Over that period, I and other commissioners spoke to many low-paid workers and their representatives.

Over the years, more and more of these workers told us about the problems they were experiencing with erratic hours and erratic earnings, and how they made it impossible for them to plan their lives, manage finances and get credit. These hours and this volatility can happen right across the labour market but it is more common for the low paid and they do not speak up for themselves, because of fear of reprisal. The majority of employers do things the right way but many of them do not.

These provisions will encourage employers to provide work schedules in advance and not cancel shifts at the last minute or part way through. I recognise there is a lot of concern among employers and workers about how all this will work in practice. A lot of this will be sorted out in regulations on which there is going to be a lot more consultation. I find that reassuring. I hope other people with concerns also find it reassuring they will get a chance to express their views as the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

progresses through stages. It is a pleasure to take part in this important second reading debate this important second reading debate and great to see noble lords taking part and I welcome and congratulate
15:20
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
part and I welcome and congratulate I hope they will be working with all of us, particularly on the government benches to improve this bill. This is a builder Green Party does welcome. Baroness Jones will shortly provide a listing of the many points on which we agree. I will focus on the bigger picture context in which this bill comes before us and in doing so I will respectfully but strongly disagree with the colourful opening speech of the noble Lord Hunt of Wirral. What this bill does is modest and we Seek to rebalance the powers of workers and employers, a relationship that was thrown awry under Margaret Thatcher, particularly by strangling the ability of workers to get together in unions to support each other against the power of bosses, particularly big companies.

The balance was enhanced by allowing zero hours contracts and other insecure forms of employment to explode, working hours extended across many sectors of the economy, and that was not permitted to happen in many of our European neighbours, who benefit from healthier, happier workers with the capacity to contribute to their communities and contribute to their communities and societies in a general as the noble Lord Monks highlighted. We saw the wage share of workers collapse and a rise in inequality. Inefficient and disruptive financialisation of the economy.

All of which can be at least in part attributed to failure to make work safe, fair and to make work safe, fair and adequately paid. There was a failure to recognise changing the social structures where the previously unpaid and unacknowledged labour of women has been brought into the paid workforce, and that work has to fit around the continued demands they still face. We are people as the Right Reverend prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and Lord Palmer highlighted. With responsibilities and needs outside work that our working structures do not adequately acknowledge.

The economy is paying the price with skills, energy and Provisions. The Blair and Brown governments did not redress the imbalance between workers and employers created under the Thatcher government. So we are where we are today. They also allow the minimum wage to drift down in real terms. Subsidising the profit of giant multinationals in particular at the cost of our soul as the noble Lord Barber said and we have seen a race to the bottom in employment and that has to stop. I often hear from government benches saying they want to get workers into good jobs.

We are the Green Party take a different view. We want every job to be a good job. Those that are unavoidably difficult should have conditions to reflect the conditions of work. We cut essential workers during the pandemic but did not lift their pay and the respect in which they were held. -- Capped. I invite noble lords to consider the relative position of sewer cleaners and bankers and what would happen if we did not have the former working for , a fair working environment is important in what we often describe as the green areas of the economy.

The climate APPG on Monday had a very interesting meeting about the just transition and that is something I want to look at in this bill. I am concerned about the impact of new technology upon workers. Employers and agency staff. Forced at cost by Amazon for people acting like robots and working themselves into the ground. A practice that spread to many other areas of work. Workers need the right to breathe at work. Hospitality workers travelling home at night, the get me home safely campaign, I am going to work on that and in general health and safety at work needs more attention and I want to see how we can build this more strongly in this bill.
15:24
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
My lords, during my time as general secretary, I met many employers who valued good industrial relations and agreed terms far beyond legal minimums. I also met dedicated care workers who did not earn enough to give their own children a decent start in life. Loyal P&O crew fired and replaced by labour paid below the minimum wage. Amazon workers whose boss is running roughshod over the basic British liberty to organise collectively and bargain for better conditions. And teenaged workers at Macdonald's who faced sexual harassment and even demands or sex for shifts.

On that issue, can the Minister update us on the government approach to tackling Non-Disclosure Agreements regarding discrimination and harassment? Frankly it is obscene that nondisclosure agreements are used to silence victims, and that silence puts workers, especially young women, at risk. The bill does have strong public support across the political spectrum and no wonder. The UK is now an outlier among OECD Write for temporary workers, the work foundation reports that the UK is at the bottom of the league of 22 OECD countries.

Only just above the United States. Statutory sick pay is the lowest in Europe and the lowest paid have been excluded, meaning they cannot afford to stay home when sick. As we saw during COVID, that endangers public health. Other countries, New Zealand, Italy, France, Germany, and many more band exploitative zero hours contracts exploitative zero hours contracts long ago. But the UK did not. Under the Conservative government, writes did not keep up with the pace of the gig economy.

In fact conservatives worsened protection against unfair dismissal, some sex discrimination rights, and the human right to withdraw labour. The party opposite claimed tilting the balance back towards workers would be bad for business. Nonsense. On the contrary. There is strong evidence fairness at work boosts productivity and work boosts productivity and innovation. In the UK, too many people are stuck in a revolving door of low skilled, insecure jobs and unemployment. This bill will promote better quality jobs and positive flexibility so more carers and people with disabilities or poor mental health can have the chance to get work and stay.

Of course individual rights need effective, collective enforcement. That is why it is so important at this bill also strengthens the rights to organise and be represented by a trade union. Finally a word on the UK -EU trade deal, the mother of all costs to business. According to the London School of Economics, trade barriers have hit small businesses the hardest. 14% stopped exporting to the European Union altogether. One reason why we ended up with a second class trade deal is because the EU feared unfair competition.

That the UK would undercut them with worse worker rights. The Conservative government's broken promise to bring forward an Employment Bill and a tax on the trade unions only confirmed their suspicion. This bill can help to ease European Union fears and support negotiations for a better deal. That is just one more reason why this bill is good for jobs, good why this bill is good for jobs, good

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for workers and good for business. I add my congratulations to the excellent four maiden speech is that excellent four maiden speech is that we have been privileged to listen to we have been privileged to listen to we have been privileged to listen to in this debate. My lords, I would like to focus on a small section of this very wide ranging bill. It is concerned with the establishment of an Adult Social Care Negotiating an Adult Social Care Negotiating Body in England and social care and negotiating bodies in Scotland and Wales.

In particular a well trained adult social workforce, especially for those living with dementia, is for those living with dementia, is both important and long overdue. I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on dementia and as an Alzheimers society ambassador. According to the notes accompanying the bill, the government hopes sectoral agreements will be negotiated by the social care bodies and it will help address the ongoing recruitment and retention crisis in the social care sector. This will in turn support the delivery of high Education and training are not currently specified for that negotiating bodies to consider.

Last years state of adult social sector report by skills for care stated access to training was among the top five reasons influencing retention. Turnover rates were 7.4 lower for those who did receive training than for those who did not. There is evidence that lack of learning and development is given as a reason to leave. Ensuring that adult social
15:30
Baroness Browning Portrait Baroness Browning (Conservative)
-
-
workers, the adult social workforce is able to access high-quality is able to access high-quality training is not only crucial for recruitment and retention, it is recruitment and retention, it is also essential for ensuring the delivery of High Quality Care for All those who need it. This is All those who need it. This is particularly true for almost one million people living with dementia in the UK today. A high proportion in the UK today. A high proportion of them needing their essential social care.

For example, 70% of social care. For example, 70% of residents in residential care have dementia and we know this figure is going to rise. It is therefore shocking that only 29% of adult social staff in England are recorded as having undertaken dementia training and that no legal requirement exists for them to do so. The Alzheimer's Society are calling for dementia training to be made mandatory for all adult social staff and I agree. I intend to take amendment to Committee stage which would include education and training within the remit of the social care negotiating bodies.

This would send it positive signal to the sector, to people who draw on care about the importance of Government and this House accords to the training and education of the social care workforce. It would also bring social care negotiating body in line with that of support staff negotiating body which does have training within its remit. I look forward to more detailed discussion at Committee stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like others, I would like to congratulate all of those making their maiden speeches today, they were absolutely brilliant and I to were absolutely brilliant and I to speak in favour of this bill. And how often have we heard Miss
15:32
Lord Prentis of Leeds Portrait Lord Prentis of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
how often have we heard Miss extolling the virtues of a society with a light-touch. A society where markets prevail and benefits trickle-down. So many that reality is so far different. Profits, yes, made at the expense of vulnerable workers. Loopholes exploited. Compliant workforce with few protections /trade union rights stripped back. And the result almost 7 million citizens in severely insecure artwork. For those almost 4 million workers on Universal Credit, the UK she aimed earlier this year being the eighth most economy out of the 40.

And that is why this bill is so important. The bill creating steppingstones towards building a modern workforce. New measures to tackle insecure work, scrutiny of procurement with a two tier workforce agreement restored. In- house rights against unfair dismissal. Contracts reflecting the hours worked, and most of all this bill lays the foundations of a modern system, social partnership, no conflict at its core. Tackling some of the most intractable issues facing our economy. The school support negotiating body restored, the key to professional recognition for a group of workers overlooked for so long.

But nothing could be more significant than the proposals to transform social care. Social care so close to breaking point, weighed down by a toxic combination of chronic underfunding and dysfunctional arguments. Over 130,000 social care jobs. 25% annual turnover. 400,000 social care workers living on the verge of poverty. Travelling time not paid. 14 hour shifts, zero hour contracts. Little, if any, career progression. And meanwhile on average 4,000 people every day are not able to leave hospital because of the lack of care.

This bill heralds the action so desperately needed, creating the Fair Work Agency in the first pay agreement now for social care in England. As we speak today and employer in Knowsley Housing is a stark reminder of why this bill is so important. Faced with legitimate action for fair pay, housing does not engage, it does not look into the underlying causes of the dispute. Instead, it offers a pay increase only to non-union workers and to those willing to give up their union.

It threatens outsourcing, Dickensian tactics which cannot be fair by any standard. I will ask my Noble Friend that minister to urgently look into what is happening in their housing. This will is our chance to instil fairness into the workplace to restore balance, to ensure workers are treated with dignity that their contribution is valued. Especially those at live housing. It is a build up makes it profound and a positive difference to people's lives. Our chance to make a difference, our chance to secure a better life at work.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I place on record my thanks for the speakers and also to the for the speakers and also to the three former TUC general secretaries who have joined us for this debate. who have joined us for this debate. Not to mention last week the Noble Lord Prentice whose union was always Lord Prentice whose union was always very helpful to me when I was David very helpful to me when I was David Cameron's envoy to the movement. I will declare an interest from the will declare an interest from the pilots union which is the TUC affiliated union and I do not think I would be giving many secrets away if I said that the majority of our members are probably voting Conservative in most elections.

Most people do not join trade unions for political reasons. They join trade unions because they want to be, they would want to be looked after, they want to have someone to consult if times get rough. At the other thing is most of them joined because you get a good car discount on your car insurance and you get a free legal insurance and you get a free legal advice service. My subs to AEW tasks which are now part of Unite were covered completely by the amount of money I had of my car insurance.

And just to rub it home a little bit, the legal service was excellent. My children went to private school. They once got into a bit of trouble with the bursa who was trying to pull if asked one. I rang the union legal service and a very helpful solicitor drafted me a letter and I said I daresay you are not used to helping your members challenge private schools and I always remember his reply. He said so, we are not here to judge members.

We are here to help them. And those two facts about unions are a great comfort to many ordinary people who have two workforce there living. But I would also say I have known quite a lot of Prime Ministers. The only conservative one I thought was on the right track was Ted Heath and I think if things had turned out differently this party might well have a somewhat different relationship. I also got to know Ted quite well after he retired because he used to enjoy coming to Brussels and was excessive about having political balance.

I was about the only Labour Party member willing to sit next to him at dinner, so we had lots of very interesting conversations. I welcome this bill, probably the only one on this site who does, because I think it clears up a lot of anomalies that need clearing up. I served 25 years in the European Parliament and I saw their European trade unions. Based on the sick people were you respect the rights of workers and it is as simple as that, but I do think if we are going to move forward, the movement itself is going to have to change.

You have got to get conservatives into the annual Congress. You have got to come and explain what you are up to, not have them as a hate figure on the wall and the TU movement itself has got to look at how it deals with the one third of its members who vote for the Conservative party. That is as much a challenge as our challenge to pass this law, and think it better for the workers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declarant interest as a freelance producer. I welcome aspects of this bill. It does much to improve the rights and status of to improve the rights and status of millions of employees and workers in this country. To a time when holding down a job is increasingly precarious. In particular, I welcome precarious. In particular, I welcome the changes to zero hours contract arrangements. I understand this will arrangements. I understand this will provide some extra burdens for SMEs which need flexibility, but it would be important security to many low- be important security to many low- paid workers.

However, I like many of that loads, worried that this bill is reliant on Henry VIII powers bill is reliant on Henry VIII powers and I hope that the Noble Lady the Minister will listen to these
15:42
15:42
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
company for which the individual is working and is responsible for PAYE. working and is responsible for PAYE. My concern is that these companies are not regulated. Their lack of transparency means it is unclear transparency means it is unclear when they are treating workers fairly, not applying hidden charges or withholding benefits workers are entitled to and far too many cases in umbrella cases do not always carry out due diligence on them and I would be grateful to the knobbly did the Minister if she could tell the House with other work agency which is being set up could have a role in overseeing appellate companies to ensure they are compliant and transparent and to ensure that non-compliant and black companies do not enter the work supplied.

This is the Employment Rights Bill, it deals with employees. And my Noble Friend Freiburg when I asked the Government to take seriously the rights of the self-employed as well, there are growing part of the workforce. There over 4.1 million self-employed workers in this country and over half a million of which are self employed mothers. They contributed £366 million to the UK economy last year. The Labour Party policy paper make work pay as is Labour is the party of self employed and recognises their significant contribution to the UK economy.

It promises to strengthen rights for self-employed and deal with many self-employed and deal with many issues which have long talked the freelance world, such as the right to a written contract, action on late payment, and health and safety protections for self-employed and bringing this bill to Parliament I asked the Government to be aware of the danger of widening the gap 20 employed in the self-employed. The gap between the rights enjoyed by the employees and those who are self-employed. That protection for sick leave, parental leave and protections against unfair dismissal.

This leads to a major consideration for the Government. I understand the current definition of employment under common law employment tax rules are vague and open to interpretation which can lead to conflict, often ending up in the tax tribunal. So, I welcome the deputy minister in her second speech in this bill in the other placing that the plan set on the simple category worker to amalgamate the employee and the workout status. However, I ask the Minister to be aware of the concerns of the self- employed and creating a single status worker.

They could disadvantage freelancers who make up much of the workforce, especially the creative industries. The nature of their work means the above in and out of all of these current employment status as. The single category must incorporate this flexibility in employment and I also add my support for setting up for a freelance commissioner who can sort through these concerns and report to through these concerns and report to I made my maiden speech some time ago against this scourge on our employment landscape.

It's particularly prevalent in the creative industries and creates a serious barrier to social mobility. Can the noble Lord -- and the noble Lady the Minister tell us whether there are plans to end unpaid internships of over four weeks? Icon we can only thrive if it is accessible to people from all backgrounds. I hope the government will follow this bill with many pledges of making work pay. We need to make sure that the UK maximises opportunities for workforce and safeguard the positions of workers, whatever their employment status.
15:46
Baroness Prosser Portrait Baroness Prosser (Labour)
-
-
It gives me great pleasure to participate in this debate and I thank the noble Lady the Minister, my noble friend, for her introductory comments. She mentioned in that introduction the clauses in the bill, which relate to equal pay. I'm very pleased to hear that but I must urge with words of caution and remind the house that it's 50 years this year since the Equal A Act was put onto the statute book and as she said in her opening comments, we still have a 13% pay gap between men and women workers -- Equal Pay Act.

Whilst legislation is hugely important and we can't do it without it, legislation alone does not do the trick. My experience of the introduction of positive action programmes, which I can briefly explain to the house, has made a very important difference in a number of areas. During the last Labour government, we had introduced a program following the work of the Women at Work Commission which looked at various employment sectors and worked with employers in those sectors where we identified who had the ability and the desire to improve their situation in the workplace.

Many, many women take up jobs not necessarily at the top end of their ability come about jobs which fit in with their family commitments, those commitments may decrease over the years as the children get older and the women get stuck with those positions. So, giving those women the opportunity to scale up, train and retrain and move further up the salary ladder has been an exercise which has proven extremely fruitful. proven extremely fruitful. Interestingly, and that exercise -- in that exercise, more money was put into the delivery of the programme by employers than it was my government.

Employers love that. -- Employers loved it. Over 20,000 women benefited from the programme. I would love to hear comments from my noble friend as to whether or not the government would consider looking at some kind of positive action programme to ensure that the legislation we have on the books is actually able to benefit women and to make a difference. And very quickly, the other side of things on the positive action front, is looking at the situation of girls and boys in school, and identifying ways in which girls learn differently to boys.

There wasn't -- there was a program -- there was not a programme which ran computer skills for girls. There was no programme that made them feel better about assimilating with that information and giving them the skills to going to work that was going to be more highly paid for the. I hope the noble Lady will be able to tell the House that she is open to ideas on this front and we can therefore see some true movement on the equal pay front.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to welcome our four new colleagues and I look forward to their future contributions. their future contributions. Obviously, I agree with everything that my noble friend Lady Bennett that my noble friend Lady Bennett said earlier. Surprisingly enough, said earlier. Surprisingly enough, we do support this bill, in its
15:50
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
general purpose, because we like the fact it's making fairness at work a priority. Well done to the trade unions from making sure this never slipped off the public agenda. At the moment, we've got a divided and very unequal society in this bill does help restore a bit of balance in the workspace. Without that balance of power, we will forever have working class people going to food banks and claiming Universal Credit because their paid work doesn't give them either a living wage or job security.

We have a two tier economy. The rich have been getting richer much faster, while the rest of us are stuck or going backwards. These two facts are obviously linked. Last year, the collective wealth of the U.K.'s billionaires increased by about 35 million a day. Meanwhile, according to the IFA's, the past 15 years have been the worst for income growth in generations. Like many, I was appalled by the Spring Statement. It means that the situation I've just described will get much worse.

However, I will support, we will support the changes that Labour are putting forward, but it is nowhere near enough to really change things and make the majority of people better. The duty we all have in Your Lordships' House is to fill the gaps in the bill to make it work for everyone in society, but especially the poorest. And to do that, you have to end the rip-off by privatised industries, you need rent controls and more social housing. You need a wealth tax and a more equal society.

So, one of our amendment, for example, will be to introduce a maximum 21 -- 10 to one pay ratio so that no worker should see their CEO get paid more in a day than they do for the entire year. Plus, if you want more productivity in this country then you must value your staff. If you want to lower the tax burden, you must end the corruption that comes with privatised procurement contracts and services. Of course, we have to protect whistleblowers, we have to protect SMEs.

There is a surprising amount in this bill that could have been taken straight from the Green party election manifesto. Lots of very commonsense ideas. I want to congratulate the Labour Party for casting an eye over what we said. For example, a fair deal for those working in adult social, enhanced rights from day one, quality auditing and sick pay. This Employment Rights Bill could turn the tide on the undermining of employment rights that has taken place since the 1980s.

Time to recognise that stronger collective bargaining rights and better working conditions can be good for both workers and for businesses. But it is incomplete. The government clearly need some help in further drafting and this house is the perfect place to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's a pleasure to rise in support of this bill. It's also in support of this bill. It's also an opportunity to remind Baroness Jones that much of this bill was in Jones that much of this bill was in our manifesto. We have a strong mine, to remind the Conservative
15:53
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
mine, to remind the Conservative benches, for this. Is also a pleasure to follow so many contributions. Mindful of time, I shall focus my remarks on just a couple of headline measures in this bill and the backdrop against which they are being introduced. Before I do that, want to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Lady Jones for her introductory speech. This is a very complicated and large piece of legislation and I thought she did a great job of delivering an explanation of the most important parts of it in the introductory speech.

I also want to associate myself with congratulations to a bevy of maiden speakers. I apologise that I have insufficient time to go into the detail of their remarks. I thought the speeches were all excellent. I will have another opportunity to complement my noble friends in the future. My Lords, we know over the last 16 years, the productivity gap between the UK and France, Germany and the United States has doubled. Anyone who is what is the newspaper stand will be aware that we have had a record of -- we have a record of economically inactive people through ill-health.

This is quite an inheritance. And confident that the legislation before Your Lordships' House is a real and substantive step to engaging these challenges. Let's take the productivity gap first. And we ask ourselves what has caused are anaemic growth of productivity, we are often told that the government needs to get out of the way. Over the last 14 years of Conservative led government, I long ago lost count of the number of ministerial promises to kindle bonfires of red tape, take an axe to redtape or some other similarly strenuous measures.

It is clear that Conservative governments have failed over the last 14 years or were simply acting on a false promise. According to research by Cambridge Judge Business School, there has been a growing gap between the UK and other countries. Including France and Germany whose productivity years -- productivity rates we have looked on with envy. Key divergences including legitimate industrial action. This bill makes and substantive contribution to closing that gap.

There are more remarks I'd like to make in that context but time limits we. Instead, I will focus on one. The provisions relating to fire and rehire. March 2020 do was the most egregious example. The practice was described as deceitful, disgraceful and vowed that the government would stand up for workers against these appalling actions. What slingshot of redress to the Conservative government choose to employ against this? Voluntary code of practice that depends on the employers.

The measures in this bill are far stronger, forcing employers who engage in practice to demonstrate they have made exhaustive efforts to find alternative and to demonstrate that the alternative would not cause financial problems for the company. I should like to also engage with the second element of this government's challenging inheritance. There are many people inactive according to -- due to illness. The shadow home secretary recently suggested that British people need a better work ethic. A deeper look at the figures and ONS figures belies this interpretation, alongside mental health, long-term alongside mental health, long-term disorders are the largest reason.

There is a huge and structural disparity in some cases, over three times greater between the number of long-term sick who previously occupied these professions, compared with jobs in IT and professional jobs. Measures which improve protections and sick pay and exploitative zero hours contracts and strengthen workers rights are a step in the right direction. The question of workplace culture might

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be a wider discussion. My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of a very large American insurance broker. This bill is deeply concerning, especially considering the recent legislative
15:59
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
considering the recent legislative changes, such as the 25 billion raised through national insurance contributions and the increase in the National Living Wage coming into effect next week. These developments are already creating significant challenges for businesses. Together with the regulations in this bill, they highlight a troubling antibusiness and auntie growth stands that risks undermining the foundations of the business community. While the bill aims to support workers and create a fairer society, it comes with substantial costs for many businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

These businesses will struggle to absorb these additional expenses without negative consequences. The key question is how can business continue to grow and create jobs when burdened by such regulatory costs? One of the many of this enormous bill's provisions is the introduction of a separate legal status for probation periods, alongside the removal of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. This means businesses could face a tribunal claims even during employees probationary Tell to be fully determined and depend on secretary legislation.

The tribunal waiting time is already long, 18 to 24 months. It is crucial to ensure that we claims are dismissed promptly to avoid further strain on the business. Whatever happens, it is more cost you. Moreover, including the right of workers and lower our contracts to receive a contract. I was worked in the previous 12 weeks. However, the definition of low hours remains unclear and this uncertainty adds to the complexity for businesses in managing the workforce. Additionally, the bill suggests allowing businesses to offer fixed term contracts during high demand tyres.

If related effectively this could help businesses better manage fluctuating demand, however shifting the responsibility onto businesses to track when such rights are triggered are not contracts adds another layer of administrative burden. The bill's provisions around dismissal and engagement could also complicate restructuring efforts, potentially limiting a businesses ability to adapt to the changing market conditions, such as office relocations or adjustments to working conditions. I will only briefly mention the harassment by third parties clause which might new Noble Friend has addressed so well, but I believe these businesses are in any impossible position of trying to protect their colleagues and staff.

It is essential that we find a balance between protecting workers rights and ensuring that businesses remain competitive, innovative, agile and responsive to the challenges of a rapidly changing domestic economy. These changes, combined with risks associated with permanent contracts reduce flux ability and workforce restructuring and higher compliance costs creates a challenging environment for business. The Government must ensure these policies do not stifle growth and regeneration the country needs. As this anti-growth narrative emerging from these changes requires careful scrutiny.

We must ensure that businesses are not overwhelmed by an unnecessary bureaucracy. A thriving business environment is not only beneficial for business but also essential for the broader economy and the growth this country
16:03
Baroness Bousted Portrait Baroness Bousted (Labour)
-
-
Please stick to time. Four minutes. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I want to congratulate the four maiden speakers who made their Maiden speech is today. They were excellent. In passing the bill the House will restore the U.K.'s reputation as a nation which supports fair treatment of ordinary supports fair treatment of ordinary people in the workplace and the right of unions to take democratically determined action democratically determined action where necessary to impose bad employment practice and to repeal the most egregious aspects of the the most egregious aspects of the previous Governments and Thai trade union legislation which Baroness Jones, in her introduction to the Jones, in her introduction to the House today, rightly called punitive.

In 1919, the UK was a founding member of the International Labour organisation. Despite this proud history, the previous Government severely damage the U.K.'s record of employment rights, passing legislation which attempted to curb the ability of unions and union members to secure better working lives for ordinary people. The committee of experts on the application of conventions and recommendations repeatedly commented on the previous Governments floating of commitments as an Ireland member. In 2022 the committee noted with regret that their Governments believe that the measures it had put in place to protect striking workers from employee revolution were sufficient.

The committee urged the Government to review the legislation in full consultation with workers and employer organisations to strengthen what is available to workers with the lovely organised industrial action and to provide the committee with information on the committee with information on the steps taken in this regard. No action was then taken on this recommendation. In 2023 the committee noted the serious concern of the development and implementation of the service level guarantees. It made clear its expectation that in preparing its regulations and other guidance, including codes of practice, the Government would ensure that any minimum level guarantees imposed on industrial action in the transport and education sectors was, indeed, minimum.

And that the Government would ensure the participation of all social partners in its determination and where none was reached it would ensure that it was determined by independent body that had the confidence of all parties. No action was taken by the previous Government on these recommendations. In May 2023, the House of Commons drug committee Human Rights Act found that that minimum service legislation which made it easier to sack striking workers and left unions at risk of million pound fines did not appear to be justified and needed to be reconsidered.

The committee found that it would be possible to introduce million service levels in some sectors in a way that is more likely to be compliant with Human Rights Act. Then Government took no action to respond to the committee's concerns. In May 2024, in a landmark case taken by Unison, the Supreme Court ruled that the UK trade union legislation was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. In failing to prohibit detriment short of dismissal for taking part in lawful industrial action.

This sorry history of politically and Thai trade union gestation whose clear and unlawful purpose was to take away individual and collective rights of work shows why the bill being debated in this House today is so necessary and that is why I support this bill and commend it to the House. commend it to the House.
16:07
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
In principle, I welcome this bill's aspiration to enhanced protection of workers rights. But one nagging doubt ploughing through this huge redtape label on unwieldy legislation, how does it fulfil its bows to modernise employment rights and make them fit for the modern world? To me it seems bizarrely out of sync with the shift in the modern workplace culture. For example, we are told by Government that more sick leave entitlement aims to, "Reduce the number of infections in the workplace, boosting productivity, and benefiting business.

" Really? Has the Minister not notice the crisis created by large suites of workers to readily not going in to work, pleading sickness, stress et cetera. Also, surely making flexible working a default position will exacerbate that button fashion for working from home is a regressive retreat from collective workplace solidarity. It is hard to cultivate a 140041 culture from the individualised isolation of your bedroom office and privilege, by the way, only accessible to white-collar workers. On trade unions I am delighted to see the back of the ludicrous strikes service levels act which I argued against in this chamber.

But I am also worried that modern trade unions are not fit for purpose. Their ideological core priorities seem to often put them at odds with their members. I thought of this, listening to today's maiden speeches first and, by the way, anyone welcome to the Baronesses cash, girder, and grey. This chamber always benefits from more feisty women. But let me focus on the Noble Lord young of actin. The father of the free speech union which in valuably depends workers right when facing a specifically modern form of employer mistreatment i.e.

Being punished or sacked merely for expressing legal points. The FSU is necessary because, tragically, to many, particularly public sector, union bureaucrats seem to have been radicalised by the toxic ideology of identity politics. Trade union officials often act as a censorious enforcers of HR departments in equality, diversity and inclusion policies. Policing their members speech rather than protecting their rights. The very opposite of the role the Noble Lord described earlier. One example, Unison conference passed a motion pledging to combat so-called gender critical narratives and distributing materials that conflated sex realism perspectives with far right extremism.

No surprise then a group of nurses from County Durham, all Faust feisty women that I like and have been first to set up their own Darlington nurses unit. They are taking the NHS Trust to an employment tribunal, alleging the hospital's HR Department intimidated and harassed them when they objected to sharing their female changing room with their biological male who identified as a trans woman. The official nursing unions were useless, instead repeating their NHS bosses inclusion mantras. Yesterday, Sussex University was rightly owned over half £1 million for failing to protect Professor Kathleen Scott free speech.

But do not forget as Professor Scott noted in the times it was her own Sussex University Union backed up by the National UC UN general secretary who threw her under the bus. Things are so bad members are taking unions to court. Two academics, Deirdre O'Neill and Michael win, the members of the film adult human female have launched a tribunal action against the UC you discrimination after countless branches blocked screenings. Meanwhile, the Chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation is taking legal action against his union.

He was locked out of his union email, and suspended after a TV interview suggesting many of his 30,000 officers are increasingly nervous about challenging people from ethnic minorities. To note, the professional standards department included a marked that it did not amount to this misconduct. These trends reflect the modern world trade unionism. If these remain unacknowledged in the bill or critically extends the bureaucrats powers, it may well not help with workers rights. workers rights.
16:12
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
I congratulate Mike Noble Friend the Minister for the elegant exposition. I also congratulate our four maiden speakers for their excellent contributions. And like Lord Balfe and I enjoy the contributions of no less than three former general secretaries and one former AGS. In this debate, I appear as a tourist. Whilst like others I expressed gratitude for the bill in place of the starvation and Russians given to workers by the previous Government, I asked for more.

The bill will confirm any benefits on our 34 confirm any benefits on our 34 million workforce but it is a long way short of the gastronomic menu in Labour's Green Papers, a new deal for working people. Drafted by a committee to which I had the honour to legal adviser and chaired by Andy McDonald, MP. The New Deal was adopted by a Labour conference in 2021 who reaffirmed, 2022 reiterated Labour's plan to work pay, delivering a new deal for working people and reference in both the election manifesto and the Kings speech.

And whilst time permits me to raise only two of the many items left on the bill of fare, both are essential to increase pay and demand in the economy, both are vital to substitute negotiation for litigation. The first is a sectoral collective bargaining, in other words collective bargaining between unions and multiple employers to reach a collective agreement setting minimum terms across a particular sector on the Fair Pay Agreement. A new deal committed to introduce them across the economy.

Labour's plan to make work pay promised quote to start by establishing a new Fair Pay Agreement in the adult social sector. The election manifesto refer to this Fair Pay Agreement as a sector collective agreement. In contrast, the bill makes no provision for sector wide collective bargaining in any part of the economy. Instead, it expressly provides that the school support staff negotiating body does not constitute collective bargaining and outputs are not collective agreements. The Adult Social Care Negotiating Body, the Minister has regulatory power tussle rule.

In any event, ministerial control over these bodies membership and terms of reference and manner of working with unfettered power to override any agreement or disagreement completely negates the definition of free collective bargaining, both in statutory and international law. My second issue is the right to strike. The bill sweeps away the minimum service level act, promotion of the Trade Union Act, 2016 and simplifies notice and extends a mandate. The Government is to be congratulated. But the bill does not remove the anti-legislation, and how union legislation of the 1980s, which hamstrings unions and has led to any art collapse in collective agreement for coverage.

That legislation is incompatible with a number of respects with our ratifying A A new A new deal A new deal committed A new deal committed this A new deal committed this party A new deal committed this party to bring in law on industrial action without international obligations. It's a rule of law issue. The bill will need amendment accordingly.. Nevertheless, the grace and eloquence of my noble friend the
16:16
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
-
Minister makes her singularly ill fitted for this. fitted for this. Quad of maiden speakers we've had in Quad of maiden speakers we've had in our debate today. In four minutes, you need to cut to the chase, so that is what I will do. I'm not that is what I will do. I'm not someone who believes that any improvement to employment rights negatively impacts employers or the economy. But as the government itself has said, it's all about itself has said, it's all about balance.

To many of the provisions in this bill have got the balance wrong, including the day one right on unfair dismissal. And the government itself recognises this. That's why it's committed to introducing a probationary period, but we have no detail on how this would work. And that is just one of many examples in this bill but the detail is not developed and employers have serious concerns. But not only has the government got the balance wrong in this bill. At the same time, they have failed to address one of the biggest imbalances in employment rights we have.

And that is on paternity leave. In the UK, we give mothers 52 weeks of maternity leave and father's just two weeks. The lowest level of paternity leave across Europe. Take-up of that two weeks is lowest among dads on low pay as the rate of pay for that leave is so poor. The noble Lady the Minister said that new action plans would help close the gender pay gap. Well, we can be confident that it will lead to plans but less confident it will lead to action.

And said, more generous paternity leave has demonstrated that it can close the gender pay gap. It's also good for father's, for children and good for the economy. Research shows that it can contribute to GDP. I know the government intends to do a review on this but there has already been an evaluation and a consultation so now is not the time for another review. It is time for action. The other imbalance I want to address is the increase in compliance costs for businesses doing the right thing whilst leaving significant loopholes allowing labour market abuse.

Substitution clauses have traditionally been used to give small businesses flexibility. But there is increasing evidence of it being abused by contractors in gig economy businesses. With substitution clauses, Amazon tells couriers that it is your responsibility to be a substitute at any rate agreed with the. You must ensure any substitute has right to work in the UK. This is clearly not happening. During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that to home delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally.

It is not right to pass It is not right to pass responsibility for compliance with criminal and right to work checks onto workers. The introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors would help to ensure employment rights are upheld, pay is not suppressed to illegitimate competition and support the enforcement of rights to work checks. And if the noble Lady the Minister will not listen to me, perhaps you listen to the Drivers and couriers union. I hope the noble Lady the Minister will take action to address the balance of this will.

At the moment, it risks damaging jobs and growth whilst at the same time fails to address some of the time fails to address some of the most significant flaws we have in our labour market today.
16:20
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
This bill is very welcome, especially the provisions aimed at increasing job security. Job security is important to workers and insecurity can have huge effects on workers. One-way in which the bill will enhance security is through Statutory Sick Pay. There are some who were sick too long to be compensated. While it's true that as the Minister told the Commons, most employees will not be worse of, surely the aim of such a change would be to leave no low paid employee worse off.

I can't believe that the government intended this. Is also disappointing there is no indication of any future increase in the SSP rate. This will blunt the impact of positive changes. In her letter to Pearce, my noble friend the Minister emphasised that the bill places the family at its heart by increasing the baseline set of rights for employees with parental or other caring responsibilities. As it still largely women who bear the main burden of balancing work and care responsibilities, it's women who will benefit most.

There are some holes here. I was hoping these might be possible to fill. I stand here as Olivia Twiss. -- Twist. Care is unpaid -- carer leave is unpaid so many people simply do not take so many people simply do not take And there is a strong economic business case made by employers such as TSB. The government's own estimate of the economic cost of caring in terms of lost production puts it at a massive £37 billion a year.

Just a couple of years ago, frontbench spokesman told the Commons the next Labour government will be permitted to introducing a right to a cared webpage Carer's Leave. But recently the Minister could only say that we are reviewing this measure and considering whether further support is required. I accept that the government has to consider how paid leave should be designed, not least because we can learn from other countries but what is there to consider with regard to the need for further support, given we already have ample evidence? Surely, we can show our commitment to unpaid carers but raise -- by rising into the bill.

This would align with the spirit and the government's mission by demonstrating support for a group at considerable risk of poverty. The other concerned paternal -- paternity leave. The bill is potentially a contribution to a more gender equal economy. It needs to also tackle the unfair distribution of unpaired care work. Unpaid care is the root cause of women's economic inequality. I've long argued that parental leave with the period restricted to fathers on the loose it or use it basis is an important social lever here.

Only about 4% of fathers haven't used it at the last count. The Minister confirmed the promised review of parental leave is separate from the bill. Why is it separate first two -- why is it separate? It would send a message to men and boys that they are valid. The APPG for domestic violence and abuse called for an obligation to be placed on employers to take reasonable steps to support employees affected by domestic abuse.

In conclusion, I strongly support this bill but I hope we can fill the holes I've identified in line with the government machine without affecting its basic architecture.
16:25
Lord Whitty Portrait Lord Whitty (Labour)
-
-
It's a pleasure to follow my noble friend and I hope the government in this bill or elsewhere follows up on some of those points as a matter of urgency. I'm prone to write my speech at the last minute. When I noticed I was number 41 on the list of speakers, I thought what the hell I could come up with. I had a submission to the GU see. It compared right here with the average compared right here with the average situation in the ear CD.

-- OECD. The situation was much better in OECD countries and it was here. Discovered a whole range of areas. From things like hours of work, holidays, conditions of employment, dismissals, over time and collective aspects such as union recognition, collective bargaining and the role of covering strike action. There are differences between various countries and every single item bar one was better in the OECD then it is with us. One was redundancy provision which means you walk away from more money in the UK but it also makes redundancy more likely in the UK.

My Lords, this was a systematic through the whole range of conditions. And there is one other macro feature between our workforce and the workforce in OECD countries. Can you guess it? Its productivity has risen far faster in those countries than it has here. I would say there is at least some degree between causal relationship between terms and conditions in which workers and unions operate in the fact that their productivity has risen substantially faster. And the government and all those who purport to speak for British employers and British industry in a hysterical way about the provision in this bill should actually address that because it is a serious contribution and productivity will be a serious contribution towards our growth targets and towards our economy as a whole.

That is the macro point which speakers opposite have failed to recognise the need to. I just wanted to mention another couple of points. I am a little unclear, perhaps the Minister could clarify, quite what a fair wage agency is going to and how it replaces other agencies. I speak as a minister who was responsible for agriculture ceased on a Private Members' Bill which has to some extent brought some order to a feature of modern slavery. Were going to have a debate on modern slavery tomorrow so I won't go too far into that.

One of the difficulties of not having direct regulators and enforcement agencies and having two large responsibility for one new quango is that some of the injustices that arise and which are identified in Baroness O'Grady's committee on slavery will not be tackled. So I would like more detail about what the Fair Wages And juicy -- Fair Wages Agency is going to do. I welcome Lord Burns's point about levy. I largely agree that we need to tackle the question of political funding more broadly.

Not only on the basis of the political levy but in the way in which our political parties are in total finance. Goes beyond this bill considerably but it does need addressing and to continue switching in terms of opting in or opting out of the political levy is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not the way to do it. My Lords, firstly, many congratulations to the four great maiden speeches we had this maiden speeches we had this afternoon which were impressive and enjoyable. On a more serious note now, we heard yesterday that the Chancellor's Spring Statement, the immediate economic outlook for the country is going. The government country is going. The government champ for a government -- for a government that attempts to champion government that attempts to champion growth, they seem to be stifling free enterprise.

It is yet another example of poorly thought out legislation which if passed in its current form will completely undermine the agility and responsible -- responsiveness of the private sector to deliver jobs and And I share across the sector concerns around the guaranteed hours. In this area if it is left unamended the Government will be threatening the very viability of the jobs this bill aims to protect. I fear that the provisions currently
16:30
Lord Udny-Lister Portrait Lord Udny-Lister (Conservative)
-
-
guaranteed will ultimately lead to guaranteed will ultimately lead to fewer people getting onto the employment ladder in the first place and that this section of the bill will, ultimately, disadvantage of at the start of their working lives. Employers will respond, inevitably, Employers will respond, inevitably, by limiting many of the opportunities needed by young people opportunities needed by young people to gain experience, test their interests in different rules and industries, and for them to do that employers need to have a lot of employers need to have a lot of flexibility and, of course, if that is too risky, they will just not do it.

Government should urgently clarify and define what is meant by low hours and bring forward mechanisms by which employers or employees should be able to opt out of guaranteed hours post of much like the individual ability to opt out of the working time directive. out of the working time directive. When they feel content with their arrangements. This bill will have a damning effect on the British manufacturing industry, against a backdrop of rising costs, global competition, supply chamber pressure and tariffs, staff amendments, models, will tie the hands of our manufacturers and, ultimately, undermine the U.K.'s global competitiveness.

I would therefore urge the Government to hear the concerns that are being raised by manufacturing industries at this time, particularly in relation to zero hour contracts and the notice period around industrial action. As it stands, this bill is an attack on flexibility and misses the opportunity to modernise working practices. The harsh reality of the current economic conditions mean that businesses will have to rapidly adapt to the then new burdens presented by the bill. With the already crippling effects of national insurance increases the plethora of excessive regulation by the Government, I can only foresee the legislation forcing the hand of employers to make redundancies, reduce employment opportunities, and increased the use of automation, the application of Artificial Intelligence will, of course, replace people.

As Government makes it more and more problematic and costly to appoint people, businesses will be. To respond by limiting new job creation. No matter how much Government attempts to dress up the bill as progress, the reality is that legislation, this legislation, is a reckless intervention that threatens the very sectors that are vital to our economic recovery. The bill is shutting the door on employment prospects for students, carers, and parents, who want and need flexibility with their employment. The Government is hellbent on waging war against private enterprise and I, for one, would certainly vote against it at every opportunity but I am afraid that this bill is going to come to epitomise Labour's road to our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economic worry. I congratulate all four maiden
16:34
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate all four maiden speakers. Like my Noble Friends Lord speakers. Like my Noble Friends Lord Freyberg I will concentrate my remarks on workers who are largely not covered by this bill but are a significant part of the workforce. There are the freelancers, including the self-employed, and will make particular reference to the arts and creative industries and I thank that respect for their briefings. I also declare an interest as a self- employed artist. There are 4.39 million self-employed workers in this country representing just under 14% of the workforce.

There was a dip during COVID when many freelancers fell through the gaps of Government support and the reality is that this is a long-term expanding workforce and the Government needs to ensure employment rights for Ulster freelancers underpinned the creative industries, our second most important sector economically and warned that the Government has pledged to support 80% of musicians are freelancers, for example. They have a special importance in that what makes freelancers will affect the sector as a whole because the creative industries are an ecosystem.

Consequently, freelancers have a significance within the workforce that far exceeds their numbers. Therefore, a truly modern employment rights bill would have properly included the writer freelancers and the self-employed, for many of whom that status fits the nature of their work. I acknowledge the argument about the complexities of freelance work around tax issues, including concerns around IR 35, but there is also a concern about the comprehensiveness of right in terms of the single worker status, so I asked the Minister how will that status accommodate freelance workers with that mix of self-employed PAYE employees and MB workers.

I do, however, welcome this very necessary bill for employees. Most European countries have banned zero hour contracts and we certainly need measures in place that help employees, but at the same time will not restrict their opportunities to work, a key consideration. Guaranteed hours will benefit many in the creative industries. However, there are various groups within the creative industries, including employees, an short-term contracts and casually contracted workers, such as cinema workers, front of house, and other workers in theatres, for example, who may be pushed against their will into pushed against their will into self-employment.

Without them having the same private rights that they had at least currently. I ask the Minister will the Government monitor this kind of potential effect and how will rights be properly enforced from within the new body? Big to point out that in terms of parental rights, sick pay, pensions, equalities, and other areas in this bill, the rights of the self- employed workers, and I quote, lack far behind that of employees. Will the Government introduces rates for self-employed workers? What will be the timescale for doing so? Equally, what are the government's plans for their manifesto commitments on protections, health and safety protection, and the right to written contract for the self-employed? Much of the creative industry supports the appointment of a freelance Commissioner.

It is also a recommendation for the culture, media, and sport committee. Such a Commissioner ought to of course also be responsible not just for the creative industries but the whole landscape of freelance work and that should also extend beyond the particular concerns of employment rights to include the equally urgent concerns around. And opportunities and as many organisations have pointed out there is very little data on this, the collection of which will be a major aspect of this remit.

In the same way that the two departments of DBT and the DWP have involvement in this bill, DC should have certainly an input in the role of a freelance Commissioner if one is appointed, they are after all have a working party on this issue as the Minister will be aware, and any future legislation around the point is, indeed, should the creative industries themselves be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involved as well. I congratulate all four members

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate all four members on their maiden speeches today. I would also like to thank the many members who have raised the members who have raised the importance of introducing the paper carers. Having experienced being an unpaid care of myself I have lived
16:38
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
unpaid care of myself I have lived very realities of working while caring. I work on the bill as a significant step for workers. However, I will be focusing my remarks today on where therefore short in addressing sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. A 2023 TAC poll revealed that three in five women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying, or verbal abuse at work, with the figure rising to almost 2/3 among women aged 25 to 34. 4/5 women do not report the sexual harassment that they have experienced and many workers leave their jobs rather than report it.

The end not to defend sexual harassment campaign highlights that young women, disabled workers, and those with those background are disproportionately affected due to their overrepresentation in precarious employment. This underscores the urgent need for measures outlined in causes 19 to 22 of this bill. While amending the Employment Rights Act of 1996 to protect whistleblowers, and requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment is a positive move, these measures may not go far enough. Limiting interventions to sexual harassment may leave victims and potential victims of other gender- based violence in the workplace outside of the bills protections.

And questions remain about how non- compliance would be enforced. By amending the Equality Act the Equality and Human Rights Commission is understood to be the regulator here, but as it stands they have limited enforcement powers and its mandate limits its ability to address the health and safety implications of violence against women in the workers, regulating only sexual harassment. And more effective solution would be to treat gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace as a health and safety issue.

Under the health and safety at work act 1974, employers already have a duty to protect employees health and safety. By amending this act we could ensure that gender-based violence is explicitly covered as enforceable health and safety measure, overseen by the health and safety executive. The health and safety executive already has the authority to inspect, file and prosecute them for non-compliance, offering a structured and enforceable approach to safeguarding employees, particularly women from violence in the workplace. The Noble Lord Clifford noted earlier concerns in relation to the clauses on harassment, however the health and safety executive has a track record of providing training and guidance, so this could be an alternative way forward.

And despite years of Government promises, the epidemic of violence against women and girls continues to worsen, and according to critical January report from the National Audit Office, to end this behaviour in the work this we must confront misogynist culture directly. His majesties Governments called to half violence against women and girls by the end of the decade demands nothing less. So, I look forward to the Minister's response today and would appreciate further clarification on the enforceability of non-compliance and clauses 19 to 22 as well as measures to address gender-based violence at work.

I also look forward to engaging with all members in committee on this very topic, but also along with paid leave for carers, improving paternity leave, and addressing the gaps in sick pay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow Baroness Smith. I add my congratulations also to my Noble Friend the Minister and today's four maidens. May they thrive in their
16:42
Baroness Chakrabarti Portrait Baroness Chakrabarti (Labour)
-
-
maidens. May they thrive in their new place of work, if not technically employment. As the noble Baroness reminded us, this December will mark 50 years since the implementation of the Equal Pay Act. Still with the gender pay gap for all employees which was 13% last year and highest in our much celebrated and lucrative financial sector. At risk of being hit by a thunderbolt, may I suggest the 1970 act contained a fatal design flaw that has been replicated in its successive statute of the Equality Act.

It is left to an individual woman worker with her without the aid of her union in recent years we have done valuable work on this to find out what her male colleagues are being paid for the same work or the work of equivalent value and in the event of disparity, to sue her employer. With respect, for most women, that scenario is cloud cuckoo land and I have had Noble Lord that have heard this in previous international women's month of March and will forgive the repetition.

But it is legislated and would we dream of providing such a paltry enforcement mechanism in any other vital area of regulation? Would we leave children to investigate and mitigate school standards? Consumers individually to food standards and citizens to do same for environmental protection, building or nuclear safety not relevant state enforcement agency even as a backstop. Surely the time has come to write this historic and continuing wrong. And even the marketeers can't seriously advocate impunity for employers who routinely and exploitative leaders, Nate against women or other groups in the context of enumeration for work.

HMRC already has access to payroll information for tax purposes, so it cannot be beyond the wit of policymakers to extend that remit and purpose to random slot checking for equal as well. Indeed, this is one area where AI tools could come to the aid of employees rather than being a threat to them. Discrepancies close the investigation, warning notices and eventual penalties in the event of persistent non-compliance and equality. I know that many have focused their equal pay effect on pay, transparent and duties for larger employers.

This seems to me to simultaneously lack both realism and ambition. Again, would we allow food or drugs manufacturers, whatever their size, to market products under foot consumption as long as they were labelled? So, I asked my Noble Friend the Minister what plans his majesties Government has in this area. Like, for example, schedule two of the Bill be amended. All regulations under the new section 78 a of the Equality Act be made to add equal pay provisions for state enforcement.

Or are there plans for separate statute in this Parliament? Will my Noble Friend meet with me and some of the unions and lawyers who are working on this problem. Is it finally time for a dream made in Dagenham in 1968 to be fulfilled in Westminster?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an honour to follow the Baroness Hughes work I greatly admire and please may I add my hearty congratulations and one welcome to such billions maiden
16:46
Baroness Morrissey Portrait Baroness Morrissey (Conservative)
-
-
welcome to such billions maiden First, as a business leader, there is much that I welcome in this bill. My current details -- my current roles are detailed in the register. Previously, I was a CEO for 15 years, during which time profits increased almost eightfold and that increased almost eightfold and that was over the financial crisis. It was not a large business but we offered enhanced maternity leave from day one and staff could request flexible working 14 years before that became law.

I'm very conscious of the need to lower burdens on firms but engagement is also key to firms but engagement is also key to the bottom line. UK annual employee turnover is currently 34% according to the CAPD. 1/3 of workers are so disengaged that they leave within 12 months. The cost of repeating them months. The cost of repeating them is large. This bill will layer on cost without benefits. It requires a raising of standards, especially with regards to those who are vulnerable, for example pregnant women.

Treating people well should be in place from day one. Firms do not show an inclination to do this. If people are treated fairly, they will repay this in loyalty and increase productivity, things this country badly needs. Just one example where a long-term vision, not a short-term spreadsheet, paid dividends for Aviva which introduced six man's equal pay parental leave in 2017 for both men and women. I ask them how they budgeted for this ground breaking policy and they said they did not know what the costs would be but new employees with happier family lives would be more likely to stay and develop their careers at Aviva.

And they decided they should do it. The policy has been a resounding success. Men take an average of five months maternity leave and there is great talent and retention. The costs have been offset by benefits such as offset by benefits such as recruitment expensive -- lowering recruitment expenses. Their Lordships will be familiar with the high-profile cases they read in the press. That's the tip of the iceberg. I chair the diversity project and we have a confidential safe space for people to report poor behaviours.

It's been going on for about two years now and more than 30 reports have been submitted. 90% from women. Sexual harassment remains a problem. All too often, nondisclosure agreements or NPAs are used to buy silence -- NDA's. I asked women in the city whether NDA's should be banned for sexual harassment cases. The response was split 50-50. There are situations where a victim may decide Chester leave the company after what has happened. And NDA can provide confidentiality and finance while she looks for a new role.

I then asked whether people prefer a nuanced approach, were firms only allow a DA's -- NDA's under exceptional circumstances. In addition, I suggested independent investigation into serious incidences and a standard template for oversight. At present, boards don't receive this information. Should. This proposal met with 85% vote in favour. And the consensus was strong around requiring regulators to be part of the system. Clear example should be given of unacceptable behaviours. I will be proposing amendments to restrict the use of NDA's for sexual harassment.

There has been support and debate around this in the other place. Their Lordships now have the opportunity to create stronger protections from sexual harassment in the workplace. That is something

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope all members of the house, men and women, whatever the political affiliations, can get on board with. Can I just start by
16:51
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just start by congratulating the noble Baroness Lady Morrisey on the remarks about Lady Morrisey on the remarks about an important issue which I hope we will pursue in detail during the progress of the bill. I welcome the bill and I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on her introduction of this important, excellent and timely piece of legislation. I could spend my whole time on this, pointing out the excellent content of the bill. I hope she will forgive me if I raised three issues which I think the Committee will need to look at.

First, I will be going through the bill line by line as they say to check that pensions are given their due place within the legislation. Secondly, Statutory Sick Pay, I would urge noble members to read the excellent briefing from Mind outlining the importance of Statutory Sick Pay in battling the scourge of ill mental health and to facilitate return to work, removing cliff edges. The third issue, which we will need to look at carefully during the committee stage, is part three, the section on collective bargaining.

Although the word negotiating appears in the introduction to each section, I have, I still need to be convinced that the actual provisions deliver the grounds for proper negotiating. It's quite clear it doesn't fulfil the definition of free collective bargaining and I think we're going to need to look at that in some detail. I would also say I heard the comments of the noble Lord at the comments of the noble Lord at the beginning of this debate.

I want to contest the idea that it's only people who have been successful in business who know anything about how I was surrounded by giants of the trade union movement. And staggered by the quantity of expertise and knowledge that is available speaking in support of this bill. Of course, it's not just the general secretaries, it's not just the senior officials, it's the whole layer -- layers of paint and lay officials who work on behalf of their members. This doesn't get the publicity that it should.

-- Paid and lay officials. This is important in undertaking day-to-day industrial relations which forms of this bill. That's why it will be a success. People suggest it's going to be against economic growth. Economic growth depends on the workers, it depends on them having good conditions were, it depends on them having security. That's why this bill is in favour of economic growth.
16:55
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm going to confine my engagement with this bill to whistleblowing protection and NDA's. I intend to bring forward amendments I have long argued that existing protection for whistleblowers under the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1999 is inadequate. The inadequacy is in part because it is drafted as employment law, limiting the remedies to workers and seeking redress through an employment tribunal. That is a great injustice to the many whistleblowers. In law, the term whistleblower is only restricted to those categorised as workers.

In contrast, this house will know that HMRC has recently launched a whistleblower reward scheme which invites any citizen with evidence of fraud to come forward as a whistleblower. HMRC is not alone. The CMA has a long- standing incentivised scheme for citizen whistleblowers and now the serious fraud office is also looking to incentivise citizen whistleblowers. My Lords, all of this, in a sense we've got the enforcement agencies freelancing to try to deal with the problems. It gives us an opportunity, I think, to redesign the whistleblowing framework and remove the barriers that the original act created.

The problems go well beyond just who is covered by the act. This is demonstrated by the alarmingly low rate of whistleblower cases. About 4% of those that are brought on 4% of those that are brought on people who are recognised to be whistleblowers but they can't carry the cases through. The employment tribunal process is torturous. It puts a whistleblower with limited resources, Ltd knowledge and limited if any legal assistance, even when there's trade union support, against an organisation with often unlimited resources and expert legal counsel.

It exhaust and impoverishes whistleblowers by allowing cases to be dragged out for years. It requires the whistleblower to prove -- provide conclusive evidence to prove that they were dismissed because of whistleblowing. And the tribunal is not concerned in any way to see that the wrongdoing identified by a whistleblower is investigated. The entire system is set up to encourage whistleblowers to settle the case. More often than not, they have no choice but to sign settlements containing nondisclosure agreements.

There -- these are known in the UK as confidentiality clauses. This is designed to silence workers. We have heard about how in central harassment cases and plays that role. One of the amendments I will bring intends to create a hub to work with regulators and enforcement. It will be a place where whistleblowers that can confidentially deposit information and evidence of wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. It will be in a position to identify significant patterns of wrongdoing, such as the Post Office Horizon sandal.

It would help so much and sexual harassment cases by making sure they are pulled together and visible in one place. It would have the power to impose remedies and compensation where whistleblowers suffer detriment. If we have no choice but to put it under trade and industry. I'm also supporting the duty of candour and folks behind that move also supporting the office of the whistleblower.
16:59
Baroness Goudie Portrait Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
I'd like to congratulate all my colleagues on their maiden speeches. It was a pleasure to hear them and I'm looking forward to working with them on this bill along other issues. I would also like to thank all of those outside who were kind enough to send me briefings for today's debate and for a continuation of the bill. I'm pleased to support the Employment Rights Bill, a long overdue step towards modernising our labour laws, ensuring fairness in the workplace and building an economy that works for everyone.

Businesses, workers and communities alike. For too long, employment laws have failed to keep pace with the realities of modern work. Between 2010 and 2024, we saw relatively very little new employment legislation, despite profound economic and workforce changes, the key framework governing claimant rights dates back nearly 30 years while the woodcock has evolved, our laws have not. -- World Deliver security, flexibility and of course dignity and work. Central pillars of the work is ensuring that workers can balance employment with their family responsibilities.

Today, too many parents, particularly mothers, are forced to choose between their jobs and their children. A survey by the law firm children. A survey by the law firm Slater and Gordon found that six in 10 mothers felt sidelined from the moment they revealed that they were pregnant. Additionally 1/3 of managers surveyed preferred listen to this, hiring men in their 20s or to this, hiring men in their 20s or 30s over women of the same age, disgrace, fearing potential maternity leave. The bill will strengthen protection for pregnant women and new mothers ensuring the future of this country can be fairly looked after.

Additionally making paternity leave and paternal leave available from day one of employment will have a significant impact study of examining 20 2012 paternal leave reform which allowed fathers up to 30 days of flexible leave during the child's first year found significant benefits for maternal health. Specifically where there was a reduction in antianxiety prescriptions, a decrease in hospitalisation or special visits and a drop in anti dioxin prescriptions amongst new mothers in the first six months. These improvements are attributed to the father's increased presence providing support and allowing mothers to rest and seek preventative care.

Bereavement is another crucial reform, losing a loved one is one of the most difficult experiences anyone can endure. Yet too many workers are forced to return to work for they are able -- ready because they do not qualify for leave. This bill will ensure that bereavement is a universal right from day one. Offering workers the time and dignity to grieve. This bill will also strengthen and protect us against workplace harassment and discover nation issues that disproportionately affect women. A survey by the trade union found that 62% of women had experienced sexual harassment at work, a number that rises to 63% for women aged between 18 and 24.

The bill introduces new duties to employers to prevent harassment while they are simply reacting when it happens, creating a culture of accountability and safety. We need a complete ban on nondisclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment in cases of bullying and in cases... It is really important that victims are no longer silenced. We really have to longer silenced. We really have to take this issue further. In addition the introduction of gender and menopause action plans is a necessary step forward.

Right now I declare my interest as a
17:04
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
businessman and investor. I welcome the excellent maiden speeches of my hereditary noble friend Lord Young hereditary noble friend Lord Young of Acton by my poise and articulate of Acton by my poise and articulate noble friend the Baroness Cash and noble friend the Baroness Cash and by the two other noble Baronesses. I also apologise that with the noble ministers kind agreement I may have ministers kind agreement I may have to leave before the winding up. Good to leave before the winding up.

Good economic policy brings asperity, security jobs. The government says economic growth is its number one priority. Does this bill promote growth? Which needs no regulation, low tax, small government, free market environment. No it does not. When this government came to power it succumbed to the time-honoured temptation to focus on demand, not least by giving selected supporters above inflation pay rises. Demand is an attractive policy because it pursues the covetable votes of the U.K.'s over 50 million adult consumers.

Supply, which government seeking growth should have more properly focused on, attracts just the 5 million votes also from employers and sole proprietors. Demand stimulation however quickly runs up against funding you spend with available tax receipts was tax hikes are made hoping that tax will go up above its current 36% of GDP but it obstinately hasn't. Government expenditures and regulation are going up but so too are departures from this country. Entrepreneurs, high earners underachievers, young and drivers, all those current and future wealth creators who would have stayed and growing the economy had a supply- side approach been taken.

Even though the Chancellor U-turn yesterday the OBR cut its two% GDP growth projection to 1%, that is still too optimistic yet even one% GDP growth means about zero growth per capita. There was none mentioned elephant yesterday this very bill, here is what the OBR said about it. In this forecast they said we have not incorporated any impact of the government's plan to make work pay. They then go on to say that the impact on GDP of this bill should be negative.

We struck their growth -- which drops their growth projection to below one%. After last year's budget the economy has slowed to a halt just as we had warned it would. Now every piece of this new bill seems designed directly to further ruin the economy. This, letting the union flocks into the Assembly henhouse. The right to request flexible working, no waiting period on Statutory Sick Pay, ditto on leave and unfair dismissal. Each claims virtue, but in reality claims virtue, but in reality damages economic growth.

And jobs. What will the economic consequences of labour be? Higher unemployment, especially youth. Lower general prosperity. Many individual recessions as GDP per capita declines, and alarming prospect for the country's future fiscal stability. Yes it may feel good to have a heart, but it's more important to have a head.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also welcome new colleagues into this House and I wish them well into this House and I wish them well in their work as members. I also want to congratulate the Minister on her introduction of this important piece of legislation. The world of work has changed and the work has changed and the expectations of workers, especially women, have also changed. I want to
17:08
Baroness Kennedy of Shaws Portrait Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
women, have also changed. I want to endorse very strongly the speech that has been made by the baroness, bears my first name certainly, let me just remind myself. It's Baroness Morrissey. Helena Morrissey as I understand it. Baroness Morrissey made a speech about nondisclosure agreements and I'm going to endorse all that she has said about the ways all that she has said about the ways in which their misuse to sinus -- silence complainants who have been sexually harassed or bullied or faced discrimination in the workplace has been a problem that we have seen expressed and exposed time after time in our press, and I as chair of the number of enquiries have seen how it affects lives in the workplace directly.

Nondisclosure agreement have undoubtedly an important place in employment as a way of protecting intellectual property of an employer and nobody should be making off with a client list and stripping a business of its suppliers or the magic ingredient in a product, so there are good purposes for which an NDA can be used, but too often NDA's are frequently used to preserve the vector -- reputations of the powerful inside an organisation as against the interests of those at the receiving end of abusive behaviours.

This really was opened up back in 2018 when a woman called Zelda Perkins publicly breached her nondisclosure agreement with Miramax over the behaviour of Harvey Weinstein are some many years before. She had been paid off because she had raised a complaint on behalf of another woman with whom she worked because she ran the right -- London office at Miramax and woman had gone as part of her work to the Venice film Festival with Harvey Weinstein and he sexually violated the other woman.

Zelda Perkins reported this to the headquarters in the United States, the headquarters of Miramax, and hardly put the phone down before a great posse of lawyers were on her doorstep wanted to see her and immediately she and the other young woman who had been sexually abused were presented with nondisclosure agreements, lawyers were brought in to advise them that this was a sensible thing for them to do, and they signed away their rights and they were given compensation and rushed off into the world of work and told to get on with life.

The nondisclosure agreement stipulated that the two women did not discuss the allegations not with the general public or tabloid newspapers, but with lawyers or doctors or therapists or counsellors or with anybody. Which was a particularly devastating thing for the woman who had been violated. Zelda Perkins bravely breached that nondisclosure agreement and it was in the public interest. It was very important that she was able to tell the story of how she and her colleague were silenced. She wanted to provide corroboration and indeed did in the litigation that followed.

In the public interest it is important that we visit this and I would like to see it included in this legislation. Yes there can be an exemption as Baroness Morrissey has said because some victims do not want the exposure. There has to be respected but only where they have had the opportunity of good legal advice. I do hope that this House persuaded by the many feisty women but also their male colleagues that the government should include this in this bill in the way that Baroness Morrissey described.
17:12
Baroness Bray of Coln Portrait Baroness Bray of Coln (Conservative)
-
-
The baroness. I'd like to congratulate our new four new colleagues who made such excellent Maiden speech is today. Lord Young, Maiden speech is today. Lord Young, Baroness Cash, Baroness Gray and my honourable friend Baroness Berger. I'm delighted to participate in this important debate on the Employment Rights Bill which proposes radical, and I believe potentially rather damaging changes to our employment laws was only a couple of months ago laws was only a couple of months ago that some of us here today were engaged in a debate on the budget proposal to raise the cost of national insurance contributions paid by employers and their likely lethal effect on employment prospects.

Today's debate on the Employment Rights Bill allows us to consider the potential damage this bill will also do to job availability. Essentially, when more legal duties are piled onto employers inevitably additional cost of carrying them out leads to fewer About the road to having good intentions springs to mind, if you can call them good. I will start with one of this bill's most controversial aspects, the increased powers for trade unions making it easier for them to organise in businesses and exert more pressure on employers and loosening current rules for calling strikes.

But if businesses can be brought to a standstill more easily by trade union activity products give -- productivity and investment supper and again jobs are at risk. Furthermore the bill opens the floodgates to more legal challenges in the workplace. While legal recourse is clearly important in cases of genuine mistreatment, this bill encourages excessive litigation. Companies will be required to overhaul employment contracts, provide new benefits and meet new rigid compliance standards. For some this may be an inconvenience. For others it could mean the difference between survival and closure.

A new fair work agency is to be set up to help enforce new statutory rights. And will have the right to enter homes as well as offices to examine documents which they can demand to see, and to seize electronic devices used to store information if necessary. It will also be empowered to bring Employment Tribunal proceedings against an employer even if the employee is unable or unwilling to employee is unable or unwilling to do so themselves. I would say the big state has just got bigger.

The Bill's proposals for flexible working contracts and Zero Hour arrangements are equally unworkable. While flexible hours are essential for some workers, and where possible should be agreed, the Bill's proposals go too far in my view in restricting how businesses can structure and restructure their workforce when necessary, they must have the flexibility to respond to demand because we all know it can go up and also go down full stop this bill introduces rigid rules on flexible contracts, making them an entitlement from day one in employment if wanted.

If an employer needs to change the contracted hours for any business reason the onus is for any business reason the onus is I'm deeply concerned about clause 20 and the bill and its potentially chilling effect on free speech. Pubs, shops and other customer facing businesses may be forced to limit what can be said customers on the premises to avoid offending staff working there. This includes overheard, not just direct conversations. It is like religion -- topics like religion and gender could be banned because employers will need to prove they have taken all reasonable steps what will be seen as harassment by third parties or otherwise be held liable.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has already expressed its misgivings. So, I believe, should be all, loudly. The final question has to be inserted making it harder to to be inserted making it harder to run a business with the consequences of fewer jobs on offer, why is the government not working with businesses and employees to find practical solutions to balance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

workers rights with economic progress and growth? I'm very pleased to welcome the maiden speeches of the new maiden speeches of the new colleagues, all of whom will clearly make powerful contributions in the years to come to Your Lordships'
17:17
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
years to come to Your Lordships' House. I start off with a somewhat chiding of webs. -- Webs. There is much to say. I just wonder why we're finishing at 7 o'clock this evening when we are sitting tomorrow and those noble Lords who normally go home on a Thursday don't have to do so today. It would have been better for this debate. The noble Lord Lord Hannan said earlier and he talked may be a little bit pejoratively of those speakers who wait until the end listening and not Rome acknowledging -- nodding.

I see he acknowledging -- nodding. I see he is now noting sagely. -- Nodding. I heartily agree with a word he says. To paraphrase Ella Fitzgerald or Bananarama, it's not what you say, is how you say it. When I looked at the list, I saw the number of Tories on the list of speakers. I thought, that is interesting, they have come right -- come round to our view. I would definitely accept Baroness Morrissey on the benches opposite.

There is a big divide we've heard in the debated. Some of the doom and gloom defies description. We have those noble Lords who are here 25 years ago like me, when the minimum wage Cayman, they thought the economy would crash. Employers will never be able to pay that. You were 25 years later and beyond the national minimum wage is widely national minimum wage is widely accepted. Because of the spread within the bill, we've had many briefings, as my noble friend Baroness Goudie said.

In my case, the National Education Union, even UK Hospitality. One of the teachers I found most moving was a person this week from the TUC and we heard from workers coming to class what the bill would do for them in their situation. I remember particularly a shop worker who said that some of her colleagues go to work in fear. A horrible situation. We heard from another worker about the appalling tactics of Amazon when they were trying to legitimise the union and organise a ballot.

What did Amazon do? Employ a thousand new workers to move threshold further away. This bill will stop these sort of abuses bill will stop these sort of abuses and give to people like those I mentioned not just protection at work but dignity at work as well and I think that is a huge step forward. There isn't much time to say anything else. Enjoyed contributions from many colleagues. Can I just briefly set -- set -- can I just quickly set about the Equal Pay Act -- say.

Still so much progress required to be made. This bill will redress some of that balance and it will address a lot of the imbalance of employment legislation over the past four decades. Were going into committing a. In committee, you have up to 10 minutes to speak on amendments.
17:21
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
I accept the intentions behind this bill are very well meant but I'm really concerned about the unintended consequences. There are some positives. The rules on fire and rehire and bereavement leave are just two examples. I have to conclude that this bill will damage growth and most importantly, it will damage employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people. Others have mentioned omissions from the bill and I'm very supportive of the comments made around NDA's and whistleblowing. I'm looking forward to seeing what comes up on those.

The impact assessment says the bill will impose costs of around £5 billion on business. Course, it confirms those costs will be proportionately higher for small businesses. That goes directly against the government drive for growth. It has been said that the changes will have negative impact on prices and productivity. There is already evidence that small businesses are reducing hiding. I really hope the government will be willing to consider constructive ways to reduce the burdens on SMEs. Speaking of the impact assessment, the bar is not high, but this is one of the worst I have ever read.

The regulatory policy committee considered it not fit for purpose, stating, and I quote, given the reach of the measures it would be proportionate to undertake broader economic analysis to understand the overall impact of -- on employment. And particularly the cost of employment to employees. That problem is made worse because this is in fact another skeleton bill which will -- with much of the important detail to be added later by regulation. I hundred -- I counted 137 regulatory powers.

This included 11 Henry VIII powers. That restricts proper analysis and scrutiny. At the very least, can the noble Lady the Minister please confirm that all material regulations will be provided in draft before we reach report stage to allow at least some scrutiny of those important roles? It really is not acceptable to continue having these endless skeleton bills. We are seeing more and more of them. Given the time limit, I will raise to issues. First, I do agree that zero hours contracts can be exploitative and some tightening is required.

Can work wealth for some people, such as students, as we've heard, and we should try to retain some level of flexibility for them. More importantly, the new rules are likely to draw per -- perverse behaviour. It may also mean people will be given extra shifts during busy times. The unintended impact of the bill might be that you will get less work, not more. Second, there is the introduction of the one unfair dismissal rights. This will directly reduce opportunities for vulnerable people.

Does not just my opinion, it's the government's opinion as well. The impact assessments as, and I quote, there is evidence that policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take up -- take on work and particularly for those that are seen as risky hires. I'm sure we all support the government's intention to get people off the effects -- of sickness benefits but we need to find employers who are willing to employ them. Is this really the moment to introduce rules that will make that less likely? Is there any real evidence that a two-year qualifying period is being abused questioning experience, the opposite is true.

The qualifying period allows employers to give people with little experience or with poor employment records the benefit of the doubt by hiring them in the first place. The noble Lady the Minister please provide evidence that the two-year qualifying period is in fact a problem? The only winners here are going to be employment lawyers. We've had lots of comments about this being a bill for workers. It really is definitely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. I refer to my interests on the register and I to welcome the quartet of maiden speeches, especially those from our bench's. I welcome this bill, one of his aims welcome this bill, one of his aims was to repeal the pernicious minimum service levels. These laws imposed disproportionate constraints on the ability of working people to ability of working people to organise collectively and defend their interests, weakening the foundations of work place democracy. As president of the Royal College of Nursing, the college took a momentous decision to hold history and overturn a decision not to strike after more than 100 years of its history.

The conditions that produced that decision were triggered by the previous government's record as a hostile and aggressive actor seeking to bully nurses to back down on their pay nurses to back down on their pay claim to remedy 14 years of pay stagnation. When nurses go on strike, we know there is something seriously wrong with the moral order and having been on the picket line with fellow nurses, both in Northern Ireland in 2019 and London during 2022 to 2023, I was struck by the resolve of nurses, their dogged determination to seek justice, protect patient safety and the extraordinary support shown by the public.

Throughout the strike action, the government misjudged not only nurses own resolve by the public made, banking on a cynical, political calculation that public support for striking nurses would
17:27
Baroness Rafferty Portrait Baroness Rafferty (Labour)
-
-
weather and rain. Evidence demonstrated the opposite occurred. demonstrated the opposite occurred. Not only was public support sustained but strengthened over time sustained but strengthened over time and is also gratifying to see ways in which the bills reflect -- bill reflects some of the priorities of the nursing profession. The bill's the nursing profession. The bill's proposed expansion of trade union access rights is particularly important for nurses in the independent sector, many of whom independent sector, many of whom have little or no exposure to trading and representation at work.

But to be meaningful, this access must be available via both digital and physical means, and employers are subject to clear statutory duty to comply. The bill's provisions to create an adult social care negotiating body represents potentially transformative change for a sector long characterised by long pay, -- Lope and instability. long pay, -- Lope and instability. -- Lope. -- low pay. This would not be acceptable in any other part of the health system. This would promote equality, particularly for internationally accredited nursing staff, on him we will increasingly rely and workers from marginalised communities -- on whom we will increasingly rely.

Pay disparities remain disturbingly common in adult social. It must be rooted out. Modernising employment law for the nursing profession must address the systemic challenges faced by women at work, from pregnancy and parental leave protections to preventing workplace harassment and improving access to flexible working. This bill presents an important opportunity to tackle long-standing inequalities and deliver the potential for our more supportive and inclusive working environment for nursing staff and I commend it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Your Lordships' House. It's a pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow Baroness Rafferty and here the outstanding maiden speeches of my noble friends and I also noble friends and I also congratulate other noble friends on their maiden speeches to. It's a pleasure to speak in this second pleasure to speak in this second reading debate on the government's flagship Employment Rights Bill
17:30
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
flagship Employment Rights Bill alongside colleagues with huge experience of the realities of day- Not sure what the collective noun for trade union general secretary should be perhaps we need to invent one or in fact I would say, when I would say negotiation but we can quibble over that stop for my own part I am someone with experience of both sides of the negotiating table, I worked as a lowly political officer the staff association but more recently for a FTSE listed transport operator and for small businesses in between.

I have to say when hearing some of the contributions from the benches opposite I recall an earlier job where I had the privilege of working for my noble friend Baroness Harman we were campaigning on the blight of low pay in 90s Britain and the need for a National Minimum Wage. As Baroness Hazarika and Lord Watson have reminded us crowd -- trials were certainly way back then by the Conservative government and some of their business backers about the devastating impact this would have.

Next week the National Minimum Wage will rise again benefiting 3 million workers, our economy did not collapse, it will not now. The importance of making workfare which this bill does is so important in delivering not just a better economy, but a fairer, more just and cohesive society. I could well on many individual elements of the bill, my niche favourite is the decision to scrap the pointless heap jumping of regular little fund balance having organiser myself, but instead I want to consider the societal benefits of making workfare for individuals, giving more rights to rep that working people when they are being unfairly exploited.

Research conducted by Warwick University has found that job- related ill-health is costing UK businesses up to £41 billion per year with one in three quartermillion workers suffering due This study highlights, job insecurity, low pay and long hours, contribute to poor health outcomes for employers and conversely the academic say, job security fair pay and a healthy worklife balance are linked to better well-being. Hardly surprising. The number of people in insecure work reached a record high of 4.1 million last year and I say contrary to Lord Hunt's assertion, those workers don't want to be in a state of insecurity.

According to a TUC poll of zero hours contract workers some 84% want regular hours of work was compared to just 14% to don't. Three quarters of those polled say they've experienced difficulties meeting living expenses due to not being offered enough hours. Extending workers rights isn't just good for workers, making work more equitable, secure and meaningful is good for communities as well. That's why as the Minister said the wider population not simply those workers impacted support the those workers impacted support the message in this bill.

Polling from home not hate has found 72% of people support banning zero contracts, 73% support protection from being unfairly sacked from day one and 74% support ensuring all workers have the right to sick pay. workers have the right to sick pay. Felt pessimistic about the future and we know from history that when an economy is on its knees when people feel insecure and hope despite hopeless about their future and the future of the country it weakens community cohesion leaving space and divisions which the far right is only too willing and able to exploit.

Insecurity at work breeds insecurity in our communities and our country. These reforms will make people feel valued and restore make people feel valued and restore a sense of hope to the most marginalised in our society, that can only be a good thing. In short we need change and this bill is a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

vital part in a positive change, the millions of workers, their families and their communities. I also welcome the four maiden speakers. I congratulate them on speakers. I congratulate them on their speeches. Meanwhile like some of us here today I was in the other place yesterday afternoon listening place yesterday afternoon listening to the Chancellor's statement and her quest for growth. Yet here we are today in this chamber debating are today in this chamber debating the Second Reading of a bill certain parts of which will absolutely be
17:34
Lord Strathcarron Portrait Lord Strathcarron (Conservative)
-
-
parts of which will absolutely be guaranteed to regulate the life out of any growth that she wants and the country needs. Leaving aside the economic damage that those parts of the bill will cause, we also need to consider these societal damage will be done by clause 20 in particular be done by clause 20 in particular and its effect on free speech and life's moments of enjoyment we currently take for granted and which are now under threat. To illustrate this I would like to give two examples from my own work experience.

I publish about 50 books per year and the marketing of each one requires my employees to come into contact with the general public. Those whom the bill. Parties. At book launches and other sales events. To take a typical example of a book launch in a bookshop, the bookshop would host to bookshop, the bookshop would host to categories of third parties. Firstly say 15 of our own potential customers and then a further 50 of their own from their mailing lists. Apart from the books shop staff I would typically have three or four of my employees there to help, in terms of the bill this detail is important.

They are my employees but even though they are working on someone else's premises there will still be my liability. To avoid the consequences of the bill should I and the bookshop request our guests not to talk to staff or even to each other in case a member of staff overhears them about any subject related to protected characteristics, even if what they say is perfectly legal I asked your Lordships, after seeing such an invitation, one that discourages any form of legal sociability, would any of us go to such a cold event? This might sound fantastical, but it is not fanciful.

It is alright here in clause 20. The result in this instance is that the risks are untenable and therefore the event won't happen. We will have given up another harmless pleasure to satisfy the whims of the ever-changing latest version of groupthink. Then again in a wider context than this, would Waterstones for example risk arranging another in-store book signing by JK rolling or Kathleen Stott or Helen Joyce on the off chance that one of the authors plans will arrive wearing a T-shirt saying women equals adult human female? Knowing that their employees could sue for her -- hurt feelings, real or vexatious.

Widening this out still further to cover all hospitality events and I'm also a trustee of National Museum the stages events throughout the summer, the only practical way for any host to mitigate against these dangers is to pass the potential liability onto organisers and promoters, and would either merely want to take this on? Bearing in mind no one involved in staging an event has any idea who the third parties will be coming to the event. Are they up-to-date with the current thing, the latest protected characteristic? They mustn't talk about.

Are they courteous, are they even sober? Or even have English as their first language? Any encounters between so-called third parties and employees are totally beyond the employers control and yet in this Alice in Wonderland world of clause 20 the employer will be responsible for these interactions no matter where they happen, even if these actions -- interactions are totally legal in themselves. I would urge the government to have a massive reality check about the foreseen and unforeseen consequences of clause 20

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as the bill progresses. Rather than being the third party I think in the 59th party in this I think in the 59th party in this debate. Somewhat repetitious we I congratulate Baroness Burca, Baroness Gray, Baroness Cash and Baroness Gray, Baroness Cash and Lord Young for their maiden speeches and without being seen to pick one and without being seen to pick one from the other I was struck by the comments the Baroness Gray made about the benefits of having spent time running a pub.

Straight after time running a pub. Straight after
17:38
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
graduating I became the manager of the busy bar in north London and I learned more about people, more importantly I learned about employing people because it was the first time I had started to employ people and it was a great lesson you people and it was a great lesson you can learn a lot in places like that. This has been an interesting debate This has been an interesting debate and I think we have heard very and I think we have heard very disparate views, I think the one hand may be Lord Davies of Lord Hendy has put the poll in one place, and on the other hand almost certainly Lord Moynihan has placed certainly Lord Moynihan has placed the poll on the other hand and your Lordships task will be to work out where this bill lands between those two poles and it's going to be a tough job in committee.

This bill undeniably sets out to meet a manifesto commitment which the government very clearly articulated during the election. Unfortunately one aspect of that commitment was to deliver it within 100 days, and the nature of what we are discussing has suffered for lack of rigour in preparation, and this is clearly evidenced by the number of amendments that the government itself has had to bring. And also evidenced by the lack of detail and the number of consultations that are outstanding.

For that reason those of us on these benches will be working closely not just on the intent of this bill but the detail. There is north a lot of detail that is missing and many of the real details are still out for consultation, or are awaiting codes of conduct that will be set out in regulations that we have yet to see. So it's going to be quite a hard Committee stage. However before descending into that detail I think we should reflect somewhat and the purpose of this legislation.

We Liberal Democrats agree that there is absolutely is a need to ensure that exploitative employment is dealt with. There is no doubt that there is a need to do that and we support that objective. I hope that when this bill leaves your Lordships house it will be more widely equipped, equipped to help improve employer employee relations, to deliver fair work yes, but also to create those conditions for growth. If it is to do that, then it has a long way to go to achieve that.

I've been a member of a trade union and I've been part of executive management and businesses that worked very constructively with trade unions. But it's not the only model for employment and employee. A central criticism I would have of this bill is it seems to disregard the fact that many I would suggest most businesses maintain strong and beneficial relationships with their employees without the need for union involvement or intervention. As a starting point I do think this bill seems to have an air of suspicious about the functioning relationships as to how normal businesses go about their business.

I think we have two kind of go back through and build in the idea of the one size that saw which was articulated, we have to get away from that. There are a lot of different hybrids at work in business and this legislation should facilitate all of those equally. Further there needs to be more recognition of employees as individuals rather than as members of unions. A fact of life is that whatever the government thinks the vast majority of employees will not be any union, at least in the private sector.

I think we need to think about how that works. The tone of this proposed legislation is perhaps unsurprisingly very legalistic, north a lot of lawyers have been involved in it. But there will certainly be more employee broke tribunal's if it passes as drafted. I would emphasise that every time a case goes to a tribunal both sides have already lost. We do not want to be pushing things in answer to the seated interjections from Baroness Chakrabarti is the fact that is it will require, it will push things into a legal process which is what I meant by what I said.

Also given the uncharted nature of this legislation we will be relying on case law for years to come to define its boundaries. Baroness Prosser and others talked about equal rights legislation, there was years and years of case law that enshrined how that worked in the workplace. If the tribunal's and the courts are so tied up then that case law is going to be very slow and -- in forthcoming so we had to be quite clear in our definitions so we aren't relying on those definitions for this bill when it becomes an act to function properly.

We know that the tribunal system is already overloaded with weights for rulings measured in years. Also ACAS will have an important role to play, not just on the policy side but with its mediation work, Willets funding be increased in order to reflect this extra burden? My guess is that the tribunal's and ACAS won't be funded properly and this will cause administrative sclerosis and uncertainty and weights, long waits for cases to be heard. It's something that needs to be taken into consideration, how are we going to resource this bill if and when it becomes an act.

Turning to some of the central points of the bill my first question is are around the legal definitions of when we start talking about zero hours contracts, I think a lot of work needs to be done to tighten definitions around that so we know what we are talking about what we are seeking to The addition of agency workers further complicates this point. There are decisions we can't wait for the legal process to deliver. When passing through the comments, Liberal Democrats introduced a number of amendments that will present -- we will present Your Lordships' House.

For example, Daisy Cooper MP proposed a new clause to publish and review on part four of the bill on the impact of SMEs. Liberal Democrat MPs did express concern about placing unreasonable burden on SMEs. They wanted clarity on aspects of probation periods and early-stage -- at an early stage due to the significant impact this will have on small businesses. As the noble Lord Browne noted, this is a complicated bill. Should any small business person have had time from running his or her firm and listened to the noble Baroness the Minister's introduction, very able as it was, the complexity of that introduction would certainly have alarmed them.

It is daunting legislation for all businesses, but more particularly small businesses. And I do fear that the retail hospitality and leisure sectors stand to face some of the biggest challenges that this bill could launch. There is also a danger that I would caution about conflating the contents of this bill with productivity and growth, citing international examples. There is a difference between correlation and causation and we perhaps shouldn't go too big on that. I think we should be using a different measure, which is what is right to do, rather than the supposition that it may or may not deliver growth.

Next, as we heard from the triumphant opposite, there needs to be a proper understanding of the role of freelancers and self-employed within the workload, the workplace. Where do they sit within this bill and what should or could their contractual rights be? It's clear also that this bill needs to focus more on the future of employment and here, we should look at closer alignment to EU positions. For example, on AI involvement and algorithm directed employment. These have been discussed in the past they are not included in this bill.

So I hope that the house will debate this and the Minister will be forthcoming on these future issues. Then there is the issue of Fair Work Agency and how this operates. There have been alarming reports in the press which may or may not be true but what is clear is we need to flush out how this agency will work. How does it supplant the work of the Treasury and possibly, probably the Masters labour abuse? This is confidential tax data. Before we reach report stage, the government should publish full proposals for this agency.

We can't approve it sight unseen. Furthermore, as we've heard from a number of your Lordships, delegated legislation will have to be addressed. Either by your Lordships but hopefully by the government in advance of that process. The spring statements of the biggest reduction of assistance to working carers in a decade. As my noble friend Lord Palmer set out, we will seek to strengthen provisions on Carer's Leave. We also address parental issues provisions -- parental provisions.

We will propose increasing the length of paternity leave and making it more flexible, which I hope will be pleased by the noble Baroness Penn. As my noble friend Baroness Kramer set out, we will table amendments that seek to act on whistleblowers and the misuse of non-disposal agreements. I share the analysis of the noble Baroness Grady and their interpretation on the need to protect workers from harassment. To conclude, I'm anxious that the Minister does not dismiss the negative words that she has heard today as being purely political chipping.

There are genuine, practical problems that we need to address in Your Lordships' House and I hope we can take forward that practical approach as we go into Second Reading. Liberal Democrats believe that the lack of detail in the bill doesn't facilitate certainty and stability for either businesses or workers. And if we are talking about growth, that's what we need. It's certainty and stability. There are huge holes in the available data and detail supporting this important bill. Much of that detail is floating in the many consultations or ICN -- or as yet unpublished codes.

We need to have advanced sight of the important levels of detail that will flush out the skeleton of this bill. Like many, I fear that the overall effect of this bill, I fear the overall effect this bill could have on small and medium businesses, particularly through the introduction of much complexity and the threat of being taken to many more tribunal's. It's fiction, my Lords, and these businesses do not need yet more friction in what is already a very difficult trading environment.

In the main, this bill does take rather a one size fits all approach to addressing genuine problems in the workplace and it does not look further far enough forward on future employee issues. With that said, we look forward to discussing this issue on committee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I join in thanking the noble Baroness the Minister for the noble Baroness the Minister for her introduction, as well as praising and commending the speeches
17:52
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
of the four maiden speakers today. It's been a very interesting debate and before I start, I should declare my interest as a minority shareholder into businesses that employ people. And can I also say it's a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Lord Fox. I find myself nodding in agreement with much of what he said and I will do my best to repeat all of it. Others have said or commented on the fact that this overall is a troubling bill. For numerous reasons, not least as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral outlined.

I would explain it now as the case has been made and reinforced by the noble Lord Lord Fox. I will focus on two areas. They are the inevitable and disproportionate impact on SMEs, acknowledge in the government's own impact assessment, and the day when rights and their inevitable impact on hiring. Let me begin by turning to the bigger picture. The impact assessment states that many policies within this bill could support the government's growth mission. Whilst we conclude that the outcome could be positive but small.

The word code appears 133 times -- hundred and 32 times. That is not the language of time confidence. That is the language of uncertainty, hesitation, language of uncertainty, hesitation, and it shows a fundamental lack of conviction in the legislation before us. Will the government to others, businesses are suffering. And did, as we saw only yesterday, the OBR downgraded growth forecast from two to 1%. And in a particularly telling phrase in the explanatory note, is already reference by Lord Moynihan, it said we have not incorporated any impact of the government's plan to make work pay as there is not yet sufficient detail or clarity about the final policy parameters.

They go on to say, employment relation policies that reflect the policy of businesses or labour markets will likely have a material and probably net negative economic impact on employment, prices and productivity. That's an explicit acknowledgement of uncertainty generated by this bill. It's an admission that implies more downgrades are to come. Let us look at the current fact. The business confidence index for the United Kingdom stood at 97.4 in December December 2024. Assures that shows -- that shows a steep decline from the month before.

Yet, today, with no pandemic to blame, we find ourselves teetering on the brink. The Institute of chartered accountants in England and Wales, their business confidence Monitor, which is the most comprehensive measure of sentiment in our business community, plummeted from pointing tour for -- plummeted in Q4. The economic confidence plummeted in February. This is close to the lowest rate during COVID. The survey suggested that 57% of business Concerns have been raised about the impact on costs, labour flexibility and business dynamism.

73% of and business dynamism. 73% of members pulled expect an increase in employment costs for new and existing in place. One said, it's like rushing downhill towards the lake and pressing the accelerator. The OBR have told us how it ends. It ends in unemployment and it will be unemployment of the government on making. On the subject of unemployment, that was one statistic the noble Lords opposite failed to site when making the international comparisons. For the record, is currently 73% in France, 62% in Germany and only 4.5% careful -- Germany and only 4.5% careful -- 4.4% here.

To go to a small and medium-sized enterprise which concern those of us on these benches considerably, they are rightly hailed as the back bone of the British economy and for good reasons. SMEs account for 60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover. There, confidence has turned negative for the first time My Lords, that figure is not just a dry statistic. It represents thousands of business owners lying awake at night, wondering if they can afford to keep the lights on, let alone hire new staff or invest in their future.

We should be under no illusion, the cost of this uncertainty is devastating. The Federation of Small Businesses reported that a staggering 33% of small employers now expect to reduce staff and that number has doubled in just one quarter. Meanwhile, only 10% of small firms plan to take on new employees. The result will be a shrinking economy, contracting workforce, reduced opportunities for young people and those seeking to move from welfare to employment, increase cost in bureaucracy in a country firmly retreating from ambition rather than embracing it.

If more evidence is needed, then the government's own assessment on the national minimum wage Amendment regulations of 2025 confirms the difficulties facing small businesses. It says, and I quote, there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for a semi-specifically. Around 42.7% and 30 site .8% of micro and small businesses respectively reported having smaller cash reserves compared to 19 point compared to 19.2% for large businesses. Around 15.6% and 33.9% of micro and small businesses respectively reported the cost of labour as a challenge to business turnover in November 2024.

It's not clear whether by the cost of labour they were talking about the workforce or the party opposite. SMEs will need many exemptions from the provisions of this bill and yet the picture that I just painted is about to be made worse as the bill chooses to add yet another burden and that is the disastrous day when rights for unfair dismissals and Statutory Sick Pay. Let me ask a simple question. Who truly understands what the business needs to thrive and survive quarter the entrepreneur who has built something from nothing, the employer who fights every day to keep the company afloat, or is it an employment tribunal? Removed from the realities of running a business yet now empowered to make decisions that could determine its fate.

As the data from His Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service reported last year, makes clear, employment tribunals are currently in not able to make speedy judgements at all. The A bit of a laugh things ., creaking and hugely unreliable. That might be expected to support the bill out of self-interest, but they don't. This bill makes it harder for businesses to prove that redundancies are genuine. It creates a scenario where every decision could be second- guessed, second-guessed by tribunal's legal profession think a bit of a laughingstock.

Every restructuring might have to be questioned on every difficult choice turned into an expensive legal battle. Why would a business via for no reason? Businesses need motivated skilled employers and they need time to assess the likelihood of an employee requiring low skills and democratic motivation. I think Lord Faulks put this very well indeed, and comprehensively explained it. But if I might quote one of his colleagues on the crossbenches, this clause is Lord Moore of Etchingham stated in the newspaper column the other day,", As if children once submitted to school were immediately deemed to have passed all the deemed to have passed all the ensuing exams.

As Baroness Cash noted this is not an us and them perspective, but even if there were no other reason, retention is cheaper than firing and rehiring full stop yet this bill assumes without evidence that businesses are acting in bad faith, that they need tribunal's to intervene and that they do not already have a strong incentive to retain talent. The cost of all this would be staggering, the impact assessment says £5 billion which will inevitably prove to be optimistic. And which will inevitably fall, as the government admits, disproportionately on the very SMEs we need to power growth.

SMEs that the fact they are already struggling as a result of this government's other misguided policies. Instead of managing their businesses, seeking new markets and customers, they will be bogged down in human resources and get it wrong and they will be bogged down in litigation. Endless documentation and the endless hiring of legal experts to justify every strategic decision. This is not just a bureaucratic overreach, it's an outright violation of business A business should be able to shape its own workforce in response to market demand, competition and innovation.

Yet under this bill it seems that businesses can only make such decisions when faced with an existential crisis. A company struggling with stagnation trying to bring in fresh talent, trying to stay ahead of fiercely competitive world, what recourse would they world, what recourse would they have? We must ask ourselves, do we want to a thriving economy, to be want businesses that grow, invest and create jobs, or a system that strangles them in red tape, drag them into courtrooms and forces them into stagnation? This bill as it stands will not bestow a declining stands will not bestow a declining growth, it will not restore business confidence will stop it will not create jobs.

Instead it will leave many businesses trapped, unable to adapt, unable to compete and ultimately unable to survive. Allow me to ask the Minister question. Have the government considered the likely impact of the measures in this bill on the recently stated aim to move people off long-term welfare? Can they speculate as to the likely effect of day one unfair dismissal rights and Statutory Sick Pay rights on that ambition? Can the answer why a prospective employer might take a risk on a potential employee who is recovering from a long-term medical condition? The obvious net effect of these measures will be to encourage employers to do more due diligence, be more risk averse, rely more on references and less on intuition that will have a very damaging impact on social may the and workforce diversity.

How does society or the individuals and businesses affected benefit from that? How is that to use Lord Livermore's words from earlier, either compassionate or fair? Beyond the immediate damage to business confidence we must consider the broader implications for the U.K.'s attractiveness as a destination for investment. Capital flows where it is welcome, investment tribes where there is stability, whether respectability and the regular Tory framework that encourages and doesn't obstruct growth. Yet this bill sends precisely the wrong message to investors, it signals that the UK is becoming a more complex risk laden and bureaucratic place to do business must with international companies choose Britain when they can invest in economies with more business friendly policies? Ministers claim that employment protections will create a fairer economy but they , an economy that can't attract investment is an economy that cannot create jobs at all and surely that is the ultimate unfairness.

Or to put it another way to use Lord Watson's word, the greatest dignity of all is surely to have a job. As we have heard there is plenty more on this bill which we will be addressing that committee. Lord Young of Acton made a brilliant Maiden speech during -- drawing heavily on this experience with the free-speech union and talking to the invidious clause 20, will support him and as a reminder mineable friend pointed out that employers are already liable for the sexual harassment of third parties under the work -- worker protection act.

On flexible working we struggle to understand the problem it is actually trying to fix. As Lords Hunt said earlier majority of workers on these contracts seem to like them. The recruitment and employers Confederation state that 79% of respondents to their recent shut -- survey like flexible working because of the flexibility. The Chancellor says she wants to tear down regulation, to boost growth. But this bill introduces a new quango with perhaps alarming to use the word of Lord Fox statement, or perhaps Kafkaesque powers.

We spoke at all the major business organisations and many employers with real-world experience and we can find none that support this bill. We found unanimity that where it will cause considerable damage, so can the Minister give be any examples apart from those for that she has orally mentioned trotted out fairly frequently over the last few months of actual real employers that support all of this bill? Please name just one as we would like to talk to them to see what we have missed.

We will of course also be turning to the subject of trade unions, to which a number of noble Lords have spoken, but I would put in particular commend the contributions of Lord Burns, Baroness Fox and Lord Fox from the Liberal Democrat benches for their thoughtful interventions on this. We believe that the UK stands at a crossroads, we understand the intent behind this bill and of course there are some things in this bill that we can support. But we can either embrace policies that make us a global leader in investment and innovation or we can burn ourselves and business with regulations that drive them elsewhere.

I do believe that the government is serious about growth, but I have no choice but to conclude that the choice here is straightforward. You can have this bill or you can have growth full stop you can't have both.
18:07
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
It's a pleasure to be able to conclude this debate which has been come as insightful as in passionate and informed. Been a very well attended debate today, I do hope noble Lords will understand that the time constraints means I'm unable to be able to respond to every individual contribution as I would normally do. I shall do my best where I haven't been able to I am of course available to talk to noble Lords and to discuss it, I'm sure we will have plenty of discussions between now and Committee stage and after that.

I hope that this will be an ongoing dialogue. I know many noble Lords have considerable expertise of running their own businesses. Lord Londesborough, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, Baroness Cash spoke of these valuable insights. This bill seeks to raise the floor for employment rights in our country and includes practices our country and includes practices that many good employers such as no doubt those operated by those noble Lords already are doing. To the benefit of themselves and their workforces.

I'm sure noble Lords will value the loving playing -- level playing field for employers that this bill will ensure. I daresay that the noble Lord was preaching to the choir with his much-needed intervention from the benches opposite as to why people join trade unions. And the range of benefits that collective bargaining brings and I hope the Frontbench were listening to those points as were listening to those points as well. I would like to thank noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley, Lord Hendy, Lord Katz, Lord Watson -- Lord Watson, Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill, Lord Prentis of Leeds, Lord Browne of Ladyton, Baroness Hazarika and Baroness boosted, Baroness Lister, all of whom expressed their strong support for this landmark legislation and powerfully articulated the need for it to reach the statute book.

I would also like to take my opportunity to take tribute to those who made their excellent Maiden speech is. I pay tribute to my noble friend Baroness Burca for her marvellous Maiden speech. My noble friend brings a value that might value perspective to this debate and it's great to hear how she has long proudly advocated for championing strong employment rights and I would also like to say how warning it is to see her back in Parliament. I'm sure you're not tousled what value her wisdom and expertise as well as the courage and integrity she has in -- embodied so well.

I also thank Baroness Gray of Tottenham use extensive career in the Civil Service is greatly respected in your Lordships house and my noble friend brings a wealth of experience and insight to our discussions on advancing workplace rights. It was a pleasure to hear from Baroness Cash whose role as a commissioner of the Equality and Human Rights Commission and also as an employer brings a unique insight into many important issues regarding workplace equality. Finally I pay tribute to Lord Young of Acton, having another strong voice in your logics house is always welcome.

The perspective the noble Lord brings to this with the free- speech union is important and I have no doubt his discussions on this legislation will continue to be of great interest. Moving on I thank Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, Baroness Lister, Baroness Smith for their passionate interests in those with caring responsible us is full stop an important part of our plans to modernise the world of work is ensuring carers can enjoy a good job and contribute their skills alongside their valuable role as carers.

The government will examine the feasibility of introducing paid carers leave in the upcoming carers leave review. With regard to making caring a protected characteristic, many people with caring responsibilities are already likely to be afforded protections under the Equality Act 2010 by the provisions relating to age and disability discrimination which specifically protect people from direct dissemination by association. -- Discrimination individuals with caring Responsibilities for someone who is for example elderly or disabled within the meaning of the act are likely to be protected from unlawful discrimination from their association with someone with a protected characteristic.

I am sure that noble Lords will understand that this means this intervention would be unnecessary. I thank Baroness Barran and the Bishop of Newcastle for raising the issue about kinship care and foster caring. We are committed to ensuring that all employed parents and carers receive the support they need to strike the appropriate balance between their work and family lives. For the first time the government's Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill will create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific measures in that bill.

But by defining kinship care in law the legislation will ensure that all local authorities have a clear and consistent understanding of what constitutes kinship care. I hope that noble Lords, I hope this assures noble Lords that the government's intentions in this sensitive area. A number of noble Lords Lord Hunt, Lord Ashcombe, Baroness Foster, and S cash, Lord Foulkes, Lord Sharpe -- Baroness Cash raised the issue about financial indications for the bill. Lord Sharpe suggested that we should only listen to business voices, but only listen to business voices, but I have to say to him that our history and our economy is based on partnership, that is always what has made us thrive and that is what will be underlying our growth strategy going forward.

This is not a case of hearing one voice over another. Lord Sharpe also raised the issue about business confidence, according to the latest business barometer which surveys 1,200 businesses every month, business confidence has increased 12 points to 49% in February, the highest since August to thousand 24. This shows that the government is improving -- 2024, the business environment. Of course we recognise the concerns about the cost to business. The 5 billion figure from our impact assessment is a top end estimate which will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society with the bottom end of the range close to £1 billion.

The cost therefore is likely to be under 0.4% of our national wage bill and could even be as low as 0.1%. A number of noble Lords also mentioned the OBR comments, but I have to say in stress that they are yet to make an assessment and so it is premature to read anything into their comments so far. Meanwhile improving worker well-being, increasing productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating A-level playing field for good employers will glancing the can benefits worth billions of pounds benefits worth billions of pounds The noble Lord hunt, Lord Palmer, Baroness Noakes, Baroness Coffey and Viscount Colville, Lord Faulks and Lord Fox raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny.

On the approach taken with regards to delegated powers in the bill, I seek to reassure the House the approach we are taking with respect to many delegated powers in the bill are in line with existing precedents for use of dedicated powers in employment law and the department believes these are necessary and justified stop they will enable the government to remain responsive to the changing needs of the modern labour market and economy and to ensure that the employment rights framework remains relevant to these needs.

We will give this bill for scrutiny and I look forward to the many conversations we will have with noble Lords. They also raised the issues about what the government raised in the other place. Throughout development and passage of the bill, great effort has been taken to listen to a range of views from businesses, trade unions, representative organisations, civil society and others. Including from the formal consultation, the insights gained that the government has received has informed the amendments made in the other place and these have been invaluable in ensuring the bill works in practice for workers and businesses of all sizes across the country.

Baroness Barran raised concerns about the school staff support negotiating body. An important part of reinstating the body is to improve consistency but does not commit us to a one size fits all approach and the intention is for support staff in all state funded schools benefit from the core pay and conditions offer while allowing flexibility for all schools to respond to local circumstances above minimum agreed standards and we will consult on this in the summer. Baroness Whitaker asked about seafarers.

She is right to look at the important role they play in the economy and the necessity of improving protections. These clauses provide powers to require operators of frequent international services to the UK to meet certain standards on board their vessel in order to continue accessing UK ports without having to pay a surcharge or risk refusal of access. We will continue to engage at consultation stage with the trade unions and charities to ensure the unique needs and voices are represented in this process.

Lord Whitty, Viscount Colville, Lord Fox and Baroness Coffey raised issues about the works agency. Better enforcement against the non- compliant minority business means more workers will get their due and businesses are on a level playing field which is fair for business and therefore workers. We will discuss extensively with businesses and take view of the Advisory Board on how effectively we use this power and this will include discussing what to do when workers are unwilling to enforce their rights.

On inspecting umbrella companies, the bill will bring umbrella companies activities which are not currently captured in existing framework of state enforcement. This allows a bespoke framework to allow to them which will be set out in regulation and in time enforce with the fair work agency. We will consult on these and I hope this alleviates concerns. On the structure and actions of the agency, it will assume three existing agencies and additional function from HMRC into one single body and we reduce the number of quangos whilst increasing efficiency.

The agency will take a balanced approach to enforcement with strong powers that enable it to take action against rogue employers that exploit staff and provide support to businesses to help them comply. Lord Young action, Baroness Bray and Lord Strathcarron raised concerns about third-party harassment. Conduct that is merely upsetting or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet the Equality Act 2010 definition of harassment which requires significantly more than that in order for it to be unlawful.

It is not enough for the claimant to feel that someone's conduct is such. There is a reasonableness and the individual facts of the definition will be considered. The steps can be taken are more limited than those for employees. Employers will not be penalised for failing to anticipate the unforeseeable or take other impractical steps. Likewise, any step that was disproportionate interference with the customers right to freedom of expression would not be reasonable and therefore we do not expect the bill to have a chilling effect on free speech noble Lords envisage.

Several noble Lords including Baroness Whitaker, Baroness O'Grady, Lord Palmer, Baroness Morrissey and Baroness Kramer raised the issue of nondisclosure agreements. The bill measures mean that a provision in the NDA seeking to prevent a protected disclosure about sexual harrassment will be unenforceable. And NDA entered into in respect of sexual harrassment may still stand to protect confidentiality in other circumstances such as requiring the employer to keep the identity of the worker and the details of the incident confidential.

This is the case now and is not changed by this bill measure. I respect noble Lords interest on this topic and we are progressing with reforms through other legislative means. The government is pressing ahead with plans to progress the relevance of NDA's in the victims and prisoners act 2024 and the higher freedom of speech act 20 2023. When it commenced, it will ban NDA's from visiting speakers and students in case there is a bullying, harassment including sexual harrassment and intimidation where an amendment of this government whilst in opposition of which we remain proud.

As we commence section 17 and will ensure the confidentiality clauses including those in nondisclosure agreements cannot be legally enforced as they seek to prevent victims of crime from reporting crime and cooperating with regulators in relation to the crime or accessing confidential advice and support. I recognise the points raised by Baroness Browning and Baroness Redfern T about the Adult Social Care negotiating body. The government's immediate work to government's immediate work to support the social care sector will refresh the workforce and expand the national career structure, identifying and finding quality learning and development and ensuring there are proportional development opportunities so that people can build their career in care.

To reassure noble Lords on the scope of the negotiating body, the body will be established through regulations which will have the opportunity to include more details on the remit of these bodies and could include that specifying training is included and these regulations follow further engagement and consultation with the sector. I would like to address the comments made by Lord Burns and Baroness coffee and others with regard to the political funds and supposed contradiction between subscription traps and the reminder to opt out of the political fund.

Subscription traps occur when consumers are misled into signing a contract where they do not want the free or reduced price offer without facing barriers to exit a contract. This is not akin to how trade union political funds work and the situations are not comparable. A union is a collection of workers and little funds should be consider in that right. A union member should be aware of what their monthly fees will be and that will include deep little fund levy.

The rate payable stays the same from day one and the member should know what they are paying and are free to opt out. There is no deadline after which their contribution will rise significantly. The bill in terms of opt out is simply restoring the position as it was before the passage of the trade union. This has been the position for 70 years and I'm sure noble Lords will understand this is a position that is fair and not the same as a subscription trap.

Lord Prentis of Leeds raised the dispute in Knowsley and I hope I can offer some reassurance the government is looking at how the pre-existing arrangements are operating and if and where the law made full short. With this particular case it has not been tested in the courts with the existing law of specific protection and the law on inducement and detriment is complex and needs to be carefully considered, but I will continue to liaise with my noble friend on the issue.

This is the first of many make work pay on the agenda and many noble Lords made a vital contribution suggesting reforms go further than this bill does at the current time and the noble Lord proposed the creation of a commission for freelancers with further action to tackle gender equality and Baroness Penn and Baroness Lister both raised the importance of reforms for parental leave. I respect these contributions and the desire of both, but we must strike the balance while continuing to ensure that this remains a pro- work business bill and I stress it is part of bigger reforms in the make work pay agenda which is an ongoing piece of work to conclude, this bill is a crucial step towards the government manifesto commitment to enhance workers rights and improve the lives of millions.

It looks at our industrial strategy and creates conditions for a long-term sustainable and secure economic growth stop this is a testament to the government resolve to improve rights on levelling the playing field between good employers and less scrupulous ones. I urge all noble Lords to support the bill and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the bill be ready second time. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move the other motion in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the other motion in my name on the order paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be committed to Committee of the whole House. Is that what the noble lady means? As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
10:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Providing exemptions for certain funds associated with foreign powers to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines
-

18:33
10:29
None Portrait Oral questions: Providing exemptions for certain funds associated with foreign powers to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines
-

18:34
10:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Providing exemptions for certain funds associated with foreign powers to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines
-

18:34
10:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Providing exemptions for certain funds associated with foreign powers to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 27 House of Lords - 27 March House of Lords - 27 March 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page