Lords Chamber

Thursday 8th May 2025

(began 7 months, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
12:00
12:03
12:03
12:04
12:05
12:05
12:06
12:06
12:07
12:08
12:08
12:09
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
The noble Lord, the minister, was absolutely right when he described climate change as the driver for these wildfires. Mitigation is also good, land management plans and so on. But what about the initial point of Climate Change Committee what more could the government do? Could it go farther and faster on various

**** Possible New Speaker ****

issues? My Lords, the noble Lady is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the noble Lady is right, and I have said before, one Climate Change Committee understand the Met office predicts the UK will experience more frequent and intense weather extremes and that is widely believed that the impact of climate change is likely to increase and intensify with the fire incidents in particular. We are doing, already, particular. We are doing, already, so much particularly, we are leading the Department for the wildfire response, and we own at the national response, and we own at the national risk register, wildfire risk, so, we are looking at relationships, coordinating across government between key wildfire stakeholders between key wildfire stakeholders and we have already appointed a and we have already appointed a national wildfire adviser, which we work closely with, as well as the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work closely with, as well as the FCC, on these very important issues which the nobility outlines. There was quite a devastating
12:10
12:11
12:11
12:12
12:13
12:13
12:14
12:15
12:15
12:16
12:16
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
Guidance for 25-26 reduced the number of target, including those for mental health, were the guidance given was a fairly generalised and fake nature. Could I ask the Minister in the absence of such targets, what specific incentives are in the centre -- system for ICBs.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As the noble Lady refers to, indeed, we did reduce the number of targets on the basis of the targets on the basis of the recommendation from Lord Darzi, that having so many targets was not having so many targets was not delivering the results that we want. And we've had to think boldly and in And we've had to think boldly and in an innovative way. What I can say is an innovative way. What I can say is that since July 2023, NHS England has included waiting time metrics for referrals to urgent and community-based mental health services, and I am looking at how we can drive improvements on the data and to help services, particularly to target the most lengthy waits.

to target the most lengthy waits. I'm also going to be reviewing the clinical review of standards from 2022 and considering what else can 2022 and considering what else can be done to put mental health on that more equal footing as it absolutely

**** Possible New Speaker ****

does deserve. Could the Minister say what the government is doing to improve access to perinatal mental health services and she will appreciate the urgency, given that suicide remains in the cause of maternal death. -- Remains a leading cause of maternal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

death. It is correct for the noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is correct for the noble Lady to raise this. Last week, I spoke to to raise this. Last week, I spoke to women about their experience and what has made a difference and what what has made a difference and what has not made a difference to them. I know we are looking forward to a know we are looking forward to a debate later in the year, and what we are already doing is 41 maternal we are already doing is 41 maternal mental health services will be set up to provide care for women with moderate, severe or complex mental moderate, severe or complex mental health difficulties.

There are over
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:20
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
The overwhelming majority of mental health conditions start in childhood and adolescence. We need to do whatever we can to give those children and young people the very best today. Regrettably, we know that there are 35,000 children in this country have been on a waiting this country have been on a waiting list for two years or more. For those children and young people have met the threshold for services, what more can be done to alleviate these unacceptable weights? -- waits.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to pay tribute to my noble friend for her contribution in supporting awareness and improved mental health not just for young people but also in the maternity setting, and of course, across the whole of mental health services. whole of mental health services. This morning, I was at Alexander Park School, where I saw what I Park School, where I saw what I regard as the exemplar of what my friend is talking about because we friend is talking about because we need to prevent mental ill-health and young people, and that is why we are extending the mental health are extending the mental health support teams to ensure that every school has that are available and that whilst that is being developed, there is funding available for there is funding available for mental health leads in schools and mental health leads in schools and we are also working with local areas to ensure they meet their to ensure they meet their obligations to the local community, and the local community does, of course, include young people.

I also feel that our Young Futures Hubs will also help. We have inherited a difficult situation but I can ensure Your Lordships' House that we are working to make progress, particularly for young people.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The growing numbers of those unable to access mental health care. They are using ChatGPT which are unverified for this use.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

unverified for this use. It is important, it is very important that people use the right
12:23
12:23
12:24
12:24
12:25
12:26
12:26
12:27
12:28
12:29
12:30
12:32
12:32
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

thrive. I congratulate the calm approach, but the UK film and TV industry but the UK film and TV industry employs over 200,000 people directly, and indirectly. In productions. And is worth £4.8 billion in terms of investment. Given that 87% of last year's investment into the UK is 191 films, was external, can noble Lady the Minister ensure the House, the sector, the government are developing a plan to protect current investment levels from tariffs?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the film sector is, as my noble friend says, a key part of the UK world-class creative the UK world-class creative industries, and such, we are committed to ensuring it continues committed to ensuring it continues to grow and create good jobs across the UK. Inward investment is vital. And we will work with international partners to continue to build on current successes. Supporting our domestic sector is equally domestic sector is equally important. And we will, as he asks, seem publishable creative industries seem publishable creative industries sector plan to set out further support for the film industry and support for the film industry and wider creative industries, including increased support from the British

**** Possible New Speaker ****

business plan, to access finance. Whilst congratulating the government on their calm approach, would she take this opportunity to acknowledge that none of this would be possible, the defence of the film industry and other industries, were industry and other industries, were it not for the fact that we had left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the European Union? Well, I am not sure where to start with this one, to be quite honest. I think we have heard, write honest. I think we have heard, write their way across, the difficulties the Brexit agreement has left our
12:39
12:40
12:40
12:41
12:41
12:42
12:44
12:44
12:45
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
So, the point I made in answer to the last question, of course, talking about the regions of England, but of course the devolved England, but of course the devolved authorities must come into the picture, but I would like to say, you know, moving forward with the you know, moving forward with the trade deals we have got, we must not trade deals we have got, we must not forget the significance of the EU market, and particularly, in this market, and particularly, in this area around creative industries.

It is absolutely fundamental that we keep that at the front of our minds going forward and protect those people who most needed at this moment in time. moment in time. My Lords, the creative industries face threats on a number of fronts. Trade tariffs, as we heard earlier, on touring, and of course, from the widespread theft of their copyright. widespread theft of their copyright. And I'm very grateful to the And I'm very grateful to the government for their efforts to avoid tariffs for the film industry, avoid tariffs for the film industry, of which I was once a part.

And to install touring rights. But I will ask the nobody, the Minister, why the government has not shown similar the government has not shown similar support on the industry's need to protect its property rights from protect its property rights from overseas AI companies? And I ask the Minister to discuss it with colleagues. Before the data legislation comes to this House on Monday, where I will try to insist that they require more time. that they require more time.
12:46
12:48
12:49
None Portrait Legislation: Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill - third reading
-

Functions) Regulations. The question is that the three motions be agreed
12:49
12:49
12:50
None Portrait Bill do now pass. Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that this bill do now past. It is a pleasure to move... It's a pleasure to speak to this bill, which colleagues will know has undergone extensive scrutiny by the Special Public Bill Committee since its introduction in September. The bill underscores the bill's commitment to innovation now and in the future. It supports efforts to ensure jurisdictions of England and Wales and Northern Ireland remain at the forefront of jurisdictions globally.

This provides a flexible legal framework for digital assets that can react to the dynamic nature and two technologies not yet imagined or created. And by modernising the law of personal property, it will enable more efficient dispute resolution by removing the need for courts to discuss questions and categorisation. It will also attract international businesses to use these jurisdictions and promote economic growth. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those who have engaged with and supported the passage of this bill, starting with Lord Anderson of Ipswich ensuring the special Public Bill Committee.

He expertly led us through some very nuanced issues. I would also like to thank the committees clerk, Matthew Burton. That leads me to think other members of the committee, Lord Patten, that Cryer, Lord Shamash, Viscount Stansgate, Lord Hope and Lord Clement-Jones. I'm certain that each has found the process as fascinating as I have and I enjoyed playing a part in ensuring our law continues to be fit for the purpose in an increasingly technological world. I'd like to give regular thanks to Lord Holmes who has raised many interesting areas for the committee to consider.

I must also thank the Law Commission who undertook to extensive consultations as part of their project on digital assets, in their project on digital assets, in particular Laura Begoine. I would also like to thank my private office and the bill team, the bill manager, Harry McNeil Adams and Jonathan Fear. I'm grateful to all of those who contributed to evidence both written and verbal and help ensure the committee was able to assess the bill in the best possible version of it going to the other place.

The result of this is a simple but elegant bill. It will support our efforts to remain a preeminent jurisdiction with English and Welsh law and Northern Irish law being the law of choice. It will signal that the UK is a leader in innovation and technology. It is important that the bill passes into law as quickly as possible so we can capitalise on this. We pass this bill on an excellent condition where we hope it excellent condition where we hope it can complete its passage and become law as swiftly as possible.

About them.
12:54
12:55
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Law Commission for their work on this bill. As we saw in -- and the noble Lord Anderson has mentioned almost 1000 pages of work from the Law Commission. The consultation paper, the final report, the supplemental report. Now one accused the Law Commission of a lack of thoroughness as far as this two-clause bill is concerned. The purpose was to ensure that the bill could respond to technology and new patterns in technology.

We conclude that the flexibility of common law allows for the recognition of a distinct category of personal property that can better recognise come accommodate and protect the unique features of certain digital assets, including crypto-tokens and crypto assets. We recommend legislation to confirm the existence of this category and remove any uncertainty. As the noble Lord Anderson has explained, we thoroughly examined the resulting bill under the Special Public Bill Committee -- bill procedure, and it clearly fulfils that purpose. I would like to thank our witnesses.

I thank the noble Lord Lord Anderson for his excellent chairing of the committee, our clerk, Matthew Burton, the Minister, of course, and my fellow members for other work on the bill. I agree with the Minister's particular thanks to the noble Lord Lord Holmes for his stimulating and provocative input into our deliberations. But, as ever, there is more work to be done. The Law Commission recommended that the government create a panel of industry experts who can provide guidance on technical and legal issues relating to digital assets and I understand that the Ministry of Justice has asked the UK jurisdiction transfers -- UK Jurisdiction Task force to produce non-binding guidance in areas of legal uncertainty and take forward this work.

The Law Commission also may -- made recommendations to provide market participants with legal tools that do not yet exist in England or Wales, let alone in Northern Ireland. Such as new ways to take security over crypto-tokens into organised securities. The recommended that this work is undertaken by multidisciplinary project teams. Whether or not the Minister can give us an update today, I don't know, but I very much hope that he will write to members hope that he will write to members of the committee because I do believe that that is unfinished business.

It would be very useful to business. It would be very useful to hear the Minister in that regard. hear the Minister in that regard. hear the Minister in that regard.
12:58
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I have rightfully offered thanks to all those witnesses who gave evidence to a special bill committee. To the clerk and his team. To the Minister for his careful and thoughtful engagement with all of his officials. Not least to Lord Anderson for his excellent chairing of special bill committee. A short bill but one with a significant impact for the UK and indeed beyond our shores because through our legislative process, the world is watching what we do in this space.

We have a great financial tech tradition in this country. A great ecosystem. And whether it is financial market infrastructure, dematerialisation of capital are critically important financial inclusion, digital assets have a critical role to play. With some trillions due to be transacted by digital assets by the end of this decade, the UK needs to ensure that it is well set. This bill does so not true prescription but using English common law for the agility, adaptability, as the Minister rightly said, for new technologies rightly said, for new technologies not yet even imagine.

It was an extraordinary pleasure to be part of the process. My final question is whether there is a schedule and the other place so we can ensure that this bill becomes law as soon as possible because not only does it send a signal to the world, it sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets in this country that we are the financial centre with we are the financial centre with fantastic financial tech start-ups, scallops and businesses.

London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place to be involved in digital place to be involved in digital place to be involved in digital
13:00
Lord Sandhurst Portrait Lord Sandhurst (Conservative)
-
-
This was a fascinating committee in which to participate. I have no doubt this effectively one clause Bill will make an important contribution to the development of the law in a fast developing field and assist the judges and litigants in ensuring necessary protection is given to activities and things, including as yet unimagined things in the digital sphere, which might otherwise fail to be protected. It's important for Fintech as we have heard, it's very important for the city of London and for attaining its place in the financial world in which we live.

The evidence we heard from interested parties, not just lawyers, raised a body of issues which took some digesting and my noble friend Lord Holmes raised important questions. But under the clear and thoughtful guidance of our distinguished chair, we found with little disagreement that apart from a small change to the Bills title, we should leave well alone. The Law Commission has been congratulated on their hard work and reducing the vast body of material to this very crisp bill.

This bill was, we found, small but perfectly formed. In all this process, we had the help from the committee clerk Matthew Burton, to whom I am most grateful, not least for his excellent summary of the evidence and issues to help our final deliberations, so it is with no hesitation that we on this side commend this bill and hope it will be passed swiftly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm glad that the bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'm glad that the bill has the support of all noble Lords who have spoken. As for the noble who have spoken. As for the noble Lord Lord Anderson and his comment about lack of female members, about lack of female members, throughout three whips sitting in my presence, and I'm sure they would presence, and I'm sure they would have heard those comments, and I will see if we can do better this will see if we can do better this but next time.

Regarding Lord Clement-Jones's point, I will write to him that because I'm unable to answer his questions as he put them right now. And regarding the schedule which noble Lord Lord schedule which noble Lord Lord Holmes asked about, I am also unable
13:03
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - committee stage (day 2)
-

to answer that question but I suspect the changes will go down very soon but if there is any update I will provide that to him. I would like to conclude in the spirit of agreement and endorse the point made by the noble Lord Lord Sandhurst, that this is indeed a small but perfectly formed bill and it will have to have an impact, and we want to make sure it makes the best This will be now passed. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. Has to be again in committee on the Employment Rights

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. My Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the question is that house... Sorry. That's not what I house... Sorry. That's not what I meant to say. I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meant to say. I beg to move that house do now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is that how do not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that how do not resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment 18, Amendment 18, Lord Amendment 18, Lord Sharpe Amendment 18, Lord Sharpe of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Epsom. Can I begin by thanking the noble Lord Lord Leong for his letter explaining certain matters that were left over from the last of committee. I do have to observe that the fact that the algebraic question required a three-page detailed answer for one workshop example, it does illustrate the point making during the committee stage which is that this of course adds a huge and possibly unnecessary level of complexity to small businesses in particular but I will let that life
13:05
None Portrait Amendment:18 Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-

particular but I will let that life now. I rise to speak to the amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name which would remove the broad Delegated Powers Committee containing clause 1, page 8, lines 41 to 44. This bill continues a very concerning trend which is the study transfer of legislative authority from Parliament to ministers. As I noted at second reading it contains no fewer than 173 delegated. The government may and properly will argue that this is justified by ongoing consultation.

But that is in effect an omission that the bill is not yet complete, already for full and proper scrutiny. Time and again we have seen ill divide powers handed to the executive allow for significant policy changes to be made by regulation, without meaningful Parliamentary oversight. treated as withdrawal. There are no limitations, no criteria and no guiding principles. There is no requirement for a consultation or justification and in effect, the Secretary of State is therefore given a blank cheque. The delegated and Regulatory Reform Act has been very clear, they have said " the power is inappropriately broad" and should be restated with a greater degree of precision.

While the government memorandum refers to maintaining the original policy intent and allowing for reasonable exceptions, the committee rightly points out there is nothing in the bill itself that legally constrained the Secretary of State's discussion in that regard. Moreover as we raised on the first of committee, businesses need clarity when it comes to the operation of guaranteed hours, if there are to be sector specific exemptions and their may be a case for them, those exemptions should appear on the face of the bill, not be left to future ministerial discretion.

Unsteady benefits no one, not workers, employers, not enforcement bodies. Salang such fundamental aspects of the regime to be decided later by regulation undermines both the transparency and the stability of the framework the government is seeking to establish. I must also remind the Minister that during the passage of the data protection information bill, she rightly accepted similar concerns. She tabled amendments to the bill which directly reflected the recommendations of the delegated and Regulatory Reform Act and at the time she said, I hope the Minister is able to commit to taking on board the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee in this respect.

Can I ask the noble Lady the Minister why that same principle should not apply here? If it is truly the government intention that this power be used only in limited and specific cases, then the legislation should make that clear. As it stands, any future Secretary of State could by regulation significantly weaken or disapply the statutory regime without the involvement of Parliament. Regardless of one's views on the underlying policy, that is not an acceptable way to legislate. When Parliament creates new rights and statutes those rights should not be left honourable to being hollowed out.

This amendment removes the power and ensures any substantive changes to the scope of the duty must be brought back to Parliament through primary legislation. Will the Minister now commit, as she has done before, taking seriously the recommendations of the delegated and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Regulatory Reform Act and amending the bill accordingly? Amendment moved, clause 1, page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment moved, clause 1, page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment moved, clause 1, page My Lords, it's good to return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it's good to return to the subject of zero hours contracts as we start the day at committee stage, and as we debated last week, stage, and as we debated last week, the government is committed to ending one-sided fax ability and exploitative zero hours contracts exploitative zero hours contracts ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and liberty so baseline of security and liberty so workers can better plan their lives and their finances. Employers who already provide the security and predict ability for their workers predict ability for their workers will benefit from a level playing field.

These measures will help field. These measures will help drive up standards and eliminate undercutting across the board. Meanwhile employees who enjoy the Meanwhile employees who enjoy the flexibility of their current zero hours arrangements will not be pressurised into accepting a guaranteed hour contract. So if I turn now to the group of amendments before us in this group, I thank noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom for tabling amendments 18 and 19, which would remove the power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn.

This power would allow the Secretary of State to react dynamically to changing employment practices that may arise, allowing for updates to maintain the original policy intent to providing a baseline of security and predictability so workers can better plan their lives. They could provide the required economic fax ability that businesses have been asking for to ensure that policy is working as intended while adapting to changing circumstances -- flexibility. This power is separate to the power to exclude categories of workers, relations made under the excluded workers power would allow specified workers to be taken out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours.

Since the right to guaranteed hours is a new novel right it could potentially be necessary to exclude certain workers to respond to the changing environment. The power at issue here relates to specified circumstances where the right to guaranteed hours would otherwise apply but limited and specified circumstances would justify an exception to the duty to make guaranteed our offer. We envisage that any exceptions to that duty to offer guaranteed hours will be narrow, and will be applied in specified circumstances.

For instance, where the measures would otherwise have very significant adverse impacts, even when the employers and the workers act with good intentions, and there's no other acceptable way to mitigate the risk. Examples could include unforeseen circumstances such as a pandemic or a state of emergency. We consider that consultation is required to further determine in which specific circumstances may justify a potential exemption. And I can assure the House that will give full consideration to any representations made in this House, either an by respondents to that consultation.

Gathering views from those who will be impacted by the policy by a consultation remains of the utmost importance to this government. By removing the power we will become unable to make such exceptions and unable to provide the flexibility in those specific circumstances. The power will also be subject to the affirmative procedure meaning that both houses will have the opportunity. Like noble Lord Lord Sharpe, as ever I'm grateful to the delegated and glittery from committee for their very careful consideration of the bill.

Including in relation to that power with which we are here concerned. The committee continues to serve your Lordship's House well by providing a very thoughtful analysis of the government's legislative programme and I thank them for that. As acknowledged by that committee, the need to respond to ranging circumstances is an appropriate basis for such a power but in the committee review that power should be narrowed. Whereas the amendments goes much further than that which has been proposed by them.

On that basis I hope I have been able to set out more information as to how the government intends to use this power and of course I look forward to responding more fully to the delegated powers committee report in due course. I hope that reassures the noble Lord so that he feels able to withdraw his amendments 18 and 19.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Baroness -- I thank her but I am disappointed not thank her but I am disappointed not simply that the amendment is being rejected but she has chosen not to rejected but she has chosen not to uphold the principle of parliamentary scrutiny which she championed herself last year. At the time and again she said " the limits on effective scrutiny of secondary legislation are manifest. " Spot-on, could not agree more. I have to ask, could not agree more.

I have to ask, does she now disagree with her own assessment? And that of the Attorney assessment? And that of the Attorney General. And I will refrain now from quoting again from the Bingham quoting again from the Bingham lecture he gave, but we may have to return to that in due course. Today the government is defending a dedicated power that is not just broad but boundless and power that allows a future Secretary of State allows a future Secretary of State to undo or dilutes the statutory right without reference to
13:15
13:16
13:17
None Portrait Amendment:19A Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

employers are unable to react and employers are unable to react and adapt to serious changes, the risk is not simply that the guaranteed hours will become harder to manage. It is that businesses will become reluctant, more reluctant to offer reluctant, more reluctant to offer them at all. Undermining, surely, the very purpose of this reform. Let me give some examples. In the retail me give some examples. In the retail sector, businesses often need to sector, businesses often need to adjust staffing levels, according to adjust staffing levels, according to seasonal demand.

Imagine a High Street store that relies on a significant uptick in sales, during significant uptick in sales, during the holiday season. If the business the holiday season. If the business experiences a sudden dip in foot traffic, or loses a key customer, just after committing the business to guaranteed hours, for workers. It would be a logical and ultimately detrimental for the business to carry on. To carry on with overstaffed shifts, unable to scale back, to scale back to reflect real-time demand.

If this bill remains as it is, such businesses will be less inclined to offer temporary, in the first place. Out of fear that they will be unable to make necessary adjustments. And then similarly in the hospitality and tourism sectors, the cyclical nature of demand means that employers frequently adjust staffing levels. A hotel or restaurant sees a sharp drop in bookings, due to an unexpected circumstance, whether a global event, local policy changes, or even weather conditions. They would find themselves in an untenable position if they are forced to maintain guaranteed hours contract for workers that no longer reflect the operational realities of the business.

The result, well, employers may become hesitant to offer any guarantees at all. Or if they have offered such guarantees, they might face having to go out of business, altogether. I hope there noble Lady, the Minister, will accept that this is a problem, which rigid legislation will force to come to the surface. Because it ignores the practical challenges that businesses face, in a dynamic, ever-changing environment. The inability to make necessary adjustments, to staffing levels, would not only harm the businesses but could lead to negative consequences, for workers in the longer term.

If businesses are unable to manage their staffing costs and remain financially viable. They will struggle to sustain job opportunities, let alone expand opportunities, let alone expand them. There is another key consideration for many businesses, particularly small businesses, in areas like retail and hospitality. Temporary or flexible workers are often an essential part of the workforce. The requirements to offer guaranteed hours to these employees may seem like a positive step, fought job security, however, in practice, many businesses will be left with a stark choice, either left with a stark choice, either scale back on hiring, or else risk running into financial difficulties, if they cannot adjust staffing levels to meet a real-time demand.

In sectors where businesses often unpredictable, such as retail or hospitality. Small businesses may simply not have the same resources or capacity as a larger enterprises, to absorb the costs of a guaranteed hours. The incentives of the government is creating could well lead with fewer opportunities for temporary workers, fewer hires and ultimately less job security overall. Many small retail businesses rely on flexible, part- time staff, during peak times, like weekends, or holidays. If these businesses are forced, by this legislation to offer guaranteed hours to all workers, then they may simply choose to reduce their headcount, offering a few opportunities to temporary staff.

This reduces the flexibility that many workers rely on and undermines the government's intention in promoting stable employment opportunities, for all. My colleagues and I have been subjected to a considerable amount of representations, we have received from this sector. Let me just mention, the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, which gave advice to the Public Bill Committee. They were able to highlight the unpredictability of the holiday and touring sectors stated at the night noted from the evidence.

Holiday and touring parks operate in an unpredictable environment. And it would be impossible, in some circumstances to run a viable business if employees were guaranteed a minimum number of hours, per week, when the level of trade is not substantial enough to cover staffing costs. Now I understand that these parks are faced a highly seasonal demand. A holiday park may experience a boom, in the summer months, but could see a dramatic fall in bookings, in winter or drawing off-peak periods. Under the current provisions of the bill, if such a business faces a downturn, for example due to bad weather, they would be unable to adjust the staffing levels.

This could lead to either business closures, or worse, fewer guarantees of employment. I hope that the noble Baroness, the Minister will understand, therefore, that this amendment would allow businesses with unpredictable sectors, such as holiday parks to respond flexibly to changes in demand. It would not open the floodgates for employers to escape the obligations, rather it provides a practical and necessary safeguard, ensuring that businesses can adapt to significant, unforeseen changes, while still protecting the workers rights. The incentives that the government is seeking to create, inadvertently, or otherwise would induce businesses to reduce hiring.

We are already beginning to see that happen. Small businesses, in particular, are becoming more cautious about offering a guaranteed hours to a new workers. The most worrying outcome of all of this is that the groups who rely the most on a flexible and part-time work, including young people, workers with disabilities, others through part- time employment, family or personal care commitments, will bear the brunt of these changes. These individuals are often the ones who rely on temporary, or part-time work, to gain employment, gain experience and earn an income.

They are going to lose out. And turning to amendment 21, this amendment makes an important clarification to ensure that employers retain the ability to make genuine redundancies, where there is a legitimate business need to do so. I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister, will carefully consider this amendment. Because under it, it will ensure the introduction of the new right to be offered guaranteed hours does not inadvertently create a chilling effect, where employers fear that normal restructuring
13:26
13:27
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled List. I would like to welcome at the noble Baroness and noble Lords back for another day of this important bill. And, to some extent we are thrown back on the previous debate, where we talked so much about flexibility. These amendments are designed to try to give more flexibility to the poor business owner, who sits up, late at night, after the working day is done, trying to figure out how I going to, how going to succeed, how they going to keep going.

It is of particular poignancy when one looks at what is happening to the live stream all over this country, shop after shop, small businesses closing down -- High Street all over this country. In that last debate, last week there was an interesting comment about the minimum wage. And I'm afraid my memory is not good enough, one noble Lord said, they all said that the minimum wage would be a disaster and here it is, a triumphant success. Now, we all know that, I think we are united, as the House are looking for economic growth.

That is the big objective. Economic growth only comes from jobs and from businesses growing. There triumphant success would be that there was more employment and employment didn't drop down and my Lords, I have to say, it was at both the size of this House that went for this higher? Both sides of this House that went there this higher minimum wage. It is sort of unknowable. We do not actually know whether employment would be higher or lower, if we had had no minimum wage or a lower minimum wage.

We can't actually tell, it is one of those mathematical enigmas. We do know, in America that they don't have minimum wage or lower minimum wages, they have high unemployment. People moving from one state to another to find employment, in the states with high growth. Here, we literally can't tell. Whether the employment went up or down. What we can tell and this is a very interesting point, what we can tell is that the introduction of the minimum wage and the higher minimum wage led precisely to what we are debating today.

Zero hours contracts. You have got a business person and they are looking should I hire someone? And they have got three choices. One is that yeah, I can afford this on is that yeah, I can afford this on this minimum wage and a new job is created. The second is they say, no, we can't afford that, particularly with the sort of, I remember back to my own gormless youth, I was an horrible by anyone. No, I'm not going to do it.

-- Are no high going to do it. -- Are no high The other thing is, can I hire them but some other way? Some more flexible way? And here comes this whole zero hours thing which everybody delegates. But we find that a lot of people who are hired on these contracts actually say, that is what they wanted, but God is, we can have different ideals views on that. The point was that zero hours created flexibility and that must, by definition, have led to higher employment.

I.e., economic growth. The thing that we are all trying to accomplish. Now we are saying, in this new employment Bill, let's close off that. And therefore, there will be two more choices for the poor benighted small business owner. Well, I can't afford to hire them under these current rules, so I have got the choice of not hiring them at all, no economic growth, or all find some other way to flexibly slip through this legislation. Which we wouldn't particularly want to we wouldn't particularly want to have happen, would we? So what these amendments are trying to do is preserve flexibility for the poor business owner and we all know that there are many, many business owners having to close down.

Some of it is because of employment law, some is because of very high rates that they have to pay on the High Street. There are many reasons. But here is an opportunity for them to preserve flexibility. And I hope that noble Baroness the Minister will give very careful thought to these amendments, as we work our way through the bill. Because the alternative is lower employment, lower growth, people out of work, because we have been too

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prescriptive. Thank you. My Lords, I rise briefly to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to amendment 19, A, and also to offer my support for amendments 20 offer my support for amendments 20 and 21. My main concern, as I expressed in the first of committee, is over the impact of guaranteed
13:33
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
is over the impact of guaranteed hours contract on small and micro business sector, specifically those with less than 50 staff. And now amendment 19, A, is particularly relevant to start ups and scale ups and we cannot ignore their high-risk operational context, and again I should declare my interest as set out as the register, I checked -- I chair and advise a range of start- ups. The right to guaranteed hours will inhibit job creation but also mobility and flexibility, as we have heard.

If applied to such businesses, to the detriment of both employer and employee rigidity, that is the weather noble Lord hunt used, is especially dangerous in a flat economy environment such as we have a moment. Small business planning requires agility and flexibility when creating new jobs. Business circumstances, as we know, will change, often on a month-to-month basis. Given the natural volatility around budgeting, forecasting revenues, forecasting bookings, and indeed anticipating demand, when we talk about "the reasonableness of entering into limited contracts, we simply can't afford to ignore the early stage development of these companies, and watch them avoid risk-taking.

The members expand restatement to this amendment, quite rightly points to an unforeseeable changes in business conditions. That is especially relevant to small businesses. And as I know, through bitter experience, both as an employer and investor, there's often a huge delta between entrepreneurs forecasts and the actual outcomes. This is not just about seasonality events or the weather, but unpredictable customer demand. We should therefore not handicap entrepreneurial risk-taking which this economy so desperately needs to encourage. And specifically, the creation of new jobs by applying such blanket restrictions on limited term employment contracts.

My Lords, we need a more nuanced approach, as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this amendment suggests. I asked the government to give this serious consideration. I support the amendments in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend
13:36
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
on a frontbench. I have concerns about the guaranteed hours provisions in this bill. One of them being that they are drafted almost wholly from the perspective of workers and pay little heed to the needs of employers. I don't believe that's a good way to create employment law to the underpin the health economy. In the first committee to the noble Lord baba, who is not in his place, the noble Baroness Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, they both spoke about the work of the Low Pay Commission.

On zero hours contracts. I was grateful to them for wanted in that that pointed in the direction. -- Pointed in that direction. I went back and looked at the 2018 report. Unsurprisingly, I found that it does not provide the copper bottomed support for this bill that the noble Lords opposite have claimed. I should also say that the employment bodies represented on the Low Pay Commission have told us that as well. The Low Pay Commission did recommend that workers should be offered guaranteed hours contracts but importantly, they also recognised that there would be circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for the employer to have to do that.

And there is not a trace of that in this bill. The Low Pay Commission was clear that the bill should set out specific circumstances in which the employer would not have to offer guaranteed hours, and the committee cited with approval some equivalent legislation which was at that stage going through the Irish Parliament -- the commission cited. That provided amongst other things that adverse changes in the employers business, or the existence of temporary factors, would allow employers not to offer guaranteed hours.

So I believe, like the noble Lord balls, that amendment 19 A is reasonable in that context. It does not give an employer carte blanche to ignore guaranteed hours but does allow for some genuine business circumstances to be taken into account by the employer when looking at whether or not guaranteed hours contracts should be offered. At the end of the day if we don't have businesses which are successful they won't be any jobs or any kind of contract available.

As I said in my first committee day, I'm particularly concerned as is the noble Lord about small and micro businesses. They really do need to be allowed flexibility if we are to protect work opportunities for around half of the private sector workforce. Even if those small or micro businesses survive incredible bureaucracy associated with these guaranteed hours, they will potentially not survive the substantive impact of the hours if they are required in all circumstances to offer guaranteed hours contracts and of course this is particularly the case in the hospitality sector which itself is the largest user of zero hours contracts, and my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about the problems in that sector.

It's also in that sector that very large numbers of small and micro businesses. Recognising some limited activity, the amendment is modest, an amendment 19 A would go some way towards making this new right to, sorry, requirement to offer guaranteed hours would make it work in the context of businesses which have to face difficult circumstances and at the moment the bill pays no

**** Possible New Speaker ****

attention to that. Milos, a rise in support of the amendments tabled by my noble amendments tabled by my noble friend's. I'm thinking of my career, friend's. I'm thinking of my career, had quite the conventional career in many ways but many extra roles to particularly when I was a student, but I think it is important to reinforce the challenges that starting up or expanding a particular business can have. It's well said that coffeeshop will know well said that coffeeshop will know within the first week whether or not that coffeeshop is going to succeed that coffeeshop is going to succeed or not.

You could argue there are different things but certainly within the first month, a business within the first month, a business will know whether or not the footfall, whether the sale per footfall, whether the sale per customer is justifying the number of people it is employing indeed people it is employing indeed adapting accordingly. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned, there is also the extended element about things like holidays. It may surprise their Lordships to know quite how many jobs are based on frankly whether it rains or not.

And people counselling their participation in going out, doing different things deaf people counselling. It's one of the reasons why many hotel chains have started doing a price differential we get a better deal if you book upfront but you cannot cancel and cannot get your money back. It's why even more restaurants are starting to precharge almost an amount of money that is expected so that people don't cancel. And having lived in coastal areas for much of my life I can assure you Lordships that the See -- the fluctuations are real in terms of temporary jobs.

And that is why I think Lord Hunt has found a good way of trying to help the government to consider some of the everyday decisions that employers have to make on whether or not they open up in the first place, whether they try to expand, they try to get the growth. And if I go further to clause 20, at the same time that the government is trying to encourage businesses to go into artificial intelligence and see all that can be embraced in that regard, it does legally borne in mind that businesses won't be investing in these sorts of technologies if they are concerned that the other costs are so detrimental to them so we keep playing this Catch-22 situation of if the government wants growth, it does need to recognise the success of where has been giving employers the chance to scope, to be flexible, while still I understand the government's intent of the employer being reasonable, with the people they take on, so these reasons I will speak more and the next group, on why I believe the government should be seriously considering how they're going to operationalise this was we keep operationalise this was we keep hearing about more consultation but generally we have people from the British retail Council, from hospitality, saying these are the real issues.

We are almost already doing the conversation for them by putting forward these amendments so I hope the Minister will look on these favourably in their considerations.
13:44
13:44
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
it was suggested by Lord Hunt that employers would get locked into employers would get locked into guaranteed hours at payments. Just a guaranteed hours at payments. Just a reminder noble Lord that all contracts of employment may be varied by mutual agreement or if varied by mutual agreement or if not, they can be terminated or they can be a engagement on fresh terms. can be a engagement on fresh terms. Second point is this. The noble Lord Lord Hunt mentioned the industrial Lord Hunt mentioned the industrial reality.

The industrial reality of zero hours contracts is a complete zero hours contracts is a complete disparity of power. 80% of those on zero hours contracts would prefer a zero hours contracts would prefer a permanent contract. But those on permanent contract. But those on zero hours contracts are completely at the mercy of the employer. They don't know how many hours you going to work tomorrow, let alone next to work tomorrow, let alone next week and they don't know how much income there going to make at the income there going to make at the end of any week.

And therefore, work on a zero hours contract does not want an argument or to fallout with, or have a disagree meant with the employer. That is a vital component to the legislation which noble friend is proposing. The third point is that this bill already has escape routes for the employer and these amendments are simply designed to increase the ways in which employers can evade the obligations offer can evade the obligations offer can evade the obligations offer One is a short-term contract.

We will see a deluge of short-term contracts introduced, to evade guaranteed hours contracts. For Zero Hour workers. Secondly there is the possibility that, secondly, because these provisions relate only to employees, there will be an incentive for employers, in order to evade their guaranteed hours contracts, to re-categorise their workers. Again the industrial reality is that it will be very difficult for the zero hours employee to resist re- categorisation, as a self-employed worker. And thirdly, there is the issue of the reference period itself, as I mentioned on the last day we were here, already because of the reference period is to be 12 weeks, we are talking over one million workers who will never come out point reached that reference period and so be entitled to the benefit of a guaranteed hours contract.

My fourth and final point is that references is made to small and medium sized enterprises, those with less than 50 and those with less than 250 workers. I looked at the statistics. The latest government statistics data 2023. But government statistics data 2023. But from that we can see that 8,634,000 employees are employed in companies with less than 50 employees. 12,230,000 employees are employed in companies employing less than 250. So if there's to be any exemption for small companies one is talking about a very significant -- proportion of the workforce.

Baroness Noakes are mentioned something around half of the employed workforce in the private sector, that seems to be about right.
13:48
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I was a little bit disappointed that Lord Moynihan didn't welcome me back as well, but I'm coming to terms with that disappointment. Referring briefly back to the first group, Lord Sharpe made some comments about Lord York's letter. Had I not had to leave before we got to that group I was going to subject the Minister to a somewhat satirical analysis of that particular amendment. Frankly, the letter did much better job than anything I could have done.

I would ask the Minister and Lord Young to take that matter and that response and to discuss it with 10 HR responsible And ask them what they think of it and then perhaps they could tell us what the result of those discussions were. Because I absolutely concur with Lord Sharpe, it is beyond parody that that algorithm should lead to that sort of calculation that any company is expected to make. There has to be a simpler way of getting the same result and I think that is what we should be thinking about.

I was somewhat intrigued by the D grouping strategy, we have. We have amendments on a guaranteed hours in the last group, this group and the next group, which is why I have reserved the small comments I have just this group. And what I have tried to do is to pick through the bones of what we heard and there are some bones and I would like the government to comment on them. First of all, I would point to Lord Hendy's use of language, where on one side they are talking about flexibility and on his side they are talking about evasion and escape.

I think there by hangs the problem of the debate we might be having, overall, in your Lordships' House. As long as we are talking about escape and flexibility, we are not talking about the same language. I think we have to try to find a way at bridging that divide, in culture, which I think is what we are dealing with. I think if we were doing conflict resolution, that would be the starting point that we would go through. Where I do agree, completely, with the noble Lord Hendy is that we should be looking to create a two-tier situation.

I think we have to create a system that works for employers, logically speaking, across the board. The point of the noble Lord are made as it would extract a huge number of people from the benefits of this bill, were we to exclude. So we have to work hard to make sure that the micro businesses are not disadvantaged, by what we are seeking to do, rather than exempt them from it. I think that would be our view, from these ventures. But to those bones.

The point is I really look to the Minister to recognise that there are businesses that have a lumpy demand, not lumpy, perhaps fluctuating, it fluctuates. Some of these business fluctuate particularly, the cycling, Christmas comes at the same time every year. comes at the same time every year. So we always have roughly the same amount of bulge. Other things, as the Baroness Coffey pointed out, the lumpiness comes with the weather. I want the Minister to recognise that these businesses exist and I want them, for us to explain, there are a number of issues that have already come up about how to manage a workforce, fairly to the workforce and economically sensibly to the business, within this lumpiness, this fluctuation.

We had groups in the last day, we have got these groups and other groups and we will have more. I would like to do is to sit down with the Minister and get the government's view on how businesses that know they are going to have a lumpy demand, fluctuating demand, how the government envisaged this bill allowing them to manage a work force. What will be the fair approach, in the government's view, as well as the economic approach, in businesses view, in order to make sure that there is a win-win.

Because My Lords, this shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to be inflexible, it should be an opportunity to bring things together to make things better for business and better for employers, because of the two are completely linked in this. Unless we cross that divide and try and sit down with the government, those of us that are still trying to work out what comes into this. To work out how a business will manage this process properly. And at the same time deliver the flexibility that Lord Hendy very much, importantly put forward.

Not Flex ability, the fairness, that Lord Hendy put forward. My plea to the Minister is, can we sit down, those of us that are interested and others and can the Minister set out a absolute seminar, for us, if this bill goes through, as it is now, how are businesses with lumpy demand and fluctuating demand, whether it is seasonable, or variable. How are they going to manage their business? they going to manage their business? I thank the noble Lord, Lord I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe for tabling amendments and 98, 20 and 21 to clause one on the right to guaranteed hours.

I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that detailed analysis of the algorithms presented on the basis that it was requested as a very
13:54
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
detailed analysis of where those arguments came from. There was a arguments came from. There was a much simpler version which I think my noble friend gave, and his verbal my noble friend gave, and his verbal response, the other day. I think there is more than one version of there is more than one version of that particular challenge. If I look at the specifics of the amendments, at the specifics of the amendments, before us today. If I start with amendment 20, which will allow amendment 20, which will allow employers to propose changes to employers to propose changes to permanent contracts, after a guaranteed hour offer, within six months of acceptance, as long as there is a genuine material needing business operations.

I am pleased to business operations. I am pleased to reassure the noble Lord and noble Lords, that this amendment isn't Lords, that this amendment isn't required. This is because, as my noble friend, Lord Hendy said, the zero hours provisions, in the bill, do not stop employers from offering do not stop employers from offering their workers variations to their contracts, following the acceptance of a guaranteed hours offer. That is as long as the variation doesn't amount to subjecting the worker to a detriment.

I would say to noble Lords, Lord Moynihan, Baroness Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough and other noble Lords, that the bill does have the flexibility that should reassure them that the Zero Hour provisions can indeed be changed. I would also remind noble Lords as we debated last time, when we were talking about zero hours contracts come in the context, for example of individuals, like students or caring responsibilities. Those that are offered zero hour contracts will be able to tone the offer down and remain on their current contract.

Going back to the specific amendments here, in this bill, employers will still be able to propose and make changes to their workers contracts, after they have accepted a guaranteed hours offer. Including, in the sectors such as hospitality, to which Lord Hunt refers. This can be done, following the usual process of negotiation and agreement between employers and workers. It would be subject to the terms of the workers contracts, as well as existing and new legislation, such as the provisions on fire and rehire.

Adding a provision stating that employers can propose variations, something that propose variations, something that , was considering only a limited number of matters, may risk creating legal confusion. It may, for example, inappropriately suggest that variations can only be proposed in these circumstances, or suggest the other provisions of legislation that do not include similar wording, do restrict an employs ability to propose variations in contract, when this is not meant to be the case. Turning to amendment 21, amendment 21 will make provisions that employers may still make redundancies, where these are based on genuine business needs.

And not credibly linked to employees rights are ours. I'm pleased to reassure noble Lords, on this issue that this amendment isn't necessary. The Zero Hour provisions in the bill do not bring dismissals by means of a redundancy, following in the acceptance of the guaranteed hours offer. There are some restrictions, however about selecting an employee for dismissal by redundancy, because they've accepted a guaranteed hours offer. This is not what the amendment seeks to address. The bill otherwise only creates protection against detriments and makes a dismissal automatically unfair and limited scenarios.

Including for instance where the principal reason for the dismissal is due to an employee exec accepting or rejecting the hours offer. If an employer wishes to make an employee redundant, they will be required to file their required processes in line with the terms of the employee's contract and within employment law, relating to individual or collective redundancies, to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This amendment would not substantiate change, the effect of any provisions as Zero Hour measure in the bill, does not prohibit the missal by reason of distant redundancy following the acceptance of a zero hours offer.

It could create confusion about how it already operates. If I finally A, this amendment would list on the face of the bill a number of factors and circumstances that would be needed to take into consideration, when determining whether it was reasonable for an employer to give a limited term contract. I would first like to emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers from permitting limited term contract. Under the provisions it is reasonable for an employer to enter into a limited term contract, with the worker, if the worker is only needed to perform a specific task and the contract which will terminate after that task has been performed, for example waiting tables at a wedding, or the work is only needed until an event occurs or fails to occur and the contract will terminate after that occurrence occurs, or fails to occur.

For example work is covering another worker who is on sick leave. All the work is only needed for some other kind of temporary need that will be specified in regulations and the contract would expire in line with the end of that temporary need. If it was reasonable for a contract to end by limiting an event to have been entered into by a limited term, then a guaranteed offer need not be made. For example, if a period of high demand is expected for 12 weeks and the limited term contract was entered for this specific task and ends after the 12 weeks, then there would be no obligation for the employer to make guaranteed hours offer.

We therefore consider that there is already ample flexibility for employers to engage workers on limited terms contracts, so we do not consider that listing further factors and circumstances is required. The provisions of that allow a limited terms contracts until an event has occurred or a specific task is been completed will allow for the use of limited terms contracts for seasonal work. By way of just one example, fruit pickers may be engaged on a limited term contract, until the end of the picking season.

It may well also apply to the touring parks example, apply to the touring parks example, A number of noble Lords mentioned seasonal workers, noble Lord Lord Fox described it as lumpy demand. We are aware of the issue such as fluctuation in demand in seasonal workers and we will take this into account when designing the regulations around the definition of temporary need. This is a novel right and by defining temporary need in regulations we will be able to react dynamically to changing employers practices and respond to circumstances where employers identify genuine temporary needs that are not covered by a specific task nor the occurrence of the event.

We will consult on the contents...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank her Minister for actually making a partial response but I making a partial response but I think the question I would have is, will you reveal the draft of those regulations while we still have an opportunity to debate your Lordship's House and secondly I think you are going to talk about consultation and the question I was going to ask is what is the question going to ask is what is the question you are asking during the consultation?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, so obviously I will need to write to the noble Lord about when we are able to have the regulations we are able to have the regulations available and it may well be that this will come in terms of the implementation plan which is still implementation plan which is still awaited but I know you can take it awaited but I know you can take it from me that you will receive it as soon as it is available. In terms of consultation, we will consult on the contents of the regulations, so the content of the draft Regulations and content of the draft Regulations and we will engage with the trade of stakeholders and the noble Lord Lord stakeholders and the noble Lord Lord Fox said, could we have further discussions about this.

And of course I'm happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility that they are all seeking is here and the different formulations of wording in the bill already. But I'm very happy to have further discussions about this. I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords and I therefore ask that the noble Lord Lord Sharpe withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I join myself with noble Lord Lord Fox and saying I would really appreciate the opportunity to look appreciate the opportunity to look at how this bill deals with lumpy demand. Lumpy is not only predictably lumpy, it is randomly lumpy. I would ask the clerk at the lumpy. I would ask the clerk at the table to transmit to the clerk of Parliament say request that he tell Parliament say request that he tell us how this bill will affect this House and its employment practices.

Because we are a great generator of Because we are a great generator of lumpy demand. Not least in the lumpy demand. Not least in the Public Bill Office. And I would really like to have that immediate understanding of how this bill affects a substantial organisation, affects a substantial organisation, one with very unpredictable set of demands like the Houses of demands like the Houses of Parliament. This lumpiness is a characteristic of, say the NHS, you suddenly get demand. You suddenly have to do things, suddenly you have something that emerges and the pattern of working has to change and then, is that bill going to fix those longer hours, going to become set and you can't rollback from them when the lump disappears? Good understanding before we reach report of how this bill is going to work in practice and Howard interacts with a range of real businesses will be a really valuable thing and I very much hope the Minister can offer that to us.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thought I had already offered to have further discussions and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take the noble Lord 's point. But I think, my Lords, what my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

But I think, my Lords, what my noble friend Lord Lucas and Lord Fox noble friend Lord Lucas and Lord Fox were looking for, the draft Regulations. I don't think I need to remind the House of my declaration remind the House of my declaration of interest at second reading when I
14:06
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
of interest at second reading when I remind the House that I am still a practising solicitor. It is no accident that last week, city AM, which is a newspaper circulated widely through the city, said that this bill was the biggest boost for the legal profession that anyone had ever seen. There would be many more lawyers needed to wade through the complexities of this bill. But in particular, as my noble friend just pointed out, we are constantly debating the government fourth power to introduce regulations, but Parliament is not allowed to see those regulations when it passes the primary legislation which will give the ministers power to do whatever they wish to do, after consultation, when they wish to do it.

And surely, and we are going to have this time and time again in this series of debates, surely it is right that if the government is taking power to introduce the detail, in particular amending primary legislation, surely which we should see that detail, if only in draft, before we decide to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give the power to ministers... I wonder if the noble Lord Hunt had heard the Minister say that the government was consulting on draft Regulations, perhaps the noble Lord Regulations, perhaps the noble Lord Hunt might like to ask the Minister if she could share those draft Regulations with us during the process of consultation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

process of consultation. I agree and I'm very grateful to the noble Lord. Who introduced the the noble Lord. Who introduced the whole concept of lumpy. And I think whole concept of lumpy. And I think we are all talking as well as lumpy, we are talking about flexible, fluctuating, fluctuating he also said. I think this has been a very said. I think this has been a very helpful debate. I particularly enjoyed my noble friend Lord enjoyed my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea describing the whole history of how the production of minimum wage had given rise to of minimum wage had given rise to the zero hours contracts in the first race.

It is a reminder that we first race. It is a reminder that we have to be really careful every time we take a key step down the road to creating more employment law, that we have to be mindful of the consequences. Lord Londesborough, I agree, we have to keep thinking of the start-ups and scallops, and the effect that this legislation is going to have on them. And it was good that my noble friend Baroness Noakes reminded us of what the truth behind the Low Pay Commission 2018 report was.

Which is that small and micro businesses, as she put it, to this House, need flexibility and my noble friend Baroness Coffey, it is a mind that one's job quite often depends on whether it's raining, as she put it. I think it was Mark Twain who once wrote that in England, everyone talks about the weather but nobody ever does anything about it. And it is a fact that often demand will fluctuate according to the weather, and it was a good reminder.

And I welcome the speech of the noble Lord Lord Hendy. His four points were very key and I accept that we will carefully ponder each and every one of them. Particularly his point about escape routes. And I suppose my purpose, and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, hour per is to ensure that we don't need escape routes, because we get a law that fits the way which the economy can grow and be more competitive but is what it's all about, not about short-term contracts being the answer here and another form of contract being the answer there.

I think what most employers want stability. So that they can look forward with confidence. And how right he was to remind us of the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. That must be, surely, a worry in his mind as to the effect that this only spill will have on both small and medium-sized enterprises, looking to grow and expand, who don't have an HR Department can set out for them exactly the way ahead through all the bureaucratic routes that they have to follow.

They want to be able to grow and expand without carefully checking which rulebook applies. They have course always allow bereavement leave. All the employers I have known, when there has been a tragedy in the workforce's family, and not just my clients, but across the whole sector, of course they will allow people time. In most employers, we should not be doing is establish rigidity. I think that is where, I find myself in total agreement with Lord Fox that we don't want a two tier system, but as my noble friend Baroness Noakes pointed out in our previous committee day, there are various tiers already in the tax system.

An exemption that I was just seeking Amendment 21 is surely not in anyway undermining the rights of workers but just giving this bill the fax ability it needs to succeed in practice. And what we have heard in this debate, and we hear from businesses across the country, is that a rigid, one-way system for guaranteed hours simply doesn't reflect the way in which large parts of our economy function. Retail, hospitality, tourism, logistics, seasonal industries, they rely on flexible staffing and they operate in environments that can shift rapidly, sometimes overnight.

And I would just plead again with the noble Baroness the Minister that these amendments have provided a narrow principled route for employers to proposed changes not to walk away from commitments but to respond when there is a genuine and material change in business operations. Note allegation, -- no retaliation, no loopholes, just safeguards to ensure that employers are not locked into safeguards that are no longer viable. If employers are not able to make changes in response to real pressures, a drop in demand, a loss of control, overcapacity, then they are far less likely to offer guaranteed hours in the first place.

That is not speculation it's what we are hearing from so many of those picking representations about this bill at the present time. And the result is clear, fewer jobs offered, fewer guaranteed hours, fewer opportunities, especially for the very people who rely on flexible and part-time work. That means young people will come in a moment to students, it will mean that workers with this abilities, carers and of course those trying to get their foot on the ladder. And finally, I do agree with Lord Sharpe, that it would be really helpful to sit down with the noble Baroness and all her colleagues, just to see if we can find a way through.

Otherwise we shall have to return to this report, but in the meantime I beg to leave but in the meantime I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. In course one, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

19, B, Lord Sharp. As I indicated, we now return to students. And the guaranteed hours exemption for full-time students. So exemption for full-time students. So I rise to speak to amendment 19 B, standing in my name, and my noble standing in my name, and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom 's. I did hear at the second reading the did hear at the second reading the government? Intention, as part of the growth agenda, to get young will back to work who are not in back to work who are not in employment, education and training.

I think they were referred to as I think they were referred to as NEETs. Retailers provide the flexible and part-time jobs tailor- made for people coming off benefits, and the nearly one million, and the nearly 1,000,016 to 24-year-old nearly 1,000,016 to 24-year-old However, the evidence available clearly shows that the reforms, as currently drafted fail to realise the reality is of student the reality is of student employment. Recent polling conducted by an organisation that specialises in higher education and analysis and debate, October/November highlight that two thirds of students who work whilst studying are employed on zero hours contracts.

This type of contract is especially common in universities and student unions, where flexibility is paramount. These institutions depend on zero hours arrangements to meet the fluctuating demands of student workforces, during term time. The government's intention to provide guaranteed hours to workers who have met certain thresholds of hours worked, I recognise as a well- meaning attempt to improve job security. However, the evidence suggests that students do not suggests that students do not require, or desire such guarantees.

For students, flexibility is not a weakness, it is a strength. They value the ability to work when it fits around their academic commitments, personal lives, not the rigidity of the guaranteed hours. Introducing guaranteed hours will strip students of the flexibility they need to thrive, in both their work and their studies. The core issue, with the guaranteed hours reforms is that they are fundamentally incompatible with students, the nature of student work. The proposed changes that would force employers, such as would force employers, such as universities, seasonal businesses to provide guaranteed hours, after a student worker meets the required threshold, over a 12 week reference period.

Now, once this sounds reasonable on the surface, it ignores the fact that students are employed seasonally and based on an academic calendar. Students typically work during term time and not during the holidays, such as Christmas, Easter, or summer. The reference period proposed in the bill would not account for the seasonal and term time nature of student employment. Under the student employment. Under the current proposals, once a student works enough hours in a reference period, their employer would be required, under this legislation and to guarantee them work, during university breaks.

Times are when they are not available to work, or demand for student labour dropped significantly. This would create a pretty serious problem for universities and businesses that serve students. They will be forced to offer hours to students during times when they simply cannot work, such as during the summer break, or over Christmas. For many students, these periods are essential for the rest, family time, or travel. The businesses that this would result in unnecessary labour costs, for no real benefit.

The broader impact of this policy, if left unamended would be detrimental to both students and employers. Employers, particularly those in the student services sector are likely to reduce the allowance on student workers altogether. If universities and student unions are required to guarantee hours to students during breaks, then they will choose to limit the number of students they hire in the first place. Or even avoid hiring them altogether, rather than a face that additional financial burden. This would restrict employment opportunities.

In our view, instead of the freedom to choose work, based on their academic schedules, students would be forced into rigid contracts. Risking their academic performance on personal well-being. For many students, the ability to opt in, or out of work, based on their academic calendar is a far more valuable to them, then the stability that guaranteed hours might offer. The reforms, in their current form, which is why I ask of the noble Baroness, the Minister, to consider this amendment, in particular, the reforms failed to consider the full-time students do not fit neatly into a system designed for workers, with more predictable schedules.

The current design of the guaranteed hours proposal, without any exception for seasonal or term time workers, ignores the nature of student work and I'm afraid could ultimately drive employers away from hiring students, altogether. Surely that is an out, no one would want to see. There is a clear solution here. As currently written, the bill offers some scope for exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours. Such as in seasonal work. However, I would plead that is certainly, at the moment a vague provision.

We do need explicit regulation to define full-time students as a category of workers who are exempt from this duty. The regulation could specify that students on zero hours, or no hours contracts are excluded from the obligation to offer guaranteed hours. Thus in ensuring that universities, student unions and seasonal employers are not burdened by requirements that simply do not fit into the nature of student employment. This would ensure that employers can continue to offer flexible work to students without the threat of penalties, or unnecessary cost.

It would also allow students to continue working in a manner that fits their academic schedules and personal needs. Rather than forcing them into fixed hours that they cannot meet. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, at the end insert the words is printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I strongly support this amendment
14:23
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I strongly support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord. I am an employer and I have declared my an employer and I have declared my interest in the register. I found it was the Executive director of the thinktank, the best part of a century. Now I am the research director there. We continue to employ students on a flexible basis. Many of them, as you know, lordships Their timetables, some are taking a much shorter summer breaks and some have indeed started working themselves more flexibly and many remotely, for certain classes.

But both postgraduate and undergraduate students welcome the opportunity to train, to get off foothold into the world of work, to understand what happens there and they learn disciplines, they learn the discipline of work. And timetabling and deadlines. We have to be flexible. The terms can be busy, there can be things like SA crisis, a postgraduate student may have an extra schedule to fit in. -- SA. We have devised a good work program and of the damage this will do, particularly to the students where they can work remotely, do research, when they have free time and they want to earn money.

Both parties are flexible and I particularly as a former academic recognise that working in the University, their teaching and the essays come first. This suits all parties. When we have had full-time staff who have come to us with good degrees and stage III or four years, they have gone then on to do a professional training course, maybe a law or accountancy. They too want to come back and continue the work that they have brought to a high level.

And they won't be paid accordingly. So there is no exploitation, rather it is of mutual gain and it is a pleasure for me to see young people, some of whom and I've had students from inner London universities, the very first university that took many students, who had, whose family had no habit other third level or even a secondary level education. Who came from families from abroad, time to take their granny to the hospital, in order to interpret for her. We gave them opportunities and it is a great pleasure to see that they have done very well as a result of this.

Some of the work placements are organised directly with the University and others where students write in themselves. I do beg the government to listen to this noble Lords amendments and not do untold damage to the life chances of students and their capacity to earn. And also keep afloat, when they are paying for their studies.
14:26
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
This debate takes me back to my own student days. The work I did as a student. It wasn't very glamorous, I have to say. I did the over night shift shelf stacking. It set me up obviously to be a peer in your Lordships' House. Also I did a stint at McDonald's. The point was that that was a valuable experience in terms of socialising, learning life skills and the importance to meet all sorts of people.

I believe that this government is fair-minded in the way wishes it to protect the wishes of working families. Who do want the certainty of putting food want the certainty of putting food on the table and earn a decent wage. The mark of a good piece of legislation is the ability to answer the question what problem is the solving. And I also think the mark of good legislation is the ability to be flexible in carving out some parts of the bill where the effect of the bill will be disadvantageous to that group.

I do think this is one such example. I do think the very important points made by my noble friend, Lord Hunt should be taken on board by the government. Remember this is a student generation that is a live through the trauma of Covid. Many students and graduates have had to start their working career, not being able to socialise and not be in a factory or out on site but at the kitchen table with their laptop. My problem is that employers who broadly speaking were not wicked, but want people to join their business, make money for them and grow themselves as people and as individuals and workers.

They won't take a risk with this legislation, this actually goes through the whole of the rare legislation. Employers are going to be significantly more risk averse if they are going to be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to certain groups, including students. I do think Ministers should give that consideration. I think the reason that this is a good amendment is that it does recognise that we have a very complex, fast moving labour market and that young people are making decisions and value judgements about their work, their employment, their training, their skills, then origin experience, which I didn't take 20 years ago and my parents certainly didn't take, generally in the same job for the whole of your working life.

I wouldn't use the word promiscuous, but I cannot think of a better word. Younger people are a bit more promiscuous and the decisions they take. Therefore they devalue that ability to enter into a contract that is flexible. Certainly in my time I have expected a guaranteed hours contract. I would for someone who was 35/40 he had a family, who had to provide for them. This allows the government to carve out this particular group. I don't think there's anything in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment that makes the case for keeping students in this group.

For that reason I would like the Minister to give active consideration to these amendments. It is a sensible moment, not a wrecking amendment. And it recognises the real life consequences and issues that may arise from the bill, in other words fewer young people having the opportunity to work with fewer long-term employment opportunities. long-term employment opportunities. For that reason, I am pleased to support my noble friends very good support my noble friends very good support my noble friends very good
14:31
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I may also go down memory lane in terms of aspects of employment. Were I slightly disagree with my noble friend who has tabled this amendment is that I expect the noble Baroness the Minister will say, students are required to accept guaranteed hours contracts and she is right about that. However I have to say if I was in a situation as a student getting a guaranteed hours contract, happy days. I would lap them up whenever I could. I'm trying to think back to the time doing my PhD, I think I worked for two different jobs, I managed some of my holiday to get extra work.

It's a mix of things of where, and we are seeing the trend increase with the cost of living challenge that people across the country face, we are seeing a significant increase in students starting to take on quite long working hours which is somewhat detrimental to their learning progress, but I can understand while people see a route through, of variety of higher education and we're not just talking about degrees, we could be talking about masters and I don't think it's specific on full-time students could also, could also be considering technical work, education beyond the age of 16.

So I think it's fair to think about what is the real life element for an employer. The government is going to open up a team ability scheme it seems, I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that many employers are concerned about, after what happened with Brexit, we ended up with 5 million people getting new settled status, a significant portion of people decided not to come back to the UK, we still have the status and could, and there's a huge gap for employers at the moment who are concerned, and if we think of London, ex-extraordinary to think about how many people are actively seeking work still unemployed.

One of the thing about full-time students is again there will be a fluctuation in demand on what is needed, there will be a fluctuation for example thinking of work in the holidays where, how can I put it, with the proposed changes, regarding strategies to pay, it could be easy strategies to pay, it could be easy for students and to not turn up, and still be guaranteed hours and guaranteed the wage regardless. So I think recognising that different experiences that people have, there are certain universities, Oxford University does allow its students to have a job, it answered, you can be expelled from the University.

Whereas even things like student visas, you see that in turn time, student visas, students can work up to 20 hours in terms of the equivalent of recess, they can work full-time. You can see a variety of things of where actually it would be very convenient for students to lock an employer into guaranteed hours which may not be beneficial for the employer, recognising also the need to provide long-term permanent work to provide long-term permanent work to people who aren't students.

So I think that variability is going to be, is an important factor. One of the reasons I stood up is I predict, perhaps I shouldn't be so ungenerous. There's precedent in legislation to restrict full-time students to accessing a particular right and that is in Universal Credit. There is a narrow exemption, full-time students are not allowed to have Universal Credit, apart from narrow exemptions. This is a good example of where considering the legislation in detail and recognising that we are talking here about a broader, the approach the government is taking, is there, I think about families and households.

I think this is a good exemption that will still allow flexibility. that will still allow flexibility.
14:35
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I think this has been a useful debate on the subject of those that may be made exempt from scope of the right to guaranteed hours and first off I will say to the noble Lord Lord Hunt, it is right the government has a detailed plan to get young people into work and training, and quite right. And we want to provide new opportunities for all young people, and we are determined to do that. If I look at the specifics of the amendment here, 19, B, the name of that noble Lord Lord Sharpe, that seeks to take workers who are full-time students out of scope from the right to guaranteed hours.

And I would say to the noble Lord Lord Hunt that the government appreciates that zero hours contracts or arrangements, those sort of arrangements can work for long-term students who require that flexibly they provide and we have heard that from around the chamber this afternoon. And the noble Lord Lord Hunt talked about term time or seasonal work. But I would urge the noble Lord to look back through the previous debates that we have had and the comments that I have made because there are a variety of ways in which employers can offer that flexibly see of contract and the limited terms contracts that could address those term time only or seasonal work issues.

So I'm not persuaded on this argument in that regard. But I would also say to the noble Lord Lord Jackson, the noble Lady Baroness Lawlor, Baroness Coffey, that there are workers who nevertheless are full-time students and they can still experience, that one side flexibly see, similar to workers who are studying part-time, and it seems disproportionate to exclude workers from the scope of that right, simply on the basis that they are enrolled in a full-time study. So full-time students may value guaranteed hours to help them manage their job around their studies or arrange the childcare in the same way as those in full-time work.

And I would say to noble Lords that there is an assumption I think in this debate that we are only talking about Ziegler age group of the. But it's a group of young people who are some how earning extra beer money force of this is far from the case. Many full-time students are mature students, with family or other caring responsibilities or even simply rental or mortgage commitments. And for those people guaranteed hours can be a financial lifeline. According to the 20 2014 poll the majority, 80% of students on zero hours contracts reported they had experienced difficulties managing study and education alongside their work.

They certainly these days tried to manage both of those a lot more in this generation than they certainly did in my generation, and it's much more expected that young people work alongside their study. And many of those students want the opportunity to have regular hours to avoid the burden of incurring long-term student debt which they would otherwise take into their ongoing working life. So I think for all those reasons, and as we have said, it's entirely up to the student to say what is right for them but there are very good reasons why the guaranteed hours should apply to all people and we shouldn't make an exception for students.

However, as been noted, facility for workers is important and the government is not seeking to change that, where workers value that flexibility and have some benefit from a zero hours contract. So as I say, that's why workers were on full-time students who want to retain their zero hours contracts, arrangements will be able to do so by rejecting the zero hours officer. They can accept or reject it. However it is the government's view that they should be able to choose based on their individual circumstances, whether or not to accept the guaranteed hours offer, rather than being denied that right, as the noble Lord 's amendment 60, purely on the basis of the fact that they are studying.

I do hope, and I hope the noble Lord will look at his amendment again. I feel like it's penalising young people and students penalising young people and students in a way that really feels quite unreasonable in the circumstances where everybody else is entitled to this right and I do hope therefore he will be a will to withdraw the amendment.
14:40
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I think this has been a valuable debate and agree with the noble Baroness the Minister. Indeed, I welcomed her admission that zero hours contracts work very well for students. And is valued like them. I was interested in the TUC survey, certainly all the surveys I have seen so far tell this House that full-time students don't want to lose those zero hours contracts. It may well be therefore that the noble Baroness the Minister will say, well why is this amendment necessary, because they won't request full-time employment.

But under the bill, the employer has to work out how it will, the business will be able to offer that person who's on a zero hours contract full-time employment as and when they requested. It comes of course later, when we are moving amendments, it shouldn't be the duty on the employer to give the opportunity of full-time employment, educated rather be right to request full-time employment. And what I think we are arguing about here is whether all employers would have to go through process in advance of any request being received.

Under this legislation they have to work out how they will be able to respond positively to an offer. And I think my noble friend Baroness Lawlor shared with us the real-life experience, and the way in which experience, and the way in which various students have taken advantage of these contracts, but if they are not going to be offered them, if thou not going to be given the opportunity of working as and when, in the flexible lumpy way in which they want to organise their studies, then as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, I thank him for going down and relying, a fascinating glimpse of life as a stacker -- going down memory lane.

I volunteered, I crossed the road in Whiteladies Road, still, and offered my services to the BBC and the BBC took me on as a freelance newsreader -- Whiteladies Road, Bristol. I had to turn up at 5 o'clock in the morning, and then, read the news.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm excited by your anecdote, as indeed I was by the other lordships but would you perhaps concede that that was several years ago and the employment market and indeed the student bodies might have changed somewhat since then.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

somewhat since then. Yes, sadly. I was on a student grant which were abolished. So I can't draw too many allergies. Honourable friends has enticed me Honourable friends has enticed me down memory lane. -- I can't draw down memory lane. -- I can't draw too many analogies. I wanted to see too many analogies. I wanted to see what would be the adverse effect of this amendment if we were to exclude full-time students and Baroness Coffey quite rightly reminded us that there is such an exemption in other legislation, such as Universal Credit, so therefore the noble Credit, so therefore the noble Baroness the Minister will not be blazing a new trail.

She will merely be responding to the very fact that under legislation, full-time students do not necessarily fit in to the sort of pattern that is laid down by this legislation. We will, of course, I'm sure, return to this. In the meantime, we can hardly wait for this meeting the noble Baroness the Minister, when she is going to take us through the way in which this is all going to operate, to cover flexible and lumpy employment. But in the meantime, although preserving the right to return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the issue on report, I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment to an E, block
14:45
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
withdrawn. Amendment to an E, block shop, not move. The 21, not moved. The question is that clause 1 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the contrary, "Not content". The content habit. In clause 2, amendment 21, A, Lord Lucas. I beg to move amendment 21, A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move amendment 21, A. This again will come under the, I This again will come under the, I hope, the lumpiness seminar that we have been promised. This question of have been promised. This question of what is reasonable notice mean in what is reasonable notice mean in the government 's intention and how will this actually work in practice. will this actually work in practice. Again, coming back to my request to Again, coming back to my request to the clerk, how did this work in the case of Parliament being recalled to case of Parliament being recalled to deal with the government's rescue of the steelworks? How will it work in the steelworks? How will it work in connection with the NHS's response to a train crash, in its to a train crash, in its What this needs to change working patterns suddenly, quickly, for the workforce are to be flexible.

How does this, although I've kept this amendment simple. I very much alike to reflect, when we come to our meeting, the equivalent provisions in schedule A1, which deal with agency workers. How is this all going to work in practice? Flexibility is such a key part of having an efficient economy. Those who choose to work in the flexible workforce, like doctors and others generally get a good return and a generally get a good return and a lot of flexibility in their lives.

Where it works well, it works well. It is a vital part of keeping an It is a vital part of keeping an economy going. In this amendment, I'm just focusing on trying to discover what the government means by reasonable notice? And other area where I imagine there are some draft regulations around it. If the government can give us some insight into that, now, would be most grateful. I beg to move.
14:47
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Emma Ma propose, after notice insert of no more than 24 hours. -- Amendment proposed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arrives to speak to amendment 29 tabled in my name and to support Lord Fox and his amendment 27. My Lord Fox and his amendment 27. My amendment is a probing amendment the phrase reasonably believed. Related to short notice cancellation of shifts and this phrase may seem innocuous, but it carries considerable weight to determine whether workers, particularly those with insecure or temporary with insecure or temporary arrangements are entitled to compensation, or otherwise fails to compensation, or otherwise fails to materialise.

Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a reasonable belief in this context we are misleading or both work and employer and a contentious position. employer and a contentious position. Lacking definition it can become a social dispute, rather than a social dispute, rather than a resolution. My intention is not to impose overly prescriptive language impose overly prescriptive language on the government, seeking clarity on how the standard is to be understood and applied. It is not understood and applied. It is not enough for an employee to assert that they are except thing to proceed, with not providing written confirmation.

Previous patterns of munication, clarity is not a luxury that employment law has, it is a necessity. Threshold serve no one, least of all those trying to navigate an already precarious navigate an already precarious labour market. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide reassurance of the government's use of this term government's use of this term underpinned by clear guidance, sound reasoning and a fair balance between the interests of workers and agencies alike.
14:49
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 22 and 24. To allow the amendment 22 and 24. To allow the duty of reasonable notice does not apply in certain cases and the duty to provide compensation under regulation 27 does not apply in certain cases and the duty to provide compensation under regulation 20 7B does not apply in certain cases and the duty to regulation 20 7BE1. I support these amendments, 22, applies at a reasonable notice in 24 to the duty to provide compensation.

To them not needing to apply, the approach of this bill is not only likely to damage the effect of working of the labour market, which any sensible law needs to take account of the delicate balance between the needs of the business, which needs a workforce and the workforce which depends on the business which is to succeed and provide work and income, for the future. unless exceptional circumstances can be made, the bill becomes a straitjacket on all parties. In this case, providing for exemptions to the guaranteed hours, To work To work under To work under and To work under and take To work under and take sometimes To work under and take sometimes a first job on the jobs ladder.

We understand businesses are not only busy and have quite. For they need extra hands, hospitality events, For... That For... That gives For... That gives part For... That gives part to For... That gives part to a responsible government to ensure that there can be exceptions, so that businesses are not burdened with the cost and time involved in the process and potential compensation payments, in cases where, due to our under seen circumstances, the guaranteed hours work was not available at short notice.

Already, we have heard examples, but no business is exempt from the difficult changing circumstances, with which they can attend. Given the whole burden of business sector and what it will face under the guaranteed hours clause, the government will have a few tools at its disposal to tackle what could be an unfair obligation, an obligation which might be mitigated by circumstances in the normal course of events, to exempt the reasonable notice, required for changes, or cancellations, which have an impact on the business.

And the compensation obligation which will add unfair cost to the business. I'm going to give an example of the three sectors. Each very different, to illustrate potential examples. The retail sector, where extra help is needed, to deal with the delivery, preparing for the shells overnight. What are the delivery van doesn't arrive, the motorway is close with an accident, or roadworks. The business has little or no notice of the failure, let it will lose income and sales. There is no provision in the bill to allow for it to give a less than what, under the measure will be reasonable notice, or to protect from pain conversation.

The care sector, extra hours may be needed to help with certain residents, needing extra support, someone to arrive on a given day. What happens if the person dies? Or the resident falls ill, have a heart attack and must go to hospital right away. There is no notice of that. And yet the extra work does not materialise. It will lose income and payment will be expected. Where is the money to come from? Local authorities, the care recipient, the estate's death, what the care home due to tide over income shortfall, having to pay suppliers for everything from food and its cooking, from cleaning and care.

The CEOs of the carers trust, the CEO of the carers trust explains that social care providers are often forced to rely on zero hours contracts because of a lack of local authorities. If these contracts were planned, I would add, if they are made more difficult, or costly, social care providers must be given the funding to afford the increased costs that brings. The National care Forum says that these measures must be accompanied by the financial and one support necessary providers to implement them as well as the interim measures to boost care workers pay.

These changes must be reflected in their funding. So they can continue to do their vital work. So is the government prepared to make a commitment to cover the costs, which will be incurred if these clauses go through, unamended. And there are other examples where the IT system fails. Despite a service contract in place to. Instantly, nothing can be fixed, because the failure lies elsewhere, a cyber attack, an energy blackout, this can happen overnight. The businesses loses its data, it loses customers, unable to pay an entry price, it loses an overhead and depending on how long it is before the system can be got back to normal.

So badly that ultimately it may have to curtail operations and overhead. Without the amendments allowing the government to provide for exemptions from the clause, there will be high cost which may lead ultimately to the failure of the business. There are enough uncertainties for employees without making things worse, the obligations of this bill and these clauses could add significantly to costs and complications. And who will pay these extra costs. We know that the government has been in the habit, this government of saddling the taxpayer with additional costs, in respect of workers in the public sector, but not for businesses or charitable trust.

Or indeed independent schools, in the case of opposing VAT, what about taking local authority work, what about the costs of the uncertainties of the bill itself, although compensation, although the compensation clause stipulates that compensation will not exceed paying for that last shift, we do not yet know what the amount will be, what short notice is supposed to mean and what is meant by qualifying shift. We have to wait for regulations. There are good reasons for these amendments.

If we want businesses and the labour market to flourish to enable businesses to navigate the unwelcome outcomes and unexpected problems creating unexpected workload, without adding to their costs, there are good reasons for the government to accept them. The regulations are to accept them. The regulations are to respect the spirit in which they have been made.
14:58
14:59
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
In the main, this is a reasonable debate, or rather a debate about reasonable. There are a couple of amendments which I have obviously get to hear your charts poseable 2324. I expect that to be around Henry VIII powers. My noble friend Lord Goddard proposed his amendment and I am here to propose and speak to my amendment 27. In my case, in amendment 27 is case it is the definition of reasonable notice.

What does that mean? The Nova Lord Lucas proposes a different time for reasonable notice, amendment 21 a. And by the way, this is an opportunity for the Minister to walk us through what the government is thinking around reasonable notices. My noble friend set out, again, a case, a probing amendment to try to probe reasonably believed. And in amendment 28, and a Lord Sharpe, essentially seeks to replace that. If Baroness Noakes is an official spokesperson for Lord Sharpe, I can see many reasons for adopting something that is clear.

Bureaucratic, I never thought I'd hear the Baroness Speaker bureaucracy. Somehow being able to show that belief is backed up by documentation may well prove to be essential. In the good managing of essential. In the good managing of In the end, this is a further case of prematurely tabling the bill. We do not have a sense of what the Government means by this, so I think it is important for the Minister to set out how we will find out, if this is still in the process of consultation, then we are back in exactly the same point that we were in previous groups, but I think that, in general, we have passed the that, in general, we have passed the point of trying to demonstrate that work is lumpy, as the Minister has agreed that work is lumpy.

This is agreed that work is lumpy. This is about how that lumpiness is incorporated, as the Noble Lord incorporated, as the Noble Lord Lucas set out. What is reasonable for employers to do? What is reasonable for employees to accept? reasonable for employees to accept? And what is the Government view on that? That is what we need before we that? That is what we need before we get into report stage, so we can take this forward.
15:02
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I very good photo my Noble Friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group with his Amendment 21 a and I could not agree with him other flux ability as a key part of the economy that needs to be written in stone. I am also good for to my Noble Friend Baroness Miller, Baroness Noakes, for their support and various amendments in this group and to Lord Frost for his positive comments. My Lords, I obviously rise to speak to a man movement 22, 24 and 28 in my name.

There are many circumstances where an employer has no choice but to make a request for cancellation of dance short notice, as my Noble Friend give us some very useful examples of that. But just to go on a bit for example, if a colleague calls in sick to something that is likely to increase in frequency with changes to statutory sick pay. Or if events beyond the employers control intervenes, such as flooding or disturbances, then payment becomes an additional frontal burden and especially a time when the business is experiencing a downturn for the pit is not just about inconvenience, it is about viability to get another particular example we have heard from the hospitality industry that the proposed rates around notice and cancellation shifts could severely undermine existing staff, for example for instance in the case of pubs.

Which, as we know, are under pressure anyway, but particularly those without door garden spaces, they operate in a highly unpredictable environment. In one representative of the sector made it very clear to us when he said, and I quote, " New notice of shift allocation and cancellation could undermine the pubs over time. " And during the course of the discussion the examples actually magnified, to some extent, the extent and the example of the flipside, which might Noble Friend Baroness Coffey highlighted with regard to restaurants in the previous group and the fact that their pre-charging for tables.

The representative of the industry pointed out to us that in many cases, for example, offering food in a pub, Monday to Wednesday, is a highly marginal business and they often let their staff go early and so on and so forth. He is of the opinion that as a result of this bill much of that work would simply disappear and they would not that open because it would be too complicated to administer, not the least of which it is not just administration but also the costs of offering the compensation that is given under this particular clause.

That would obviously not be very good for consumer choice, plus, of course, implications for tax receipts and a whole host of other areas as well. In practice, these businesses rely heavily on flux ability, that includes voluntary shifts and notice of availability. And, as we have noticed, on immerse occasions, if the weather turns, that is not a small variable. Half expecting a busy day and suddenly finding yourself very overstaffed. And under the bill cancelling the shift could result in mandatory compensation. On Amendment 24, another floor identified in the bill is that it assumes that in every instance cancelled or moved or curtailed shift entitles the employee to compensation.

This rigidity does not account for the unforeseen events that as noble Lords across the House will know are a common occurrence and we have heard many examples of those. The assumption of the employer is always somehow at fault does not reflect the realities of working life, so we seek to clarify a degree of flexibility into the bill. Lord Fox pointed out we are proposing that the conditions that govern this entitled to compensation should be subject to regulation in this case. There is a strong case being made for this perception to our generally principal dislike on which the builder lies because as the Secretary of State has said this could be nuanced to a greater clarity of the employer-employee relationship.

It is vital that throughout these debates we remember that we are discussing a piece of legislation that will profoundly affect workers and employers across the country and I am concerned that certain elements of this bill and ideological assumption is made between the relationship between the worker and the employer which leads to absolute positions. Another point in Lord Fox raised in a previous group. We all have a duty to ensure that the bill meets the practical demands of the real workplace does not just speak to such assumptions.

This amendment balances the relationship between the and the employee and make sure that those who provide the work are protected alongside those who undertake it. Because there is an essential symbiosis which needs to be maintained in order for us to have a thriving economy. Good jobs available for workers. We cannot afford to take distances that upset their mission trip in our relationship seeks to correct this in the bill. I very good full-time I Noble Friend Baroness Noakes in particular for her support Amendment 28.

Because she raised really unarguable points and the reasonable belief test outlined in the bill raises several concerns. One of the most substantial of those is that we have the term reasonable is incredibly broad and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both workers and employers. Now, as noble Lords across the House will know this bill was designed to make working entitlements clear and create greater clarity to workers about the shift there working and the sort of income they can therefore expect to receive.

But the text in its current form is wide open to a massive range of interpretations and fails to provide clarity or protection for either workers or employers. How is either party to know what constitutes a reasonable Redefining this element of the bill so that the full confirmation of the shift is required for entitlement to compensation will provide clarity for both parties and create a mutual responsibility between worker and the employer to make expectations and duties clear. So, my Lord, it is my understanding that the Government intends to place obligation on the employer to clearly communicate shift assignments to workers in order to avoid misunderstanding, and we agreed this should be the case, although the current text of the bill uses luggage that is far too vague.

If the Government wants to promote the clear key medication of shift assignment, surely providing for a formal commitment of work rather than the belief of being needed is the way to make sure that obligation is met. Our proposal of full confirmation requirement will mean that both employer and employee know where they stand, what is expected of them, and will address the shortcoming in the text as it stands. Just a few brief words on Amendment 27 in the name of the novel Lord Fox, 48-hour is seems to us a perfectly reasonable notice.

Regarding the time before a shift is due to start. A survey from the Association of Convenience Stores found that 98% of them in the sector report they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48-hour's notice. Unless a reasonable notice period is reflected it is likely to lead to a cautious approach to staff by many retail businesses. And staff members for certain football, rather than offerings shifts that may additionally be surplus to needs of the day and does incur compensation costs for late cancellations.

Moreover, there is notable asymmetry in the Bill as drafted because there are no reciprocal requirements when they are unable to work a shift.
15:10
15:10
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

group, may I take this opportunity to refer to a letter that I wrote. to refer to a letter that I wrote. There are existing formal and informal legislation right. For informal legislation right. For exam, in relation to the calculation of the amount payable to an agency work as calculated in section 572H of the 1996 Employment Rights Act, so this is not something new. There so this is not something new. There are formulas that exist upon the rights legislation. We will, however, publish fully comprehensive guidance in due course which I am sure many noble Lords will find fascinating.

My Lords, this has been a very useful debate, for which I am very grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. We have covered several areas in this debate relating to the amendments tabled Noble Lord Lucas, in his amendment 21 is seeking to make changes to the period deemed reasonable for the cancellation of all change to a shift in agency work as. The Noble Lord shop of Epsom is seeking to make changes to the reasonable notice of shifts for directing engaged workers in amendment 22.

Under noble Lords shop of Epsom, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard of Stockport are seeking to make changes to the right to payment in short notice cancellations, the curtailment is in amendment 24, 27, 28 and 29. Now, before I address each of these amendments in turn, may I share an analysis from the living wage foundation? Which we did in 2023 and it suggested that 59% of workers whose hours very weak to week which includes zero hours and lower our workers receive less than one weeks notice of shifts, with 13% receiving less than 24-hour's notice.

The vast majority, 90% of respondents, stated they do not receive full payment their shift when their shifts are cancelled unexpectedly. 74% received less than half. 51% received less than one quarter. And 26 % receive no payments. Further analysis from the COPD chartered in personality development has suggested that approximately 33% of new employers who use Zero Hour contracts compensate workers for shifts that are cancelled with less than 24- hour's notice, with 48% of employers responding that they do not.

I first turned to amendment 21. The Noble Lord Lucas stated in his explanatory note that he is seeking to define a reasonable or maximum period of temporary work for agency work is in primary legislation. Two help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temporary work being put in the zero hours regulation. I believe the Noble Lord seeks to achieve this to provide in the period of what is presumed to be reasonable notice for agency workers must be no higher than 24-hour's.

This would mean that it would be presumed reasonable if any agency work is received 24-hour's notice, but it would be presumed unreasonable if an agency work received less, and therefore it is not in the situations that it would be for the agency or hirer to prove that the notice was still reasonable in these circumstances. So, I am not clear how this amendment achieves this. The amendment has been made close to concerning the writer reasonable notice to engage workers and appears to prevent workers from being given more than 24-hour's notice of cancellation, or of change to a shift.

I wish to reassure the Noble Lord that though the bill does provide the periods of notice to be set in regulations for engaged workers and agency work is as well as the factors that should be taken into consideration in individual cases. Following consultation, it may be that the appearance notice is presumed reasonable and factor should be taken into consideration that are different for agency work as and directly engaged workers. We intend to consult on what periods are presumed reasonable, because it does vary from place to place, setting a period of reasonable notice when the Premier legislation would thus pre-empt consultation, that will not allow us to take into account stakeholders views.

I turn now to amendment 22. I believe the Noble Lord shop of Epsom wished to provide however the Government to make exceptions to the writer reasonable notice. The Government wishes to resist this amendment. The desire for the reasonable notice policy already allows significant flux ability for the consideration of individual circumstances, and introducing exceptions would essentially enable employers to act unreasonably. We will set up regulations, a timeframe, that is presumed reasonable. We will also set up factors that should be considered in each individual case.

But means that a reasonable notice should be shorter, or longer, than At the same time, for employers, and allowing for the flexibility to consider individual circumstances. The explanatory note provides an example where a shift given to a worker in less than a specified time free -- timeframe may be reasonable, namely when a worker phones in sick and cover may be required at short notice. However, if a worker was asked on the day to work shift to cover parental leave, for example, where the employer knew in advance this would be required months in advance, this would be considered unreasonable.

This government is committed to engaging with all stakeholders on details such as this. If the noble Lord is concerned about clarity for workers and employers, I would assure him there is more detail to come on these regulations and further guidance. I would also note that his amendment would not achieve its aim. It appears the noble Lord was using incorrect references. I refer to amendment 24. I understand the noble Lord is seeking to... This includes in situations that are outside of reasonable control.

The government wishes to resist this amendment. Power to make exemptions in regulation for short notice payment is already contained within the bill. We are committed to engaging with all stakeholders on what exceptions might be appropriate for those regulations and accept this amendment would thus pre-empt the outcome of any future engagement. In reference to amendment 27, I believe that Lord Fox wishes for a period of shorter notice. The government is committed to consulting with businesses, trade unions and all other stakeholders on the appropriate amount of time to be considered short notice.

We will set the exact time period. We have set on the face of the bill that it will be no more than seven days.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for his points. I should point out these are probing amendments. They are designed not for us to tell you what designed not for us to tell you what you think but for you to tell us what you think, so simply knocking our argument down doesn't achieve our argument down doesn't achieve that probing objective. On the second point, as I predicted, in a second point, as I predicted, in a sense, the government has set up a consultation process.

It is a process where you have already process where you have already rolled out the noble Lord Lucas's 24 hours offer and disparaged 48 hours. What other things have you ruled out before the consultation is complete?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before the consultation is complete? We are not ruling anything in or out. We are saying we will be consulting with all stakeholders. I consulting with all stakeholders. I take the noble Lord's point. Yes, the amendment says this and I responded to the amendment and responded to the amendment and undertaking further consultation in due course. I believe the noble Lord wishes to reinstate the provision of short notice. With a worker receives information, they will work the shift.

The government's view is that it would be overly prescriptive to specify that the right to short notice periods -- payments only arises in cases where formal confirmation has been provided. In many cases, reasonable belief will only arise when the worker has received confirmation in writing from the employer that they will work the shift. Different businesses have different practices when arranging shift, and it would be -- it would not be appropriate to adopt universal, one size fits all. For example, when a worker agrees to work a shift, being contracted individually to work, they would likely reasonably believe that the agreement corresponds to needing to work that shift.

If it is standard practice they would be needed to work despite additional confirmation at being provided. It is fair that the worker in this scenario should receive payment if the shift is then cancelled as the expected to work. They may have encouraged costs in preparing to do so. It would be overly burdensome for providers -- employers to provide confirmation of employers to provide confirmation of this otherwise would not have been needed in order to confirm that they will have staff before that particular shift.

The government believes that in most cases it will be clear to both the worker and the employer or the agency worker and the agency or hirer that the worker was expected to work the shift. The government will also publish guidance to help with this interpretation. As a last resort, when these matters cannot be settled, employment tribunals will be able to determine whether the worker had reasonable belief that they would need to work a shift with the result that is fair. We wish to retain this flexibility.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Apologise for intervening again. That is a helpful response because it confirms my fears, because the it confirms my fears, because the less specific the supporting documentation is around what is reasonable, the more likely this is going to go to a tribunal in order going to go to a tribunal in order to define what is reasonable. We all know that will take a great deal of time, a lot of money, and it will time, a lot of money, and it will leave uncertainty probably four years before such time as a case is heard.

Does the government accept heard. Does the government accept that by being more specific in the first place it can avoid this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

greater, costly uncertainty? I'm not sure about that. Basically, what we don't want is to Basically, what we don't want is to be too prescriptive and define what reasonable notice means. It does reasonable notice means. It does vary from case to case. There needs vary from case to case. There needs to be a flexibility there. I refer to amendment 29. This is a probing amendment. It seeks to add a power to make regulations setting up factors that determine whether a worker reasonably would have needed to work shift.

The government tabled an amendment during the Commons report stage to ensure that the worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short notice cancellation of a shift unless at some point prior to that any reasonable belief that they should be needed to work that shift. This is considered appropriate because it is only where the person reasonably believes that they were worker shift that is reasonable for them to prepare to work and incur costs as a result. This amendment was necessary to eliminate the risks of workers taking cases to tribunals and making claims for shifts they did not reasonably believe they needed to work.

This is particularly important in situations where an employer offers a shift out to multiple people, for example, through a large WhatsApp group. We want to be clear that people should only receive cancellation payments when they are told they are not needed at short notice and they reasonably believe they would work the shift in the first place. For example, as we have set out in the explanatory notes, if there is an established practice of first-come first-served an individual says they will work the shift after seeing that an individual has already done so, they should not probably expect to work that shift.

Even if that shift is only offered to one worker, they should still reasonably believe they will work it in order to be eligible for a short notice payment. So, for example, if an employer offered a shift four weeks in advance on the worker only accept the shift two hours before the shift, it seems likely -- it seems less likely they should expect to actually working that shift. These are the kinds of scenarios that the government considered when making the amendments.

However, there are other scenarios were issues about this may arise. The government wishes to avoid being overly prescriptive by setting up factors and regulations. Given the range of scenarios where this may be relevant. The government considers -- sorry, the government considers it more appropriate to leave it to tribunals to determine on a case-by-case basis and we want to ensure that tribunals maintain flexibility to do so as they consider appropriate. Before I conclude, I would just like to answer Baroness Hollis's questions about recent outside their control.

I think with better planning, employers need not cancel as many shift. But it is not right that when there is uncertainty in the financial risks sit with the workers. We need to have balance. I think this bill offers exemptions as a possibility and we will consult on this, but any exceptions or exemptions likely -- are likely to be narrow as we do not think workers should really take the whole financial hit. I hope I've been able to persuade all noble Lords and provide assurance that the government's wider commitment to consult stakeholders, and that therefore respectfully ask the amendments to be withdrawn.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the noble Lord really saying that cancellations only happen because of bad planning question but because of bad planning question but what about natural disasters? Secondly, I apologise for using the wrong reference in the bill -- wrong reference in the bill -- amendment. It would be wrong I would be grateful if the noble Lord would be grateful if the noble Lord would commit to producing -- not producing commit to producing -- not producing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new iterations of the bill. We can continue further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We can continue further conversations to explain the purpose of this bill and why we are doing this bill. We are not doing this in this bill. We are not doing this in isolation. I believe this bill is pro-business and pro-worker. We need to get the message across.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Minister sits down, the Minister has set out on a number of occasions that the government is of occasions that the government is consulting. What is the timetable for this consultation? When will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for this consultation? When will be expect results from it? I'm sure the noble Lord will expect a specific time, which I can't give. I will consult with my officials and come back to him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just before the noble Lord the Minister sits down, we had discussed already on the first day in already on the first day in committee, the noble Baroness the Minister prospect implementation plan. We then moved on to discuss the draft implementation plan. And the draft implementation plan. And the noble banner -- Baroness the Minister did give a commitment. Minister did give a commitment. Would the noble Lord the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like to update that commitment? By when will we see the draft implementation plan? I can give the noble Lord my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment that it is very much a work in progress. Before the noble Lord sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lord sits down, could he explain his refusal at could he explain his refusal at setting specific hours. The tribunal determines when it is reasonable. Is determines when it is reasonable. Is an it quite odd that you are relying on the tribunal to execute what noble are you trying to suggest? Shouldn't the bill itself have containing within it those hours? If you don't want to be prescriptive, you could say up to 24 hours, up to 48 hours, which means they don't have to go that way and it is not too prescriptive.

I am baffled that you want the tribunals to enter into these matters. You and I know they take along time and cost a lot of money. Why are you legislating an open doorway in this area from tribunal -- tribunals, which everyone should try and avoid.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble advise intervention. I can say is that I thought we agreed a good thing is thought we agreed a good thing is
15:30
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
thought we agreed a good thing is We must work on a case-by-case basis to make a reasonable judgement. I rest my case.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Analysis of my amendment. I certainly don't intend to press it certainly don't intend to press it today but I do look forward very much to taking up the issues when we sit down with the team to discuss sit down with the team to discuss it. The noble Lords preference for it. The noble Lords preference for keeping reasonable brought -- broad, I concede the attraction of that. If I concede the attraction of that. If a business is wiped out by a flood, than postponing at zero notice than postponing at zero notice employees work for the next day but saying we want you in the day afterwards to start the cleanup, that would be reasonable presumably? At the same time, giving very little notice when it's obvious that notice when it's obvious that monitors could have been given would be obviously unreasonable.

But be obviously unreasonable. But allowing the whole pattern of this allowing the whole pattern of this to be developed slowly through individual cases in tribunals seems to not be the right way of going about it. In other circumstances, the government sets out guidance as to what it would consider reasonable under circumstances. so at least the process of going to tribunals can start at six point and a very much hope the government will choose to take that route.

For now, wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 23 for the government. The Amendment 23 for the government. The question is that men and 23 be agree to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content".

The contents say, "Not content". The contents The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it was a Government amendment 26 moved formally. The amendment 26 moved formally. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 27, Lord contents have it.

Amendment 27, Lord Fox, not moved. Amendment 28 jobs, Fox, not moved. Amendment 28 jobs, not moved. And 29, Lord Goddard, not moved. Government amendment 30, moved formally. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is that clause 3 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The question is contents have it.

The question is that clause 4 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In schedule one, amendment 31, Lord Sharpe, not amendment 31, Lord Sharpe, not moved. Amendment 32, not moved. We come to the next group, in schedule come to the next group, in schedule one, amendment 33, Lord Hunt of Wirral. Wirral. Wirral.
15:34
None Portrait Amendment:33 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

As we now move to consider notice of agency work, I rise to speak to amendment 33, 36, 37, and 38. My Lords, unfortunately, and despite all this show of consultation, I do believe the Government has failed to realise how agencies operate in the labour market. So, once again, the drafting of this bill shows the failure of the one size fits all approach. Each challenge we face in the context of this bill is clear.

Work finding agencies operate in a highly dynamic and often unpredictable environment. With the flow of information from hirers absolutely essential in matching workers to available shifts. This brings us to the core concern, agencies often rely on information from hirers about the availability and cancellation of assignment. Without timely and sufficient details from hirers, agencies cannot, predictably, or properly, fulfilled their role. Therefore, any new obligation to provide reasonable notice for agency work must consider notice for agency work must consider the time taken for agencies to receive this confirmed information and make the necessary arrangements and make the necessary arrangements and assessments.

Now, section 18 of the conduct and employment agencies and businesses regulations 2003 lays down that an agency cannot introduce or supply a work seeker to a hirer, unless they have obtained sufficient information to assess the suitability for the role in question. The issue here, therefore, is straightforward. The agency work often find themselves without income as a consequence of cancellations initiated by hirers, and yet agencies are held financially liable for those decisions, even though they had no control over the cancellations.

To illustrate the risk, let me provide a scenario. A work finding agency places and agency work with a hirer for a shift, however due to unforeseen circumstances, the hirer cancels the shift at short notice. The agency, having no control over the cancellation, is still required to compensate the worker. The financial burden, therefore, falls on the agency. Despite the cancellation being the decision of the hirer. Now, how will this amendment help to ensure that small and medium-sized agencies are not disproportionately impacted? That is what we seek to do here.

Bearing in mind the financial responsibility associated with hirer induced cancellations, particularly when the business in question may already be financially vulnerable. Does the Government believe it is justified to place the financial burden of the cancellation or curtailment on the agency? When the failure to provide Otis lies entirely with the hirer? I do believe the noble Baroness the Minister understands the complexities of the Agency Workers Regulations, but this bill in its present form does not make proper allowance, and so let me ask the noble Baroness the Minister how does the Government propose to monitor and enforce the full accountability of hirers for failures in notice arrangements? I just do believe this is an issue that has to be faced, is an issue that has to be faced, given the rigidity of the given the rigidity of the legislation we are considered -- required to consider in this particular bill.

I beg to move. particular bill. I beg to move.
15:39
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Amendment proposed in schedule one page 167, leave out 127 and insert the words as printed in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall list. I wish to speak to this bill of amendments that six to clarify the agency work and the views on this agency work and the views on this matter. It would seem to me that if 1/3 person looking into this process they would see the Labour Party trying to protect employees and give trying to protect employees and give trying to protect employees and give them 100% right, conservatives trying to ensure that businesses have a level playing field to employ, create, and grow the economy, which is the Government objective.

I wonder why we can't be a little bit closer with the employment bill, as dealing with the employment bill, as dealing with the mechanics of it, and the previous answer you give to my probing answer you give to my probing amendment just baffles me. It was to get up and ask you to explain what you said to me because for millions you said to me because for millions of people listening to that they would not have a clue. It is that would not have a clue.

It is that simple understanding that, as my Noble Friend said in previous debates, but we see clarity before the act comes into power? We need to know these things. I spent four years in secondary legislation. The word on that committee was quite clear, do not give Ministers unfettered powers. What is in the bill, what it says on the front of the 10 of the bill and I wonder sometimes that this bill will say tomatoes and when you open it you have got carrots, and that is a problem for someone that does not eat carrots, so I hope that just through these amendments now, what through these amendments now, what we are seeking to do is just to understand it is a two-way thing.

I have been doing this for 25 years and also with employed people, thus those two things are compatible, but are complicated, because you have different pressures from a different standpoint. And the way we try to move this legislation, or legislation to be sensible and come to common ground that gives what the trade union wants, what the Government wants, and what employers literally I am guessing yesterday were asking about this to talk about this bill tomorrow and I roughly outlined it and the almost could not believe it.

And we can't afford H are, we can't afford lawyers, can't afford to take it to tribunals, we just want to employ people, make a small profit and grow the business, and I just can't understand how this has become so complicated, so basically on Amendment 33 in reasonable notice where ships are offered to agency work is, the aim appears to be to require agents across them to confirm by the hirer. While this may be an attempt to reduce clarity, I have a question whether that proposal and that language fully addresses the practical realities of agency work.

Intention may be sent of their risk of ambiguity with another. That said, per agency work is, some degree of flexibility and transparency is fairly important and long overdue. Amendment 36, the idea of joint viability between the work of finding agencies and hiring at of finding agencies and hiring at short notice, it is worth exploring whether the shared responsibility could lead to fair outcomes, particularly when neither party could be able to shift all risk onto the other, but equally it is important for the House provisions to work back to it and whether it risks disincentive rising these risks of labour altogether.

Amendment 37 proposes conversations that we figured only when it shift has been confirmed rather than relying on the most objective reasonable belief. I appreciate the effort to bring what is currently a murky area, but workers should not be left guessing whether insurance or agency amounts to a genuine commitment. That's it, we would need to understand how this links to other temporary staffing, or whether the seasonal and ambiguity again the current framework serves no one, least of all the workers participating.

And finally amendment 38 provides the agency would not be liable to make compensation with a hirer failing to give appropriate cancellation notice. This is, arguably, a fair allocation of this in light with others, but it must be clear that such changes would not weaken the overall protection intended for the worker. The amendment and important issues around this agency work I am not yet convinced that this tree the right balance in all aspects, there is a risk that in seeking to impose clear instructions we introduce new complexities and unintended burdens.

And I think that is what the Government is trying to say. Nevertheless, the underlining objectives of clarity, fairness, accountability, are ones we should continue to pursue, any changes to frame a support clear obligations and genuine fair outcomes, not only for the workers, but for the agencies. If these amendments highlight anything, it is the need for the Government to offer clarity, for the Government to offer clarity, consistency, in this area.
15:45
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I think the Noble Lord hunt and dad for their contributions. And Noble Lord shop of tabling this amendment, amendments covering 33, amendment, amendments covering 33, 36, 37 and 38. Before I speak to this amendment, may I reassure all noble Lords, especially Lord Goddard, that the Government does respect and appreciate all the amendments tabled by the noble Lords. The whole purpose of this is to address those individual amendments and see where the Government is coming from and where we can find a way forward.

There are some things in the noble Lords amendments that may not be required because the bill already covers them in other sections, so we are trying our very best to address each and every amendment and we welcome the noble Lords scrutiny of the bill. I just want to reassure the Noble Lord that we are not being flippant about any of these amendments, if I may say so. My Lords, these amendments seek to make changes to dutiful employers to provide agency work as with a reasonable notice of shifts make changes to the right to payment for short notice payments, free agency work, and to introduce a framework for joint liability between agencies and hirers for payment of shifts cancelled and curtailed at short notice.

Amendment 33 pertains to how reasonable notice should be assessed for agency work is, including requiring the work of finding agency to offer shifts to agency work is as soon reasonably practical, after receiving confirmed details from the hirer and carry out suitability assessments in line with relevant authorities, relevant There would be a period of notice presumed reasonable for agency workers. Given the presumption of what is reasonable notice provides the right balance between clarity and flexibility for employers and workers.

We will following consultation set out in regulations factors to be considered when determining reasonable notice will stop this could include factors such as whether the hirer could reasonably have been expected to plan shift sooner. This amendment would be empty consultation and would not allow us to take into account stakeholders values -- views. It would also impact tribunal's ability to maintain flexibility to determine whether the notice was reasonable on a case-by- case basis. Referring to amendment 37, I believe the noble Lord is seeking to remove the requirement for an agency worker who reasonably believe that they are needed to work a shift in order to receive short notice payments.

The government's view on this matter is the same as in the previous group. We believe it would be overly prescriptive to specify that the right to short notice payments only arises in cases where formal confirmation has been provided. Lastly, and amendments 36 and 38, I believe the noble Lord wishes to introduce a new framework of joint liability between the agency and the hirer were agency workers receive a payment for a shift moved or cancelled at short notice under paragraph 21 of the schedule.

I believe the noble Lord once agencies and Highers to agree how to share liability and for the agency to be exempt of any payment where the hirer accepts full responsibility. The noble Lord also suggest the power for the Secretary of State to make provisions in cases of dispute. The bill requires the agency to make such payments for agency workers. This is to help avoid delays in the worker receiving payment. A system of joint liability could lead to significant delays in the agency worker receiving payments.

In particular, where there is a dispute between an agency and the hirer. So the government does see that in many cases the hirer would be responsible for cancelling, moving or curtailing shifts at short notice. We agree that hirer should be expected to bear the cost of these payments to the extent that they are responsible. This is why the government believes that the agencies have to make the payment to agency workers but they should be able to recoup some or all of the cost from the end hirer's.

This is in line with consultation responses on this matter. Employment agencies and hirers will continue to be able to negotiate between them how liability for short notice payments is allocated between them. We are aware that some pay arrangements between agencies and hirers may already exist with the requirement for agencies to cover the short notice payments comes into force. Such arrangements may not include any mechanisms or agency to be able to recover short notice payments from hirers. Agencies might not have agreed to enter into such arrangements had they known they would be required to make those payments.

So the bill includes provisions in paragraph 27 to enable agencies to recover costs from the Cairo -- the hirer but only when the arrangement between the agency and the hirer was entered into no later than two months from Royal Assent and not modified since. The government considers this the right approach to protect contractual freedom and ensuring timely payments for agency workers. It will protect agencies in existing arrangements from being liable for payments they from being liable for payments they were not responsible for incurring.

I hope this response has reassured the noble Lord and he can withdraw his amendment. his amendment.
15:51
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this has been a helpful, short debate, and I join with the noble Lord Gothard of Stockport -- Lord Goddard of Stockport in seeking fairness and consistency. And I think that the noble Lord the Minister has given us some answers to the questions that we posed. But it is just another example that it is so important to think through the issues as they affect all those who are in any way covered by this bill. We will need to return to this matter during the further passage of the bill to ensure that Lord Goddard and my objective is fulfilled, namely that the provisions of a fair and workable solution for all the parties involved.

Finally, can I just say, in an unguarded moment, the noble Lord the Minister in responding to the previous amendment said that it was work in progress that he was considering with his colleagues the draft implementation plan. I will make an offer on behalf of all in the house that we would be willing to help this work in progress by looking carefully through the first draft of the implementation plan, whilst accepting that it may not be the final draft. At least it would give us an idea of what is in the government's mind so far as implementing rather complicated provisions of this bill, which at the moment are shrouded in some degree of mystery as to what the government will bring forward in secondary legislation.

And I just repeat what we've said several times in the debate so far. That when you are amending primary legislation through secondary legislation, it is far better, in our view, to have those amendments on the face of the bill, rather than being left to some further process, admittedly consultation, but let -- left to some further process that would then amend that primary legislation through secondary legislation. Like Lord Goddard, I have served on other committees in this house which do find that perhaps governments don't give secondary legislation the key priority that it needs, but it should never seek to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation.

Many of our committees have said that time and time again. So, if we could see the first draft of the implementation plan, we could assist the noble Lord the Minister and his colleagues to get this bill right. I beg leave to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is that your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? this amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Government amendment 34. The question is that amendment 34 be question is that amendment 34 be agree to. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 35. The question is that amendment 35 be question is that amendment 35 be agreed to? All of those in favour say, "Content".

Those in the say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. And 37, not. 38, contents have it. And 37, not. 38, not meet. 39. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, "Content". those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. Government amendments 40 and 41. The Government amendments 40 and 41. The question is that government amendments 40 and 41 be agreed to. All of those in favour say, All of those in favour say, "Content".

Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that schedule one be the first schedule schedule one be the first schedule to the bill. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. We now move to amendment six -- sorry, group sex, amendment 40 full. -- 42. Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
15:55
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendments in my name. The bill in its present form seems that collective agreements and the rights attached to them can only be made through tribunals. Across a wide range of sectors, there are effective forms sectors, there are effective forms of employee representation that operate independently of trading is. For example, many large employers have implemented formal employee forums, staff councils and other representative bodies that play a critical role in negotiating terms, improving working conditions and ensuring that workers have a voice.

These bodies operate with transparency and independence, often working closely with management, but not subject to the control of the employer. In sectors like retail, hospitality in technology, companies have established these independent bodies to write workers with the platform to express concerns, to suggest improvements and to engage with senior leadership on workplace issues. These bodies though not unions are trusted by workers as genuine vehicles for consultation and negotiation. Likewise, in industries such as financial services, employee representation often takes place through staff associations and other internal bodies.

The focus on consultation, transparency and communication between employers and employees. These bodies are instrumental in maintaining a constructive dialogue between workers and management, and they often handle issues such as a conditions on workplace policies without the need for union recognition. The current draft of the bill fails to accommodate these vital forms of representation. It risks occluding workers who are represented by such independent bodies from accessing protections associated with collective agreements, including provisions regarding hours. Practices that are proven in fostering good relations between workers and employers.

The government has spoken repeatedly about the need to modernise our economy and bringing employment rights into the 21st century. Apart of that must be acknowledging that trade unions are not the only way in which you workers can be represented. Employee forms and stuff bodies can and do play a vital role in today's diverse and evolving workplaces. I recognising this, the government has an opportunity to align this legislation with the modern varieties -- realities of work. More over, it raises concerns about the freedom of association.

The principle of freedom of association is not just the right to join a union but also the right to not be compelled into union membership as a condition for accessing fair treatment and work. If we want to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees, we must ensure the bill is inclusive of all legitimate and independent forms of worker representation. These amendments are designed to achieve that. They would extend the recognition of collective agreements to properly constitute employee representative bodies such as staff bodies are associations that operate independently from the employer in their decision-making.

They will ensure these bodies make -- meet clear governance standards. The government's aim is to promote better workplace relations and these amendments -- these are amendments that support that aim. They would recognise the wide range of ways in which workers and employers engage with each other constructively, and by recognising diverse forms of representation, we can build trust and cooperation and create workplaces where both workers and employers can thrive. I urge the government to support these amendments, which would reflect the realities of modern employee representation and strengthen protections available to all workers, regardless of whether or not they belong to a traditional trade union.

About to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 5, page 30, line 35. Leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 5, page 30, line 35. Leave out independence to underline 36 and insert the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. I totally oppose these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I totally oppose these amendments. This is the first time I've spoken in the progress of this I've spoken in the progress of this bill. I've got amendments coming up later. But I think it illustrates the complete difference in mental
15:59
16:01
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
I am very pleased to follow Lord Davies because I absolutely agree with what he says, and I would add, just from my own experience, early in my working life I have worked in a retail organisation where there was a staff room where I come and colleagues, were organising to establish a trade union. I would tell you the difference is this : that Star Forum was set up by the employer. It was not set up by workers. That Star Forum was funded by the employer.

It was not funded by workers. And that stuff Forum was not democratic, whereas the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. I would hope that one of the aims we could share across this House is to see an increase and expansion of genuine collective bargaining. Because the evidence is very clear that internationally we see that the demise of collective bargaining has been associated with the rise of growing inequality.

Less good conditions at work, purer share of the wealth that workers help produce. And no independent democratic voice. And I would hope that with this country we recognise that there are many, many working people who feel they have been denied a genuine voice and independent voice at work and in society. And they are, rightly, fed up about it. If we want to tackle that, we have got to tackle inequality with a sense of powerlessness, that many people feel, then it is collective bargaining through the route of independent democratic trade unions that we all need to see through.
16:03
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I was not intending to speak in this group, however I am torn from both sides. I have some cynicism about the oppositions attempt at recognising nontrade unions and staff associations and I do entirely understand that point the Baroness O'Grady has made about employer led stuff clubs which I have over the years invited to join, and whilst they have been very good social forums, it is very different to trade unions, however I am afraid that I think there is a danger that we can romanticise what contemporary trade unionism is based on the very fine history of 150 years of struggle, because I actually do not think that trade unions at the moment should take for granted that workers will be loyal to them because I think there has been far too many instances of the trade unions not being fit for purpose, and indeed there is a huge gap between often trade union elitists or trade union members, and, indeed, many members are leaving unions or not joining and that is not always because of evil bosses in a kind of caricature way.

At second reading, I made the end, and I am only making made the end, and I am only making this and repeating it now that, for example, the Darlington nursing union has been set up because the nursing unions have abandoned female members of staff who were nurses who have been attacked by their HR and their employers for their political views in relation to gender and sex. As it happened, we now can appreciate that they were simply reiterating their right to privacy as biological women.

Something that now the supreme court has at least acknowledged is the law, but they have been harassed and bullied and the trade unions abandoned them. And I make the point as well that the free-speech union, which I appreciate is not a union like the trade unions, and that no one, least of all me, suggesting that the Noble Lord young is in his place, would become, excuse me, for the Baroness, of future negotiations. Nonetheless, despite the fact that it is an unlikely role for the Noble Lord young, the free-speech union has been forced into existence.

Underrepresented workers who have been done over by their employers when there trade unions have abandoned them. That is the point I am making. The UC you being one example of university unions and I was grateful for many years of the further education sector and I watched in horror at the way that union has degenerated itself, so, at least for the record, I would just prefer that we did not caricature each other in a way that does not represent the contemporary time.

The trade unions today are not the trade unions of old, I am afraid. They actually do improve their game. And, similarly, I do not think the trade unions are the evil enemy of employers, as is sometimes implied by the people sitting closest to me on this side of the House.
16:07
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to add to what Noah Baroness Fox said and we are having a good debate here and I very much hope to keep it fair. But what the Noble Lord said and so clearly said Noble Lord said and so clearly said was really rather flying pigs. I, obviously, not like most of the House, I'm old enough to remember the 1970s. I remember the disruption of the British automobile industry by the trade unions.

The London docks destroyed by the trade unions. Leading up through the 1970s to the winter of discontent, which led to the necessary emergence of a Government under Margaret Thatcher which would seek to control the trade unions and do something about the destruction that they were raking upon the British economy. And we all remember that, I am not fantasising about this 150 year story of things brought by the trade unions, it is really sort of difficult to let by without seeing something.

So much so that right now workers in the UK only 22% of them belong to unions. Why is that? It is because of the destructive nature. And let us remember that 22%, most of them are in the public sector. And public sector workers have a monopoly in the areas that they occupy. But in return for being rewarded by the Labour Government that we saw the source arise, sort of completely unjustifiable compared to what people in the private sector were earning, that the Labour Government of ordered many public sector workers, many trade union workers when they came to power, we saw how there is, I am not saying anything that we do not already know, but a wonderful relationship between the unions and the Labour between the unions and the Labour Party.

I saw a number, and I do not stand here asserting it is true, but I saw it for the same reason that since 2011, the trade unions have given £31 million to the Labour Party. Now, if that is true, whether it is true or not, we know it is of that sort of order. This is wonderful, but it increases the size of Government, because the deals that the Labour Party Government had that the Labour Party Government had to make with these trade unions, it increases the cost of Government and it increases the complexity of Government and it increases in general the cost of regulation to all employers.

All of those things destroy economic growth, which, as the NOVA Lord Goddard himself said just recently earlier this afternoon, is what we are all trying to achieve. Please do not give us, I to achieve. Please do not give us, I hope it is not unparliamentary to say, golf, about the positive effects of the trade unions. They are destructive.
16:10
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
Whether we are actually having a discussion for 2025 or whether we are having a discussion deeply admired in history, I find myself in some difficulty listening to either side of this discussion, because I want to say very strongly how important trade unions have been and are. But I hope that people also who watched what was given of the annual conference of the National education union, all of whom have offices with the support of the Socialist workers party, may be asking why a union like that should have spent more time talking about Gaza than they did about school attendance, so we cannot be entirely happy about the circumstances of all trade unions.

And this Government is going to have to face those trade unions pressed from that way. On the other hand, I do have to say that I deeply disagree with the attitude that we have just heard about trade unions being destructive. Trade unions have been very constructive in many circumstances. And this is something we should recognise. My problem with this bill, and my reason for coming for this particular debate, to support the amendments of my Noble Friend, is simply that it seems to me that if we take what the Noble Lord who opened the backbenchers remarks on trade, if we take what he said, he said that this is when the trade unions were not forced on anyone, they were people coming together to work together for better attitudes, for better conditions, for better pay.

Working in those circumstances. All I think is necessary is that if people do that, but do not happen to want to be called a trades union, if they are independent, if they are not supported, as Baroness O'Grady fears, by the employers, but they just want to be neither a trade union, nor subject to the employers, as seemed to me that in 2025, we ought to give them the powers to make the same kind of arrangement with employers, as a trades union.

Because if we do not do this, this is going to be the one area in which this Government is saying there shall be no competition. There shall be no opportunity for people to make a different decision about their future. I believe that we ought to give full that opportunity and we ought to protect those people by making sure that it is only given to them if they are independent, if they pay for it themselves. And if they have chosen that particular mechanism.

And I do say to the Labour Party front bench that any of us who work as I still do, happily, right across the board with all kinds of companies, I have to say, you really can't think of today's industry and commerce as if it were like yesterday's. And there are new circumstances, new ways of doing things. And I think that they ought to recognise it. And if all it does is to solidify the past, then I think we have missed a great opportunity.

before the nobleman visits down, can I just explain as the committee, if an organisation meets the requirements to be free and independent, it is a trade union. Anyone could set up a trade union. If it does not meet the standards, many of which have been set by the party opposite, if it does not meet those standards, it is not a trade union, and it is not capable of collectively representing its members. There is an illogicality in suggesting that organisations which are not meeting the standards of a trade union can represent its members.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am answering the Noble Lord, if that is so then it is very simple. that is so then it is very simple. We can all agree to this amendment with such alterations that are necessary to make sure that they are necessary to make sure that they are independent. Then we can all of us feel that we have created an so feel that we have created an so which suits today. And can we please which suits today. And can we please get out of this from both sides, and I mean both sides, about this issue? We have got to find a way in which
16:16
16:17
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't know whether I want to join in on this philosophical join in on this philosophical debate. Clearly, we have a very strong views on both sides of this. It has strayed way beyond the amendments that we are trying to moderate on today. But I would say that the bill overall is seeking to find the right balance between workers with unions and businesses, recognising each have an important role to play. Our aim in the bill is to modernise those arrangements for the 21st century so that they are not doing that.

We are looking into the future and that is what we hope the bill will deliver. These amendments aim to broaden out the provisions in the bill to allow employee representative bodies or staff associations to collectively agree to modify zero hours measures. These agreements can already be made but only by trade unions. As we are allowing for modification of statutory employment rates, it's vital that the appropriate safeguards are in place. This includes that on the trade unions that have a certificate of independence and are therefore free from employer control can agree with employers to modify or opt out of -- that rights are guaranteed an exchange.

I want to make it clear that staff associations and employee representative bodies, some of it referred describe this afternoon, can do really good work and we welcome engagement between employers and workers in all forms. However, we do not think it is appropriate for these associations or bodies to be able to modify statutory employment rights. This is not least because they may not have sufficient independence from the employers. A point that was very well made by Baroness O'Grady. Unlike independent trade unions, which do have independence and offer high levels of protection to workers.

Furthermore, there is a well established framework for trade unions, including recognition, independence and incorporation of terms, and the provisions built of these provisions. I can see that within the noble Lords amendments he suggested a framework of requirements of staff associations and apply representative bodies would need to meet in order to modify or exclude zero hours rights. These include recognition of independence, elections and record- keeping. However, as my noble friend Lord Hendy and Laura Davies have said, the more you incorporate these requirements, more you add to a staff association or employee representative body, the more similar it appears to be to an independent trade union.

Given that the trade union framework is well established both historically and legally, it's not clear to me that it makes sense to establish a similar but different structure just for the purposes of the zero hours measures. And I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies, Baroness Brady for the reminder of the Brady for the reminder of the hydrates we have achieved through the organisation of the trade union movement. Trade unions, of course, already serve to protect and advance the interests of workers.

I felt like the noble Lord Jackson presented a caricature of the unions and for every criticism he has, we could come back with all of the advantages that trading in's have delivered for working people over the years, both in pay conditions and some of the fantastic campaigns. For example, around environment workers rights and women's rights and so on. They have contributed enormously already to modernising the workplace rights. So, I don't feel it would be appropriate to try to recreate them.

The trade unions already provide the constructive dialogue with employers to which the noble Lord Archer prefers -- Lord Sharpe refers. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, there is a technical issue around this because if his amendment was accepted as currently drafted, it would not achieve the aims that he is intending. Collective agreements have a specific definition in the Employment Rights Act 1986, which the zero hours provisions have been inserted into. This definition, which refers to the definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act consolidation 1992 provides that collective agreements are agreements between independent and certified trade unions and employers or employees associations, so there would be scope in the way that the noble Lord has worded this for a wider definition of employee representatives.

So, we've had a debate which I have a feeling we're going to return to in some of the other trade union issues as we go along, but for the time being, with this particular set of amendments in mind, I hope that the noble Lord Lord Sharpe will consider withdrawing his amendments.
16:23
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, that was a short but most interesting debate and I'm grateful to all noble Lords who participated. I'm grateful to Lord Davies of Brixton and Baroness O'Grady for their comments because no one on this site is denying that trading is often have a proud history. As my noble friend Lord even has pointed out, a very strong history in terms of securing workers rights -- Lord Devin. No one is denying that. But not all trade unions support that history.

The fact is the world has evolved and these amendments simply respect that evolution. My noble friend Lord Moynahan points out that only 22% of workers are currently unionised. The latest figure I could find for the private sector is 12.3%. The other 88% have not been prevented from joining a trading in. They have exercised a choice not to. A democratic choice. Trying to argue this is somehow undemocratic makes no sense at all. Why, for example, does the bill later on scrap the 45% turnout requirement for statutory recognition.

That seems profoundly undemocratic. Having said all of that, obviously very grateful to the Minister for her response. I accept there are probably technical issues with the amendment and I shall improve them for the next time we debate is. On the festive committee, we did argue that in relation to hours, unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers. If the government is willing to accept that logic for trade unions, then the same reasoning must be extended to independent staff bodies.

Many are embedded deep the in the life of the company and have knowledge of the specific industries and work voices. In some cases, these bodies are closer to operational realities and remote union structures. There are more trusted by the employees themselves. The baby -- the debate should ultimately be about respecting individual workers and their choices. I believe that unless a worker is represented through a traditional trading in, their voice is somehow less valid or less informed -- the belief seems to be that unless a worker is represented through traditional trade union, their voice is somehow less valid or less informed.

This would not apply to a smaller business where a trade union has never been the norm. Many plays are content with their current representation. Will they beat all their structures are not good enough? Will they have to hire experts, prepare for union that negotiations whether they want them or not? And will industries be pushed into more adversarial models, creating tensions that this bill should be seeking to avoid? Can the Minister perhaps enlighten us as to how smaller businesses and those that have never operated within a unionised environment will adapt to rigid models like this that assume union involvement is the only valid route to uni -- collective route to uni -- collective route to uni -- collective agreements.

I do not challenge the value of trading is. I simply recognise that they are not the only effective way of seeking representation. Of the government is serious about organising employment serious about organising employment rates, we must acknowledge the diversity of how workers organise today. For now, I'm content to withdraw the amendment. withdraw the amendment.
16:26
16:28
None Portrait Amendment:62 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

impact assessments or lack of them. Amendment 62 I speak to first, which Amendment 62 I speak to first, which considers the impact on employment tribunals from zero hour contract provisions and amendment 63 requires provisions and amendment 63 requires an impact assessment within six months specifically for the months specifically for the hospitality sector, the retail sector, and the health and social sector, and the health and social sector. I greatly welcome Baroness Fox who has kindly given her name to Fox who has kindly given her name to that amendment along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

Earlier friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Earlier this week, we heard, and it was this week, we heard, and it was reported in the Financial Times that the UK employment tribunal backlog the UK employment tribunal backlog had hit record levels. Some 49,000. Some 49,800 cases were waiting to be heard by an employment tribunal at the end of the final quarter last year, up from 39,000 in the same period in 2023. That's according to data from HM Courts and Tribunal Services.

The government refused to accept amendment 21, which I moved, which would allow businesses to make a dismissal in the case of genuine business needs. I rejecting this amendment as well as any suggestion from businesses throughout the consultation, I do think the government is risky overloading the employment tribunal system even more employment tribunal system even more than that -- than is the case today. Moreover, it is noted that the government has previously tabled so-called technical amendments, which would have required employers to make work available to zero hour workers.

This alone highlights how impractical the current zero hour contract provisions are when viewed through the lens of tribunal risk. Is deeply concerning in particular that the regulatory policy committee has given a red rating to the government's impact assessment on day one rights to unfair dismissal. So the impact assessment has a number of other deficiencies as Fanuc salary costs, disputes, to higher settlements, driven by tribunal risk aversion. There is no serious examination of whether these changes would have different effects depending on job type, lower skilled versus professional, or the reputational risks professionals face when bringing claims.

Nor does it address wider labour market impacts such as recruitment, turnover, or retention. And then with regard to amendment 63, I begin with a point that goes to the heart with a point that goes to the heart of the responsible policy making. And lawmaking as well. The regulatory policy committee is the independent body tasked with scrutinising the quality of Government impact assessments. And they have chosen to deliver a damning verdict of the government's own assessment of these proposals.

The RPC give the Government impact assessment on the guaranteed hours office. Those provisions received a red rating under two critical categories. Identification of options, and justification of a preferred way forward. In plain terms, that committee has judged the impact assessment to be not fit for purpose. The Government has failed both to explore alternative approaches, and to provide a sound, evidence-based rationale for the one it has chosen. Even more striking, here I quote from the regulatory policy committee, as follows.

The impact assessment needs to address comments that the RPC made earlier on options to justify the preferred way forward. The impact assessment also needs to provide a clear assessment against the counterfactual and assess more fully the potential for the policy to increase unemployment or worthlessness. And how far the risk is mitigated by zero hours contracts remaining potentially available. This is not a technical footnote. This is a fundamental flaw. We are being asked to legislate, not only in the absence of robust evidence, but in defiance of expert advice.

And yet these reforms will impose new legal duties, operational burdens, and real financial risk in businesses across the country. And that is why we are bringing these amendments forward. The Government may have failed to conduct a rigorous assessment, but this House, the House of Lords, need not. Let me now turn to the sectors most affected. Hospitality businesses faced £3.4 billion in additional faced £3.4 billion in additional annual costs, response from CPA showings just 14% of businesses feel optimistic about the market.

Hospitality, as colleagues will know, is the single largest user of zero hours contract, with 32% of such arrangements in the UK workforce found in this sector alone. That is according to the House of Commons library briefing last September. Hospitality is highly seasonal. If we take the 12 week run up to Christmas where pubs, hotels, and restaurants are at their busiest, a worker might put in full-time hours during that period. Under this legislation, that very surge in hours would form the basis of guaranteed hours offer.

But what happens in January or February? When footfall drops dramatically. That business may no longer need that level of staffing. Yet it would be legally obliged to offer a contract based on the peak demand. Now, the Government has tried to address this seasonal issue by allowing businesses to address fixed term contracts where reasonable. What qualifies as reasonable has yet to be defined in the way that it accounts for the complex nature of hospitality. While this may seem to be a solution, the reality is far more complicated.

The multitude of circumstances in which it would be deemed reasonable to offer a fixed term contract is so varied that it would take years to establish a reliable body of case law in its use, particularly through the already stretched and overburdened tribunal system. This will add significant administrative burden to businesses, in particular small businesses. Employers will be allowed to track when statutory thresholds are triggered, calculate average hours, and issue formal offers. The cost associated with administering and calculating these offers on a rolling basis whenever additional hours are worked would be disproportionate and provide no disproportionate and provide no clear benefit to workers.

Businesses will face substantial administrative costs, and these will, ultimately, harm the workers the legislation is trying to protect. And the idea that this will lead to better outcomes for workers is, frankly, misguided. Employers will likely start to restrict voluntary overtime to avoid inadvertently triggering the contractual obligation they cannot sustain in the longer term. This would mean fewer opportunities for workers who rely on those extra hours. The cost of compliance and businesses, particularly those in hospitality, would be significant and, ultimately, counter-productive for workers.

The Health and Social Care Act sector also faces significant challenges under these reforms. This sector employs a large proportion of zero hour contract workers. Many of whom provide care on a flexible basis. The flexibility to increase or decrease working hours based on patient need is essential. These reform risks are proposing rigid contractual obligations in a sector that depends on being able to respond to fluctuating care demands. According to skills for carers later report on the adult social work we publish just yesterday, 21% of all adult social care posts which equates to approximately 340,000 roles were employed on zero hour contract from 2023 to 24.

Specifically, 29% of care worker posts and 43% of home care worker posts are filled by workers on zero hours contracts. These statistics, I believe, show just how reliant the sector is on this form of employment, and why the flexibility of zero hour contract is absolutely vital to ensure that care needs are met as they fluctuate. If the government's reforms force employers in social care to offer fixed hours or face penalties for failing to meet these new requirements, I believe it will undermine the flexibility they need to respond to changing care needs.

The challenge is not simply administrative, but fundamental to help the nature of social care work. It is about being able to respond to the variability of the demand for care. Whether it is seasonal, illnesses, outbreaks, or other changes that require flexible staffing. Furthermore, as the social care sector is already struggling with staff shortages, imposing additional complications, that reduce flexibility, they will make it even harder to fulfil these roles. The increased administrative burden will also divert a special resources away from those precious resources away from frontline care.

Social care workers and managers will be forced to spend more time tracking hours and calculating offers instead of providing the care that the individuals so desperately need. Finally, I must address one of the government's arguments which I find particularly disingenuous. The Government has suggested that workers may be afraid to ask for guaranteed hours under the current system. This is, I believe, nonsense. It is quite something to claim to be April work and to have such a low opinion of those workers and their ability to ask for a contract.

The idea that workers cannot or should not be able to request guaranteed hours is an insult. Workers can understand their
16:42
16:43
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
them. I have not been able to be here because of the problems of contemporary work, portfolio, career, running from one job to another. And never having time to do everything that I wanted to do and in some ways, one of the reasons why I was very keen on the need for an impact assessment on the impact of sections 1 to eight, on these particular sectors, which is the amendment that I put my name on, looking at hospitality, retail, and Health and Social Care Committee was because I do feel that the modern employment landscape has changed so dramatically, and despite the fact that we have got a contemporary bill here, sorry, build that is about modernising employment rights, I have sometimes felt there has not been an adequate recognition of how things have changed.

And, as I hinted at earlier, a rather caricatured view of if a righty of sides of the House, as though we are kind of stuck in the 1970s. Although as if every employee is a public- sector worker, where there is a 9- to-5 job. That is not what it is like, and I think that often the contemporary workplace is one that needs flexibility for the sake of the workers as much as anything else to put it is an argument. I will not go into the details.

I would like to thank the Noble Lord shop of Epsom and the Noble Lord hunt, anyway, wherever, for allowing me to put my name to this amendment. I think that actually the Noble Lord hunt has actually really explained well that different issues that have been raised up until now in the debates as I understand them and I feel as though I have, in different bills, raised the problems of these sectors, so I will not repeat them, but just to know that I raised in the debate on Martin's law, which has now become an act of Parliament in terms of terrorism and protection of premises bill, the real problem is that the hospitality sector is facing at the moment is absolutely under the craft, overregulated, and seriously those people who work in that sector feel as though it is not going to survive.

The National Insurance contributions, the regulations that have been brought in, the retail sector, such as convenience stores, are now going to face a whole barrage of salt in the tobacco and vapes bill. And I talked about that at great length, so I will not repeat that. The Health and Social Care Act sector or a sector that I fear has exploited care workers via zero hours, and they workers via zero hours, and they But I think the modernisation of the health and social sector is required and I'm disappointed that the present government has not brought that forward.

The one thing I'd like a bill on is the modernisation of the health and social sector. Inside, we have these other bills which will do some damage, I think. Nonetheless, despite that, all that this amendment that I'm supporting calls for is an impact assessment of the impact of section 128. When I heard initially the noble Lord Lord Fox introduce his thoughts on this bill and a variety of people followed it, it has been a plea to the government to first of all acknowledge that there are so many gaps in this bill that are not filled in, that I can see how we can pass it, unless we have impact assessments of what it's damage might be.

And also, I do think that we need to be open to the possibility that something that is well intended to help the workers might cause some serious damage to them. I've heard very reasonable speeches from all sides here saying, can't you see that this could affect ordinary workers ability to live the lives they want to live and work in the way they want to work? And the government has just said, now, we are not having that, are we are going to consultation.

So at the very least to test the water. Can we say that impact assessments on whether this bill will be positive are not on sectors that are absolutely drowning because of many -- in many instances of things that this government has done and the previous government did, so surely you have to ensure that something that is well-intentioned to help those workers does not do more harm than good. I therefore support an impact assessment of what the particular impact will be. particular impact will be.
16:48
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 63 and agree that the impact of sections 128 of this bill impact of sections 128 of this bill -- 1 to 8 of bill. I would not stop there, to be frank. I would advocate expanding this assessment, not only to smaller micro-businesses, which you would expect me to say, but I would say all key sectors of the economy, because there will be huge employment variations sector by sector, and these need to be analysed and understood, as we keep hearing.

One size does not fit all, although the bill has a different view on that. And we have an issue of mind the gap. To other industries certainly deserve such assessments : the creative industries and, of course, the gig economy. We have already heard some disturbing numbers coming out of membership surveys for bodies such as the FSB, Federation of Smoke Distances, and the Institute of Chartered the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I will share two bits of data.

53% of FSB members expect this bill will reduce your plans to this bill will reduce your plans to hire permanent staff. 40% anticipate greater use of outsourced -- outsourcing because of this will. 40% is a significant number. What does this mean? It means, and it is already happening, that employees will be coming off payroll and going into freelance and self-employed roles. We have an amendment coming roles. We have an amendment coming up in many days time.

I won't read out my noble friends were behind it but it is crossbench and Liberal Democrat sponsored in relation to the establishment of a freelance Commissioner office. Now, the government may have little choice on this because the demand for the services for that office are going to go up exponentially, partly because of this bill and also because of the National Insurance Contributions Bill. I won't repeat all of those arguments. The second unforeseen consequence, and frankly, these are not unforeseen, are they? They are forcing.

We can say with some certainty that you are encouraging offshoring. Offshoring jobs from the UK. This is a trend which has been going on for decades. But is it really the objective of the government, particularly for lower paid roles, the entry level roles, to see percentage of those jobs going off to countries such as India, Vietnam, Philippines, Romania, Moldova? I'm not against offshoring but I think I would be very careful to be seen to be encouraging this, and I believe this bill is guilty of that.

But, actually, I think this assessment we hope will happen, the area that I think should be looked at is the impact on part-time jobs. Now, we've heard already about the young graduates and students, but I would also like to speak up for the older workers, those of us here who sit on the Economic Affairs Committee will be aware that we are conducting an enquiry on the economics of an ageing society. Of the government is to achieve its noble objective of raising the economic activity rate from 75 to 80% across all age groups, it is going to have to groups, it is going to have to tackle the 50-7-year-old -- 50-70 - year-old cohort.

We are going to have to be far more flexible about creating part-time work. And I'm afraid that this bill is likely to deter the creation of part-time roles. That is another area that I believe the impact assessment should be looking at, which is not just by sector but by type of job. I am told by my friends in the recruitment industry, if I can call them that, that there is already a shift in hiring from permanent to interim, and that is a trend that started at the beginning of this year and has accelerated.

Again, national insurance contributions has pushed employment in that direction, and this bill threatens to do the same. My final point is that assessments, HMRC might well want to discover that its project national insurance contribution tax revenues, well as a result of this bill take a significant hit as employees are being taken off payroll and moved into self-employed, part-time or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

even offshore roles. If I may just intervene briefly
16:54
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I may just intervene briefly on this. I would say that I support amendment 63 but like the noble Lord, I do wonder whether it is too modest in its scope, and I think for me, as I said when I spoke in the last day in committee on this bill, I'm somebody who are sympathetic to the kind of effects of zero hours contracts or some of the different kind of practices that we see no on employees in these businesses, which are often the lower end of the pay scale.

But I'm very struck by listening to not just this debate what the debate on the various different things that we have been discussing this afternoon, that what we don't seem to me -- don't seem to be taking account of or what the government seems to have taken account of in bringing forward this legislation, is that a lot of the measures that it is now trying to remove or the practices it is trying to remove or mitigate are the consequence of other things that have been introduced in the past, which have been well-intentioned in support of low pay workers, but are now creating other things.

For instance, although it is going back some time now, but one of the things that has been a very things happened since then, but I think about the arrival of tax credits and the, those sorts of things when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. That then the -- led to people to wanting to reduce the contracted hours because that would mean various different benefits. When I hear people say that some of these measures, or rather than -- or rather the removal of some of these practices, start to dis-incentivise people being offered my -- more hours...

I just worry that in the way this bill has been introduced in what feels like an adequate assessment, that we are just creating yet more problems, which will then lead to the need for yet more legislation, which will never get to the heart of what we're trying to do here, which is an employment economy where it is fair for employees and people who don't feel like they are being exploited but they have got the flexibility they need, but the employers have got the freedom and the independence that they absolutely need to be able to employ and grow their businesses to contribute to the fundamental agenda, which is a growing economy, which is fair to everybody concerned.
16:57
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, this is another one of those divided groups. I'm going to speak to impact assessments but I'm going to reserve what I say on tribunals for the next group. Impact assessments, there is a danger when talking about the existence and the need for impact assessment, that we then start providing our own impact assessments. I'm afraid many of your Lordships fell into that trap. I will try to avoid it. I will not be commenting what should be an impact assessment.

I will be commenting on why we need improved impact assessments. Some of the government's amendments have already been debated. I wasn't able to be here during that part of the process but on reading the debate, it further illustrates that with each layer of new amendments, changes are coming to this bill, complications are being added, reflections are being added into this bill. So, the noble Lord hunt, before he gave us his impact assessment, made his important his most important point which is to bring about the assessment of the findings of the RPC on the impact assessment.

That is before the changes, that is before the bill change substantially between the Commons and Your Lordships' House, and is therefore and scrutinised to this point. I'm very much in the camp that if we are going to redo an impact assessment, we do it properly. And we actually go back and produce one that is meaningful. One that the UPC can endorse. I'm not sure how many of your Lordships worked on the professional qualifications bill. I suspect Baroness Neville-Rolfe might be at least one.

Sometimes the public procurement bill is used as an example of a bill that comes half baked. Actually, the best example is the professional qualifications bill. That was a bill which differs from this one and that it started from Your Lordships' House -- in that it came to Your Lordships' House full of things that needed change. Full of drafting point, extensions, amendments. And the now extensions, amendments. And the now Lord -- noble Lord groups in -- Groupson stood up inside that we have to take this bill on holiday.

He took it away for four months and he came back with a bill that was properly drafted. The dots... The Is had been dotted. Now, we have some time. This is important. It's a flexible. It had to be introduced in flexible. It had to be introduced in 100 days. That is what we told about. I understand that. It's very about. I understand that. It's very important we get that right. I do think the Minister should start to be thinking about vacation plans for this bill between committee and this bill between committee and report stage so that things like the report stage so that things like the impact assessment can actually be delivered to Your Lordships' House, delivered to Your Lordships' House, and those of us who want this bill to succeed will be sure that it has to succeed will be sure that it has to succeed will be sure that it has
17:01
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. And I think that Noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom for tabling men and 62, 63 first of this covers the impact of the bill zero hours contracts provision on the tribunal system and on specific sectors. My Lords, let me place on record the Government recognises the vast contribution that the sectors, the hospitality, retail, the Health and Social Care Act are, contribute to the nations economy and employ millions of people. I will just give some examples, I mean the hospitality sector currently employs 330,000 people on zero hours contracts which makes up 28.9% of the workforce.

The retail and wholesale employ something close to 90,000, equating to something like 7.8% of the workforce, and health and work sector employs 190,000, contributing something like 16.5% of the workforce. Zero hours contracts have offered flexibility for some workers. Now, evidence has shown that it has indicated that they have been exploited by certain UK companies, leading to job insecurity, and limited work rights. This pro-business pro-worker Bill aims to address the issues by effective enforcement and closing to ensure fair treatment for all workers so that we can grow our economy.

I refer to amendment 63. This amendment would insert the new clause to require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the zero hours provisions on the bill on specific sectors of the economy within six months of passage of the bill. As your Lordships house will know, the Government have already published a very comprehensive set of 27 impact assessment, spending something close to 1,000 pages. These are based on the best available evidence on the sectors likely to be affected by these measures.

As mentioned by Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, the RPCs opinions refer to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment, not the policy itself. Impact assessments provide initial analysis of impacts that could follow and we will therefore be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continued consultation and engagement.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would respond for a moment to which the RPC has given on the government's impact assessment. As government's impact assessment. As the Government continuing discussions with the regulatory discussions with the regulatory policy committee? To try to reverse their ability to meet the necessary requirements that the regulatory requirements that the regulatory policy committee imposes on all Governments? When will we see an end to the team? And an acceptance that the Government has learned from the experience and the judgement of the RPC?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

RPC? Looks, as I mentioned earlier, this assessment will continue. And I this assessment will continue. And I will mention further in the impact assessment that respect to the assessment that respect to the specific RPC rate, I would need to write to the Noble Lord on this. We write to the Noble Lord on this. We recognise the importance of ensuring the impacts of the policy workers, the impacts of the policy workers, businesses, the economy, and the analysis was publishing this.

We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an impact assessment when the bill secures the same and further assessments consulting on better regulation requirements. In addition, we are committed to consulting secondary legislation as we have seen, including the sectors listed in this amendment. Now, turning to amendment 62, which would insert a new clause to require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact of tribunals of other Zero Hour provisions in the bill.

The detailed package of analysis to which I referred a moment ago refers to the alliterative assessment of the bills measures on the impact of the employment tribunal cases. We intend to refine this over time and the tribunal service, Acas, and wider stakeholders. We recognise the importance of ensuring the impact of this policy when we enforce the system and working in partnership with this organisation through the policy organisation. They intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an impact assessment with the bills and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, as I mentioned earlier.

In the meantime, the Government is taking various steps between the capacity between employment tribunal systems and, for example, the ACAS providing to employment law and riding conciliation for potential deployment tribunal claims, this also offers post claim conciliation for claims, so the Government is taking various steps to increase the capacity such as the deployment of legal framework and additional charge. No, H MCT improving the tribunal productivity which actively manage cases and that use of remote hearing technology.

We are committed to looking at what more we can do in this area and to give the Minister of Justice and wider stakeholders such as we just mentioned and we are already helping many employers and workers settled before needing to go on to further hearing. Our work also includes opportunities for the work, the Fair Work Agency, to take on enforcement, where it would help both workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without having to go to tribunal. And also I referred to Baroness Fox point about the bill, this bill does not leave any gaps.

Some elements of the bill are waiting. Engagement, future engagements, and consultation with stakeholders, so that we can ensure that the policies work for all

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involved. We hope we have assured and can withdraw the amendment. I would just like to point out that I am delighted that the that I am delighted that the consultations are occurring. But we consultations are occurring. But we are asked as legislators to vote on a bill without having seen the consultations, and so the problem I have got is you can tell me, the have got is you can tell me, the Minister can tell me, that there are Minister can tell me, that there are no gaps.

Because it is all going to be done for us. I do not know why we do not sack ourselves. What are we do not sack ourselves. What are we doing sitting here? Reading line by line through a committee to discuss line through a committee to discuss a bill that we are told we are not to worry our little heads about.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is the gap. Firstly, look, it is important that we can continue to have that we can continue to have conversations with stakeholders. And I mean most Noble Lord Knight and I I mean most Noble Lord Knight and I assure the Noble Lady would also know that employment law includes a lot of regulation, previous employment, legislation, further relations are in place. And it is important and it is right that we speak to as wide a group of stakeholders, workers, unions, and everyone involved so that we can get it right.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

One last thing. I want you to speak to wider groups of stakeholders than the official bodies that represent them, to be frank. It should have been done before it was brought to us. I want, before it was brought to us. I want, for the record, it to be noted in the consultation all of that work the consultation all of that work should be done. You should not bring in legislation that could have unintended consequences that will damage workers write when you damage workers write when you proclaim that they will save workers rights.

But if you have not done the consultation, you should never have brought it to Parliament to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discussed. I hear what the noble Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear what the noble Baroness has said. This bill has gone to the has said. This bill has gone to the other house and line by line we have also taken it on board here. And we will continue it in further consultation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

consultation. When I was talking about taking a holiday, I was not joking for so I was serious. And it would be quite nice if the Minister could take it seriously and respond.
17:11
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
The way the bill is going, we may reach recess before we come back to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

discuss it further. That was, my Lords, a very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That was, my Lords, a very significant admission by the Noble Lord the Minister, for which we Lord the Minister, for which we thank him. We are going to need the recess to rethink write a lot of recess to rethink write a lot of this bill, as I agree with the noble this bill, as I agree with the noble Baroness Lady Fox of Buckley. That this is a gap filled bill. I know this is a gap filled bill. I know that the Minister is told in his brief to say that there are no gaps.

But whenever you look in the bill there is further work to be done. there is further work to be done. Before the Government will say what it is going to do, and it is taking it is going to do, and it is taking power, huge powers, Henry VIII powers, to amend primary legislation powers, to amend primary legislation through statutory instruments. That through statutory instruments. That is a hugely important step, and we are a reasonably sensible chamber and cannot possibly allow the Government to get away with that.

You cannot get away with saying to Parliament we are not going to give you the detail of what we are going to do, indeed we are not want to tell you what we are going to do because we are going to consult and then we will do it by Statutory Instrument. That is not the way to legislate. And I agree that it would be a very healthy contribution by Lady Fox of Buckley. I also thank Lord Londesborough just for reminding us about the creative industry.

We just have to have a relevant impact assessment so that Parliament can see what effect this bill is going to have on a rapidly changing workforce, as the noble Baroness reminded us. We are, in fact, is that for me? Sorry. The workforce has changed dramatically workforce has changed dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years. And the modern landscape has changed substantially, but of course I give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I appreciate that and we are all under parliamentary scrutiny of this and we welcome every single amendment. And we also preferred that the Government believes we delegate powers in the bill that are delegate powers in the bill that are necessary and as the Noble Lord necessary and as the Noble Lord would have noted, so many hours that would have noted, so many hours that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would have noted, so many hours that I just so happen to have the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just so happen to have the report of the DPRRC. And they do raise serious concerns. And one of raise serious concerns. And one of the concerns that the delegated and the reform committee has constantly the reform committee has constantly said about all Governments is that you should not amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. You should be upfront about what you are going to do to change. And it may well be that the Noble Lord the Minister would take great comfort in the fact that there are only sort of I think 18 black lines.

18 black lines of criticism. I do hope that he will take the advantage that has been given to him on all sides just to take this bill away and to try and find a better solution, and do not forget the bill that I originally saw at second reading in the House of Commons has changed substantially. 160 amendments were tabled and reported in Commons. They were not scrutinised line by line. They could not be, because they were produced at the last moment.

And I just think that the Government has got to recognise, as my Noble Friend Baroness Stowell said, it may well be that this bill is going to dis- incentivise a whole range of employment situations, which is going to have a massive impact on the whole employment seen. It may well be that my Noble Friend is right. It is going to create more problems. And I recognise the Noble Lord fox has got a major concession already about the utilisation of the recess, but I do think that we need to pause and just say to the Government can we now see the overall impact assessment, in particular, an undertaking that they will continue to scrutinise carefully the effect of all of this legislation on the employment market before it is too late, but in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What Want to clarify we are sticking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Want to clarify we are sticking to 7 days. At the end of the recess will come back.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was looking to a longer holiday
17:16
17:17
None Portrait Amendment:64 Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-

right to request flexible working. The Employment Relations (Flexible The Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill act amended the right to reflect flexible working, so it applied from the first day of employment. Previously you need to wait for 26 weeks as a qualifying wait for 26 weeks as a qualifying period before making a request. That was a good move forwards, but in practice this still means that when finding and taking a new job, an employee might need to leave a role that offers them the flexibility they need, without knowing whether there new employer can accommodate their responsibilities outside work, too.

If that request is then denied, the employee might find themselves in an impossible situation. Forced to choose between their work and their responsibilities, outside of work. Employers might also find themselves having gone through a whole recruitment process, having waited for their new recruit to work on notice period for their previous employer, only to find that they cannot accommodate their new employees request and potentially having to start the recruitment process again. And to me, that is a lose, lose situation, leaving at the employee and the employer worse off.

TUC research shows that two in five mothers don't feel comfortable in asking for flexible working that they needed during a job interview. Out of fear they will face discrimination or have at the offer withdrawn. Changing the law to allow flexible working request, from the job offer stage would give candidates a vital protection. And as I've said, the change would also benefit employers. It will create a legal framework for an open and honest conversation about working patterns, before contracts are signed, ensuring both parties can agree on arrangements that genuinely work, for them.

It doesn't change how employers need to consider flexible working request, nor their right, having given it proper consideration, to say that it does not fit with their business needs. Such a change would and could support fairer hiring, greater inclusion and better long-term inclusion and better long-term protection. Flexible working can unlock economic opportunities, for growth. Indeed the post implementation review of the flexible working regulations, in Taxable working to all employees, not just those with caring responsibilities, show that flexible working can reduce vacancy costs, increase skill retention, enhance business performance and reduce staff absenteeism.

And it has the Back into economic activity, who
17:20
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Labour)
-

have otherwise left the labour market. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, the importance of bringing older people back into work, people who may have disabilities, or have been on benefits for a period of time. These are the people that the government is spending a lot of time and effort trying to re-engage into the workforce, for their own good, but also for the good of economic growth. And I think this change could help do that. On these benches, we have emphasised the benefits of having a flexible labour market and in my view, that means one where people are able to move easily between employer employers and I think this amendment would support that.

I would be interested

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to know what the Minister thinks of this proposal and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this proposal and I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 9, page 35, line 35, is that the word is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow Lady Penn, I rise to speak to amendment Penn, I rise to speak to amendment 66, in the name of my noble friend, who is unable to be in his place who is unable to be in his place today, due to a long-standing family commitment. Seven of the bill on commitment. Seven of the bill on flexible working will make a huge difference to working people, including those with caring responsibilities. Many of us know responsibilities.

Many of us know all too well, very personally, the daily juggling act miracle that especially working mums are expected especially working mums are expected to perform. Anything that makes their lives easier has to be their lives easier has to be welcomed. Flexible working has the added benefit, to business, and for added benefit, to business, and for the wider economy, of making it easier for carers to both enter the
17:22
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
workforce and stay there. This will help close the gender pay gap, reduce child poverty and help keep reduce child poverty and help keep mothers and babies healthy. However, Amendment 66 seeks to address the Amendment 66 seeks to address the concern that those on the right is a must have teeth. Supporting must have teeth. Supporting Maternity Action and in preparing this amendment. Amendment 66 would this amendment. Amendment 66 would require them to review and publish the statement on the adequacy of the the statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can afford.

Where an employer has not followed its obligations, in dealing with an employees flexible working request. Currently, employees have a right to request flexible working, on a wide range of grounds. Employees rights by introducing unreasonable requirements. Meaning that employers will only be permitted to refuse a statutory flexible working request if it is reasonable to do so, on one or more of the listed grounds. Now this new requirement is a positive step towards making a flexible working the default.

The problem is that the maximum compensation, which in Employment Tribunal can award, when it upholds an employees complaints, about how an employer has treated their flexible working application, currently, the maximum compensation, which in Employment Tribunal can award is eight weeks pay, capped at £719 a week. A total of £5752. This low compensation cap does not reflect the devastating cost, to a worker, where that flexible working has been unreasonably refuse. Maternity Action and trade unions have documented how unreasonable refusals effectively force, particularly many new mothers and other carers out of their job, often into lower paid, less secure work, or out of work altogether.

Now, flexibility should be a two-way street, for the employer and worker. But in the real world, too often it is mothers who are paying a high price. Set against the expense of legal representation, the low level of compensation available deters others from pursuing flexible working complaints, to an employment tribunal. The only meaningful recourse may be a discrimination claim against the former employer, for which compensation is not capped. However such claims are typically long, complicated and extremely stressful. Much better to extremely stressful.

Much better to send a signal that the government is serious about enforcing us flexible working rights, so that employers are encouraged to do the right thing, in the first place. In the Bills impact assessment, it stated that an aim of the changes in clause 7 is to allow an employment tribunal to scrutinise whether the decision to reject flexible working request was reasonable. For that to be effective, the penalties should be introduced that reflect a substantive failure to act in accordance with a new reasonableness requirement.

The government's aim of making flexible working, the default is very welcome. I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider bringing forward an amendment, a report stage, or provide reassurance that other routes will be taken to ensure that the new right to flexible working 's one that would be enforced in a practice and workers who are unreasonably refused get adequate compensation. get adequate compensation.
17:26
17:28
17:28
17:28
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
perfectly possible as an understanding for the government to have already addressed this issue and by statutory instrument to have set differential rates for set differential rates for conversation at an employment tribunal. -- Compensation. It seems tribunal. -- Compensation. It seems to me rather a waste of time and not necessarily a good use of ministerial time to put on the face ministerial time to put on the face of the bill, in Statuette, a primary piece of legislation. Another piece of legislation. Another review.

My substantial issue is also review. My substantial issue is also that this, again, tips the balance are much more towards the worker, unreasonably, away from the unreasonably, away from the unreasonably, away from the employer. I do think that is to be deprecated, because that is what we deprecated, because that is what we have seen in so many of this bill. have seen in so many of this bill. And therefore it leaves me to conclude someone as well. Again, the risk-based assessment, whether you would wish otherwise to employ that person, you may wary will -- very well conclude, the encumbrance of being a female employee, that employer will say we do not want to employ that person, because she may apply for flexible working.

It is better to employ someone else, particularly if the risk is in going to an employment tribunal, after having already believed that they have behaved in a reasonable way, that they are subject to a potential substantial monetary fine, which will impact on the bottom line. And that isn't good for those workers, it is not for the women who wish to work and have flexibility. I do broadly agree with the idea of a reasonableness, in applying for flexible working.

That is how our jobs market and employment regime works now, many women do want flexible working and it is absolutely right that employers, reasonably consider that. I do think this amendment is a step too far. Because it will have an unintended consequence of making it more likely that women won't be employed, in order to ask for flexible working. I think it is unnecessary and it won't add, particularly, to the efficacy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the bill. Getting worried that everybody

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Getting worried that everybody was going to agree with themselves, the noble Lord Jackson popped up to rescue us. It seems in his objection that he second-guessed the finding of the impact assessment that we of the impact assessment that we haven't had yet. Which will add to the level. If his point that it is the level. If his point that it is going to help workers, more than it going to help workers, more than it helps employees. -- Employers. He is admitting that the fine is too low.

I'm not sure worries going on that. I'm not sure worries going on that. He then drifted into a critique of He then drifted into a critique of He then drifted into a critique of I do not give way. I apologise to Baroness Penn, if I had been that organised I would have, clearly I organised I would have, clearly I haven't. I apologise to Baroness Penn, had I been little more organised I would have signed her amendment. Because I think it is an amendment, and I hope...

Well the noble Lord stop interrupting me... noble Lord stop interrupting me...
17:31
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Order, I think it's clear Lord Fox isn't going to give way that's his prerogative. would like to develop my point. I think the issue in amendment 64 was very well dealt with by Baroness Penn and picked up subsequently by Baroness O'Grady. It's commonly thought of as a soft policy, a policy somehow about giving people things and a one-sided policy. I think both speakers touched on the harder edge and I would like to emphasise it to.

This is good for the economy, this is an economic hard edge. We have millions of people who are not working and not able to work, some of them will never work but many, with more taxability and the right amount of help, will be able to work. It's the government's objective to bring quite rightly to bring as many of those people into the workforce as possible, and flexible working is one of the important tools that will enable us to do that. On the subject of Lord Watson's amendment, I am broadly sympathetic to that amendment and I think it is no problem to assess the impact of tribunal's but I think there is a wider point on tribunal's which I promised during the largest -- last group to bring in.

The point is that unless we clear up the system of unless we clear up the system of tribunal's it won't matter what the level of sanction is because it's going to be years before that sanction is brought. It becomes essentially a meaningless activity for particularly the employee but also for the employer. Every time we go into tribunal's as I said before, both sides lose. We got to find ways of moving the system faster and eliminating issues within the system that are clogging it.

That's why ask noble Lady the Minister if we could have a proper meeting where we go through the whole issue of what the government is planning to do with tribunal's, not just what this bill does but how it's going to flush them through and get it working properly, because if it doesn't, a huge lump of this bill fails because it's going to be years and years before any sanctions are ever brought, years before case law, will be an important element of defining what reasonable is we don't have to wait two or three years before we get that ruling, how many more unreasonable things are going to happen in the meantime? This is a vital point and I very much hope the Minister will...

I will now give way

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to Lord Jackson. I thank the noble Lord. Not for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord. Not for the first time he has mischaracterised what I actually mischaracterised what I actually said, it is very clear and I was quite emphatic that I support reasonable requests for flexible reasonable requests for flexible working so I would be obliged if the noble Lord did not wilfully misrepresent what I said barely 5 misrepresent what I said barely 5 minutes ago. Though I know being a Liberal Democrat he is not always

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acquainted with the actuality. Even I was about to but I clearly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Even I was about to but I clearly won't now so you can fly for that
17:35
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
won't now so you can fly for that one. Flexible working is an important tool for getting people back in the workplace and keeping people in the workplace. I think we should be grateful for the amendment that Baroness Penn has tabled and I hope the government is sensible enough to adopt its version of it in the next stage of this bill. the next stage of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to join the general praise and congratulations to Baroness Penn for her amendment 64 in this group, there's not much more for me to say other than I would for me to say other than I would echo Lord Fox is comments, I hope the government is listening and will the government is listening and will address the issue raised by my noble friend as we get to the next stage and if they don't, I would be more than happy to support her in her than happy to support her in her free future endeavours as regards amendment 66 in the name of Lord amendment 66 in the name of Lord Watson it was expertly spoken to by Watson it was expertly spoken to by Lady O'Grady, I think I was going to echo the same points about the employment tribunal's, a lot is employment tribunal's, a lot is going to be expected of them but as we know the simple fact is that the backlog is increasing, there is a shortage of funds, the waiting times shortage of funds, the waiting times are increasing up to two years, it are increasing up to two years, it doesn't seem very plausible to expect that Employment Tribunal is going to be able to cope with the amount of work coming their way stop I'm afraid that will probably I'm afraid that will probably include the amendment so I look forward to hearing the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baronesses comments. I'm afraid you won't. The noble Lord perhaps. I thank in absentia Lord Watson and Baroness O'Grady for tabling amendments six D6 and indeed Baroness O'Grady for so ably moving
17:37
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

it in his absence and indeed, the noble Lady Baroness Caine tabling amendments 64. I think this has been a broadly hopeful if somewhat a broadly hopeful if somewhat spicier debate on taxable working -- Baroness Penn. This group and the next group deals with flexible next group deals with flexible working, I agree with many of comments noble Lords across the comments noble Lords across the housemaid in terms of highlighting important flexible working is in helping people to balance work with helping people to balance work with Responsibilities in their personal lives, particularly caring lives, particularly caring As Lord Ashcombe pointed out this, having sex ability can lead to happier, healthier and more productive employees he is absolutely right on this.

It's good for employees, good the businesses and in turn good for the economy. As Baroness Penn outlined in some Baroness Penn outlined in some detail and also Baroness O'Grady, for families primary benefit of for families primary benefit of flexible working is being able to work part-time or having taxable start and finish times make it easier for parents to balance work and childcare needs. Similarly those caring for vulnerable adult or a child with a disability flexible working can help people manage their caring response villages while remaining in work.

I would like to echo some of Lord Fox's comments about the way we regard taxable working, I think to be clear flexible working isn't solely about working from home, something which post-pandemic we have become somewhat focused. Indeed the ACAS guidance sets out eight examples of flexible working and working from home is only one of those eight. It talks about compressed hours, staggered hours, remote working, job sharing, part-time hours as well as working from home. According to the 2023 flexible jobs index nine in 10 want to work flexibly only six in 10 employees are currently full stop three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working.

Equally the government recognised that business needs very and not all flexible arrangements are possible in all circumstances will stop that what the government is increasing access to taxable working by making it the default except where not reasonable or feasible. Electric concur with Lord Fox's comments, this is the soft policy is an important economic and human management tool that should be regarded as such. Turning firstly to a moment 66 in the name of Lord Watson, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation which and a primer tribunal may award to employee with a section successful claim related to flexible working maximum compensation what is eight weeks pay for an employee bringing a claim to tribunal.

Section ATI of the priming rights act 96 means the government may review the maximum number of weeks pay that can be awarded to an employee. If it considers it appropriate to do so can then use this power to change the specified numbers of weeks pay of which the maximum amount of the reward or conversations that will stop is not necessary to include anything further on the face of the bill. It's worth pointing out to my noble Lords, Logix house that the maximum has risen every year since the introduction from £250 in £2002-£719 now, this is not something that is caught in aspect.

Therefore we would argue that the statutory review on the maximum compensation award within six months of Royal Assent that create uncertainty across the board and would detract from some of the other important forms of both employers and employees and trade unions and the wider economic business community will need to prepare for. Before leaving this junction it would be help or to talk slightly to Lord Faulks as wider point about tribunal. I can't speak at any great the detail on this but I understand the Ministry of Justice taking the view of the employment tribunal system, I would hazard it hasn't been sufficiently invested in in recent years and that's something we should seek, the slowness of the system resulting we should seek to address.

It also work before leaving this point on amendment six D6 point out that there is a risk in creating an uncertainty for businesses and workers alike by creating the possibility of differing awards for different types of claims will top currently a number of different types of claims, for example relating to redundancy and unfair dismissal face the current same maximum award for flexible working it would be undesirable to create undue capacity and confusion in fact having a two tier system.

Turning to Baroness Penn's amendment 64 which would extend the right to request flexible working to candidates with a job offer. In practice the government believes this is already the case, the right to request flexible working which is being strengthened in the spell is already a day one right, this means that employees can request flexible working from the first day in a roll top we know and practice many employers and employees will begin discussions about working arrangements for the candidate starts work, and as Baroness Penn alluded before joining an organisation formally constructive discussions can offer a better way to identify working arrangements that work for both parties than a formalised request and response might otherwise achieve.

Mandating through legislation a right to request flexible working prior to appointment will not account for the fact that not all job offers to come to fruition, for a number of reasons. I would say that candidates for the job offer do have some limited rights, discrimination and contractual rights are amongst those, the hypothetical example the Baroness Penn quoted would indeed be taken care of, dissemination based on protected characteristics is currently outlawed during the recruitment process. However we would contend it's not a status which we would want to over formalise at this point in time.

Additionally under this proposal employers will still have up to two months to consider and respond to requests. If the intention of this amendment is due significant bring forward in time people's ability to have a flexible working request accepted it would not succeed in this respect will stop the covenant encourages the employers to start a conversation about taxable workers with early starters at an early stage would not be appropriate to extend the legal framework to candidates under offer. Lastly I just wanted to respond to Lord Jackson's point about sex dissemination, I contented this form of dissemination would actually carry a higher risk of penalty and payout than unreasonable refusal of flexible working so it's probably a little out of place in the debate on this amendment.

To close I therefore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seek noble Lords withdraw their amendments in this group. Before my noble friend sits down

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before my noble friend sits down you are absolutely right that that maximum count applies to the number maximum count applies to the number of areas and many people would believe that maximum limit is to believe that maximum limit is to limit on those areas as well. Is my limit on those areas as well. Is my noble friend at least able to write to me or to Lord Watson and explain to me or to Lord Watson and explain when the next review of the cap will when the next review of the cap will take place and opportunities there will be for organisations like will be for organisations like maternity action and trade unions to make their case that that maximum

**** Possible New Speaker ****

cap should be higher. Thank Baroness O'Grady for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Baroness O'Grady for that and I would be very happy to write and I would be very happy to write to her and Lord Watson on this point. I think the point we are making is there is already a mechanism in place to upgrade and that doesn't mean it isn't something that organisations concerned about the limit of compensation can indeed lobby on but the amendment is table doesn't actually is superfluous, doesn't add any other powers that aren't in law or indeed under this bill already.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just add on that subject

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just add on that subject that I think the noble Lord suggested there was one overall cap and that consistency was required and that consistency was required which was the point that Baroness O'Grady developed. But in fact there O'Grady developed. But in fact there are a range. Unfair dismissal is subject to a maximum per week for subject to a maximum per week for two years, redundancy is on a different basis, it is essentially one week's pay for each year of employment up to a maximum of 20, discrimination is done on a discrimination is done on a different basis altogether, with no cap at all.

It's the amount of cap at all. It's the amount of compensation. I don't think consistency is really an answer, a general review would be very helpful general review would be very helpful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

general review would be very helpful I thank my noble friend for that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend for that, I'm sure compensation for penalties. The basic principle that actually what the amendment is calling for, creates is not necessary. We have the powers to do what is behind it and in the bill. It is up for... To engage and that power needs to be used more frequently and to a greater extent. I thank you for that.
17:47
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank all noble Lord for their participation and the support, in particular, noble friend, Lord Ashkan for his comments. I think demonstrated very practically, the benefits of flexible working to businesses and in running teams effectively. Also to the noble Lord, Lord Fox and just the kind of exercise, further potential benefits of flexible working, in terms of getting people re-engaged into the workplace and also for businesses. Research conducted by the behavioural insights team has shown the offering rates were working can attract up to 30% were applicants at a job vacancy and work by the ONS revealed that older workers, working flexibly would be more likely to plan to retire, later.

Those are just two further specific examples. Just, to speak briefly to the other amendment, in this group. I hear how well put the noble Lady's argument, behalf of the noble friend was. I also hear the nobleness about extending further issues and increasing the number of issues that go to Employment Tribunal and across the burden of that will be placed On tribunal. The level of the Minister In and that is something the government will seek to address.

I would be interested to know from the noble Lord whether that is something that the government will seek to address, whether you can say what additional investment will go into the employment tribunal system, to prepare for this bill and whether he will also commit to that investment going in to this commencement of this bill, so that we do actually have the system in place to deal with some of the changes that we have heard, here. He wrote that at a later point, he is not leaping to his feet, right now.

I would acknowledge that although this, my amendments and changes the legislative framework for flexible working, it is really about changing a culture, a culture where you can have the conversations early and openly, as possible. But in how we have approached legislation. We have underpinned those changes with legislative rights, so that people have rights to come back to. I was slightly confused by the noble Lord's response to my amendments. He said, in practice it is what happens anyway, but it wouldn't be appropriate to underpin it with legislation.

And I wasn't totally clear on why not, when we underpinned the rest of the system of the right to request flexible working, with legislation. He also said that if someone had their job offer withdrawn because they made a request for flexible working, that Discrimination legislation. I do not believe that would be the case, it would be the case if the job offer had been withdrawn because they have (Protected Characteristics), but I think one of the important things about the shift in flexible working that we've seen in recent years and the 2014 expansion to making that right to request, to everyone, not just mums, or dads, or carers, is changing the culture around what flexible working means.

It is really important for those people with caring responsibilities and other responsibilities in their lives. It is really important for a whole host of other reasons and you can't kind of second-guessed people's individual circumstances, for requesting the right to request lexical workings. I do not think, if you had a job offer made and you requested flexible working, that current legislation would protect

**** Possible New Speaker ****

you if that job offer was then withdrawn on that basis. I thank the noble Baroness, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness, I would just like to say we are very happy to write to her to clarify our happy to write to her to clarify our understanding, but would operate in understanding, but would operate in that scenario. Perhaps the way that I was explaining it wasn't clear enough. It is the case that it would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be covered. Thank you and I really appreciate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and I really appreciate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you and I really appreciate Just to touch on, to the point made by my noble friend, Lord Jackson, I absolutely heard his support for flexible working and I think one of the points, in fact there are just made is that I'm really keen and you were here in later amendments from me on paternity leave that we share some of the assumptions on who might some of the assumptions on who might need and use flexible working colour with other kinds of forms of flexibility, in the workplace.

So that we do not assume it is just the women on the mums. And they potentially face a less discrimination because you cannot look at someone and say I think this person is going to make a particular request of me and a bit nervous request of me and a bit nervous about that. The whole basis would be having the support of employers. I think actually in this area it is an think actually in this area it is an area where culture has shifted. There is a further to go, but actually they really do see the benefits of this, in the workplace.

Although, I have tabled an amendment to try to provide a legislative underpinning to things. I think it is about changing culture and having is about changing culture and having a more open conversation. That, I beg leave to withdraw.
17:52
None Portrait Amendment:65 Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that this amendment be with and Chris make an amendment is by leave withdrawn. In clause 9, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

65, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Rose to speak to 65, 65 a and 67.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rose to speak to 65, 65 a and 67. Amendment 65 is a necessary, the heart of the nature that is performed by these agencies. The security service, the secret intelligence service and the government Communications headquarters collectively known as the intelligence agencies or at the heart of the U.K.'s national heart of the U.K.'s national security apparatus. The roles involve highly sensitive operations, often conducted in real time and under exceptionally stringent under exceptionally stringent conditions. They were to protect the nation from terrorism, espionage and cyber terrorist, amongst other cyber terrorist, amongst other threats.

The landscape is a dynamic and fast moving and requires the and fast moving and requires the utmost flexibility, discretion and utmost flexibility, discretion and response from their employee employees. In this context, the introduction of provisions for flexible working could unintentionally create significant risk to national security. The need for immediate action, time shared for immediate action, time shared Be compatible with the predictability of flexible working arrangements, by demand. So we think it is essential that we avoid unintended consequences, by applying the flexible working provisions to the intelligence services.

Arguably this leads to the list of services expanded, to other operations that have implications, for national security. As I said these services operate in highly confidential environment and they often involve sensitive operations and demand secrecy and agility. Obviously a probing amendment. I would like to ask of the noble Lord, Baroness the Minister, what conversations that the government had with security services, intelligence services, the communications headquarters, regarding the potential impact of flexible working and provisions on the operations. As regards, M 67, again I would like to join in the support for flexible working.

We have just heard in the last group. This does present an important opportunity to better understand the implications of introducing such right. We think we ought to, and approaching, with slightly critical eye. We need regulatory policy feedback on the clause. Which has raised several concerns that can't be overlooked. The RPC rating, for this clause was read across all three core areas. The rationale for intervention, identification of options and justification of preferred way forward. The RPC has stated that there is a lack of sufficient evidence resented to justify the need for this intervention.

In particular they highlighted there is little evidence to suggest rejecting flexible working requests unreasonably. This is a key point that must be addressed, the committee's wider concerns suggest that without strong evidence of a widespread issue with employers rejecting a request, the government is introducing policy policy that is based on assumptions, rather than concrete data. I would like to ask the government what problem are they trying to solve by introducing this right to request flexible working, if the case is as at the committee has described.

Does the government, in effect believe the RPC is assessment is incorrect. Data are evidence does this government have to demonstrate they are systematically denying such requests in a way that harms workers. One of the most important questions that this clause raises is whether the intervention is justified. The RPC has pointed out that the rationale for introducing the right to request flexible working Has it been significantly established. Just to suggest that the overall environment would be enhanced by a broader understanding of the situation the consideration.

Amendment 65 a 6 to supply clarity regarding the refusal of flexible working applications, and roles with such flexibility would fundamentally alter the nature of the job, or undermine critical operational needs. Clause 9 as currently drafted is well-intentioned but ultimately a blunt instrument. Section 1 as O'Dea sets out a list of what are deemed reasonable grounds to refuse flexible working request. Those grounds are largely subjective. They are difficult to quantify in practice. How can an editor reasonably be expected to approve the journalist writing has deteriorated because they're working from home.

How does one assess at the declining spontaneity that often arises from collaboration in the newsroom. Isolated remote working. This ambiguity could create an a climate of uncertainty and making risky judgements they may acquiesce to request and may compromise. Essential aspects of the role. But the example of journalism, this could disrupt the delicate environment of the newsroom, equality, cohesion, the development of junior reporters through personal mentoring and so on and so forth. This is precisely why we think the sector specific exemptions are needed.

A1 size of it approach as per the current drafting is not accurate. This provides a clearer more realistic framework, recognising in certain sectors and obligations, fiscal presence is not optional but essential. To expect employees in some of these are to navigate the current standards is both unfair and we think unworkable.
17:58
17:59
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arises to support the amendment in the names of Lord Sharpe. I notice in the bill itself the notice in the bill itself the relevant clause, clause 93 provides that it inserts a section into the Copyright act, which allows for the refusal of a flexible working refusal of a flexible working application. In circumstances where conditional circumstances if to criteria met. Firstly, the employer considers that the application should be refused on the ground in subsection 1 and eight.

And, it is reasonable for the employer to refuse the application on that ground, or those grounds. It is a double test that is being applied for the decision to refuse the application for flexible working. Then if one looks at the list, new Then if one looks at the list, new sub clause 1Z a, list grounds from ATI and one might think the list has been prepared by the unions. It only sets out a very, perhaps A1 sided view of what the flexible working may apply and it is pretty of choosing its expression, it sets out that the grounds mentioned are the burden of additional cost, the detrimental effect to meet customer demand.

Inability to read organise staff. Ability to recruit additional staff, all of this. All of this is going to be subject of considerable debate. Anticipating any future In the amendments which my noble friend have laid, there is a much clearer solution which excludes various obvious sectors and I would ask His Majesty's Government to confirm they accept the sectors where is much more likely that flexible working will not be in all likelihood as fruitful an avenue for an employee to explore as they might in other sectors, and it's worth setting them out on the face of the bill.

They are obviously journalism and news publishing, the emergency services, healthcare delivery, construction and on-site engineering, and another sector where core duties require collaboration, physical presence or real-time operational responsiveness. All of these plainly should be squarely on the face of the bill and it's simply not good enough, I suspect the answer that is going to come from the Frontbench will be will be can rely on the good sense of the tribunal to squeeze these obvious categories into the vague words we presently have, or in the alternative we've allowed ourselves another power to set out in regulations any other grounds that we fancy.

That I'm afraid is just not good enough and the idea mentioned in earlier groups that this can all be sorted out by the tribunal down the line is not good It's not good enough for two reasons, firstly the employment rights service is struggling under a massive backlog as it is, and secondly and this is perhaps even more fundamental point, the Employment Tribunal's are not a call to record. One tribunal may make a decision that a certain flexible right working request was reasonably refused but that's not going to be a binding precedent on the interpretation of those provisions.

It simply another first instance decision, it's not from the court of record, not capable of reliance upon in a subsequent tribunal. It will only become a precedent if it were peeled and it went to the employment appeal Tribunal and the employment appeal Tribunal made a ruling. I suggest it won't be economic the many employers to appeal those sorts of cases, so I therefore very strongly support the amendments advanced by my noble friend. advanced by my noble friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I speak to amendment 65? I note that the amendment says that any other sector where the core any other sector where the core duties require in-person collaboration, physical presence or real-time operational responsiveness, that could well be argued to be teaching a course, the argued to be teaching a course, the lack of flexibility, and as Lord lack of flexibility, and as Lord Katz has said, flexible working Katz has said, flexible working isn't just working at home it has a whole range of alternatives and ways of doing it, but the lack of the of doing it, but the lack of the ability to work flexibly has real consequences for the delivery of a profession that I know a lot about profession that I know a lot about which is teaching.

76% of teachers are women. The greatest and biggest are women. The greatest and biggest sector who the biggest proportion of teachers you leave the profession every year are women in their 30s. I am sharing, I declare an interest in am sharing, I declare an interest in chairing the commission on teaching, we have commissioned some independent research on this issue independent research on this issue from the key foundation who find that women in their 30s with children leave in huge numbers, it's 9,000 last year, the biggest that it has been on record of women leaving the profession, and they leave when they have children because their request to work part-time or to work flexibly are denied.

When Lord Sharpe of Epsom said our employers just routinely refusing flexible working, well in education yes they are. The rate of flexible working amongst graduate professions is about 46%, in teaching two% of teachers last year asked whether they could work flexibly and those requests are just routinely denied. From employers who have very poor understanding of what flexible working involves and frankly from employers who refuse flexible working because of the one-size- fits-all approach, and then find out that the teachers who are so precious to them leave the profession.

I was talking to young teacher last week with two children who ask if she could have two registration periods offer week which we should that she should make up the time and otherwise because our youngest child was three was finding it difficult to settle down at nursery this was refused, she has now given in her resignation. The number of women and the work done by the key foundation also work done by the key foundation also work done by the missing mother's report from an amateur the author of the report from the New Britain project when she was looking at the reasons for women leaving the profession in their 30s they leave hugely because they do not feel that they can manage the demands of the job full- time and the demands of a family, the main recommendation in that report was that flexible working
18:06
18:07
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
would make the right to request flexible working the right to engage in flexible working which would have such an effect of retaining teachers in the profession and raising educational standards in our schools, it would make that doubly difficult so I think it's a very poor amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can make one simple point just ask a question, what is flexible working? Haps the Minister could reply on that. Because we are talking about in this case and I got talking about in this case and I got a lot of sympathy which with -- with what has been said, I will is encouraged people who want to work part-time, dual workers and so on. The truth is I have worked at a senior level in business, and worked at the senior level and government both as a civil servant under minister, the truth is you do have to show some flexibility when things are difficult which I think is what are difficult which I think is what my noble friend's are trying to capture in this amendment they have capture in this amendment they have put forward.

We need to try and find a way through on this to encourage a way through on this to encourage flexible working, but you do have to think about the needs of the employer. That will be true in the employer. That will be true in the business sector which I know, in the enterprise sector, the charity sector and also in government. There sector and also in government. There are important debate but any light that can be thrown either by the Minister or my noble friend with his Minister or my noble friend with his legal hat on would be very helpful.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been a more interesting debate than I had expected. I think debate than I had expected. I think in looking at men and 65 we should acknowledge that Lord Sharpe in his ministerial responsible of these had ministerial responsible of these had considerable interaction with the services he was describing so we services he was describing so we should take him seriously. In 65 a Lord Sharpe proceeds to set out Lord Sharpe proceeds to set out certain sectors. In seeking to deliver an ambiguity I think new
18:09
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
ambiguity is being introduced. Sector specific exemptions are bringing their own problems and I ask Murray what is a journalist. Is it a card-carrying member of the NUJ, or is it someone who blogs calls himself a journalist? Or a group of people, that's just one example of the ambiguity sector system brings in and so I am drawn to the idea that we have something like the subsection 1Z a in part three of clause 9, if noble Lords are worried about the willingness of it are not sure the right adjective Lord Murray used then we can work to firm that language up.

But I think to describe the job rather than to think of every single job title we want to include in primary legislation, is a better way of going about it, if the description is too difficult to nail then I'm sure it's not beyond the wit of all of us to find a better way of describing it. Lord Murray had he been here a little earlier would have had the shortcoming of the tribunal system being well exercised and some comments from that the MoJ is looking at it I think I would return to that job and say my speech and lastly BIOS for us to have a meetings are perhaps the ministers could facilitate a meeting with interested parties on the bill and the MoJ to find out how they are moving forward on tribunal because I do think we need some line of sight on that.

I do think it's something of a complete -- capitulation if we say the tribunal's are no good so therefore were not going to make the right legislation because they won't uphold them, I think we have a duty to mope both make the right legislation and to put in place and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

make sure that the tribunal's can deliver. I obviously share much of what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I obviously share much of what Lord Fox says but is it not right the point I was making was that the answer from the government is we are answer from the government is we are going to provide no precision in this legislation and let the implement been sorted out and tell implement been sorted out and tell us what it means my point was twofold, firstly that will take far twofold, firstly that will take far too long because of the chaos of the tribunal system, and secondly tribunal system, and secondly structurally the Employment Tribunal can't give an answer to that first instance because it's not a court of record will top

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Points again had you seen an earlier side of the soap opera of earlier side of the soap opera of this committee you would have heard lordships from all around talk about firming up input -- imprecision which is why talked about firming up the imprecision of that list of the imprecision of that list of attributes rather than try to produce what I think is frankly an produce what I think is frankly an impossible job of a list of businesses and activities that somehow should come into this, of course we should have a worn imprecision but in the end there are going to be some things that tribunal's will in the end rule on that will be important and we need to have the tribunal's there and active and quick to do so.

There is an element of creativity around to some extent the fund ability of some of these criteria and I think think the noble Baroness made that point if we have some packs ability of interpretation in their than schools and other organisations you want to hang onto valued colleagues will find a way of using it in order to do it, I think if we start to rule out professions or rule in very hard and fast rules then we do lose the opposite -- opportunity to retain and attract certain groups of people.

I understand the point made is the more of that there is the
18:14
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Katz (Labour)
-

more so-called imprecision and there is a balance between the two. That's why still think if we have ideas around one 1ZA that is the way forward on this rather than a list forward on this rather than a list forward on this rather than a list I like to thank Lord Sharpe of Epsom I like to thank Lord Sharpe of Epsom for bringing this amendment related flexible working. Starting with MM and six D5 which would exempt Security Services from the working measures we are introducing through the spell.

These measures include that they only refuse flex were that they only refuse flex were working when it is able to do so on working when it is able to do so on the basis set out legislation ready the basis set out legislation ready and that they explain the basis for that decision to their employees I would like to draw the noble Lords would like to draw the noble Lords attention to the existing print that the current is ready-made to safeguard national security in relation to flexible working full stop let me explain the measure taken in the bell.

Subsection 7 in clause 9 of the prime and rights Bill brings the flexible working provisions into the scope of section 202 of the employment rights act 1996. Section 202 states that if in the opinion of a minister the disclosure of information would be contrary to national security then nothing in any of the provisions to which the section applies requires any person to disclose the situation and no person shall disclose the information any proceedings, court or tribunal relating to any of those provisions. By bringing the taxable working provisions under the scope working provisions under the scope of section 202 of the 1996 act the government has orally taken the necessary and proportionate steps to protect national security and to respond directly to Lord Sharpe's question we have indeed engaged with discussed and agreed this approach with the intelligence services full stop this amendment proposes a blanket exception for Security Services which I think would be a retrograde step as taxable working To the Security Services and this would indeed prevent all Security Service employees from benefiting from strength and flexible working rights and it's not necessary to manage the risks to national security.

The measure the government as included in clause 9 is reasoned and sensible in that it uses an already established provision to protect national security instances where disclosure would be harmful whilst also ensuring that flexible working remains an option for I would like to take this opportunity to say how much we value and how crucial they are to all security. On the day were we are commemorating victory in Europe. Where possible they deserve improvement rights. We trust them to keep our country safe.

We trust them to use these rights. From accessing flexible working, the measures we have taken in the vast majority of cases where national security is not involved. It is also worth noting that for many of these employees, certain forms of flexible working someone such as hybrid working may not be feasible but other words such as part-time working may be available, security service in a based job may be able to arrange a agreement with an earlier start and finish time, to manage childcare responsibilities, for example.

Turning to amendment 65 aid this would create an exceptional allowing flexible working requests to disrupt the nature of the working environment, in particular sectors. We had quite a debate on this. A clear way from my noble friend the potential impact and knock on effect we have already had from the opposite side about the unintended consequences. We heard about another unintended consequence, a sector that hasn't been considered in this amendment. I'm not entirely sure I would use at the turn fungible.

The prescription this will set out, it does create fortune. In answer to Baroness Neville-Rolfe's question, perhaps I was doing my... I indeed quoted ACAS's descriptions, examples of flexible working, things that can be described as flexible working. It can be hybrid and it can be part- time. There's a range of things and not just working from home, which I feel are as I said in the debate of the previous group, when we talk about flexible working.

Currently there are eight broad business reasons for which an employer can object to a flexible working request. These were set out in 2000, 2003. They were restated as part of the ACAS guidance in April guidance in April 2024. Indeed they are basically what is a set out in the section Bloodworth was talking about. These aren't new, they cover about. These aren't new, they cover a wide range of scope. To make a reasonable refusal of flexible working.

It does include where we have performance or quality affected. Recruiting people to do the work. In those conditions, when there is when you can't meet , or indeed the business is already planning changes to the workforce. That very swift canter through, will I hope assuage that this is not something that is already quite well established on the statute book. These include detrimental impact on quality of performance, which is at the heart of amendment 60 5A and the Employment Rights Bill will certainly not change those reasons.

The rationale for flexible working and the reasonable test were introducing, economically justifiable, 370 workers are currently out of the labour markets, because they are looking after the family. These measures will help you to access the remaining work, including vulnerable people. Like carers and disabled people. Labour is the party of getting people back into work, when they are not working and we want to use these measures to promote that. And in turn to quote Lord Ashcombe economic growth as a consequence.

These business reasons deliberately strike a balance between protecting employee discretion, to legitimately refuse flexible working request, when they are not reasonably flexible and ensuring employees can access a flexible working where they are. The previous consultation on the 2024 change the legislation felt the new two thirds, 63% of employers and businesses agreed that these eight broad reasons remain valid. This amendment concentrates on sectors which are particularly dependent in the workplace. We acknowledge that is not all flexible working arrangements will be feasible in all circumstances.

This legislation and the changes we are making to it are not about mandating, homeworking or in other specific flexible arrangements. And certainly, as having to tell the Conservative party, this is not the government job to determine whether flexible working is and is not appropriate. The intention is rather to encourage dialogue between their employers that works for both parties. In sectors and roles, the remote on hybrid working is not feasible, reasonably negotiated time base flexible arrangements, such as part-time or compressed hours and such arrangements can make work more accessible to representatives.

Disabled people and those with caring responsibilities. This amendment could therefore prevent thousands of these employees are from existing time-based flexible working arrangements and that's not something that this government or indeed I suggest that this House should accept. Finally amendment 67 proposes to require the government to make an assessment of the bill's provisions in flexible working and the clauses can be commenced. Whilst I can agree with the underlying intention, which is that the changes the flexible working. As we have discussed, the government has already produced a comprehensive impact assessment.

In making work flexible, the default impact assessment was published alongside second reading, the other place and provides best available evidence and potential impact on business, workers and the wider economy. It will take the opportunity, where necessary, as policy development continues. As per the better regulation framework process, we will publish and enacted assessment to account any amendments made to the employment legislation, during passage which materially affects our previous assessment of policy impacts. We intend to undertake an evaluation of the reforms, consistent with the wider bill measures.

Once the reforms of an significant time, we will undertake post-implementation view, in line with the better regulation framework process. Lord Sharpe are mentioned, raised the RPCs opinion, on the, on the assessment. We just want to make it clear that the RPCs had been reverted to the evidence and analysis in the impact assessment, not the policy itself is not the impact assessment provides initial analysis will follow and we will review these as we further develop the process. Consultation and engagement. It doesn't address the changes and will include protections that is cost workers and employers dearly.

Pro-business and pro-working packages and supports the government's objective to boost growth and improve standards. The government will continue to engage with and take timely and expert feedback from a range, including business and we will regularly consult with them to provide this important source of evidence. Alongside the changes, code of practice will be published to assist employers to consider requests and meet their obligations, under the reasonableness test. This is not in the bill as the government has existing powers.

More flexible working requests are created where feasible. I would like to respond to Lord Fox's request for a meeting to discuss employment tribunals. Apologies for not doing so, in response to the previous group of the members. Very happy to facilitate such a meeting. In closing, I hope the noble Lord is reassured and feels able to withdraw this amendment. this amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank noble Lord who have participated in what was a very interesting debate. And can I think the level of the Minister for his the level of the Minister for his answer. Which is very detailed. I accept and am actually somewhat accept and am actually somewhat reassured by his answer on amendment 65. It is good to know that the security service employees have been properly consulted and are content properly consulted and are content with this legislation. To be welcomed. I think the noble Lord for welcomed.

I think the noble Lord for that. I was most interested in the noble Lady, the Baroness's comments, I believe she said, apologies, ploys have a poor understanding of what flexible working involves in flexible working involves in education. I'm sure they do and I'm sure a lot of people who are
18:26
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
sure a lot of people who are actually involved in education, which rather makes the case for why amendment 67 should be necessary. The fact is that the RPCs opinion it may have not related to the policy, but it still remains red and the impact assessment was not good enough. I think my noble friend, Baroness Neville-Rolfe raised a very good point about what is flexible working. We agree flexibility is to be encouraged. I notice that the noble Lord has relied twice on the eight types of -- eight types The impact assessment will go a very long way to making it much clearer what people could be asking for, should be asking for, what employers should be thinking about and their likely economic impact, but societal impacts on the right to request must be working.

I think this would help, the Baroness said, because then people would have a broad understanding of what it might mean. It is officially the case that 100% of teachers, from home. That goes without saying. What is it actually mean in practice? I don't think

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anybody has much clarity on that. Including the employees and many of the teachers. I have joined a commission which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have joined a commission which will be very clear about what it means and how it can be employed in schools. I'm hoping that will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enlighten lots of people. I look forward to being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

enlightened. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Fox makes a very good point again Fox makes a very good point again when it came to describing and I would accept that that was an imperfect way of taping that imperfect way of taping that amendment. I would like to leap into defence and my noble friend, Lord Maria Bloodworth, from his attacks, Maria Bloodworth, from his attacks, by Lady Fox. As I heard it, my noble friend was not saying that friend was not saying that Employment Tribunal is no good.

He was saying there is a backlog. He was saying they are probably under was saying they are probably under resourced and underfunded. He was saying that because of the structural nature of them, they do not necessarily resolve things. Increasing reliance on them to resolve things is not necessarily going to have the desired effect. I think that is an incredibly important point. We should return to the discussion, that the noble Lord is offered, in the House. As I said in the last group, in the last summary, the fact is we are relying, placing the increasing reliance on the tribunal to resolve an awful lot of unanswered questions that are being discussed.

For this bill. Do not how things actually been resolved as an employment tribunal, after a long delay, it seems shortsighted, shall be so. For now, shortsighted, shall be so. For now, I am a somewhat reassured, on the amendment 65, and grateful to the noble Lord for his answers. I do noble Lord for his answers. I do think we should return to the idea of 67 in a much broader impact assessment. For now I'm content withdraw the amendment. withdraw the amendment.
18:28
18:29
18:29
None Portrait Amendment:68 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

69, 70 and 71, standing in my name. 69, 70 and 71, standing in my name. I speak to amendment 68, in I speak to amendment 68, in particular, first. This concerns the removal of the three-day waiting period, for Statutory Sick Pay. period, for Statutory Sick Pay. period, for Statutory Sick Pay. Whilst we recognise the principle of supporting workers, during the periods of ill-health, we do have periods of ill-health, we do have also to acknowledge the pressures this places on employers, this places on employers, particularly small businesses who, unlike the state, the direct cost of unlike the state, the direct cost of Statutory Sick Pay.

The original waiting period served as a waiting period served as a guardrail, in ensuring that Statutory Sick Pay was reserved for Statutory Sick Pay was reserved for genuine and sustained periods of genuine and sustained periods of incapacity its removal would risk increasing claims for short-term absences, many of which might previously have gone unclaimed or resolved informally. An proposal, in this bill to abolish waiting days for Statutory Sick Pay, for all workers, including those on temporary contracts and working via employment agencies, introduces an additional cost burden, for many small and medium-sized recruitment firms, in particular.

Especially in firms, in particular. Especially in My concern and from many of the organisations he most spoken to across the recruitment and small business sector, my concern is that this change risks creating a perverse incentive encouraging an increase in sporadic but regular short-term absences which are no touristy difficult to manage or verify. Especially in sectors where workers are in supply for temporary roles actual notice. For recruitment agencies and the employers they serve, such changes impose operational and financial uncertainty.

Recruitment firms already operate within narrow margins, absorbing employer liabilities under agency workers regulations stop the imposition of Statutory Sick Pay from day one would only add to those pressures. Without due consideration of enforceability or fraud prevention. So whilst we recognise the principle of ensuring support for genuinely ill workers, a blanket removal of waiting days does ignore the real world dynamics of flexible and agency working. And employment generally. It shifts further cost and risk onto firms who are in many cases already struggling with tight cash flows, rising labour costs and post-pandemic recovery.

Amendment 70 reflects our reservations about proceeding too far, too quickly in lowering eligibility thresholds. Where evidence supports a more cautious approach particularly for new hires and agency workers as we will come to in the next amendment. We believe that distinction is warranted. Amendment 71 six to limit the application of subsection 1 of section 155 which imposes limitations on entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay to cases where the employee is employed by one or more employment businesses as defined in section 13 subsection 3 of the employment agencies act 1973 this provision is designed to clarify the specific circumstances under which these limitations will apply.

We must be mindful that agency workers who often work on temporary short-term assignment present a unique set of challenges employment businesses are intermediaries between the workers and the employer which means they lack the close working relationship that a traditional employer has with their employees, these businesses responsible for ensuring the worker receives payment and benefit that they do not have the same ability to assess the veracity of sickness claims, particularly when when workers are placed across different client companies, by limiting the application of section 155 subsection 1 of section 155 subsection 12 workers employed by employment businesses, we believe we are addressing these practical challenges.

In agency work where a workers sickness absence can be difficult to verify, it's essential that levitation is on entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay are applied in a way that acknowledges all those complexities. Without this safeguard we risk creating a situation where employers within the agency sector are exposed to undue costs which could ultimately lead to higher recruitment cost, reduced tiring in the sector and ultimately dampened job creation. A situation which we really have got to avoid at all costs, especially in the light of the current economic climate.

Amendment 72 adds a new subsection to a two section 155 which ensures that an employee who holds multiple jobs during a single period of sickness is not entitled to claim more Statutory Sick Pay than they would if employed by only one employer. This provision is particularly important in preventing the duplication of SSP, statutory pay claims, a situation where an individual could potentially claim Statutory Sick Pay from multiple employers at once leaving to a higher total amount that they would have been entitled to have Bernie been employed by one.

This could become a serious problem. As workers increasingly hold multiple part-time or temporary jobs to supplement their income. Whilst this reflects the changing nature of modern work which we discussed earlier this afternoon it also opens the door for potential overpayment of Statutory potential overpayment of Statutory Sick Pay benefits, a situation that makes the Reuters. The purpose of Statutory Sick Pay is to provide a temporary financial safety net for workers when they are unable to work due to illness.

Not to allow workers to accumulate more benefits than they would have earned had they been
18:37
18:38
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

substitute two. The minute hand of legislation is opposing the busted relief of opposing the busted relief of adjournment so I'm going to reserve what I have to say about Statutory Sick Pay to when I speak to amendment 73 and 74 in the next group where I think some issues of the costs are addressed and I know Baroness Coffey and I have come up with amendments that are very broadly similar and I think they would be more appropriate to speak

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to them. I'm pleased we have moved on and that we are now debating the bill's important provisions to improve the provision of Statutory Sick Pay for millions of people across the country and I therefore thank Lord country and I therefore thank Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt for tabling Sharpe, Lord Hunt for tabling amendment 68, six to nine, 70 and 71 on this topic and speaking on them. on this topic and speaking on them. -- 69. These would change the Statutory Sick Pay measures in the bill.

The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life is for those on low incomes. With many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship. Strengthening Statutory Sick Pay as part of the government's manifesto part of the government's manifesto commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring the make work pay, ensuring the statutory net of sick pay is available to those who need it most. available to those who need it most. These changes are important, it -- These changes are important, it -- estimates indicate that up to 33% of influenza -like illnesses are required in the workplace, one sick employee coming into work can lead to 12% of the workforce becoming
18:40
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
sick according to the WPI economic modelling. The changes to remove the modelling. The changes to remove the waiting period and lower earning limits from the SSP system would therefore benefit employers by therefore benefit employers by reducing present tears which -- is reducing present tears which -- is in T which can lead to overall productivity increases and contribute to a positive work contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and train staff. This can help reduce the overall rate and cost of reduce the overall rate and cost of business absent and contribute to reducing the flow of employees into reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

If I first economic inactivity. If I first turned to amendment 68 and 70 removing the waiting period is essential to ensure all eligible essential to ensure all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover from being sick regardless of whether or not they regardless of whether or not they are an agency worker. Removing it are an agency worker. Removing it also better enable phased returns to work which evidence shows can be an effective tool in supporting people with long-term health conditions to return and stay in work.

This change should help to reduce the overall rate and cost of the nurse absence to businesses contributing to reducing the flow of employees in reducing the flow of employees in economic inactivity. So I reflect -- regret that the noble Lords amendment would make this more challenging as it would mean employees would have to take two consecutive days off to be eligible for Statutory Sick Pay. I do however understand the noble Lords concerns about the impact on businesses. But if employers have the right policies and practices in place and most good employers do, the risks of inappropriate absenteeism can of course be mitigated.

Crucially the additional cost to business of the SSP reforms is around a relatively modest £15 per employee. I have to say to noble Lords we have been lobbied from both directions on these provisions because for example many on our own benches would say that the rates we are proposing here should be much higher and I'm sure that they will make their concerns heard at some point during the course of the bill. It's not a great deal of money, as I say it's £15 per employee and it is certainly aimed at the lower rate that could be available.

On Amendment 69 regarding agency workers one of the fundamental principles of the bill is to ensure that people who work through employment agencies and employment businesses have comparable rights and protections to their counterparts who are directly employed. Amendments that limit the entitlement of agency workers would undermine this objective and have no reasonable justification. Lord Hunt said that employment agencies have more of an arm's-length arrangement with agency workers but I would say it's the opposite. In fact employment agencies are in a very powerful relationship over the agency workers meaning those workers themselves are less likely to abuse such a scheme.

Amendment 71 six to limit the maximum entitlement of SSP for employees with multiple employers so they will receive no more Statutory Sick Pay than they would have been entitled to if they had worked for only one employer. However this would be administratively very complicated for businesses, particularly SMEs to deliver and it carries a very high risk of SSP being miscalculated and employees being underpaid. It would also obviously particularly harm the very lowest paid people who are working a limited number of hours.

I would also question the necessity of such an amendment as it stands employees with one more than one job can already receive SSP from their employers if they earn above the lower earnings limit, the measures in this bill will not change that and I regret this amendment would only impact the lowest paid employees. That's all I've got to say on this issue at this stage and I therefore asked the noble Lord to withdraw his amendments on the basis of the reassurance I have given.
18:44
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I recognise that the noble Baroness the Minister says that she understands the concern that has been expressed. Certainly we are aware also that many of the agencies have raised with the government the serious impact on small businesses and the risk of increased absenteeism. Their concerns I believe are valid. I do hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will continue to keep an open door for those agencies just perhaps to respond in more detail direct with the Minister.

May I just leave the noble Baroness the Minister with some critical questions? First, does the government recognise the potential loophole created by the removal of waiting days for Statutory Sick Pay where workers could begin to take sporadic short- term sick leave, making it so much harder for employers to manage and verify? Secondly, does the government justify the increased cost burden on recruitment agencies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises at a time when they are already struggling with rising costs Will the government consider the practical implications on multiple statutory sick play claims by workers with several employers, double dipping and receiving more than the maximum entitlement -- sick pay claims.

Fourthly, why has the government chosen to ignore the heartfelt and well-informed warnings, from the recruitment sector, about the risk of unsustainable financial pressure, on businesses who are already providing much needed jobs, in a challenging economy. I believe these are not small matters. The government's decision, at the moment risks undermining the integrity of the Statutory Sick Pay system, and could have serious consequences for businesses, workers and the economy. I do hope the noble Baroness the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister will reconsider, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Before the noble Lord sits down,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the noble Lord sits down, I think it would be very, very helpful if you could confirm and clarify that in expressing a concern that removing the waiting days would that removing the waiting days would lead to more and sporadic lead to more and sporadic absenteeism, it has not been implied that workers are swinging the lead. that workers are swinging the lead. And if it was being implied, where
18:48
10:46
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page