Lords Chamber

Wednesday 16th July 2025

(began 4 hours, 51 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of female genital mutilation cases reported in the past 10 years, and number of prosecutions
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dubs. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:18
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:50
15:50
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to the Minister for speaking to be extensively and thank him for the tone which they have adopted. I would also like to join the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State and the apology on behalf of the British government to all those impacted by the data leak. It was a wholly unacceptable breach of data, protection protocols and should have never have happened. It is a story of human error, and error of magnitude with profoundly grave and potentially tragic consequences.

It was perpetrated by an MoD official and only came to light some 18 months or so after the error occurred. At that point, in August 2023, although as a defence minister, I had no involvement in the issue, the priority was to take necessary steps to mitigate risk to life, hence the court involvement, culminating in a super injunction. It was a political judgement of the last government, to seek the court's intervention. The decision of the court to grant the super injunction clearly reflected the importance of this.

It is neither cover-up or political suppression of information, it is a court order. No one should be under any misunderstanding about the potential consequence of this leak. If the government had not stop the injunction, that data to media could have been disseminated globally. This could have put the lives of countless -- lives of countless Afghans at risk. People who saved the lives of British troops, who were incredibly brave, selfless and committed individuals who put everything at risk, including their families to help us.

And if the government had not sought to prevent the information from being disseminated, those Afghans who gave so much could have been captured, tortured and murdered. The previous government would have abdicated its responsibilities if we had let the Afghans suffer the consequences. That's why it was right to seek the injunction. I might observe that regardless of what government was in power at the time, these measures and the circumstances existing at the time were the correct ones to take.

Indeed, the current government in taking office do not seek to have the super injunction lifted. Although this was human error, not a political mistake, the political responsibility is to keep the situation under review. So it was right that this government should seeks -- seek expert advice to lift the super injunction and if so advise the necessary application to court. And that, the government has the full support of these benches. I understand the noble Lord the Minister will be limited in what he can say but I have a few questions for him.

Is set in a position to give the house any more details on how the leak actually happened? I thought there would have been digital safeguards, especially when it comes to emails being sent to a random person outside the Department. Why was this not effective quarter can he tell us what repercussions they were for the official who inadvertently sent the data outside of formal channels? Finally, what systems has the government put in place to learn from this regrettable episode and to ensure that everything has been done to prevent recurrence? As ever, I look forward to the response from the noble Lord the Minister and once again, I thank him for the manner in which he has approached this matter to date.
15:54
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord the Minister and the Minister for the Armed Forces for everything yesterday. It did mean that temporarily I was under a super injunction. I was a little surprised when I was summoned into the MoD on Monday afternoon. I received a message saying, " Can you come in for a confidential briefing? Was good I had no idea what to expect or the magnitude of what we would here. And the statement which the Secretary of State made yesterday.

It is a matter of extreme seriousness for a variety of reasons. For the risk into which an official at the MoD placed Afghans who were already vulnerable. But also for the fact that Parliament was entirely unable to scrutinise His Majesty's Government on this issue for almost 2 years. The media were reporting immediately after the super injunction was raised yesterday at midday because they have spent the last 22 months gathering evidence, which of course, they can publish.

And there are a whole set of questions which are probably beyond the remit of the Minister today. He is responding on behalf of the MoD. There are questions about the role of Parliament, what we are able to do in terms of scrutiny, and what the Government feels is appropriate in terms of the media. Was the media being suppressed? Lest anyone think I am being cavalier about the lives of Afghans, I would like to say that it was absolutely clear that the United Kingdom had a duty to those Afghans who worked alongside his Majesty's Armed Forces, including the interpreters, including those who worked for the British Council.

And in light of that, the scheme And in light of that, the scheme which we knew about and the ACRS, which we knew about, were the right approach. And yet we knew from open source material and indeed cases that were brought to this house and the other place that there were breaches of data, that there were some issues and those breaches of data had caused finds to be paid. At the time of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August of of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, it was very clear that many people were left behind.

And the helplines were not necessarily fit for purpose. There was a hotline for parliamentarians and their staff that it did not necessarily act as a hotline at all. I certainly heard of cases and got no follow-up. Although I was not aware of this data breach, some parliamentarians were. We have -- we had a situation where we began to acknowledge our debt to some of the Afghans, but not all. But we then have a data breach about which we knew nothing that happened over three years ago.

That in itself is shocking. And so, one question is has anybody in his Majesty government taken responsibility for the breach? We understand from the Secretary of State's statement yesterday that it was reported to the Metropolitan police who believed there was no criminal activity, there is nothing to be reported in that sense, but has anybody taken responsibility for this catastrophic data breach that potentially put so many tens of thousands of lives at many tens of thousands of lives at risk in Afghanistan? And also caused considerable concern for Afghans who are already in the UK who had come over as part of the scheme? The former Secretary of State, Mr Ben Wallace, said this was not a cover- up, having a super injunction that covered what was going on.

The noble Lady Baroness Goldie has said a super injunction is not a cover-up. And yet, Mr Justice Chamberlain who finally lifted the super injunction finally lifted the super injunction yesterday said in November 2023 that a super injunction is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship. This is corrosive of the public's trust in government. Does the noble Lord the Minister agree? Can he confirm that this government would not seek to use super injunction, or in the event that it was felt that a super injunction was an appropriate course of action, that it would not last for over 600 days but could indeed be for a very limited amount of time while a particular, specific policy needed to be undertaken.

The substantive policy change that was brought in, the Afghan Response Route, seems to have been a very sensible. Had it been brought to Your Lordships' House and the other place, parliamentarians may well have thought it was the right policy and been happy to endorse it. But we were never asked because of the super injunction. We knew nothing about it. So could the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether in future the international -- intelligence and Security committee might be briefed on camera for example.

And what role Parliament and the media would be allowed to play in future because if the courts and Parliament and the media are not deployed appropriately, then that raises questions about our own democracy, which need to be
16:01
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank Baroness Goldie Baroness Smith comments about the Baroness Smith comments about the way in which the government tried to way in which the government tried to inform his Majesty's opposition, and indeed, the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. Can I also the Liberal Democrats. Can I also say we did try to ensure as many appropriate members of your Lordships health, as well as other people in the other place, were informed as appropriate as well. And informed as appropriate as well.

And I apologise if that did not happen with everybody, who may have expected to have been. But we did expected to have been. But we did try to ensure that everybody was consulted and spoken to. Can I also join Baroness Goldie, and indeed, join Baroness Goldie, and indeed, join Baroness Goldie, and indeed, Baroness Smith, for the apologies that His Majesty's government, through me, again makes today about what happened, which was totally what happened, which was totally unacceptable. Before I answer specific questions, can I make a couple of opening remarks.

Can I couple of opening remarks. Can I start by saying the whole house will agree the UK owes a huge debt of gratitude to all those Afghans who gratitude to all those Afghans who fought alongside us and supported our efforts in Afghanistan. While I appreciate there is significant parliamentary and immediate concern around these issues, and rightly so, let us not also forget that we are talking about human lives. As noble Lords will know, a major data loss occurred in February 2022, involving the dissemination of a spreadsheet, containing names of applicants, to the Arab scheme.

The previous government responded by setting up a new assessment route, the Afghanistan response route, to protect the most at-risk individuals, whose data was disseminated. The data at the lives which sit behind them, were protected by the unprecedented super injunction which was granted by the high courts. Based on the threat posed to those individuals appoint the noble Baroness four eight point the noble Baroness Goldie made. The government asked for junction, was granted super injunction. It is my view the government acted in good faith to protect lives, when this government took office, ministers however felt deeply uncomfortable, going to some of the points the noble Baroness Smith made felt deeply uncomfortable with the limits this place made on the freedom of press and parliamentary scrutiny.

As a result of that, we therefore commissioned a reassessment, with deputy defence intelligence. He found, following a comprehensive review, that it is unlikely that merely being on dataset would be grounds for being targeted by the Taliban. He also found there was no evidence pointing to Taliban position of the dataset. He therefore decided the risks are reduced at the existence of the scheme and associated costs should be brought into public, into the public and parliamentary realms for the appropriate scrutiny.

We both, therefore, expect and indeed, I say to your Lordships, invite parliamentary scrutiny for these decisions. Let me just deal the couple of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness Goldie asked me how it happened. I don't normally do this, as noble Lords no, but I will read a couple, to make sure I factually get some of this right. In February 2022, you ask about what happened, in 2022, in previous government, the spreadsheet for individual applicants of the reassessment scheme for Afghans who worked or for the UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan was emailed outside of official government systems.

This was mistakenly thought to contain the names of a small number of applicants, but in fact, the email contained personal information linked to 18,700 applicants of this scheme and the predecessor schemes. The data related to applications made on or before 7 January on or before 7 January 2022. A small section of the spreadsheet appeared online, 14 August, 2023. Which is when the then government first became aware that the MOD's casework spreadsheet had been mistakenly included with the original email.

We investigate, or the previous government, investigated that. And a report was sent to the Information Commissioner's office. Can I repeat DO Lordships -- Can I repeat DO Lordships house, the government reported this to the Metropolitan police, who found there was no malicious or malign intent, for the particular individual. Let me just say that the Information Commissioner, in a statement yesterday, because the noble Baroness asked me about, do we believe that the systems has now been adequately changed.

The Information Commissioner's office, in a statement just yesterday, said this, " We are reassured that the MOD's investigation has resulted in taking necessary steps and minimised the risk of this happening again." Direct quote from the Information Commissioner's Office. I hope that starts to reassure the noble Baroness's point, with respect to how the leak unfortunately happened. The measures being taken, the way it has been investigated and looked at by the Information Commissioner's Office who have now reported in a statement yesterday that they believe, as far as they possibly can, the MoD have taken necessary action to prevent such a terrible and unfortunate incident happening again.

One of the noble Baroness, Baroness Smith's point. Of course it is of great concern that parliamentary scrutiny, media parliamentary scrutiny, media scrutiny, has been, has had to be stopped, essentially. Parliament and the press has not been able to scrutinise this parliamentary activity these decisions in the way they should have done. When we came into office, we were uncomfortable with that. And for a period of time look at what the facts were, look at the situation, and in January of this year, as the noble Baroness this year, as the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State asked the former defence intelligence senior officer to investigate.

And noble Lords will have seen the report he had brought before us. As a consequence of the reports brought before us, where if we look at key conclusions, there are a number of important facts he brings before those, including no evidence points clearly to the Taliban possession of the dataset, in fact the policy appears to have no significant risks to His Majesty's government or the UK, with net additional risk. It likely presents, in other words, that where we are now, after the passage of time and have various assessments of the risk in Afghanistan, that he now believes that is appropriate for the government to apply to the courts, to lift the injunction.

Therefore, with the evidence provided and with the government presentation, it was lifted at 12 o'clock yesterday. I think in that sense, the government, with that evidence, has now said it is time, the time is right to bring forward and make a statement about what has happened, to put as much of that evidence in the public domain and to invite public scrutiny of that, to invite media scrutiny of that and also parliamentary scrutiny. And I think that is the right thing to do.

At the end, there is always a balance between decisions the government make, about what you do to protect lives, what you do to try to deal with a particular situation you are confronted with, whilst at the same time, recognising that because you should have parliamentary scrutiny, of course you should have media scrutiny. The previous government acted in good faith. We have now looked at that again and believe it is the right time for us to come forward and to actually say that now we can actually publicise what happened, and invite comments from everyone.

And with that, I hope noble Lords will accept that information.
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:23
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
I understand very much the point my noble friend is making. With some I don't want to get into a legal discussion with her. Her legal knowledge is far greater than mine. My understanding was that the previous government went for an injunction and they asked for that. It was the court, on the basis of what they were told, decided it was necessary for there to be a super injunction, and that was granted by the court because of the threat that they face.

Of course, that was then renewed over a period of time. In the summer of 2024, the High Court then suspended the injunction and gave 21 days for the government, the last government, to appeal. It appealed and the appeal court allowed the reimposition of the super injunction. Again, I can only presume on the basis that the court was persuaded that the thread still existed to those people whose data had been inadvertently put into the public domain. And for a period of time, well the accumulated knowledge, we accumulated knowledge and on the basis of that it decided then to undertake the Rimmer review which gave us the evidence to then go back to the court and say that on the basis of what the Rimmer report saying, we no longer believe that the injunction was necessary for the protection of individuals.

And the courts accepted the government's new evidence from that report that the super injunction was not necessary. super injunction was not necessary. And as soon as we went back, the injunction was lifted and a tapas 12 my honourable friend was making a my honourable friend was making a statement to Parliament -- half past statement to Parliament -- half past As the Minister I'm sure is aware, there are a number of Afghans who there are a number of Afghans who are on the run from the Taliban, some of them in Pakistan, terrified about being sent back.

And any women about being sent back. And any women who had laid a public row, the who had laid a public row, the Taliban threatened to halt -- hunt down. Can the Minister tell me if there were any women on this list there were any women on this list that leaked? Anybody who is on the list, whether they are in Afghanistan or in Pakistan, if they have been designated as eligible for the Scheme, we are trying to contact them to ensure that they understand that we will honour the commitment that we have made to them, whether they are in Pakistan or any other country.

We will honour the commitment made to them and try to ensure they get passage to hear. The noble Baroness will understand why I cannot say any more than that, because it will compromise people's safety.
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:31
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
My noble friend makes a good point. Let's be clear about that, these are people who stood with us, and in many cases died with us, I think the British public welcome that, by the end of the scheme, there will be some 56,000 people of applicants, plus their family members, who will be relocated, in this country. I think there is some difficulty in terms of transition when they initially arrive, where they are placed at the same related they are placed at the same related to society.

But my understanding is the British public understand that under very supportive, generally, of both of those people. They are not asylum seekers. There are people that have come to our country because the date stood with us, I think that is an important distinction to make. For those of us who exploit that, to say you are not the people spoken for, you understand what you are doing and why we are doing it in respect of Afghanistan and so on and so forth.

As I said to the noble Lord, to actually cause allegations aspersions about the whole of those aspersions about the whole of those who had been resettled under it, all of this, all of that, total nonsense and not true, that is what the majority of people in this country thing. Let me say this, if there is an individual who has ripped or stolen or worse from anybody, that person, Afghan or not, should be prosecuted in the courts, and sent to jail.

If a person has evidence of it, go to the police and get them prosecuted because that is what the British public want as well. British public want as well.
16:33
16:34
16:34
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Epsom. My Lords, the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the government's intention to protect workers is commendable. We all agree that fairness is pillar of a just society, but the measures taken for the introduction of a statutory probation period is both confused and counter-productive. What the government has failed to grasp is when businesses are given effects ability to manage their work pragmatically, that is considered more likely to them taking on new staff. It is a risk by highlighting that risk and making it more difficult to manage, this bill creates disincentives to hire.

Particularly at the margins of the labour market when stakes are highest. My Lords, this is fundamentally a question of incentives. Reduce the employer's ability to assess suitability, cultural fit, or even basic liability, without the spectre of legal sanction. And he will see fewer jobs created. That cost is very real but nowhere is it considered in the government's impact assessment. That acknowledges a likely 15% rise in employment tribunal claims, but makes no attempt to tackle the knock-on effect of behaviour.

It is already overstretched with cases often taking more than two years to resolve. So, a 50% increase without corresponding investment will only deepen the backlog. Employers will know they are walking into a system that is both clogged and uncertain. And then, my Lords, there is a statutory probationary period which the government poses with no real clarity. The bill fails to explain how this period interacts with the obligation to act reasonably, or whether there will be a different standard for dismissal during this window.

Will there be a list of fair reasons? Will an employer be able to extend the period, if performance takes longer to assess? None of it is addressed. And as any employer will tell you, uncertainty in employment law doesn't lead to innovation, it needs to caution and legal advice. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the government's approaches its likely effect on social. Because when you raise the legal risks of hiring, it is not a well-connected polished graduate who lose out, it is the individual on the edge of the labour market.

It is the person returning to work after illness or parenting. The school lever with no contact, the ex- offender with a spent conviction. The refugee trying to prove themselves. The government's own impact assessment recognises this risk, because it says, " Making unfair dismissal a day one right could damage the employment prospects of people trying to re- enter the labour market." Especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire. Those are not my words, The same is true for a so-called cultural fit, which the noble Lady, the Minister, in committee, dismissed as an illegitimate reason for this metal.

Hansard volume 846, Parliament 334, 21 May, 25, recalls the noble Lady, the minister, saying the government do not believe an employee, not being fit within an organisation, should be a dismissal. But cultural fit is not fit for prejudice, it is complement to go away 18 works, the style of communication or pace and rhythm for a convenient work rate. This is acute. Businesses. Higher mistakes are costly, even a highly skilled worker takes time to reach full productivity, and be cost of advertising, onboarding, training and then managing at dismissal is not trivial.

If employers cannot be confident they will have a window in which to assess a new hire, including on soft factors, such as initiative or client manner, then they will become more conservative. They will play it safe. And who loses them, my Lords, again, is the person who just needed someone to give them a chance. My amendment offers a path, for unfair dismissal from two years, to six months, meaningful extension for protection of workers, but also creates an initial period of employment following that six months, in which a simplified process at lower consultation would apply.

That strikes a fair balance, giving employers space to assess employers space to assess Bad faith dismissal still carry consequences. Crucially, it also removes the sweeping power given to the Secretary of State and the governments clause to amend section 98, brackets four, of the Employment Rights Act, power that could drastically shift the fairness test without parliamentary oversight. Employees already have a day one protection, against discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal. As they should. But general unfair dismissal should be subject to a short and defined qualifying period.

One that employers understand and workers can plan around. My amendment delivers that clarity, and also avoid the situation where employers are left wondering whether a dismissal based on fit unreliability will land them in court. We have to be clear, jobs are not abstract concepts, they are costs. And in the early stages, even the most promising employees and investment takes time to repay, employers need space to make those judgements, this bill, as it stands, puts a thumb on the scale, in favour of caution, against second chances, that is not fair or just as not how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we grow a dynamic inclusive labour market I beg to move. Amendment proposed) 83, insert a new clause at printed on a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. I have two amendments in this group, 50 and 57, which like the
16:40
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
group, 50 and 57, which like the noble Lord has spoken. I also added my name to, relates to day one so dismissal rights. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong, Lord Katz, for the time to discuss this issue with me. For which I am very grateful. They want dismissal might arrange of consequences, in particular, additional costs to business, which the impact assessment says this will run to, " Hundreds of millions a year." Which the government says will run to small businesses, and a number of tribunal cases on an already overloaded tribunal system, but I think the most important is the impact on people who are looking for work.

Especially those with riskier profiles, young people trying to get that first step onto the employment ladder. People trying to get off benefits, people with health issues, people with changing careers, ex-offenders, and so on. The government rightly wants to get all of those into work. This bill, my Lords, will make that more difficult, not easier. The current law, with the two-year qualifying period, allows for any employer to take a risk on someone, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Without facing the risk of an employment tribunal if it doesn't work out.

This bill ends at. An employee would be able to claim for unfair dismissal from day one, and the only valid grounds for fair dismissal will be capability of qualifications do the job, conduct by the employee, or some other undefined substantial reason relating to the employee. These routers are essentially the same as the current reason for fair dismissal after the qualifying period, in today's law, and they cannot be changed by the regulations the government intends to use to create a new, again, undefined type of provision..

Employers will no longer let someone go during operation. Because it is not working, without risking an unfair dismissal claim. What will be the result of this? Simply because employers will have to think twice before hiring everybody with a less than perfect employment record. The bill will make it harder for an employer to take a chance on such people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. To post the Federation of Small Businesses, all it's going to do is make small employers more reluctant to recruit and fearful of being open to claims.

It is those further from the jobs market that will suffer, because the less risk small employers can afford to take. The fewer second chances, fresh starts, the first jobs they will be able to offer. If anyone is in any doubt, the government itself states the same effects on the impact assessment. I will not repeat the quote the noble Lord shop has done, but this is what the government also notes and thinks. We already have a million young people lost in employment and educational training.

If we want to solve that, we need employers who wants to take them on. Who will take a chance and give them that first all-important opportunity, so why on earth would we want to make it riskier for employers to take that chance? You would think, therefore, there must be good evidence and reason by this government, to decide, knowingly, to make it more difficult for young people to get their first opportunity to work. I have asked several times during this process for evidence, that the existing law is in fact causing any problem.

There is no evidence of it, given the impact assessment. And I have had no real answer to that question. I committee, the noble Lady, the minute the's answer was " We have worked with academics who are looking at the subject, I reassure the noble Lord we have looked into this and we are confident that the benefit in this particular case will outweigh the risks." That is really not good in to take action, that the government itself acknowledges will damage the life chances of the most vulnerable, or those just starting out.

Employers do not dismiss people even during a probationary period, hiring and training are expensive and time-consuming, so employers are strongly incentivised to try to get it right. But it is a fact of life that sometimes, with no fault on any side, things just do not work out. As the noble Lady, the minister, notes, the noble Lady, Baroness Finlay, wanted to speak in this debate but unfortunately cannot be here today. She asked me to point out the impact this change could have on GPs.

Not been able to let someone go if the culture is wrong is extremely serious for a small business, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has described. But in the GP practice, it could put lives at risk. GP practices tend to be small teams who must work together well and has great understanding and support. An employee who doesn't fit with the rest of the team could lead to miscommunication, appointment issues, and so on. And in healthcare, some areas could compromise patient welfare, it can have fatal consequences.

It is essential that people can be easily let go, if it is not working out, in the early stages of employment. But we have to recognise this is in the manifesto. We need to try and find a compromise, and my amendments tried to do that. As do, I think, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We can all agree, the current two-year qualifying period is longer than it needs to be. Six months, I think, should be sufficient for an employer to know if it is working, in the vast majority of cases.

My amendments that possibly shorten the qualifying period to six months. But most importantly, they retain the ability to dismiss without reason, during that short period. So, retaining the critically important ability, to take a risk on someone. The amendments aim for simpler city, they retain the existing law, but dramatically shorten the period, which I think goes a long way towards the spirit of the manifesto, if not the letter. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe is back amendments are a little more complex, with the two- stage process he describes at the end result will be similar, I am happy to support it.

The government intends to consult on the probation period. They say they have nine months in mind and talk about a process during that period. But the bill expressly limits the reasons for dismissal, that can be used during the initial period, to the reasons I have outline. Capability of qualification, conduct, or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. That three judges the consultation process, and is noway a light touch process, a probationary period that doesn't allow employment to be terminated simply because it is not working out or not is not really a probationary period.

I mentioned the manifesto. And I'm sure lady, the Minister will remind us of that. I will turn her attention to commitment in same paragraph, " We will consult fully with businesses, workers and civil society, and how to put our plans into practice. Before legislation is into practice. Before legislation is Seems OK to ignore that manifesto undertaking. The consultation for this undertaking will take place under the bill has passed. The government might argue that the legislation includes the regulations, but the problem is that the bill prejudge is the consultation.

These amendments may not be the only way to encourage employers to take a risk and be. The key is to remove the risk during a probation period. There might be other reasons -- ways to do that. I'm ready to find a constructive answer to that if the Minister is willing to continue discussions. But the government knows what the impact will be. It says so in the impact assessment. It has provided no evidence at all that there is in fact a problem to solve.

There is no other way to put it. With this bill, the government is knowingly and deliberately damaging the life chances of the most vulnerable, in particular young people trying to make their first step on the employment ladder and for now apparent tangible benefit. I urge them to think again. In the absence them to think again. In the absence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of constructive comments, I will support Lord Sharpe if he decides to move his amendments. I rise to support amendments 49
16:49
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendments 49 and 50, and Amendment 51 to which I have added my name. I agree with the have added my name. I agree with the case Lord Sharpe of Epsom has made and the arguments put forward by the noble Lord Lord Fox. I point out that the detail of the arrangements for improving protection against unfair dismissal are one of the areas that provoke the widest debate during the committee stage of the bill. 21 noble Lords spoke and nearly all concerned about the perverse effects of completely removing the two-year qualifying period.

When we discussed my concerns at Committee, the noble Lady the Minister said that when I saw the government's implementation plan, I would be reassured. However, whilst it is generally helpful, all it says on this matter is that in the summer /autumn of 2025, they will consult on, and I quote, " Giving employee protection from unfair dismissal from day one, including on the dismissal process in the statutory probation period." So we still do not know what the rules will be.

I believe that the approach the government is taking of making up the vital final detail of legislation after bills have passed, so well exemplified here, as Lord Fox said, is profoundly undemocratic. This is giving too much power to the executive. The Minister should be able to tell us categorically today that employers will be able to dismiss unsatisfactory staff without risking a tribunal during a probation period. I will not repeat what I said in Committee. From a historic perspective of a good employer like Tesco, we even had a unique partnership with the trade union, seemingly different from the public sector unions dominating this bill.

My main current concern, as the Minister knows, is that day one right will make employers extremely nervous, nervous about taking on new employees, especially the young or those with a risky track record like the unemployed or disabled. This will kill growth. My noble friend Archer talked about the disincentive Archer talked about the disincentive Section 19 unintended consequences states that there is some evidence that some reforms make employers less willing to hire workers, including evidence specific to strengthening dismissal protections.

For example, the OECD noted that more stringent dismissal procedures involved an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who Roman from adaptability. In other words, lower growth. Provisions will require significant extra internal resource to ensure compliance. It will be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures cumbersome administrative procedures for all employees from day one. It will make the introduction of Make Tax Digital seem easy. Above, it will increase costs and jobs tax in the last budget, and that is the time that the Chancellor is promising to reduce red tape.

Another certainty is that the changes will increase the traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I know someone whose case has been listed in 2027. Because it is important, I am extremely keen to help the government find a way out of this unfortunate sensitive -- set of circumstances. The fact is that sometimes appointments don't work out and it is no one's fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within six or nine months, which I believe the government is contemplating for the probation period.

But we need certainty on this before the bill becomes an act. And probably a government amendment. For me, the uncertainty in this area, which is why I've chosen to speak from the backbenches, could prove to be the worst aspect of this bill. I hope that even at this late again.
16:53
16:54
16:54
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and to the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. That danger exists particularly in this clause. As you know, close 23 and linked schedule number three repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period, they make further amendments period, they make further amendments to the act in respect of the repeat. The protection under section 94 of the act, that which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed subject to certain conditions does not apply to dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years.

But now, this two-year period and But now, this two-year period and extended three year period, it is an extended training period when you induct your employee with the knowledge that if they don't work out, and there are clear headings under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims. Now, that is to be removed by section 23 and schedule 3. This means that we are repealing under this act one of the basic building blocks of employment in this country.

Section 108 of the 1996 act. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As Lord Sharpe has said, they help to offer protection to both parties. They make for a fluid leak at market They make for a fluid leak at market -- labour market and prevent zombie economy. I won't go through each of the amendments here because noble Lords have heard about them already. But they will facilitate good working practices for both parties.

Those looking for a job are more likely, as we've heard, to be appointed and the employer... There will be more job vacancies which have continued to fall over the last year, sadly. Those looking for a job are more likely to find one and by likely to be... Start their first job as we have heard today. The business, the employer, will be able to take a risk and take a chance on a new employee. Now, taking on a new employee involves a great commitment.

Involves not only a commitment to salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost. It involves time, training, patients, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation so they can contribute as a happy and contended and productive member of the team. With this clause, we won't have the protections of that, and I can't think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person. As a result, we will have very bad effects on the economy and the growth.

We know there are legal grounds already in respect of the unfair dismissal. Noble Lords have spoken about these today. But there are cast irony reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You can't be dismissed as a whistleblower, for discrimination, and automatically unfair. They don't require the two- year qualifying period. And the law takes care of this. Now, with the two-year period to be removed and with it goes the protection for the employer, and the opportunities for new employees particularly.

But for many employees who want to change a job and start a new walk of life. They might find they were not so good at what they were doing and they might want to try their hand at the New York. They need time to settle in. -- Try their hand at a new job. I'm not at all convinced that this initial period, which ministers have told us will have a lighter touch of dismissal arrangements, unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful.

Some law firms fear it will impose the same structures on an employer and we really do need to know from the Minister when exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during the period will be, because I can't see how we could have a bill setting all this out when we don't know what is intended. So, I would know what is intended. So, I would value's statement, and I don't need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment, which estimates hundreds of billions of pounds, the additional complexity in the recruitment process but added to the other measures in this bill, close 23 and schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.

If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, we need to grow to raise productivity as the government wants, to hire new employees needed to raise that productivity to that end. The government should welcome amendment 49 and all the lands in this group because they accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and they go some way in helping the government to get out of the mess
17:01
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak briefly in support of this group of amendments under the Noble Lord shop and Lord Hunt. I will also speak briefly to my Noble Friends more straightforward amendment 50 and that length of qualifying to it minimum of six months, during which an employee may not claim unfair dismissal, but first I am happy to agree with the Government that the current two-year period for effective probation is from my experience as an employer, excessively long and does merit revision.

And, like others, I understand that the Government is consulting on the length of the initial period and that nine months is being suggested. However, given that most employees have a formal annual review at 12 months, during which there are enumeration as well as performance is reviewed, I think that it is fair and transparent that the 12 month review also represents the end of the probation rate or qualifying period. That provides clarity to both sides, and I believe sufficient time for the employer to assess the employee's performance, competence, and cultural fate.

I accept that in the majority of cases performance issues during probation service within the first six months and proactive employers should then step in to either articulate the performance improvement plan for the next six months with clay as and markers and milestones or come to an early conclusion that this is not going to work out and move on to dismissal, but if we overly squeeze the probationary period we will deter employers, particularly entrepreneurs, from the creation of new jobs by reducing the appetite for them to take a risk on new recruits, as we have heard, which is surely not what the Government intends.

Close 23 threatens to be a real menace for two groups of employers particularly. Firstly, as we have heard before, those sectors with naturally high staff attrition rates, given the nature of their business, such as retail and hospitality. Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, those businesses that rely on particular job functions that carry higher risk and performance requirements, in particular sales, marketing and business developer jobs that run across so many of our economies key centres, everything from sales on the floor in the park to telesales and eventually, yes, we will try to avoid, to those involved in the B2B business development and client account management and I know from personal experience that advising start-ups and skill ups that these roles are critical for revenue generation with strong personal performance criteria where much of the renumeration comes in the form, quite correctly, of performance - related pay.

We will do real damage to productivity and economic growth if we do not allow for fair and proper time for assessment of these types of roles without the threat of unfair dismissal hanging over employers heads prematurely. That said, I will support amendment 49 if it is put to a vote.
17:05
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments tabled by my Noble Friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom as well as those proposed by the noble Lords. Throughout our debates on this bill, one thing has become clear, it this is one of the more troubling areas for the business. And therefore potential employees and that concerns are reflected not just in what we have heard from this chamber but also the government's own impact assessment. When a company hires someone that takes a risk, no matter how impressive someone's CV may be or how well they come across in an interview, things do not always work out, as we have heard.

That's why probation periods exist. They give both the employer and the employee the chance to assess whether it is the right fit. I have seen this first hand in my work, small businesses in particular, hiring someone new, especially during a. Of growth would be a major financial and operational issue and when things do not work out the company should not be left to carry all of the Durden is a mishmash that is no ones. Introducing the day one British claim unfair dismissal outside of the previously established conceptions places a heavyweight on employers.

It could discourage them from hiring together and it may also lead to pressure being placed on existing staff who are asked to do more because their employers are hesitant to take them on. In the financial Times the Chancellor said an excessive safety first approach must not seem amongst any global competitors, adding that it is bad for the business, bad for growth, and that for working people, a description of this bill and close 23 in particular. These amendments offer insensible workaround, they reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to six months, that strikes me as fair and proportionate and it matches the length of the probation period used in many companies and certainly when I work for them six months should be enough time to determine what the someone is right for the role.

These amendments make it better for business, better for growth, and better for working people. This is why I support amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the amendment, it seems
17:07
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the amendment, it seems to me to be a reasonable change but I do think that six months is a more reasonable representation. My question really though is how this question really though is how this will impact them, not refugees, terms and conditions govern press secretary legislation and it is already quite difficult to remove the ones that should be removed, in part, and I say this with some respect to the lawyers in the room but they are represented by lawyers in the misconduct process and it never makes it quicker.

And it always makes it more expensive, but it does not make it any quicker. Secondly, when the assessment is made and the proof is there, to remove them, to sack them, basically, to scale the test and move from the probability to young reasonable doubt, quite the same standard for a criminal, so it gets to be quite a high standard represented by a high responder and the two-year probationary. Has been a good way to remove them that are unsuited to the role, so to remove that two-year period, one of the measures by which we get rid of the worst officers would be lost and I do worry about that and what we do know from research is that often the officers that Tim did later should have been removed in a probationary period and everyone had the courage to take that decision, so I am not saying that it is wrong or right or that the regulation should change but I would like to understand what the government's reaction is because we have a group of people that are not classed as employees that we still have a two year period and in fact with this game they might not have one at all and this new group should pay particular attention to perhaps giving us a view to how they intend to deal with that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a reasonable explanation and last time in committee when I
17:09
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
and last time in committee when I was supporting the noble Lords and his amendment and the concern that there was a risk assessment which actually said that if there is obligation. This is going to be quite difficult to take on, the same question posed by the noble and learned Lord Phillips, would you employ an ex-offender if they are on probation and that is requiring probation last time I began with apprenticeships, particularly a young man called Oskar, taking on a think one of our best in Berwick, he has taken it on and saying that he qualifies I was about to move on to the next amendment that when he finishes his apprenticeship, his employer, at the moment, will have an interview, there will be some other people on the committee, and if he passes that interview he is expected to serve a period of probation, and this wonderful court is not likely to retain him if there is no probationary period at all in his work, and I just feel, really, that if you remove, I mean what is right to remove, I think that is too long, is it five months? I am not sure, in the Church of England, not all our employees because they are self-employed and I remember there was a wonderful case that someone made about the Bishop asking his particular clergy after a series of reviews showed that actually he was not competent, so he went to tribunal and was told at the end of the hearing he was suing the Bishop, the employer is not your Bishop, the employer is God, so if you can't bring God into this you can sue him because you are self-employed and you answer to God, now we have leave to do that and the more I have worked with a lot of people and become kind of a trainer for some, if we remove the period of probation I think we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult stage and the people who are more likely to miss out our young people who need some mentoring, some support, who can be directed differently and what I am not so sure about in where this is coming from because there are some employers that like to dismiss people at short notice but I think that if you go for 12 months or six months I think most employers would say let's have a good word to employers and not think about them and we simply want you to get out, so I would support 49, 50, 51, and if all of them are put to the vote I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be the first in the lobby. My Lords, I rise in support of this group of amendments at the
17:13
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
this group of amendments at the initial period is so important to both employers and employees. I would like you to note might register as a partner of a small SME and we have practice employing 400 employees because I and one of those people that would suffer from clause 23 and it is changing our views because of uncertainty. Your lordships have made very many important points that I will try not Have no details for when the consultation with regards to the probation period would be launched and how it works, again, creating uncertainty.

Probation periods are so important to both employees and employers, the start of a new job is very important for both parties and is hopefully the start of a long and productive relationship. Employers do value employees who stay for many years as the cost of employment for individuals is so expensive and employers have flexibility at the start of a job, generally a weeks notice and all we ask is for flexibility for employers as well. That is what the probation periods grant, and that is potentially what is being removed by the bill.

It is, therefore, why is it so important for employers? It is time to assess the build that as you have employed to have the capacity to do the job, do they have the skills they said they have? Do they have the skills that meets the standards that you set for your business. Is there attendance of a reasonable standard to be part of the team? Do they fit the culture of the whole similar values. If the employer, for whatever reason, does not fit, for the employer to go through a long and time-consuming and unfair dismissal process where someone has been for the business for two or three weeks or even a couple of months the process uses a valuable months the process uses a valuable management time, and in some cases it is plainly clear that this relation between the employer and the employee is not going to work.

As spoken by Lord Sharpe of Epsom we need guidance on the initial period of employment and it is so important for employers to take employees who may be disadvantaged in the job market and employers want to give them a chance but with no clear guidance or a short probation. Employers will not take this risk and this could not benefit, I am sorry, it could benefit these types of potential possible employees and the employers and the long-term who making a really valuable employee time, therefore this group of amendments to seek to bring the important part of the employment rates into the bill, rather than waiting for a long and detailed consultation with no details.

Also, it would help the Government plan to make the white paper to encourage all into work. That is why I support this group of amendments and if Lord this group of amendments and if Lord
17:16
17:17
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
This government was elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protections from day one of employment. Not two years, not six months, but day one. And to deliver this commitment we will remove the qualifying period for these rights. But of course the government recognises that from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect most employers already fairly dismiss employees and the process need not be too arduous.

Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the government believed it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards... Employees to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects.

This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee's performance, unsuitability, will apply. Baroness Lawlor asked what that length of probationary period would be and as we have said previously, the Government's preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. And we intend to consult on both the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. I should also say to the noble Lady that the current two-year qualifying period is not designed as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal.

If the amendments tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux amendments were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat of being fired arbitrarily looming over them. Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction from any qualifying period, I think that point was also made by the noble Lord Phillips. So I'm pleased that noble Lords agree with the government's policy at least to that extent. However, can I say to the noble Lord Vaux, the government does not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances.

Instead it believes in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord Vaux spoke about the need for young people looking for work and of course we identify with that. And the Government is committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out in the get Britain White Paper, in November, in November 2024, our country's greatest asset is its people. And as I explained during the committee stage debate, we are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, aligning with our industrial strategy.

This will include shorter duration and foundation friendships in key sectors, helping more people learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in business across the country and providing high quality entry pathways for young people. -- Foundation apprenticeships. We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled until at least the National Minimum Wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.

Beyond are hunting learning on the job and ensuring FA -- enhancing learning on the job... We believe all should have protections on the job... It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that followed. However, the government recognises that employees use probationary periods to assess new his performance and suitability for their role. And we will ensure UK businesses can hire with confidence. The noble Lord Sharpe talked about social mobility and we recognise good employers do take a chance on what we might call rough diamonds up and down the country.

It is not recognised often enough the valuable time employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job. The statutory probationary period will enable this with light-touch standards for fair dismissal. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and their suitability for the role. And of course this will equally apply to healthcare employees.

The noble Lord Sharpe talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunal's. Provided the employer can show the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the out come as nothing really is new from the current situation. The noble Lord Hogan-Howe asked about police officers and I understand they are excluded from the existing legislation as they would be in the proposed bill before us, so in that sense, there is no change. Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which of course can mean many different things.

Often not a good fit is used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employers work ethic or level of commitment to the job or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the such standards will imply -- apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a the cultural fit is linked to a corrected characteristic, dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims and the Bill does not affect that.

Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability As -- category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of substantial reason dismissal should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a standards. The Bill contains a powerful the Government to define what some other substantial reason for dismissal relating to the employee should mean. And as I just noted, the intent is to define which relate to an employee's performance and suitability for their role.

And we will welcome employers and trade unions input on that important issue. However, these are amendments as proposed would remove the Government's statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment. Noble Lords asked about consultation and we have already consulted on the proposals and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to public consulting later this year. The Secretary of State their business and trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26th of June.

The letter outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the government's development and implementation of day one right stamper dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the details of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House library. I shall also say to the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the roadmap shows that these day one right, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027. In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government's manifesto commitment to introduce a day one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections and I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

Finally I turned to amendment 52 in my name, which is simply a minor technical amendment which corrects a cross-reference in schedule three. And with that, I asked noble Lords to withdraw amendment 49 and beg to move an amendment 52.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I ask the noble Lady the Minister, before she sits down, is that nine months now the that nine months now the Government's official position on the initial period? And if it is, the initial period? And if it is, the initial period? And if it is, can they confirm what degree of... What will the light-touch... Is it minded to put into its light-touch minded to put into its light-touch of their dismissal arrangements?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their dismissal arrangements? As we have said before, we will continue to consult on this but this is our preferred option at this is our preferred option at this stage. We think that is a reasonable balance between what the balance between what the arrangements are now and some of the proposals that clearly we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before us today. Enormously grateful to the Minister for her response. And it
17:27
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Minister for her response. And it was remiss of me earlier to not thank Lord Vaux of Harrigan and my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe signing various amendments. I am also very grateful for the noble box for his very comprehensive and powerful speech, if I may say. In particular grateful for reminding us of Baroness Finlay's comments as regards GP surgeries. As the noble Lord Goddard has pointed out, we have heard from the police, doctors, businesspeople, lawyers, vets and from the clergy. There was no argument in favour of the status quo.

But there were powerful arguments for common sense and I rather wonder if the silence from the government pensions indicates a degree of unease in what we are debating. -- Government benches. The change that will fundamentally alter the balance of risk in hiring and at a time when unemployment has risen every month this Government has been in power. This clause will do nothing to promote fairness in the workplace. It will erode flexibility, it will choke opportunity and it will harden the barriers that those on the market already face.

The noble Lady the Minister argued that employers have nothing to fear from tribunal's but the government's own impact assessment says that the number of cases they expect will rise by 15%. So I do not follow the logic of the noble Ladies argument, I'm afraid. Also the government's own impact assessment admits that introducing day one right to claim unfair dismissal, I will repeat this even though the noble Lord box did not, would damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially as they are observed to be riskier to hire.

As the noble Lord box said, the government already knows and things this and why are they doing this? -- Lord Vaux. Noble Lord asked to the point question and the right reverend Prelate made an argument on his expense, both were making the point this is the compassionate thing to do. I do not believe this clause is ready, I do not believe it is safe, I do not believe it is wise, I think we need to advert what my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe said is a looming travel -- tragedy so I wish to test the opinion of the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that
17:29
None Portrait Division
-

opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". I think then not-contents habit... Question will be decided by a division, I will inform the House when the voting is open. -- I think the not- voting is open. -- I think the not-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The My Lords. The question My Lords. The question is My Lords. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the left throne, the not contents to the left Mike Mike my Mike my Lords, Mike my Lords, the Mike my Lords, the question Mike my Lords, the question is Mike my Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted They have voted contents They have voted contents 299, They have voted contents 299, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted contents 299, not contents 165, so the contents contents 165, so the contents 50, not moved. 50, not moved. In 50, not moved. In schedule 50, not moved. In schedule three amendment 51, may I make it clear that if this were agreed I cannot call 52 by reason of breach. Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe. Sorry, I need to hear it clearly. I beg to. Thank you. Amendment proposed schedule three line 24 leave out paragraph 1 and two and insert the words on the Marshall list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Within moved to 53. Red, amendment proposed schedule three 920 net after employment insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. I believe there are a number of the same as consequential, if the House is agreeable I suggest we take 54 to 66 en bloc. The question is that the amendments be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not Amendment 6067, Lord Faulks, not moved, in clause 26 amendment 68 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
17:44
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move the Government amendments tabled in my Noble Friends name Baroness Jones of Whitchurch was about the moments target the application of the clause to a set restricted variations to better focus the measures on unscrupulous fire and rehire tactics. We have had many representations from trade unions and the effect of the measure and have listened to the well argued points in this House and, indeed, in The Other Place and we have greatly valued the groups across industry on this issue British roads members as well as the TUC, Unite, Usdaw, the RMT, many other businesses and trade unions.

It is of intention to ban the instability use of fire and rehire and we were elected on a manifesto to do so, but we want to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the ability of employers to make essential operational decisions. Amendment six, six to nine, 70 operational decisions. Amendment six, six to nine, 72, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92, either fire and rehire would be an unfair dismissal in relation to the variations unless the employer is in a severe financial difficulty and has no reasonable alternative.

These are pay, number of hours, leave entitlement, this changes to the shift patterns that will be specified in regulations. In relation to other contractual changes such as the location of job role subject to ordinary unfair dismissal rules with enhanced protections to ensure employers meaningfully consult and negotiate with employees in doing so. This should include consultation carried out by trade union representatives where there is a recognised trade union. These changes have been made to strike the right balance between protecting employees between unquestionable firing practices and give employers the fix ability they We will take time to make sure the measure is effectively applied...

Aware able to take hold of steak on reviews, of which expenses and benefits in kind are restricted from the variation of pay and which changes to ship patterns will be a restricted variation, so the clause strikes the right balance. Turning next to amendment 78. We want to make sure that fire and rehire will not be used for reducing employees rights. For those employed in the private sector and the public sector alike. This amendment will clarify that when public and private sector employees can use fire and rehire for restricted variation under the exemption in the clause.

Mike employers. This will mean that both the private and public sectors, fire and rehire for restricted variation can only be used if the employer is facing severe financial difficulties, so this practice is only available in the rarest of circumstances., 80, 81, 83, 84, 85 and 89 provide that local authorities can only use fire and rehire to make restricted variations when they are experiencing financial difficulties and are under statutory intervention as a result of those difficulties. They must also show they had no reasonable alternative.

Local authorities are more complex compared with other public sector employers by nature of their funding and finances and therefore require a bespoke financial difficulties and exemption, which take account of that. These amendments will make it clear to local authorities and their employees when they would meet the exemptions under clause 26. This will mean that for all employers, restricted variations can only be used if the employer is facing severe financial difficulties, so this practice is only available again in the narrowest of circumstances.

Turning now to amendment 68, 87, 90 and 93, these amendments will specifically stop unscrupulously employers being able to fire their employees and replace them with non-employees, such as agency workers, to do essentially the same role while undercutting wages and other protections. It is important though that businesses retain flexibility to carry out legitimate business practices involved in restructuring and outsourcing. Employers will still be able to restructure their businesses and where necessary, replace employees with non-employees where employees with non-employees where there is a reduced business need for a particular type of work.

For example, if an employer will move into a seasonal business model, they will still be able to make employees redundant if necessary and to engage nonemployees to carry out reduced amount of work. This will prevent unscrupulously employers from undermining the protection in these clauses by firing and replaces staff to do substantially the same work. I believe that this amendment will ensure the Bill is comprehensive in addressing unscrupulous fire and rehire and rehire in place practices. I look forward to hearing noble Lord's debate on the amendment they have tabled to this clause, I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 26, page 46, line 14, leave out and
17:49
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert to. The amendments in this group

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendments in this group relate to the bill's position fire and rehire and there is a consensus right across the House that the most right across the House that the most outrageous cases of fire and rehire should be outlawed. The particular case an example is P&O Ferries, which was not so much fire and rehire just fire when staff were dismissed without consultation or notice, nevertheless it serves to highlight the urgent need for stronger protection for workers and clear restrictions on the use of fire and rehire.

The series of Government's amendment in this group clarifies the restriction through the introduction restricted variations, which will permit contract negotiators to proceed on limited circumstances. Amendment 72 sets up the definition of restricted sets up the definition of restricted variation,... Or weakening of terms and conditions. This approach reflects the intentions between my amendment 75, which would allow contract variations were they not detrimental to employees terms and conditions and not the same pay and hours, so I'm glad the Government has considered these provisions and we are happy to support this amendment to the Bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with Lord Goddard of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with Lord Goddard of Stockport, that as we warned when we discussed clause 26 in committee, as discussed clause 26 in committee, as originally drafted, it was quite simply unworkable. As we reminded simply unworkable. As we reminded the House throughout the committee stage, the clause was just far too broad. It would have captured broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases.

That approach was not only impractical, it was was not only impractical, it was potentially damaging to both employers and employees alike. So we
17:51
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
employers and employees alike. So we therefore now welcome the government's decision to bring forward amendments which define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation and while I would not go so far as to say the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible. But the noble Lord the Minister quoted Unite. Can I just quote Unite back at him? They have just issued a statement saying they condemn the Government's amendments.

Which do in its own way suggest that progress is being made. I think he would really be well placed to consider a rather detailed brief that Unite have delivered condemning the way in which the Government is now reworking clause 26. And I think it suggests that progress is being made, all our warnings are coming to fruition. I suppose one now has to wonder whether the legislation dawn, the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government's own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.

Of course these amendments, while helpful, have also added layers of complexity. And when you look now at what clause 26 represents, it is a recipe for going to peers like the noble Lord Hendy and saying, what does this mean? Because there is so much here that is very difficult to understand. And they have added layers of complexity... I think probably, and I do say slightly optimistically, that perhaps the fire and rehire provisions are now slightly more workable.

My goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government is preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn. That consultation will be crucial. And I just quote another major figure, the general secretary of Prospect, Mike Clancy. Who warned the government must be careful, it does not inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change. Because that surely is the risk. Amongst the restricted variations now listed are, " Reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times and reductions in leave entitlements." These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make, not recklessly but in order to adapt, restructure or just survive during the periods of financial strain.

So, we urge the government to conduct we urge the government to conduct this consultation with care, with views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-size businesses must be fully understood. And yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. And if we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst, we must support the best. This clause, as amended, is better. But we look forward to hearing from the noble Lord the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.

have been made.
17:55
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I thought for a minute concord might break out across the House, may be partially, but not quite. The short debate we had today and also in committee has shown, and indeed as identified by the noble Lord Goddard of Stockport, there is wide agreement across your Lordships' House that the unconscionable tactics we saw used by P&O Ferries should never be allowed again. We have also heard clear arguments that employers will need to make reasonable operational changes and that this should be permitted.

Let me begin with amendment 74 and 88, tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seems to make it clear... Seeks to make it clear that where an employer makes reductions... Makes redundancies because they had a change location, it should not be an automatic unfair it should not be an automatic unfair dismissal. We agree. If there is no longer a job for the employee and to work location because that location has had the closedown, this is unfortunate but it is still a redundancy situation.

This is why new section 104I will only apply when the principal reason for the dismissal is one that falls within that section. And employer these place workers close, the principal reason for their dismissal is likely to be redundancy. We will set out further detail on this matter in our planned Code of Practice. Furthermore, the changes the government is making do these amendments mean a change to the location in which an employer works is a nonrestrictive variation. That means that even in cases where there is no redundancy situation, a dismissal for failing to agree with the new work location will not be automatically unfair.

An employer must still follow a fair process when making such dismissals. Turning now to amendment 73, the noble Lord Sharpe seat to limit the protections in the Bill to cases where fire and rehire was used to reduce pay and benefits. The Government's amendments 69, 72, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 will focus the clauses rejection of variation to certain terms, specific pay, lead, total hours worked and specified shift patterns. Those times were identified because of variations to them would have a significant impact on employees and should not be imposed under the threat of fire and rehire.

This we believe is in line with the intention of the noble Lords Amendment. The noble Lord Epsom in his speech just now raised both the comments from Unite and indeed Prospect. I think I'm right in saying they were... She shows there are a variety of views within the trade union movement as well as across industry. We understand Unite would like stricter conditions on fire and rehire. We think we have struck the balance, having consulted with a wide range of trade unions including the TUC and a number of business organisations, businesses themselves and representatives of business organisations, including the CBI and the PRC and we feel we have the right balance in the way we have constructed the clause.

Finally, to amendment 75, the noble Lord Goddard of Stockport proposes to limit the clause to variations to contract that are not under the list of protected terms and which are otherwise minor and not detrimental. The government's amendments which limit the clauses that Anton were tick unfair dismissal to limited situations, achieve the noble Lord outcome, which I think is racially knowledge. It also has the benefit of being specific. The government's amendment would not require Employment Tribunal to come to a decision about whether a variation is considered to be minor on the facts of each case.

The Government's amendment also gives employers flexibility to make reasonable location changes which employers have told us is an important operational consideration and which would not be possible under the noble Lords Amendment. I therefore beg to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch I would ask the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment 73. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We then come to contents have it. We then come to amendment 69, it may be for the convenience of the House amendment convenience of the House amendment 69 and 72 are removed and block -- en bloc. The question is the en bloc. The question is the amendments he agreed to en bloc.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We turn then to amendment 73,... Not turn then to amendment 73,... Not move. 74, not moved. 75... Lord move. 74, not moved. 75... Lord goddard. Not moved. In that case we goddard. Not moved. In that case we move to amendment 76, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, again it may be for of Whitchurch, again it may be for the convenience of the House that the convenience of the House that 76-87 are moved en bloc.

The question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The We have got now to We have got now to 87. We have got now to 87. This We have got now to 87. This is We have got now to 87. This is in the name of Lord Sharpe, not moved, the name of Lord Sharpe, not moved, and then amendment 89, Baroness Jones, then 8090, then 80 9081, the question is that the amendment be agreed to en bloc.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In that case, we moved to 92. I wonder if that this point we might allow us to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 91, Baroness Jones Whitchurch, moved formally. Whitchurch, moved formally. Amendment proposed close 47 line 37 after the words inserted, last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. The printed on the Marshall list. The question is that amendment 91, 92, question is that amendment 91, 92, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 93, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally.

Amendment proposed page 47 formally. Amendment proposed page 47 line 37 after the words last inserted insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. The question on the Marshall list. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed into part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. After clause 26,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 94, Baroness Noakes. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 94 which gives the Secretary of State power to introduce exemptions from part one of this bill and I think the Noble
18:04
None Portrait AMDT: 94 Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-

Lord Londesborough for adding his name to the amendment. Both in name to the amendment. Both in committee and in our report stages to date the noble Lords have warned of the impact the bill could have on businesses. The right to guaranteed hours, the statutory sick pay hours, the statutory sick pay changes, and the day at one rights which we mentioned earlier or create which we mentioned earlier or create problems for businesses, especially for small and micro businesses and the Government are basically ignoring these concerns.

These ignoring these concerns. These provisions directly affect this but provisions directly affect this but noble Lords opposite should share our concerns of the real effect of these new rights to be fewer job these new rights to be fewer job opportunities. As we have heard from employees with risk factors from the employer's perspective would find it employer's perspective would find it harder to get work because of day one rights and indeed the Statutory one rights and indeed the Statutory Sick Pay changes and these are young people even with incomplete job people even with incomplete job histories or people with a history of illness and ex-offenders.

And people that value part-time flexible people that value part-time flexible work and students might find fewer opportunities because employers fear triggering the guaranteed hours requirements. The Government are introducing these changes at a time of great economic uncertainty. While the employment numbers continue to edge upwards, there are warning signs in the rising unemployment rate, falling job vacancies, and falling average hours worked. The business surveys are consistently a reluctance to hire among businesses and increased expectations on workforce reductions.

And even the Bank of England not a man to be careless with Woods has flagged a slowdown in the job seeker market. Growth is virtually non-existent and our inflation rate is now the highest in the G7. No, this economic background increases the likelihood that this bill will create real pain for some businesses and that pain will, inevitably, end the felt in the workforce. And at committee I argued for exemptions to part one been hardwired into this bill for small and micro businesses at my Noble Friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom is amendment 159 in this group is similar.

And I think his amendment 107 would exempt businesses of all sizes from some of the provisions. These are both great amendments and my guess is that the Government are not yet psychologically ready to admit that some sorts of businesses would be so hard-hit by the bill that they should be exempt from the scope. The Government have rejected the exemptions, citing the two tier workforce, despite the fact that in an open economy like ours workforce during occurs naturally and is certainly a feature of the current workplace.

And my amendment is a simple one. It does not require the Government to do anything. It is a reserve power that the Government can use to assist the UK economy, if things turn out as bad as we fear. It gives the Government power to create exceptions from any part of the provisions of categories of employer as defined by the Secretary of State. Thus it allows very targeted interventions if the Government believe that it is necessary. Now, some of the potential payment rates in this bill can be dealt with in the way that detailed regulations are framed and amendment 105 in this group Lee requires the Secretary of State to consider seasonal but.

Regulations, however, cannot deal with removing burdens from, for example, small and micro businesses which are the focus of several amendments in this group, nor can they avoid, nor can they address whole sector such as hospitality or agriculture, nor can they hone in on subsectors of those sectors, like the pub sector that would be massively impacted by particular types of farmers. Now, it would do no harm to the government's position if they accepted amendment 94.

They can press ahead with the plan and see what happens. If, however, they discover real problems of the kinds that many noble Lords from across this House have described, if they, and they alone, feel it is necessary. On this basis, I commend amendment 94 to the Government and I begged him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 26, insert following new clause, the
18:08
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
26, insert following new clause, the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to speak to amendments 94 tabled by the noble Baroness Noakes and to amendment 159 tabled by the noble Lords shop and Lord Hunt, both of which I have Lord Hunt, both of which I have signed up to, and I would briefly like to give my support to the Noble Lord lease amendment in this group calling for some science and calling for some science and statistical significance in pulling a representative group of SMEs on the impacts of provisions in the the impacts of provisions in the bill.

This government's consultation bill. This government's consultation is, to put it politely, curious and opaque, lacking, so far, any sort of opaque, lacking, so far, any sort of meaningful numbers, or quantified response, and barely any sort of names. Consultation carries little weight if it lacks statistical weight if it lacks statistical credibility. But let me move to Baroness Noakes entirely sensible Baroness Noakes entirely sensible and pragmatic amendment. Handing the Secretary of State regulatory tools to bring in exemptions to part one to bring in exemptions to part one of this bill to increase perceptions of this bill to increase perceptions for specified periods of time should in sign these are appropriate.

You may remember the Government, in fact, was offered similar powers of exemption in the bill earlier this year and voted through enthusiastically by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the majority of crossbenchers. Only to receive the custard pie treatment in The Other Place under the cloak of Financial Privilege which was a great pity. The noble Baroness has very generously, in my view, made the same offer again, and I hope it gets a more constructive response this time, for there is a broad consensus across the business that part one of this bill will have significant impact on the jobs market, especially for SMEs, and, let's be frank, that a green or little impact is highly unpredictable.

If we see the sort of outcomes suggested by membership surveys from such bodies as the ICA and the FSB, then the Secretary of State would be well advised to grab the option of these exemption tools with both hands, rather than doggedly sticking to its one size fits all mantra. Turning briefly to amendment 159 seeking the diss application of certain provisions for small and micro businesses with fewer than 50 employees, this gets my wholehearted support, and I will spare the House from repeating my arguments at committee, but for the Government to argue, as I am sure it will come against the amendment, because it does not want to create a two tier workforce, simply does not reflect economic reality, or, indeed, the jobs market, or the structure of businesses.

SMEs cannot compete with large businesses when it comes to pay scales, training, promotion opportunities, pensions, and a whole range of other benefits. And that is a reflection of their size, their stage of development. They do succeed in delivering strong employee royalty and identification. This is true of family businesses and start-ups, and scale ups. To apply all the sections of the bill, and specifically those listed in the amendment for the application to a micro business employing five staff as it does to a multinational employing 10,000, is wilfully indiscriminate, and, I suggest, economically illiterate.

And that is why I put my name to this amendment.
18:12
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow Lord Londesborough of course, as I speak to my amendments one of six, 153, 155 and 104. The main thrust of the first amendments are to force the Government to listen to the real concerns of the community who, frankly, even at this late stage are unaware of the effect of the bill and they are too busy trying to keep afloat the difficult economic environment with the pain costs of NIC and other tax rises keeping it. I declare an interest as an adviser to many businesses in my career and to the extent of relevant and union matters we have not heard from any Labour backbenchers today, not yet, but I'm sure that if we do they will declare their interests in union membership, so turning first to one of six specifically which relates to part one of the bill, we are constantly told by the Labour frontbench that they want to consult with business and, indeed, today they repeated that they want to consult with business but they failed to disclose who, exactly, they are consulting with, let alone what they are actually being told by those businesses and their representative bodies.

I suspect that is because they are embarrassed by the backlash against the severity of the bill from the SME and micro employers who will make it clear to the Government that this bill will mean they are less likely to employ more people and much more likely to more people and much more likely to let people go as the burden of employment is ratcheted up and I'm grateful to the Noble Lord for amending us up at the Labour Party manifesto to commit to consultation.

As the Governments are so confident of the benefits of the bill for all businesses, why not agree to engage with them? This proposal is really very modest, just 500 companies out of some 5 1/2 million in the UK. So, it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to be honest with us and tell us what is the reaction of the community? What are their concerns? Particularly, as we know, there has been a shocking lack of impact assessments for this bill. We know that the recent CRPD survey revealed that 79% of organisations expect these legislative changes to increase the employment costs.

If it is to be helpful, I have done my own consultation and recently asked HR director of a company employing 200 people for his views and he says extending employment rights from day one may appear to promote equity, but it will, almost certainly, increase the volume and complexity of employee disputes. Businesses will be compelled to strengthen their legal frameworks and invest more heavily in compliance which comes at a cost and in real terms this will mean a reduction in hiring, particularly when the decision has already been scrutinised.

Granting trade unions a statutory right of access to workplaces to promote their membership risks introducing unnecessary friction in the employer unnecessary friction in the employer ... It will escalate tensions and to rise in Employment Tribunal, either rise in Employment Tribunal, either way, in England there is current 18 month wait for Employment Tribunal as is. I cannot emphasise enough how significant and game changing are these proposals in part one of this Bill for SME and micro-businesses. Whether it is the new rules on Parental Leave or flexible working or zero hours or dismissal rules, they will all have a dramatic effect on small businesses and most, in fact I would say nearly all have no idea of what is about to hit them.

When we had the pleasure of meeting the Minister for which we are very grateful, including the civil servants working on the Bill, we asked civil servants how many SMEs had they consulted. They could not answer. They referred to how many stakeholders they consulted. That does not mean SMEs. All we have today from the government in their fact sheet is experts claiming to fact sheet is experts claiming to support this Bill is a Don from Cambridge University, a professor who on closer examination is not an economist at all.

He is a lawyer. He is a professor of law, not economic. I'm sure he's a top man in law but it is telling that HMG did not seem to be able to find one economic who could support their plans... Made since this time they have briefed though noble Lady the Minister on how many SMEs have been physically consulted on this Bill and if so I would be very grateful if she could give us that number later on. Why would they not want to consult wider? Indeed, I'm not sure how many times the noble Lady the Minister has said in debate on this Bill that the government will consult widely before various implementations.

So if she wants to be true to her word, can she agree these amendments? The later amendments, 153 and following a very time sensitive. These relate to part four and part six of the Bill. The reason these are so important is that this relates to changes to measures which will come into effect on Royal assent or immediately thereafter and include the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act of 2016, many of the chamber will remember. The noble Lady the Minister will recall the debate we had at committee on section 77, when confusion existed on what was actually meant by this clause.

I'm great ball fur letter of 25th of July clarifies what I said was absolutely right. -- For her letter. I stand by my claim that while the total amount of income and expenditure are still disclosed, the detail of what is in the expenditure will no longer be available. Why will no longer be available. Why Your political... Goes to the Labour Party or Labour MPs? Well, it doesn't. I have tried to look at union accounts and I started with obvious one, Unite. Unfortunately, we cannot see any reason accounts from Unite has over the last three years Unite has only provided partial accounts to the Certification Officer, as the auditor refused to sign off the accounts because of the ongoing investigation into corruption of the £112 million hotel deal.

So, I have been full to go back to the most recent disclosed, the 2019 accounts. Have a look inside Unite's return to the certification officer for 2013 to see whether political fund payments go to. It turns out that it is payments to the Palestinian solidarity campaign and other organisations. Can that really be what members of Unite want to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their hard earned wages go to? Apologies to interrupt the flow of the noble Lord but I feel his of the noble Lord but I feel his comment on political funds go a comment on political funds go a little... A fair way out of the scope of the amendments we are talking to this afternoon. There will be plenty of time to discuss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be plenty of time to discuss political funds I believe next week at report stage. ... It is exactly the point. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... It is exactly the point. It is exactly the point that before these amendments are... Before this Bill amendments are... Before this Bill gets put into place, this should be consultation and there is no opportunity for consultation because they are incremented at Royal they are incremented at Royal assent. The government keeps telling us there will be a consultation, how can there possibly consultation if the measures come in at Royal assent? -- Implemented at Royal assent? -- Implemented at Royal assent.

I'm grateful to the noble of the Minister for that interaction because it proves the point. And it because it proves the point. And it allows me to explain to him and other payments in Unite's political fund he may not be aware of. It is a fund he may not be aware of. It is a payment made to them Marx Memorial library. I kid you not, you could library. I kid you not, you could not make it up. I'm sure members of Unite are thrilled to know their hard and wages are going to support the Marx Memorial library.

Well, when this Bill becomes an act, in a matter of months, they were no longer have the right to see that longer have the right to see that displacement. If that is what they want to do as far as Unite is concerned, that is up to them, but surely it should not be covered up and all I'm asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of part four and part six should take place before it is ramrod it through the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion, as the government likes to call them, relevant stakeholders.

It is on 106 which I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House this afternoon, I beg to move. move.
18:21
18:23
18:23
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-
which undoubtably qualify as small enterprises. I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the noble observation made by the noble Baroness the Minister, when she replied to the last debate. She said replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would about because the tribunal would find in the employer's favour.

My find in the employer's favour. My Lords, very long ago I practised in the field of employment law. And I the field of employment law. And I saw at first hand the consequences, often very damaging, sometimes disastrous, for a small-business, of having to spend the time and trouble having to spend the time and trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if case at the tribunal, even if ultimately they were successful. And of course, in the real world, faced with that predicament, what employers often find themselves obliged to do is to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and withstand scant chance of success were it ever to come before the tribunal.

That is a fact which it seems to me ought to be taken into account. And so my question to the noble Lord the Minister, when he comes to reply to this debate, is this, the impact assessment to which attention has been drawn earlier today, in particular by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who drew attention to the increase in the number of tribunal cases which would be a consequence of this Bill, my question is this, to what extent did the impact assessment take into account those disputes which were not actually taken to the tribunal, were settled by the employer who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case in tribunal, but would nevertheless involve very substantial damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employer? ... Whether the noble Lord Howard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Whether the noble Lord Howard would agree with me that there are, since he and I practice the since he and I practice the Employment Tribunal is, now strong procedures by which employment
18:24
18:26
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Sharpe of Epsom, and to which I have added my own name. I again refer the House my registered interest, in particular as a dairy and livestock, and as a forester. The farming community does need help after the run of negative actions taken by this government. The slashing of payments followed swiftly by the cut-off in sustainable farming incentives, with no notice, contrary to previous promises. That leaves a large number of farmers with negligible environmental payments, incentivising the intensification of their farming operations, undermining their businesses and undermining nature restoration.

To this is added the more general burden placed on all businesses of increased employer National Insurance contributions. Adam Thomas long-term planning has been thrown into chaos by the reduction in inheritance tax reliefs on agricultural business property. -- Farmers. It is a burden farming businesses city cannot afford and will into the sale and breakup of many of these of family... And families also losing their homes and businesses as a result. In the run- up to the reduction, the financial incentive for elderly or terminally ill farmers and business owners to take their own lives increases.

At Committee stage I was most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, who was again in his place today, but his promise to speak his ministerial colleagues at DEFRA and the ONS keeping accurate and timely data on farmer and business owners suicides. I asked the noble Lord the Minister again today what has been the result of those discussions, how can the Government assess the impact of that measure on suicide rates if it simply relies on out-of-date and insufficiently granular ONS data? Turning briefly to amendment 107.

The argument in favour of granting farming and exemption from these provisions in this Bill have been well-made at committee and will only hit the headlines. Farming is almost uniquely exposed to seasonality in its harvesting operations but also the weather variability of the timing of those operations. Livestock farmers also have to look after the animals every day and rely on casual labour to fill in gaps due to illness or scheduling issues. That requires flexibility of its engagement with seasonal and part- time or casual staff.

There are penalties enough on whether unpredictability without introducing more for compensating staff are changing hours at short notice or having to compensate for sickness from day one. These obligations are simply unaffordable for farmers and unworkable in practice. Farming also operates on cycles that are unknown in other businesses. It is easy enough to assess the quality of work and the suitability of staff in retail, offices, manufacturing, even after the first day also also however, most farming workloads are solitary with little oversight, we only know where then a new employee has drilled a field greatly, look after animal hygiene effectively, checked weed growth around trees without damaging the trees or ensure that livestock is back in calf for the necessary window months after those operations are performed.

Reducing probationary period and leaving farmers exposed to human resource and litigation risks potentially from day one is simply not acceptable or workable. As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted in committee, this is not a Government that has a background or experience in the farming or rural economy. That lack of experience is so often evident and I are so house and the Government to listen to those of us do have that experience and support this critical amendment. I hope to encourage in the noble Lord the Minister that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government is listening. My Lords, these amendments in this group relate to the disapplication of sections of the Bill in certain sections and Bill in certain sections and employment types. Amendment 94 would allow the Secretary of State the ability to regulation to exempt sectors and the provision of the sectors and the provision of the act. We are not supportive of this amendment, as we are generally not supportive of facilitating two tier supportive of facilitating two tier employment systems.

With certain businesses statutory obligations which they must adhere to and others which they must adhere to and others that do not. Instead, we have focused on ensuring that as part of the government's consultation process, ahead of implementation, process, ahead of implementation, sector is likely to be disproportionately affected are wobbly engaged and supported to operate under the act with minimal operate under the act with minimal disruption. -- Properly engaged. The amendment in Lord Sharpe same which amendment in Lord Sharpe same which we have signed will create a definition of seasonal work and require legislation later the Secretary of State regard to work at Secretary of State regard to work at this nature.

During Committee stage replace that on record held that impact of the act on seasonal workers and the difficulty those businesses have in adhering to the act. We actually believe the amendment does not create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses but ensures those businesses are considered properly with secondary legislation is created for the act and we will support any action on and we will support any action on Amendment 176 to exempt individuals from farming businesses amendment 2321 of the act and despite a strong opinion on behalf of the farming communities we cannot support the amendment because to the package of the bill we involve the creation of two tier employment systems that include sectors and corporate action and, additionally, we believe that some of the conditions that they proposed exempt apply to farmworkers and those relating to the right to request which the Noble Lord was in favour yesterday of Statutory Sick Pay and possibly if there are other struggling sectors such as adult care, earliest providers, you're not care, earliest providers, you're not receiving subspecialty arrangements we cannot support amendment one seven.
18:32
18:33
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
bill will have a detrimental effect on seasonal work and seasonal industries carpeted has failed to provide any clear definition of what seasonal work actually is. We think it is therefore essential that the it is therefore essential that the bill provides a precise definition to take this artist to ensure that the law reflects the unique unchanging nature. We are discussing the lives and livelihoods of thousands of who not rigidly around roles but in the beating heart of seasonal industries such as agriculture, hospitality, tourism agriculture, hospitality, tourism and performing arts.

There were seasons with festivals, not seasons with festivals, not seasons with festivals, not according to the recording periods. And yet under the present draft a 12 week reference. As been proposed as a basis for determining what constitutes an established part of constitutes an established part of work. Let's pause on that. 12 weeks, work. Let's pause on that. 12 weeks, barely 3 months, or one might observe the precise duration of just one of the four seasons is being one of the four seasons is being treated as a sufficient measure to see those whose nature is predicted by predictability and periodic intensity.

But is not only an intensity. But is not only an inadequate metric, it is, in many ways, in many cases, a misleading ways, in many cases, a misleading metric. Effort from my employer hundreds and none by August. A technician might work flat out during festival season and then have no engagement for months. Or be working elsewhere. A seaside hotel may be bustling in July, but deserted in November. To take a short-term temporary rise and draw from it, long-term legal assumptions about continuity of work is not merely a flawed approach, it is deeply unfair to both employers and workers.

Businesses cannot predict with such precision and cannot bind themselves to everything that the market does not keep, and if they are forced to do so, they will understandably become more cautious and they will hire fewer people, they will reduce opportunity, they will retreat from flexibility Is not bad for an economy and in many cases it is the only practical means by which people, students, carers, parents and artists, can participate in the labour market and we must not make the mistake of irregularity for eligibility or seasonal or for insecure work, so this amendment does something both elegant and essential, define seasonal working in clear and practical terms and captures the recurring temporary character, grounded in the real operational rhythms of key sectors.

And, crucially, instructs the Secretary of State to have regards to the definition when drafting regulations. That is not an escape close, it is a safeguard. We are not asking for a policy, were asking for recognition that not all labour is uniform and not all employment plans can or should be squeezed into the same regulatory old. And if would pass this bill without such a safeguard we risk chilling seasonal hiring altogether, not protecting workers, but just denying them opportunities. Turning to amendment 107, I am grateful to the Noble Lord for signing this amendment and I look forward to the questions that he asked particularly on the state suicide statistics and I hope the Noble Lord is able to address those before turning to the matter at hand I must begin with an unequivocal condemnation of the government's recent family farms tax policy.

And this disastrous measure has placed an unbearable strain on family farms, which are the very foundation of our rural communities and the heart of our national security. Instead of supporting these hard- working families, the Government has chosen to punish the policies that threaten their very existence, so I would ask the Government to commit to traversing the tax immediately for the sake of our farmers, for our countryside, and for our country. But, having said that, I turn with equal consent of the implemented rights bill.

While the bill is to enhance commanders comment well, tragically fails to take into account the unique realities of farm businesses and seasonal work. As we have heard, farming is unlike any other industry, it is defined by seasonal peaks and troughs by work that is dictated by the weather and nature and bite labour demands that can change from one week to the next. To impose the fixable employment rights design. Round jobs in the seasonal industries is to misunderstand the fundamentals. For example, the proposal to extend employment rights that we have just discussed and that restrictions on zero hours contracts that further exacerbate some of these issues.

The zero hours contracts by agriculture and not at all exploitation are a necessary mechanism for managing seasonal labour. Moreover, the proposal to require compensation for cancelled shifts fails to consider farming's intrinsic unpredictability. Decisions about working in weather conditions that change with little notice, to expend farmers to pay for cancelled hours when fields are unworkable simply unrealistic and unfair. Even the bill's provisions on the right to request flexible working as an undue burden on farmers, agricultural workers highly seasonal, as the Explained that next fixable booking requests difficult to accommodate in practice, raising the threshold for employers to refuse these rights will hamper the ability to plan and respond to fluctuating labour needs.

That is where the amendment for us today is not merely desirable but we think essential. Into two uses a clear baseline and the bill can then be tailored to reflect the cyclical, temporary, and whether dependent nature of agricultural labour. This amendment recognises the reality of these industries and allows for the necessary flux ability. Without this amendment, the Government risks imposing a one size fits all regime that will force many pubs to cease hiring, increased cost, or close altogether, yet again, devastating rural communities and, of course, endangering our food security.

I would urge people around this House to support the amendment and sent the clear message that we are not against the realities. We have to protect workers and yes, protect the farms who feed the destination. Amendment 159, I would be very grateful, indeed, to the Noble Lord Londesborough for supporting it. If you years ago, in a remarkable TV interview, a one-time Labour shadow chancellor could only suggest build somebody when asked the Labour leader that supported Labour's policies. Sadly, the government's Employment Rights Bill risks the same fate.

Ministers cannot name a single small business that supports all the measures contained within it of any existing tool and this bill is being rushed through with little regard to the businesses that from the backbone of our economy and the government's own assessment hints at looming disaster but fails to fully capture its devastating effects. And the bill is weighing heavily on the minds of small business owners, already forcing them in precisely the moment when they are most needed. And that ICA W, the Institute of directors, at 72% of business belief the bill will hamper growth and nearly half say they intend to hire fewer staff as a direct result, yet the Government insists businesses will simply absorb the costs and a statement that is not only unrealistic but dismissive of the precarious financial position many small enterprises face and many firms may without the storm but small businesses survive on razorthin margins and they will come with reduced opportunities or reluctance to hire new staff.

And the office for responsibility has warned of the sweeping new regulations that will likely have, and I quote, material and probably negative impacts on productivity and process. That, I fear, is an understatement. Crucially, the Government has missed one vital fact, and that is that there is competition between employers, not simply regulation, that best protects workers rights first employers that want the most productive rights must offer better pay and conditions to attract and then keep them first of this natural market dynamic encourages fairness and opportunity for more effectively than heavy-handed mandates.

This bill would distort competition by imposing complex rules that distract businesses from focusing on growth and innovation instead, they will devote precious resources into and tree compliance and legal risk into the barriers rather than enabling opportunity and, ironically, this will lead to fewer businesses competing for talent, and therefore fewer jobs grated. The Government cleans that these will improve job security and working conditions, but the reality is that it will force many small-business to rethink their hiring plans altogether.

The FSB says so and they will either hold back on creating new jobs or they will cut existing ones, and some will reduce wages or cut hours to survive and the intended provisions risk firing and making work less secure and less rewarding and, ultimately, the costs imposed by the bill amount to a stealth tax which fall directly on the workers themselves and opportunity tax. Employers faced with higher compliance costs at the risk of higher tribunals, the restrictions and fix ability will have little choice but to pass the expenses down the chain.

This means lower wages, fewer hours, fewer job opportunities, paradoxically, that work does not pay. A quick word on my Noble Friends amendment one also, now this Government likes a consultation, but the Government has been unable to name any business it has consulted in relation to part one. My Noble Friends amendment is therefore elegant in its simplicity and channels the government's enthusiasm and corrects their admission. I would support him if he chooses to divide. And, finally, can I remind the Noble Lord who I think is answering that noble Howard asked a very important question, unless he has forgotten it, I would like to re-ask it.

I beg to move.
18:42
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords that have spoken in this debate. Starting with amendment 94, the noble Baroness knobs amendment would exempt specific groups from all or some of the provisions within part one. Since the 1980s, UK reforms have stringed back workers right and turned the country into an outlier amongst advanced economies. The U.K.'s productivity has shown more sharply than in other companies with others and millions trapped in low-paid, insecure, and poor quality knobs.

There was a result and less money lining people's pockets. Are now paying the price. Millions of working people can't afford basic living costs and in one of the world's wealthiest nations, workers are still turning to food banks. Many cannot afford rent, let alone a mortgage. Morale is at rock bottom, motivation is vanishing. Average salaries have barely increased from where they were 14 years ago, an average worker would be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading to the 2008 financial crisis.

Yet, executive pay keeps climbing, in 2023 the average CEO and 118 times more than the median UK worker. From 50 times in the late 1990s. This is unsustainable and not fair. This is no way to a healthy and productive economy. The UK must stop treating workers predictions as an attack on growth. They are the foundations of it. Over 2 million people could benefit from guaranteed hours and rise to paper and zero hours contracts.

Over 9 million people would benefit from protections against unfair dismissal from day one. To 1.3 million employees will get the new entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay. And that new rights entitlements and protections provide the baseline minimum standard for security and dignity network. They should not be something that the Government of the day can freely take away. Furthermore, exempting categories for any category that the Secretary of State deems fit will, ultimately, create a two-tier system of employment rights based on the politics of the day.

Whilst I understand that noble Baronesses protections I reiterate that these provisions were the work of Manifesto commissions and business confidence is at a nine-year high, according to the barometer. The opposite noble Lords my love, but this is the Lord's business barometer which I ensure many noble Lords across the aisle would know who they are, with a second consecutive, with a second consecutive rising workforce projections for the coming year. And Deloitte recently read that UK as joint top destination for This government had to take difficult decisions to restore stability to public finances.

This has resulted in four interest rates cuts, wage is growing faster than inflation, inward investment and living standards growing across the country. Economic activity is also at a record high. We have created 384,000 more people in employment since last summer. This has resulted or and rather we are shielding 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties from paying full business rates. I turn now to amendment 159. Every region, sector and international market, we are committed to supporting SMEs and the 12.7 million people who work for them.

But the idea that SMEs cannot afford day one rights does not reflect the full picture. Fundamental rights from day one, such as protection from unfair dismissal, sick pay and flexible working creates a more stable and motivated work force. Their treatment is not just good policy. -- Fair treatment. It is good business. Stress, depression and anxiety led to 17.1 million lost days in 22-23. The equivalent of something like £5.2 billion of lost economic output. High staff turnover, poor morale and burnout are far more costly than simply doing the right thing and upholding the fair treatment of workers.

SMEs already rely on loyal adaptable staff, offering day one rights will help retain them and support productivity. This is not about burdening small businesses, it is about raising the floor, so that decent work is the norm and not a privilege. Many SMEs already treat their workers fairly without being force to do so. The law should be the standard, not to allow bad actors to cut corners. Dennis should not appear on company size. -- Fairness. If a business relies on denying business rates, it is not a sustainable business, it is exploitation.

There are already huge amount of government support that was outlined at committee. And looking forward, we will also publish a small business strategy paper later this year. This will set out our intentions to support small businesses across key areas, including driving high streets, making it easier to secure finance, accessing overseas and domestic markets, entrepreneurship and building business capabilities. Turning to these reforms we have now published the bill's implementation roadmap, which I recommend all noble Lords across the aisle to read it.

It provides clarity for all employers on how and when we will engage and consult on the implementation of measures post Royal Assent. As well as when measures will take effect. We are taking a measured and phased approach to implementation, to make sure reforms are practical, workable and sustainable. This will give employers time and space to adapt systems, train staff and update policies where necessary. Employers, workers and other stakeholders will be further supported by guidance that we will produce.

We are committed to exploring how this guidance can best meet the needs of SMEs. Boosting productivity, improving workers well-being and creating a more level playing field for good employers will grant significant benefits worth billions of pounds a year. It would not be appropriate to exclude small businesses from these benefits or create a two-tier workforce. I turn now to amendment 105 and 106, table by the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Firstly, we are steadfast in our commitment to Britain's farming industry.

Government is investing industry. Government is investing over £5 billion over the next two years, the largest ever allocation to support sustainable food production in the UK's history. In regards to a member 105, consideration around seasonal work is built into part one of the Bill. I refer now to the noble Lords question on the issue on the review, that I will have to write to the noble Lord and ask my colleagues from DEFRA to ensure he gets a reply to his question.

And as far as suicide is concerned, it is sad, it is unfortunate and it is troubling and we need to get to the bottom of this and I will ensure the noble Lords gets an answer from the Department concerned. In relation to the right of guaranteed workers specifically, the provisions allow guaranteed hours offers to take the form of an offer to enter into a limited term contract where it is reasonable to do so. The provisions details that is reasonable into enter into a limited time contract where, for instance, the qualified worker will only be needed until an event has occurred or until a specific task has been completed.

This will allow for the use of a limited term contract for seasonal work in such circumstances. By way of just one example, which is also pertinent to amendment 107, if a fruit picker qualifies for a guaranteed hours offer, that offer could be an offer to enter into a limited time contract... Term contract. Which could expire either once a task is a fruit picker has completed or once the picking season has ended. As set out in the recent roadmap publication, we will begin consulting on the implementation of many of the bills key measures this autumn, including regulations on guaranteed hours.

We will welcome responses from all stakeholders, including those with an interest in seasonal workers from all sectors like farming, hospitality and retail. All relevant factors, including... Of workers will be taken into account when making secondary legislation. So this amendment is unnecessary. Regarding amendment 107, whilst I understand the principle, it is fundamental that our main work pay reforms apply across all employers. These rights, entitlements and projections provide baseline minimum standard for security and dignity at work.

I now turn to amendment 106, 105, 155 and 18 and 184, considering consultation on this Bill. We regularly meet with business representatives organisations, whether the CBI, the FSB or the British Chamber of Commerce. And they themselves will represent thousands of individual companies of all sizes, types and kind. In fact, my noble friend the Minister and myself will be meeting the British Chamber of Commerce tomorrow. And I will not even go into the political funds, because that is for another day.

I will not labour the point further, small businesses remain at the forefront of our mines as we move closer to the implementation phase of the Bill. -- Our mines. We publish that implementation roadmap and committed to full consultation, including with SMEs. Before I conclude, in answer to the noble Lord Howard's point about the tribunal, we are creating a Fair Work Agency, that will take the load off, to a certain extent, any of the tribunal hearing. And ACAS will also help out before any cases are heard before the tribunal.

Lord Sharpe asked about business... As I said earlier, we have consulted with business extensively, throughout the passage of this Bill itself, and many have come out in support of the Bill. Let me give you an example of one, he asked for one example and I will give it to him. This includes, for example,... A well renowned high quality textile manufacture. And an SME best -- based in West Yorkshire. And they say they welcome the bill's ambition to level the playing field, ensuring responsible employers like us, then, are not undercut by those lower standards.

It is a step forward for fairness, for business and for people. In conclusion, I asked the noble Lord, the noble Baroness Noakes, to withdraw amendment 94.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has put up a heroic defence based on a variety of statistics. But is he aware of the latest ICAEW survey, he aware of the latest ICAEW survey, the chartered accountants, I think they survey over a thousand companies of various sizes. Which shows the fourth quarterly decline in business confidence. And which shows that the expectations for shows that the expectations for employment are at their lowest level

**** Possible New Speaker ****

since the third quarter 2020. If he starts throwing statistic, I can throw statistics at him as I can throw statistics at him as well. As I said earlier, the delights survey shows the UK's top destination for businesses. In fact, destination for businesses. In fact, the Chancellor's speech at Mansion House yesterday was very welcomed by House yesterday was very welcomed by the city of London and the financial services say that London will be the destination for Fintech investment. destination for Fintech investment.

And furthermore, KPMG's recent consumer index says that people are feeling more... They are feeling feeling more... They are feeling more money in their pocket and are starting to plan the holidays for summer and good for them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure the Minister will want to be very clear on this. I think to be very clear on this. I think the Deloitte survey he referred to was in respect of inward investment only. Probably because the UK is regarded as a cheap place, given what has happened to us in the last month. Whereas the chartered accountant survey is specifically on business confidence and it has fallen every quarter for the last four quarters. One wonders what happened four quarters ago to prompt that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can say, we got into government one year ago. After 14 years. And we go back, business confidence also very low then. And plus the same time, unemployment also on the rise. At the end of the day, we are making At the end of the day, we are making progress. And yes, the figures will take time to change and I'm confident that confidence will grow. And because the inward investment is And because the inward investment is coming in, which means investing in more business and furthermore, the more business and furthermore, the FTSE index reached 9,000 mark FTSE index reached 9,000 mark yesterday.

And what does it say? People have confidence to invest in British companies. So let's not talk down the economy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down the economy. I can't let that pass. He will know the FTSE represents mostly foreign earnings, it is not a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

domestic index. I thank all noble Lord who have taken part in this debate, which has taken part in this debate, which has covered quite a lot of ground. I cannot pretend to be anything but disappointed in the Minister's
18:58
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
disappointed in the Minister's response, in fact, the first chunk of his response seemed to be some kind of lesson in a socialist view of life. And had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the amendments. I have to say, while I respect the noble Lord's own business expertise, he does seem to demonstrate that this Government does not understand business. And does not understand the key to successful economic management. I was pleased to hear that my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley intends to test the opinion of the House.

And I hope that my noble friend is on the Frontbench will be seeking to do the same thing when we reach there amendment in their place in the Marshalled List. I was of course disappointed but not surprised that the noble Lord the Minister was not prepared to accept my generous offer of a reserve power to create exemptions to get the government out of trouble in due course. And I hope they do not come to regret their decision. My Lords, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

I have taken the government horse to water

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but it has refused to drink. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn. By leave withdrawn withdrawn. I am leave withdrawn withdrawn. I am informed there was an error in the results announced in the first division today. The correct results division today. The correct results were content, 304 stop not-contents, were content, 304 stop not-contents, were content, 304 stop not-contents, 160. -- Content, 304. Not content, 160. Members 95 and 96 taken
18:59
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
160. Members 95 and 96 taken together, already debated. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not I am looking to move a member 100 by but I take it position on by but I take it position on amendment 106. On Tuesday, the Government published its long- awaited review of the whistleblower awaited review of the whistleblower framework. Despite its narrow remit, the review is frankly jawdropping. the review is frankly jawdropping. And the Government really has no choice now but to set in train choice now but to set in train fundamental reforms for the whole of the whistleblowing framework.

In knowledge and of the significance of knowledge and of the significance of that publication, I will not move that publication, I will not move amendment 95. But while we wait for amendment 95. But while we wait for fundamental reform, we need some immediate improvement to some of the worst features of the current system of supposedly whistleblowing protection. Amendment 96 would enable the Secretary of State to deal with spurious excuses to fire whistleblowers and would enable the Secretary of State to require Secretary of State to require investigation by employers where reasonable.

The amendment was reasonable. The amendment was drafted by Lord Wills who cannot be here today, it is also signed by me and by Baroness Morgan of Cotes, it was spoken to warmly by Lord Cromwell on Monday, who is in his place and I thank him. This is very much a cross-party amendment. And on this amendment, I wish to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. May we first dispose of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May we first dispose of amendments 95? Amendment 95, not amendments 95? Amendment 95, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments 95? Amendment 95, not MM at 96. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 96. I wish to test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House on that. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,
19:01
19:14
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
RIs to speak to amendment 97 which is in my name. Firstly I would like to thank the ministers for taking the time to meet to discuss this important matter and specifically the noble Lord AND his team for meeting over the weekend. This is a simple amendment. It's about protecting families of sick children. It has been called Hughes law. You died at the age of six from cancer. His name is etched into this amendment not as a symbol, but as a legacy.

I thank his parents for being here today. They are sitting in the gallery, as they were at committee. Since his death his parents have dedicated their lives to ensuring that no other family has to ensuring that no other family has to endure what they had to endure. They have been doing so without job security or peace of mind. I cannot imagine anything worse than watching your child die and having to make the choice of ink with them or potentially losing your home.

This is not just an important time for is not just an important time for parents, but for siblings. I know my noble friend would have wanted to be here, but she is attending a funeral. In the time it will take us to complete this stage of the bill or than 1,000 parents across the UK will be told that their child has a life-threatening illness. Some will be in hospital for weeks. Others tragically will never leave. But unlike most of us here today Hugh's parents do not have to imagine that moment.

They have lived it. They know the unbearable fear, the crushing helplessness and the impossible choice between work and being at their child's bedside. They are campaigning for this because they know the current system fails these families. It leaves the families exposed, unsupported and forgotten by a framework that recognises the needs of newborns, but not of children like you who are older than 29 days when they for ill. The amendment is reasonable and humane and offers 12 weeks of paid leave for parents of a critically leave for parents of a critically ill child over 29 days old.

At present no parent is entitled to financial support in the first 90 days of their child's illness. After 90 days they can apply for disability living allowance. But even then successful DLA applications can take up to 20 weeks Of the families surveyed 90% Government support was made a critical difference to the hardships they faced following their child's diagnosis and treatment. This amendment seeks to build on important progress made through the 2023 neonatal care pay act which was only meant to be a starting point.

Under this act parents of babies admitted to neonatal care within the first 28 days of life and he require a hospital stay of seven continuous days or more are now entitled to up to 12 weeks of statutory leave with pay as eligible. This is also in addition to additional -- existing paternity and maternity entitlements. Baroness Merron previously stated that and I quote, no parent should have to choose between being with their vulnerable newborn returning to work. We are giving parents peace of mind so they can focus on the family.

This amendment aims to be just that. It prevents parents from having to make those impossible choices between the child's health and employment. Instead it provides the financial support necessary to those vulnerable parents and devastating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

situations. I beg to move. Amendment proposed of the clause 26 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled List. I rise very briefly to offer the strongest possible green support and I know many other people in here
19:18
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I know many other people in here today support this amendment. Baroness Thompson has essentially outlined the reason for this very clearly, I'm just going to add a couple of additional points to that. One being that if we think about care that a child receives the parent being able to be at the bedside, we've seen many cases where parents as advocates are crucial to ensuring the child gets the best possible metal -- medical treatment. There is a proud -- profound inequality here if financial circumstances prevent parents from being at the bedside by advising telling doctors and other carers information about child's health the child themselves.

If the parents not able to be there that is of profound inequality. Also this would enable parents to maintain contact with the workplace. Something that rather than just having to give up the job, walk away and deal with the mess later it would mean there was a continuing relationship which hopefully works at best -- out for the best and the child comes home and you get back doesn't like normal. Just one other issue and I want to join Baroness Thompson in paying huge credit to carry on Frances and the campaign they have run for this Hughes law and this is very much a legacy here.

I have to say am very surprised because I know the government this week responded to a final plea to say will you back this and I hope the Minister may be about to stand up and offer something different, but the email suggested that is not what we are going to hear today. I also want to raise, I understand if the noble Lord wants to raise with me later, the briefing from the Hughes law charities point out that the situation with to fund me which is this is people were left in a situation where they have to appeal to the public to be able to fund their support for their sick child, because that means people having to expose their own suffering and pain.

This is something that unless it is strictly designated to pay for medical treatment than the parents actually are not eligible for any later government assistance that they might eventually be eligible for, Universal Credit or other assistance if they got money from the public to support them, that cuts off the government support. That is something I think the government should be looking at, it's not covered in this amendment but it's something that really is worth looking at in the future to make sure that if people receive donations to help the family in deep distress that should not stop getting other support.

With those comments I would strongly support Baroness Thompson, Baroness Grey- Thompson sorrow -- sorry, it's been a long session I strongly support this and I know many other peers well so I hope we might hear something very positive from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. I intervene briefly, first of all to thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for to thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for introducing this amendment. Anyone who heard the interview on radio who heard the interview on radio four this morning couldn't help but be moved by the circumstances that be moved by the circumstances that are the background to this amendment I speak as one who had the
19:21
Lord Wigley Portrait Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
I speak as one who had the experience of losing two young children. At the age of two and three are children were diagnosed with life terminating condition. It was the week in which the 1974 election had been called and I had the decision, and my wife with me making the decision, whether to remain working in an industry or to stand. The question was how on earth will be going to face the circumstances where both are boys would live perhaps for five years, perhaps the 10 years, perhaps for 15 years, but one thing was certain, both my wife and I could not continue to work and careful to boys with learning difficulties, learning disabilities and who were gradually able to walk less and less until they couldn't walk at all.

It was a challenge, an emotional challenge as well as a physical challenge, and potentially a financial challenge which is where this amendment comes forward. We were in being unlucky and the unlikeliness was double as I have described, my wife was also expecting our third child at that time and we didn't know whether the third child would be affected by this condition or not. In standing for election and being elected for connivance to the House of Commons -- a 30% reduction in the salary I had coming in and the reality that my wife was a professional musician, a harpist, would not be under the -- able to undertake a career thereafter and would lose her earnings altogether.

Had it not been for the availability of the then mobility allowance and the other allowance both of which it was able to get for both children at the highest level, we would not have been able to employ someone to help us in order to give my wife some relief while I was down in London with my work here. That was the situation that continued, we had two other children, our daughter was born in June following that born in June following that February, she was alright, not affected by it.

Our son was born two years later was not affected by it, so we were blessed by having two children were not affected. But we saw what reality could be of the financial pressures that come from that sort of disability, a double disability. If it hadn't been for the fact that I also had my parents the fact that I also had my parents living next door my father had just retired and on a good pension, we just could not have survived. We
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page