Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

I will make a brief comment on Amendment 1, which would replace a right to have guaranteed hours with a right to request. I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the Bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts where employees do not have predictability over their hours.

I appreciate that the desire of the amendment is to reduce the burden on employers in working out what the guaranteed hours would be, only to find that an employee declines the offer. However, I do not think that that is likely to happen very often. Obviously, it is impossible to know what proportion of employees would turn down such an offer, but we do know from surveys—and most recently from a poll that the TUC did last year—that the majority of workers on zero-hours contracts consistently say that they would prefer to have guaranteed hours. It is therefore very unlikely that large numbers of them would turn down an offer once it has been made.

Perhaps more seriously, the amendment does not take account of the imbalance of power in workplaces and the characteristics of employees who are working on zero-hours contracts. The latest figures from the ONS tell us that zero-hours contract workers are much more likely to be young and to work in elementary occupations. They are much more likely to be working part-time and in low-paid sectors. These are the least empowered workers in the workforce; they are unlikely to understand their rights, even if the employer has complied with the requirement to find information. They are the least likely to be represented by a union and the least likely to know how to exercise their rights. The right to request guaranteed hours, in those circumstances, is not a real right at all.

How many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours? The vast majority of employers do right by their employees, but many do not. The formulation of the amendment leaves open the path for some of the worst employers not to offer guaranteed hours to workers on zero-hours contracts. I do not think that the amendment does the intention to serve those workers any favours at all.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, but especially Amendment 1. As we start Report, and the first of several groups focusing on zero-hours contracts—although I will speak only on this group—I want to emphasise why getting the wording and balance right in this part of the Bill is important for proportionality and to avoid unintended consequences.

Many of us were originally supportive of the Bill’s commitment to tackle the rise of zero-hours contracts, especially in retail and hospitality—and tackling the way in which they have been used exploitatively is certainly welcome. But in Committee the Government acknowledged that there needs to be the offer of some flexibility, which is what certain cohorts of workers want.

On Amendment 1, the TUC briefing on the Bill complains that the vast majority who ask for guaranteed hours are turned down. Surely the point of Amendment 1 is the requirement that they will not be turned down. What is actually happening here is that there is a shift to a right to request guaranteed hours on to the employee, which I would have thought reassures the TUC. It empowers the employee but avoids an overrigid imposition of the Bill’s requirements on businesses, regardless of the situation. These sorts of details matter, now that we are finalising what will be in the Bill. I am not sure how helpful it is that, for example, some in trade union and government circles have briefed recently that getting into the details amounts to being, to quote the Deputy Prime Minister,

“on the side of bad bosses, zero-hours contracts and fire-and-rehire”.

We are here to make law, not to make headlines, and law means accepting that the devil is indeed in the detail. The Government know that there are lots of worries about unresolved aspects of the Bill. Indeed, Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, quoted in the FT recently, assures us that he is “absolutely certain” of addressing businesses’ concerns over the statutory probation period. Pertinent to this group of amendments, he says there is “more than enough room” to reach an agreement on guaranteed hours. He says:

“I have to have the bill passed first before we go into the implementation”,


but I suggest that is the wrong way around. If there is more than enough room to reach agreement on things such as guaranteed hours, let us put this in the Bill.

In other words, in trying to pin down how a new right to guaranteed hours should be framed in regulations, these amendments bring clarity. They are meant to help the Government. I am worried that too many important details are being kicked down the road, hence avoiding democratic debate and scrutiny and creating a real mood of uncertainty among employers. We have had warnings from business about the Bill harming an already fragile economy and so on, but these kinds of concerns are trickling down to workers too.

I work with a lot of young people at the Academy of Ideas, and the initial warm enthusiasm for the Bill has gone rather cold. I have been talking to one young man who wrote a missive for us on hospitality and how much it has done for him. Omar is concerned that what he thought was going to be in his interests might turn out not to be. He says: “Hospitality is an industry that has been flexible enough to rely on youth employment and allowed many of us a way into work. It has taught me many useful lessons, and has built my confidence as a person. Now I fear that the legislation will reduce the opportunities and misses the mark”. On this amendment, he just wants the right to be able to ask for hours, but he does not want anything that disrupts the flexibility of hospitality in doing so. That echoes the balanced way in which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, moved the first amendment in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which builds on something that I raised in Committee. I have been asked to do a statement for the Covid inquiry regarding the economic response and so have been going through a variety of notes from five years ago. One of the most successful things that we did then was to support employers in the deployment of statutory sick pay by ensuring that people could stay at home and not be spreading coronavirus at work.

For me, that reinforced something that made sense for the country as a whole and its public health and was fair. It was fair to businesses that, while the country was being asked to do something and they were being asked to do something as employers, the Government helped with the cost.

Part of this entire debate is the fair work agency and it being fairer for employees—and apparently it will be fairer for employers, around productivity. I do not want to repeat all that I have said on this but I recall that, when there used to be a rebate, it was recognised that this was the bare minimum, with many employers paying a lot more than the statutory sick pay rate. It was about co-working and recognising that, as a mature country, we believe that people should continue to be paid when they are off ill, and that the Government have an interest in that too. That is why I was particularly keen to sign Amendment 30, although I am conscious that some of its finer details could be worked out further.

Amendment 28 was tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. Of the variety of changes that are happening through this Bill—many of which, I remind the House, could have been done through statutory instruments—statutory sick pay from day 1 has come up time and again with most of the employers that I have met or heard from. The impact is genuinely worrying, particularly for people in the hospitality sector, the retail sector and so on. Going straight to day 1 is a step too far backwards. That is why I am supporting my friends on the Front Bench.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in the evidence and analysis document that the Government very helpfully gave us last week, it notes that up to 1.3 million employees will get a new entitlement to statutory sick pay and that that will increase the amount of sick pay that workers receive by around £400 million a year. At face value, this is in many ways a very positive step forward. However, that same document brought up some cultural issues. I would like the Minister to reflect on whether day 1 statutory sick pay will help to tackle those issues.

The document notes that

“stress, depression or anxiety accounted for 17.1 million working days lost in 2022/23, equivalent to a loss of £5.2bn in output per year”.

Is there a danger that an unintended consequence of day 1 sickness pay would be people being encouraged to too easily see themselves as not fit for work? Can the Minister answer that? The same document says that:

“Measures to improve worker wellbeing will result in happier, healthier and more productive workers, which could be worth billions of pounds a year”.


That seems rather far-fetched. It might mean that people will more easily go on the sick, not because they are shirkers but because we are creating a culture where that is the norm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my register of interests. I ask noble Lords, when considering my amendments, to spare a thought for the great British pub. A year ago, the Chancellor promised to “turn the page” for British pubs. As she pulled a pint in the Humble Plumb in Southampton in June 2024, Rachel Reeves said that Labour would revive this “important institution”—I think we can all agree that pubs are important institutions.

Yet no sooner had she said this than she raised national insurance contributions for employers and lowered the threshold at which they are paid from £9,000 a year to £5,000. At the same time, she announced that business rates relief for hospitality brought in during Covid would be cut, while the minimum wage would rise by 6.7%. UKHospitality, which represents pubs, bars and restaurants, has estimated that the total extra cost for its members from the Budget measures announced last autumn will be £3.4 billion a year. This impact has already been felt, with 69,000 hospitality jobs lost since last autumn. According to the British Beer and Pub Association, roughly one pub is set to close every day this year—the Campaign For Real Ale is even more gloomy. If BPPA’s forecast comes to pass, it would take the number of pubs in Britain to its lowest level in a century.

What are the Government doing to save what they call an important institution? Gareth Thomas, the Business Minister, has said:

“We are determined to make the UK the best place in the world for businesses to start and succeed, and that includes our great British pubs”.


He went on:

“We’re working with industry to slash red tape … to ease the pressure on pubs and help them grow as part of our Plan for Change”.


Yet, far from slashing red tape, Clause 20 will add a whole new ream of it. As I am sure noble Lords are aware, Clause 20 amends the Equality Act to make employers liable for the harassment of their employees by third parties, for example, customers and members of the public. It does not cover third-party sexual harassment, mind you—employers are already liable for third-party sexual harassment thanks to the worker protection Act—but non-sexual third-party harassment. I have called this the “banter ban” because I believe it will mean employers will be liable for jokes, remarks and expostulations overheard by their employees—banter—that they find offensive or upsetting by virtue of their protected characteristics.

Why do I say this? We know from the way that the definition of harassment has constantly been expanded by the employment tribunal that it now encompasses overheard conversations—you can now sue your employer for failing to protect you from overhearing something uttered by another employee. The Minister will argue that Clause 20 requires employers only to take “all reasonable steps” to protect their employees from harassment, and expecting employers to protect their employees from overhearing remarks made by customers or members of the public is not reasonable. In short, the Government will argue, the tribunal will not hold employers liable for indirect, non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties. This is a false alarm, faux outrage.

I wish I shared the Minister’s confidence about that, and note that UKHospitality is not so sanguine, which is why it supports Amendment 43, which would absolve employers of liability for indirect third-party harassment. If the Minister really believes that indirect third-party harassment—overheard remarks, banter—would be out of scope, why not accept my amendment? This would be a huge relief to beleaguered publicans who will not have to worry about employing “banter bouncers” to eavesdrop on customer conversations and will help reduce the increased insurance premiums which Clause 20 will inevitably mean.

The Minister will say that plenty of service providers and businesses already ask customers to treat their employees with respect and to not say or do anything that could be construed as harassment. The vast majority of customers follow this advice, I agree, but the fact that these guidelines are being voluntarily observed is a reason to not make them mandatory, not a reason to make them mandatory. Is it not preferable that customers should observe good manners out of consideration for workers, rather than fear of being penalised for non-compliance?

If noble Lords cannot bring themselves to support my amendment, or at the very least abstain on indirect harassment, I hope that they will consider seriously Amendment 44, which would create a carve out for

“conversation or speech involving the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive”.

How could any noble Lord possibly object to that? Do we want people in pubs to be constantly looking over their shoulders and lowering their voices if they express an unfashionable or contentious point of view, or do we want them to enjoy the same right to speak openly and freely on political, moral, religious or social matters that we enjoy in this House?

Every pub is a parliament; let us not turn every pub into a library and accelerate the disappearance of this beloved institution. Let us remember what Samuel Johnson said about the Great British pub:

“As soon as I enter the door of a tavern, I experience oblivion of care, and a freedom from solicitude. There is nothing which has yet been contrived by man, by which so much happiness is produced as by a good tavern or inn”.


I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

In the Mirror newspaper last week, Clause 20 hit the headlines. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner claimed that reforms protecting employees from third party harassment would not chill free speech, and she rubbished claims that innocent workplace banter is the target. She said:

“Nobody should be abused while doing their job, but we’ve seen a horrific rise in violent abuse and harassment of shop workers and other public facing staff”.


She went on to describe those of us worried about the unintended consequences of this clause as resorting to

“spreading made-up nonsense”.

I feel the need to counter this misinformation because I fear Angela Rayner may herself be influenced by misinformation about what is in her own Bill.

I was especially alarmed when the TUC general secretary Paul Nowak told the newspaper that those of us opposing Clause 20 are

“insulting people’s intelligence by pretending that protecting workers from harassment is the same as banning banter”.

But actually, it is—and that is not my decision. It is present in the way equality law has been interpreted in employment tribunals, as has just been described, associating harassment with banter. Whatever the Government, Angela Rayner or the TUC think is in the Bill, it does not set out what constitutes harassment or, rather, what does not.

Therefore, in Committee, the Minister directed us to the definitions of harassment used in equality legislation, which is then interpreted in employment tribunals. It is important to note that under the Equality Act, as interpreted, harassment includes indirect harassment, which, as the EHRC guidance states, can include the following: spoken words, jokes, written words and posts on social media, physical expressions and gestures and, yes, banter.

As we have heard, employment tribunals hear many cases relating to workplace banter, with 57 cases in 2024. If we look at human resources literature, we see that it is full of advice to employers on managing banter in the workplace between their employees. One horrendous suggestion put out to employers was to monitor conversations and attempt to pick up or pre-empt any problems. Another suggestion was to send people on—wait for it—appropriate conversation training sessions. I have just been sent the details of a consultant—there is always a consultant behind all this—who is an inclusive language and banter specialist and runs workshops at £495 a shot. One of his first workshops is “What does the term transgender mean to you?”—I will not say what it means to me out loud or I might get done by the banter police. Anyway, cisgender is a term that I do not think we want to be put into the hands of the banter police.

We are not raising this issue to cause a fuss. The problem is that it is in the Bill. I have always argued against this broad and elastic definition of harassment; it is problematic because it undermines free speech, as I have made the case for many times in this House and in Committee. I also want to emphasise that it risks trivialising genuine cases of harassment and diluting the impact of genuine anti-harassment policies that require serious attention.