Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Fox of Buckley Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thought I had made my response. This is what we are trying to do: where there are specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that a probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses have three or six months and can extend that to ensure that issues of capability and competency are addressed. We are also ensuring that we look at all other opportunities. My noble friend made the point that every change we have made in the labour market to improve the conditions and the opportunities for workers and employees has been resisted, and resisted strongly, particularly by the party opposite. But we now have the situation—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the Minister could respond to this. There are more opponents to these parts of the Bill than just the party opposite, as the Minister described them. All the concerns that have been raised—across the House, but also outside this House—have come from a wide range of organisations and interests that are actually interested in workers’ rights. They are concerned that a lack of forethought about what day-one rights mean will impact some people, who will never get the chance to have workers’ rights because they will not be employed: it will lead to a risk-averse employer.

I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers’ rights view. That is misinformation and is not even reflected in the discussion we have had today. So will the Minister answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation but by a wide range of employers and organisations that are worried that, just because it says on the tin that this is for workers, that does not mean that it is in the tin, and that the consultation afterwards will not help a Bill that is cemented into law?

This Government constantly tell us about the rule of law. We are worried that they are about to make a law that is unbreakable with any consultation afterwards and that that will be bad for workers. That is the driving factor of our concerns.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government and the Minister for their comments. When we debated this earlier, we talked about who was going to represent and who was not. I felt at the time that there was an undue feeling that we were trying to get at trade unions. That is not the case at all. Trade unions have a really relevant part in this, but not everybody belongs to a trade union. Many people and firms are not trade unionised, and they therefore use the other course available, which is to have a co-worker there. That works very nicely—you have a good pal who comes along and represents you, but they are not trained to do so. All the amendment was doing was finding that, when and if a trade union is not representing them and can well do so, a trained person accompanies the person at a tribunal. I gather from what the Minister has said that there is some merit seen in this proposal; that is what I have read, and I hope the Minister will confirm that when he finalises. If my understanding is correct, will the Minister and his department keep us updated on what is happening on this issue?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the Minister’s response, I positively welcome the Government’s commitment to this review of the right to be accompanied, and I thank the Government in this instance for listening to the concerns raised at Report and Committee stages. On Report, I put forward an amendment that would have allowed workers to have a companion of their own choosing at disciplinary or grievance hearings—I felt it should be that open. I was happy none the less to support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which, as has already been noted, was overwhelmingly supported. I would still like it to be a statutory right for workers—as this is a workers’ rights Bill, as we are constantly told—to be able to choose who represents them when they face grievance procedures, but I am really pleased that the Government will look at this. I hope that they look widely and think about the issue and that we can resolve it.

I want to respond very briefly to the way the Minister talked about the decision on keeping the issues internal and to draw attention to one of the problems with that. Over recent years, sometimes the grievances that workers have been involved in have been quite ideologically contentious, and issues have been very difficult, so simply to call upon fellow workmates to come with you into the grievance internally has been difficult because of a nervousness about guilt by association. It is also the case that not everyone is in a union, so, when the union might be representing someone, that is the opposite of keeping it internal and informal, because the person in that grievance procedure does not even know who they are with.

I also want to draw attention to just one thing: I wish it were not the case, but sometimes trade unions’ own policies can see them at odds with their own members. There have been a few instances of that recently—see the case of Sandie Peggie, who is suing the RCN around the issue of single-sex changing rooms for nurses. These things have been well documented, so I will not go into them, but it is not always as straightforward as saying that the trade unions will be the best people to represent a member of staff.

To finish, I stress that, historically, trade union representatives have very often protected and represented brilliantly, and been brilliant advocates for many people facing difficulties at work. I sat in many grievance procedures, representing members of my own union when I was a trade union rep. That is an ideal. Now that only a minority are represented by trade unionists, and based on the aspiration of the Bill to represent all workers and give them more rights, I hope this review will broaden the rights that workers have through representation so that they can choose who represents them. In general, however, I am very positive about the Government’s decision.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on having introduced a really important issue. Undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any individual and, as my noble friend Lady Barran pointed out, these individuals do need to be accompanied. I therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this, and I agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been raised in this debate.

Motion M1 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I must express my disappointment in Brother Collins—the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and his whole attitude that we no longer need 50% to call a strike. What sort of message does that send?

It has been over one year since this Government came to power. In that time, they have proceeded and presided not over progress but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations and said that a new partnership was on the horizon. However, what we have had instead is a Government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it “reform”. Their great idea is to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, removing the last protection that the public have when vital services grind to a halt.

They handed out no-strings-attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA, with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. What happened then? It spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, admitted that the majority of BMA members did not even vote for strike action. Yet this Government’s answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption: hospitals stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark and the very arteries of our public lives clogged by chaos.

It does not stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, labour shortages and regulation will now face inspectors at their doors; refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines. What a message to the entrepreneurs, builders and wealth creators who keep this country moving. I urge the Government to accept this amendment to protect our small businesses, entrepreneurs and public services.