Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, we must recognise that a new labour market enforcement body will not operate in a vacuum. It will have to co-ordinate with the Health and Safety Executive, ACAS, local authorities, employment tribunals and various devolved institutions. If the new agency is established without proper integration planning, it risks creating confusion over jurisdiction, further delays in enforcement and diminished accountability. All these factors point to the same conclusion. Before Parliament approves such a substantial structural reform, we must understand exactly what we are doing, how much it will cost, what outcomes it will produce and what risks it entails. The public deserve no less. The labour market is too important, too foundational to fairness and dignity in this country for us to legislate blindly. What assurances can the Government offer that smaller, compliant businesses will not face disproportionate scrutiny while those engaged in serious abuse slip through the net? How will the Government ensure that the agency has the right balance of investigative power and sector-specific knowledge, rather than becoming a generic enforcement agency? I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support the lead amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom to exempt a new Government, for up to three years, from the labour market enforcement strategy of their predecessor for the reasons set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I also support Amendments 274 and 278 for a new clause after Clause 140 to review the effectiveness of enforcement and compliance with relevant labour market requirements as in Part 1 of Schedule 7 before the new agency is set up and for the costing of such a new body before it is set up.

The new fair work agency proposed by the Bill to bring together existing functions of enforcement is unknown territory. Today, to enforce a limited number of employment rights, official powers are used by four different agencies: the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, HMRC and the Health and Safety Executive. The proposed new fair work agency bundles these—and new responsibilities under the Bill—into a single, untried and untested body. In general employers are quite familiar with HMRC and HSE, which provide advice as well as having enforcement functions. At the moment, we have the benefit of experienced bodies with whom employers are familiar and an ability by each body to be precise and knowledgeable about the subject on which it is an enforcement officer. We also have the advantage of different horses for different courses. Now, the plan is to move to an unknown, inexperienced entity with all the start-up costs that entails and without the precision focus which the present bodies have, because what is proposed is a one-size-fits-all model.

The enforcement of the laws will be differently framed with different aims by the current bodies. GLAA will have a different focus to that of HMRC, although some of the functions may overlap. I therefore suggest, in the interest of the taxpayer, that there is a need for a costing of the new body before it is set up and for a review of the effectiveness of the outcomes of present arrangements for enforcement and compliance to see how they stack up. This should be done before any steps are taken to put in place a new body. For these reasons, I heartily support Amendments 274 and 278.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak on the issue of the labour market enforcement strategy in support of Amendment 274 to which I have appended my name and to build on the excellent remarks of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the specific points raised by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. For transparency, I declare that I have been a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for more than 20 years. The CIPD estimates that the People Skills HR support service which it has mooted, working with ACAS, would cost about £13 million under the new regime when this Bill becomes an Act. We already know, following on from my noble friend’s comments, that the cumulative cost of the existing bodies doing similar work, with analogous workstreams, is about £40 million.

Amendment 274 is important because in this country we have a strange anomaly. Unusually for an advanced country, we generally do not put the architecture of scrutiny and oversight in primary legislation. I want to know how this agency is going to be accountable in terms of the costs, who it employs, its policies et cetera. No doubt the Minister will say, “Well, once it becomes an Act, there will be what was the Business Select Committee, or there might be the National Audit Office, or there might be the Public Accounts Committee”. But we are being asked to sign a blank cheque for this without knowing how precisely this agency is going to operate and, most fundamentally, at what cost. We have not seen a detailed impact assessment focusing on the work of this body. On that basis, I ask the Minister specifically how he sees the process of accountability working and whether there will be any work by his department, and Ministers more generally, to work out what the costs are likely to be.

I accept at face value that this Government are committed to reducing the regulatory burden, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will bend the Minister’s ear on that, having come from the background that he came from as a champion of small businesses from the Labour side. It is therefore not unreasonable for us to ask what the cost will be and how we will be able to hold this agency to account once it is established.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and—in absentia—Lord Fox, for tabling Amendments 271ZZA, 274, 277, 278 and 328. Before I go any further, I think we all join the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, certainly from our Benches, in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the very best and speediest of recoveries. We hope to see him back in his place at the earliest opportunity.

I will speak first to Amendment 271ZZA moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. This amendment is unnecessary, as Clause 91(3) provides full discretion for the Secretary of State to revise the labour market enforcement strategy at any time, including following a general election. That means that a new Government are not locked in. They can act swiftly, decisively and in line with their mandate. Were the party opposite to win power again sometime in the distant future, however difficult that is to imagine, its hands would not be tied by these proposals.

Of course, businesses, workers and enforcement bodies all benefit from clarity, consistency and strategic continuity. Automatically scrapping an enforcement strategy, just as the Government are finding their feet, risks creating exactly the kind of disruption we should be avoiding. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, the Bill is about strengthening our ability to tackle non-compliance and exploitation in the labour market, including, in the very worst cases, the scourge of modern slavery. The intention and mandate of the fair work agency are to catch the bad actors, not to trip up the good guys. This amendment risks instability rather than accountability.

Turning to Amendments 274, 277, 278 and 328 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Fox, I want to be absolutely clear that the Government are committed to effective, transparent enforcement of workers’ rights. The creation of the fair work agency is a major step forward and we want to get it right, but these amendments are wholly unnecessary, duplicating myriad reports and recommendations over several years. By our count, there have been 33 government reports and strategies about the effectiveness of labour market enforcement over the past nine years. One could argue that this subject has been reported and scrutinised to death. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement produces an annual report and strategy that reviews the effectiveness of the labour market enforcement system. These documents are available in the Library of the House.

Additionally, our impact assessment for establishing the fair work agency sets out the current running costs of the enforcement bodies and initial estimates of set-up costs for the agency. I also refer noble Lords to reviews published by previous Administrations, including the Taylor review, which assessed the labour market enforcement system and found it wanting.

Ongoing oversight of employment rights enforcement is provided for in Clauses 91 and 92. They require the Secretary of State to publish a three-year labour market enforcement strategy and annual reports, which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. To address the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way, which could well involve scrutiny by a Select Committee in the other place.

While the Bill does not explicitly require that the enforcement strategy and annual report address the agency’s funding, I can confirm to the Committee—and to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular—that the annual report will indeed include an assessment of the fair work agency’s budget and how this has been spent.

Turning to Amendment 328, establishing the fair work agency is not and should not be contingent on its reporting. I remind all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that this was not only a Labour Party manifesto commitment; it was the policy of all the major parties at the general election to introduce a single enforcement body in some shape or form.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Just because one side of the House or the other—or, indeed, both—brought it in does not necessarily mean it is the right policy. Does the Minister not agree that, if we have a chance to review some of the weaknesses in inherited policy, it is a very good time to do it? The 2017 Taylor review, on which some of the then Government’s policy was based, focused particularly on the most vulnerable workers and certain categories. It was not a very wide focus.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

We have had a fair amount of scrutiny of the wider proposal, rather than the Bill’s specific fair work agency proposals. As I said, over the past nine years since 2016, there have been 33 different strategies and reports, including—but certainly not limited to—the Taylor report. This is not an area that has not been considered and scrutinised to some degree. I also say to the noble Baroness that the Single Enforcement Body—as it was called by the previous Administration—was the policy of successive Conservative- led and Conservative Administrations. I am not going to intrude on the great policy disagreements on that side of the House. We feel it important to establish the fair work agency and to ensure that we have strong enforcement of labour market regulations. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 271ZZA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 271ZB I will speak also to Amendments 271ZBA, 271ZD and 273LA in my name. Amendment 271ZB ensures that the powers being granted to enforcement officers under this part of the Bill are used proportionately and only in response to the most serious breaches of labour market law. Without this amendment or something very much like it, we risk handing enforcement officers sweeping powers to enter business premises with very little constraint.

As currently drafted, Clause 94(1)(a) grants enforcement officers the authority to “enter any premises” for “any enforcement purpose”. That is an extraordinarily broad power. This amendment would limit such warrantless powers of entry to those paragraphs of Schedule 7 that deal with the most serious forms of labour market abuse, namely child labour offences, the failure to pay the minimum wage, unlawful deductions from wages and exploitation through forced labour. These are the areas where strong enforcement action is absolutely justified.

However, is it appropriate that the same powers—entry without warrant or consent—could be used to check whether someone forgot to keep a copy of an employment agency contract on file or perhaps miscalculated a payslip by a few pounds? We must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The vast majority of employers want to comply with the law; they invest time and money in doing so. However, if we allow overly broad enforcement powers, we risk creating an atmosphere of distrust, regulatory overreach and disproportionate intrusion, particularly into smaller businesses which may not have the resources to constantly defend themselves against investigatory overkill. The Government say they want better enforcement, and so do we, but good enforcement is not the same as unchecked enforcement.

Turning to Amendment 271ZBA, as currently drafted, Clause 95 restricts the power to enter dwellings to those occasions where a warrant is issued by a justice. This is a well-established and necessary safeguard, reflecting the heightened privacy interests we attach to a person’s home, but there is a conspicuous gap in the safeguards applying to entry into non-dwelling premises, such as business premises, offices or other places of work.

Clause 94 grants enforcement officers wide powers to enter any premises for enforcement purposes, without the same explicit requirement for a warrant or judicial authorisation, unless it is a dwelling covered by Clause 95. This gap means that, unlike the protections for residential premises, business premises can be entered and searched by enforcement officers without prior judicial approval. This is a significant and unwarranted imbalance. The intrusion into a business, especially a small or medium enterprise, is a serious matter. Entry and seizure powers can disrupt operations, damage reputations and create an atmosphere of suspicion.

That is all quite apart from the rather sinister nature of this power. For many small businesses, their premises are their livelihoods. The difference between a home and a business may be one of degree, but the right to protection from arbitrary state intrusion should be similarly robust. Judicial oversight ensures that these powers are used only when there is a legitimate and evidenced basis for entry, and it prevents abuse or overreach.

The requirement for a magistrate to authorise a warrant is a safeguard that protects due process, proportionality and the rule of law, and is of course very well established. It requires that enforcement officers demonstrate reasonable grounds and the necessity for the warrant. That is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is just a check that balances the state’s legitimate enforcement interests with individual and business rights.

On Amendment 271ZD, as it stands, the appeal process focuses primarily on the accuracy of the sums claimed or the penalties imposed. It is essential that underpayments and penalties are correctly calculated and justified, but this narrow scope overlooks a critical element: the manner in which enforcement powers are exercised.

Enforcement officers hold significant authority when issuing notices, including entry, inspection and seizure powers. However, these powers must be exercised lawfully, proportionately and with respect for those affected. This amendment allows tribunals to consider whether enforcement officers have acted beyond their legal authority or used their powers excessively or unfairly. It further empowers tribunals to cancel or vary notices where misconduct or disproportionate enforcement is found and to award compensation as appropriate. This is not only a matter of protecting businesses and individuals from overreach but is vital to maintain public confidence in the enforcement regime. When enforcement is perceived as fair, transparent and accountable, compliance will improve and the number of disputes will reduce.

On Amendment 273LA, at this stage, the Bill does not define who enforcement officers are in any detail—we started this discussion on Monday—nor does it set any clear limits on the powers they may exercise when carrying out their functions. This lack of clarity is deeply concerning, especially given the serious nature of the enforcement powers being proposed, which include entry, inspection and seizure of documents and property. It is vital to establish unequivocally that enforcement officers, who are not police offices and do not have the training or mandate of the police, must not be allowed to use physical force or authorise others to do so. The use of force is an extreme measure that can be justified only in very specific and regulated circumstances, and generally only by trained law enforcement personnel. The amendment simply ensures that enforcement officers cannot resort to physical coercion, which is not appropriate for officials tasked with regulatory enforcement in the labour market. That is a matter of basic human rights and dignity. It is also a safeguard for businesses and individuals who may otherwise be subject to intimidation or physical harm.

I have absolutely no doubt that Ministers on the Government Front Bench have no interest in physical coercion being a part of these powers. In that case, they should accept this amendment because, if they do not, the implication is clear: they accept that physical coercion is acceptable. I do not believe that is what they want and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I declare an interest as a director of a very small business—a think tank.

As an employer, the idea that we have no warrant or judicial oversight of an enforcement officer’s intrusive visit to a business to seize or take copies of documents and to check up is intrusive on the time and output of the business. It is also an infringement of a business freedom to conduct the business to the best ability of those in the office or the business.

Both clauses in fact contain very intrusive proposals. As my noble friend pointed out, one of the things that is deeply worrying about them is we do not know who the enforcement officers will be or exactly what their powers will be. We have seen, even with the best trained police force in the world, the Metropolitan Police and local police forces, a certain amount of over-zealousness in pursuing certain types of crime. Therefore, with an untrained and unknown quantity and with such powers, we need very clear limitations, and we need to focus on the most serious crimes and those outlined in these amendments. For those reasons, I support both the amendments in the name of my noble friend.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling amendments relating to the fair work agency’s powers. Clause 94 introduces a single power to enter business premises and inspect workplaces. The noble Lord’s Amendment 271ZB would limit this power to such an extent that effective enforcement of the legislation, including the national minimum wage, would be extremely difficult. We are not amalgamating labour market enforcement into one single agency to diminish its effectiveness. This amendment would, in effect, prohibit the site visits that most minimum wage investigations rely on and bring an end to a system of state enforcement that has worked well for 25 years. The result would likely be an increase in claims to the employment tribunal. Given the noble Lord’s concern about employment tribunal capacity, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 271ZBA. While powers of entry are generally exercised on a consensual basis, in some situations it is critical that officers are able to carry out their duties quickly, particularly if they suspect that giving advance notice could give rogue employers time to destroy or tamper with evidence. None the less, in response to the concerns raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, an officer will not enter a premises if a person is not present but will instead notify the person to rearrange a time to enter the premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, a warrant could be issued by a justice only if they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for entry, and judicial oversight ensures that warrants are granted only when appropriate, protecting businesses from unwarranted inspections while enabling legitimate investigations.

Clause 128 and Schedule 8 were added to the Bill to put in place appropriate safeguards relating to the execution of warrants. As I said, this approach will continue under Part 5 of the Bill, but with additional safeguards, such as needing a warrant before exercising powers to enter a dwelling. Extending this warrant requirement further to include all business premises would be a disproportionate and retrograde step in enforcement terms. It would introduce additional powers and bureaucracy, and create an unnecessary burden on the warrant system.

Amendment 271ZD is unnecessary. There are already extensive safeguards in the Bill around the use of investigatory and enforcement powers. These safeguards are designed to ensure that the use of enforcement powers is lawful and proportionate. In addition, enforcement officers are highly trained and carry out investigations under a strict code of conduct.

Clause 107 largely carries over the existing appeal grounds from the notice of underpayment regime contained in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which, as I said, has been functioning successfully for over 25 years. In fact, I recall debates in previous days of Committee around the effectiveness of minimum wage enforcement and the fact that not enough rogue employers have been named and shamed. The process as it stands is well known and understood by businesses and individuals. Changes risk adding confusion and uncertainty, leading to additional complexity and litigation.

Amendment 273LA would constitute a drastic downgrade in labour exploitation enforcement. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority can and must occasionally use force under PACE powers to rescue victims of modern slavery and tackle serious labour exploitation. Indeed, it is through the use of those powers that we saw two modern slavery convictions and 13 slavery and trafficking risk and prevention orders in the last reporting year of 2023-24. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as is currently the case, the use of PACE powers will be strictly limited to a small number of officers, as set out in their letters of appointment, and subject to stringent IOPC oversight functions and complaints and misconduct procedures.

I am sure the whole Committee will agree that we must tackle the scourge of modern slavery. The Bill is designed to strengthen employment rights in a clear, coherent and enforceable way. Unnecessary additions or alterations, however well-meaning, could compromise that aim. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, for his intervention, because I was about to raise a similar point. It has been a long time since, as a policeman, I applied for a warrant, but we did not routinely notify the intended recipient of our visit that we were about to do it. I do not buy the argument that that would see an awful lot of documents destroyed or anything that they might have been pre-warned being removed from the premises—they would not know. I do not see why it should be different for enforcement officers and the police, who obviously are, in some cases, investigating much more serious crimes.

On the use of force arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, deployed, surely the point is that these powers are being extended and, yet again, we are relying on future guidelines, comments or statements that will be written into their terms of employment. I simply do not believe that that is enough. The public deserve the reassurance of having this in the Bill or, at the very least, clarified in a Dispatch Box Statement.

As we bring this debate to a close—my noble friend Lady Lawlor, I think, homed in on this point—the fundamental concern that underpins all these amendments is that the Government have not yet provided a clear definition of who the enforcement officers will be, what precise powers they will hold, and what training or accountability measures will govern their conduct. The absence of clarity is not a minor oversight; it is a significant gap that leaves businesses and individuals vulnerable to potential overreach and misuse of authority. Enforcement officers will be vested with extraordinary powers of entry, inspection and seizure, but we have no clear picture of the safeguards that will be put in place to prevent abuse.

These amendments are not about obstructing enforcement or denying the Government the tools that they need to tackle serious breaches of labour market law; on the contrary, we recognise the importance of robust enforcement. However, enforcement must be lawful, proportionate and accompanied by proper oversight and accountability, or it will risk losing public trust.

We have sought to introduce reasonable limits on when and how enforcement—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, in addition to the problems he has raised, there is a very great danger of vexatious claims being made without evidence, and of disproportionate actions and intrusions taking place as a result?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend; that is one of the reasons that we are seeking more clarity in the Bill. As I said, without transparency, accountability and a clear definition of what the powers will be—they are unarguably vague —all those concerns remain. It is disappointing that the Government have not fully recognised the risks inherent in the broad powers envisaged by the Bill. We argue that the Government should, at a very minimum, provide clear guidance on these roles and responsibilities and on the limits of enforcement officers. This subject is so important that I think we will have to return to it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Looking at Clause 113, I am put in mind of the pre-exploration exhortation of Colonel Kurtz: “The horror! The horror!”. As an employment lawyer looking at this clause, I can say that it is a complete Horlicks. It is truly bizarre. Can the Minister say why this power is required? Who should decide whether the Secretary of State should intervene in a person’s right to bring proceedings? Why should that choice be taken away from them? If the Secretary of State decides to bring proceedings, how would the Secretary of State compel the person who did not want to bring proceedings to give evidence in their own claim that they are not bringing? Why would the judge decide that the claim should be allowed to succeed, in the absence of evidence from the person whose claim it is?

Then there is the question as to why the taxpayers of this country should bring proceedings in the name of somebody who does not want to bring them, possibly against a public sector employer who then has to pay to defend those proceedings to make an award of damages to a person who does not want to claim damages. All this is absolutely beyond belief.

Furthermore, I noticed that it is a discretion:

“the Secretary of State may, in place of the worker, bring proceedings about the matter in an employment tribunal under the enactment”,

which appears to relate to any enactment in the entire employment canon. There is no explanation as to the test the Secretary of State is going to apply in making that discretion. That exercise of discretion will plainly be subject to judicial review. If the Secretary of State chooses not to exercise their power, no doubt there will be satellite litigation in the High Court—brought by the unions, I suspect—as to why the Secretary of State has not chosen to bring a claim on behalf of somebody who they think should have had their claim brought by the Secretary of State. Applying the usual tests, I suppose it will be said that it was irrational not to bring the claim or it was in breach of some legitimate expectation that their claim would be brought. It seems to me that that whole delight now lies before the Committee as to whether there should be litigation on behalf of somebody who does not want to litigate.

This is simply an absurd and inverse world of mirrors that, frankly, Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking-Glass would not have believed was possible. The lunacy of it is notable in Clause 113(5), whereby a worker can appeal against the outcome in a claim when he did not even want to bring a claim. This is so badly thought out that it should clearly be withdrawn.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friends by supporting the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe and voicing very strong opposition to Clause 113. I could not believe it when I read this clause. I could not believe that a third party—the Secretary of State—could bring proceedings on my behalf to a tribunal if I did not want proceedings brought. Nor did I think that subsection (6) was worthy of any government Bill. One could go through the whole of this clause and find something very wrong with it on many grounds.

There are many reasons why a worker may not want to proceed with a claim. He or she may not wish to bring proceedings because of the hassle involved, the delay, the stress to themselves and their family in waiting for the tribunal—which can never hear a claim quickly—the potential impact on his or her reputation, or a perfectly natural desire by an employee to settle things amicably with their employer. There are many individual reasons: family reasons, personal reasons and professional reasons. What right have we to give the Secretary of State powers to override that basic individual liberty in order to bring a case which someone may not want to be brought?

One can only wonder why such a clause is there—that the Secretary of State can bring proceedings, presumably, against a worker’s will or inclination. We can only assume that this may be due to workplace political pressures exercised by others in the workplace, perhaps by union members who want these cases brought as test cases and for the taxpayers to pay, or by others who have the ear of government.

This is a very sectional Bill in the interest of one vested interest group. I have said it before during proceedings, but it is not for the Government of this country in a parliamentary democracy to sectionalise the law in favour of one interest group or another. Clause 113 is particularly dangerous, and I support my noble friends’ amendments to it. I hope the Government will not proceed with it.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I support the comments made, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. This is an extraordinary clause; I am not aware of anything else on the statute book like it.

My practical question to the Minister is: if the Secretary of State takes it upon himself or herself to go to court on a worker’s behalf, and the worker is strongly against that, what will that do to the relationship between the worker and the employer? It could absolutely devastate that relationship, because the employer will greatly resent the fact that the Secretary of State is taking proceedings on behalf of the worker, even if the worker has said that they do not want those proceedings brought. This is not good for industrial relations at all.

I really urge the Government to rethink this. What are its practical implications? How will it work in practice if the worker is against it? Will they be called as a witness by the Secretary of State, if necessary? Will they then be a hostile witness? It is all a complete and utter mess, I am afraid. I was not planning to speak on this, but this is an extraordinary clause and I urge Ministers to drop it completely.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 279GA would introduce a sunset clause to ensure that the extension of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims is subject to periodic parliamentary oversight. I will speak also to Amendments 330ZA, 330D and 334A in my name.

I have tabled these amendments along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom because I believe that the state of the employment tribunal system is deeply concerning and urgently requires our attention. The proposals before us introduce a range of new rights for workers, including the critical right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of employment. We must therefore confront the uncomfortable truth that the current tribunal system is simply not prepared to handle the additional burden that this Bill will place upon it. Indeed, we have heard from a respected law firm that there is broad consensus among legal professionals that the employment tribunal system is, in its words, the “biggest problem in the legal world”.

The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that tribunal cases will increase by around 15% as a result of these reforms, yet I must ask how this figure has been calculated. Given the scale of the backlog we are currently witnessing, can this be anything other than a gross underestimate? The reality is that, by extending the time limits within which individuals can bring claims, the Bill itself may actively incentivise an increase in the volume of cases. If people have more time to bring claims, it is only natural that more claims will be submitted—claims that must then be processed by a system that is already groaning under enormous pressure.

To put this in perspective, we are currently facing, we are told, an employment tribunal backlog of nearly 50,000 cases. This backlog has now reached record levels, with preliminary hearings being scheduled as far away as April 2026, and full hearings not likely to take place until well into 2027. This must be a crisis. A delay of this magnitude means that justice for many is effectively denied. When someone has to wait years for their case to be heard, the protection that the law is supposed to afford becomes little more than an empty promise.

The causes of this backlog are clear. There is an acute shortage of employment judges. There is insufficient funding. There is inadequate administrative support. Although the Government have pledged to recruit hundreds of new judges, the practicalities of ensuring that those judges have the necessary expertise and that adequate administrative support is in place remain significant challenges.

That is why I believe these amendments are vital. They do not seek to block or delay the introduction of important workers’ rights, but they instead insist on responsible, measured implementation. It is essential that before these new rights come into force an independent and thorough assessment is conducted to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of the tribunal system. This assessment has to address current delays, judge numbers, funding and the likely impact of this Bill’s provisions on tribunal caseloads. Moreover, the Government must commit to implementing all necessary measures identified in this assessment to reduce the backlog to a manageable level, specifically to fewer than 10,000 outstanding claims. Only then should these rights be activated.

This is all about ensuring that, when workers exercise their rights, they have access to a tribunal system capable of delivering timely, fair justice. Additionally, the amendment regarding the extension of time limits for claims rightly insists that this measure cannot come into effect until the Senior President of Tribunals certifies that the system can handle the expected increase in cases without further lengthening hearing times. Without such a safeguard, we risk compounding the problem and turning an already overstretched system into something unworkable.

There is another important point that I must raise. Nowhere in the Government’s impact assessment is there any explanation of why the option of introducing a right to claim unfair dismissal between day one and two years was not considered. If the intention is truly to balance the employment relationship and provide fair protections, why do we have to leap to day one? This decision is not just a legal technicality; it carries real risks. One such risk is the disincentive it creates for employers to hire workers who may be perceived as risky or less secure in the labour market—such as individuals with a history of mental health challenges, younger workers or others on the margins of employment —by exposing employers to potential unfair dismissal claims from the very first day. This Bill may inadvertently make it even harder for these vulnerable groups to find work in the first place. This would be a tragic and unintended consequence, compounding insecurity rather than alleviating it.

We have debated at length the potentially vast powers of the new fair work agency, its funding and the role it might play. However, many questions remain. Will the fair work agency with its undefined enforcement officers and unclear operational framework genuinely take on the enforcement of workers’ rights in a way that meaningfully reduces the burden on the already overstretched employment tribunals? Or will tribunals continue to bear the brunt of this increased workload without adequate support or relief?

I now look to the Government to provide this House, workers, businesses, law firms, and no doubt the tribunals with some assurance, clarity and ideally a timeline for the day-one rights provisions in this Bill. Perhaps this is the moment when the Minister will at last share with us, at least in draft, the implementation plan that we have heard so much about during the course of this Committee. Will she please undertake to ensure that we have the implementation plan before we reach Report?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 279GA for a sunset clause. I perfectly understand the reason for extending the period in which employees can make claims, but I am quite sure it will increase the burden on the tribunals. We have heard about the very long delay, with even preliminary hearings not scheduled until April 2026, and these delays have continued for some years. People going to tribunal sometimes have to wait more than 18 months just to have the preliminary hearing. If numbers increase, as they are likely to, as my noble friend suggested, it is going to put far more pressure on the tribunals. The parliamentary oversight proposed and the sunset clause must take account of that.

Not only is there no point in law in having a claim left unsettled for years, but it is very bad for business to have the uncertainty. It is very bad for employees and their lives to be subject to such delays and uncertainties in what is going to happen to them professionally, because taking a claim to tribunal is not an easy matter. It can be expensive and full of obstacles. Not knowing how it will pan out is very worrying for people. For businesses, being subject to constant pressures of claims in a tribunal, whether they are justified or not, brings insecurity and a lack of confidence.

For these reasons, I think this moderate request for a sunset clause and coming back to Parliament for an affirmative vote are a good proposal, and I hope the Government will listen kindly to it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing these amendments, but I say to him that the problem he has described so vividly was one we inherited from the previous Government. We are acutely aware that these issues need to be addressed, and I share his desire to ensure that the employment tribunal system can manage its existing caseload and the potential increase from the Bill’s measures. I assure your Lordships that we are working across government and with business and the unions to identify ways to improve a system that we inherited that is not working currently for anyone.

We are already recruiting more judges and legal case workers and providing additional resources to ACAS. On top of that, we are considering other things, such as the role that the expanded fair work agency could play in reducing the time spent awaiting costly and lengthy tribunal claims.

I would be delighted to receive any constructive suggestions from the noble Lords on this issue, but it would be entirely disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers’ rights contained in the Bill dependent on the kind of review that their amendments propose. It would be wrong to take workers’ rights to challenge unfair practices away from them when they are not to blame for the backlog that we are currently grappling with.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord is seeking to add a sunset clause to this measure, which, as he well knows, would undermine the policy intent. However, I reassure him that it is our intention that the implementation plan, whose arrival we all anticipate, will be made available shortly. I reassure your Lordships that the Government will closely monitor the impact of extending time limits on the employment tribunal system. We intend to conduct a post-implementation plan for the Bill within five years of implementation. This will provide enough time to assess the policy’s effectiveness and gather sufficient data for evaluation purposes, meaning that the amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw Amendment 279GA.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

The Minister made reference to the number of judges that the Government are busily recruiting so as to help the backlog, and this is part of the Government’s response. Of the 35,000 extra civil servants recruited since March 2024—these are the March 2025 figures—how many are judges, and how many of them will be in the employment tribunal service? I do not expect the Minister to have the figures to hand, but I would be pleased if she could write to me.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, 50 new fee-paid employment judges were appointed in 2024-25, and a further three recruitment exercises to further increase capacity are now being undertaken in 2025-26.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s introduction to my amendments. I accept that the Government want to go for 2% as the lower limit, but I found the Government’s explanation of my other two amendments, which require a minimum of three people, very strange. The Minister said, “It’s not the way it’s been done before, so we shouldn’t change it now”. If she were to apply that principle to the Bill, we could strike the whole thing out and be done with it.

The reason for proposing the change is that it is sensible. It is just not sensible to put a company, particularly a small company, in a position where one employee can trigger this process. A minimum of three is not a big figure; it is just saying that there needs to be more than one, and three seems to be the right place to start. I know it is not the way that it has been done; that is why I put in an amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendments 215AZZB to 215AZZD, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe. These are to Schedule 6 and I am responding to the Government’s amendments to this schedule, which qualify who may take part in a ballot, to ensure that those workers in the union before the close of the ballot may vote. These amendments address those who join after the application date but before the close of the ballot and newly hired workers within the bargaining unit. Amendment 215AZZD aims to ensure that the CAC is satisfied that the exclusion of new employees would not materially affect the outcome of a ballot or undermine democratic fairness. Amendment 215AZA would ensure that new workers who join the bargaining unit after the application date are not automatically disregarded for the purposes of recognition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the amendments seeking greater transparency for trade union members on where their money goes.

I support the retention of the status quo—so that people have to opt in—and maintaining the changes we saw made in 2016. I do so because these are moderate amendments. They do not attack the existence of the status quo or the political fund, which is, as is often announced on the websites of the unions, a campaigning fund. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that it is made clear by UNISON and Unite to new members, when joining, what their fees are for. Certainly, it is clear to the public that some members are affiliated to the Labour Party, and some of the funds of political campaigning will indeed go to the Labour Party. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that 13 were affiliated; I had the figure of 11 in my head, but that is only a small difference.

None of that is under attack; that is a subject for another debate. I would like to stress to your Lordships why I support the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This area has been very contentious for a century, and every single attempt to reach a settlement has involved compromise. Although one may think that the opting-in arrangement of the 1927 Act was against the interests of the trade unions, one has to remember that that was in the wake of the General Strike of 1926 and that the Conservative Party, which was the party of government, would not follow the inclination of many of its Back-Benchers—and, I think, one of its Front-Benchers, but I will not say whom —to get rid of the political fund. The Prime Minister of the day said, “We will not fire the first shot”.

That was an attempt to find a compromise, so that the trade unions could keep their political fund, continue to contribute to the Labour Party—which was a founder party and recognised as such by the Conservatives—and continue to campaign on the issues they judged important for their members. I agree that they have done great work, through their membership fees, on pensions and so on. Much of the settlement on the national insurance system not only drew on trade union knowledge and experience in practice but used their funds to nationalise —which I think was a less good idea.

We should have a spirit of compromise and reflect the compromise that was made in 2016. If we go down the route that the Government propose, I hope that the party on my side will again seek to bring in a compromise, because the laws of this Parliament should be made in the interest of transparency for all those affected by them. That goes for trade unionists in the workplace, who should have to opt in to a scheme in the interest of transparency. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief, as the dinner hour is upon us and there are—as we say—strangers in the House.

While I recognise the importance of transparency to inform members’ choice regarding funds, this group of amendments raises serious questions about proportionality. Amendments 216YC and 216YD would introduce notably higher thresholds for political resolutions, requiring support from a majority of all eligible members, rather than just those voting, and mandating new resolutions every five years. These are significant changes from the current practice. Likewise, Amendments 221 and 223—expertly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—seek to reduce opt-out notices from 10 years to one or two.

While the intention behind these proposals is clear, the impact warrants careful consideration. Other issues have been slightly sidetracked. There are fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address head-on. These issues are at the nub of trade unions and political funds, so we need some clarity on them from the Dispatch Box.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s remarks. I agree with every word.

I vividly recall the change in this country, in 1979, when union power was such that people were frightened of starting businesses or to go to work. Murdoch took a brave stance to take the unions head on and, after 1979, the country emerged with much greater strength, economic certainty and prosperity. As a result, people like me chose to start a business in this country. That was because of the economic prosperity created by Thatcher’s Cabinet and team. Any attempt to go backwards rather than forwards is very depressing and disappointing.

My noble friend Lord Jackson is of course right that Clause 55 is the kernel of the Bill. It is an important clause that reveals why the Bill is so inappropriate and badly drafted, and it needs amendment or, if not, not to stand part.

I refer to the British Chambers of Commerce, an independent organisation which, as we know from Second Reading, criticised the Bill because of its lack of consultation, because of its greater restriction and penalties for firms that want to make workforce changes but, most importantly, because of the greater responsibilities, costs and complexity for employers. The Bill includes some of the most significant and widest range of changes to employment laws for decades.

The Government’s own assessment suggests that the legislation will cost businesses almost £5 billion a year, and that the SME sector will be impacted most. This is at a time when, just in the last couple of months, businesses have come to terms with the dreadful, unnecessary and wholly growth-destroying national insurance increase. It is literally putting businesses out of business. Your Lordships do not have to believe me; just look at the last insolvency statistics, which show record figures of insolvency, particularly for CVLs—creditors’ voluntary liquidations. People are throwing in the towel; they are not prepared to carry on business when they are faced with these increased costs for employing people and for properties and business rates, which the Bill imposes on all businesses.

My particular concern is with the SME sector. We debated this at Second Reading, and I complimented the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on starting a small business. He therefore knows and understands this, but many people on the Front Bench of the Labour Party do not have that experience and expertise and are not aware of the damage this will do. These amendments are vital, particularly to try to exempt small businesses—and, if not small businesses, micro-businesses—from these onerous requirements.

To take it to the point of absurdity, and to declare an interest, I personally employ one person—do I have to give that one person a piece of paper when they join? It looks like I do. Will I then be told by the Government that I have to give that person a statement “at other prescribed times”? What does that mean? It means that when the unions are short of members, as they invariably are, and they need to raise more money —we know where that money largely ends up—they will say to employers, “Right, you’d better give all your staff a statement to tell them that they have the right to join a union”, and encourage them so to do. It is on the point of absurdity.

The BCC goes on to say:

“the scale and scope of the changes is huge, with many feeling they are being rushed through at breakneck speed … Firms are particularly concerned about the lack of detailed consultation on the Trade Union changes, especially when the Government’s own assessment was so vague about the impact”.

It rightly points out that:

“Overall, there is a lot in the Employment Rights Bill that reinforces much of what good businesses already do. But the fear remains that certain elements could create huge costs for firms and damage the UK’s ambitions for growth”.

I repeat the request made to the Government Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to cite businesses—SME businesses in particular, but actually any businesses—that are in support. Richer Sounds is not a good example. Julian Richer sold Richer Sounds to an EOT—it is a co-operative. One of the firms mentioned last time was Nationwide. That is not an SME, and the Co-op is certainly not. So where is the support for this? Please can we exclude this extremely vague “at other prescribed times”, which is without any limitation or cap? If it said “annually”, that might be a start. Can we also exclude both SMEs and micro-companies from these onerous requirements?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that seek to mitigate the impact of Clause 55, which amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by inserting a new section with a

“Statement of trade union rights”.


I support, in particular, Amendment 205 by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would apply the statement only to larger companies. We have heard very good arguments as to why this should happen. I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would leave open to employers the option to decide whether to apply the statement under the new Section 136A. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would mean it does not apply to smaller employers and those with fewer than 10 employees, as well as her amendment that probes why such a statement should be given at times other than the start of the job. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, put forward some good potential reasons.

This a very bad clause. I oppose it for two reasons. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on the Front Bench, who has stated that it should not be part of a Bill, certainly not in 2025. Such obligations interfere with the professional balance of duties and responsibilities in a business between employer and employee. The employer must promote the best interests of the business and, with the directors of the company, employers are bound to do so.

Employers are also bound under employment law. The 1992 Act, which this clause amends, already strikes a balance between the role of trade unions in the workplace and the employer. It sets out that the employer or business recognise trade unions that meet certain criteria, engage in collective bargaining, provide information to the unions and respect those engaged in lawful industrial action. We already have recognition of the responsibilities of employers to trade unions in the workplace; a balance has been struck, and it has worked, by and large, very well.

The interests of the business will also involve treating all workers not only legally but fairly and professionally. It should not involve employers being obliged, as the new Section 136A stipulates, to give a written statement that the employee has the right to join a trade union at the start of the job and at other prescribed times. It should also not be left to politicians, as the new section states—the Secretary of State at the time—to prescribe what information is included, what form the statement takes, in what manner it should be given, and whether regulations prescribing anything for the purpose of this section may make different provision for different purposes.

Are we making the law or are we leaving it to some executive authority to make something up on the back of an envelope and prescribe it through his or her officials in government? This is not lawmaking, and this Parliament should challenge this sort of power being given to a Secretary of State to do what he or she may like. This not only adds a layer of bureaucracy but brings uncertainty to businesses and adds costs, from which smaller businesses at least should be spared.

The individual choices that employees make should not be anticipated by presuming that union membership is an assumption that both employer and employee make. That undermines the freedom of both parties to have a non-politicised atmosphere and implies that a business will be run in an atmosphere of expected confrontation instead. It suggests that freedom is being undermined. Yes, it does not require an employee to join the union, but if an employer presents a new employee with this statement, what on earth is the employee to think except that this is what should be done in order to get on in this business?

The second ground for objection, however, is more general. Obliging businesses to make such a statement politicises the internal arrangements of business. Trade union membership may or may not be something individuals choose, but we must recognise that trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party; they founded the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be dominated by former union members—or perhaps continuing union members. At certain times of Britain’s history, trade unions have dominated many workplaces and paralysed public services. Indeed, we see that continuing this year in Birmingham, with the paralysis in relation to bins and the failure of the council to deal with the Unite union. They have stopped the productive activities of the British people in industry and in business, undermining the economic success of the whole country and the ability of people to earn a decent wage or salary.

I am afraid they have undermined freedoms and have undermined the democratic decision by the people of this country to live without fear—fear that their child’s school will be closed by strikes, fear that their university lectures may be cancelled because the union has called a strike, and the fear of many working people that they cannot get to work and earn their money because the railways are strike-bound. This clause should not be in the Bill. It undermines the freedoms that were fought hard for by Conservative Governments since 1979 to restore freedom in the workplace, with a fair balance between trade unions and working people.

When I first came to this country in 1979 as a student, one of the members of staff of my college told me, “I am the sole earner in my family now. My husband had to join a union because of the closed shop. He couldn’t get a job without joining a union. Now that he has joined the union, he has been told he can’t work. This is why I, for the first time in my life, am voting for the Conservative Party and Mrs Thatcher”. Conservative Governments have successfully and successively restored order to the economy, allowed this country to prosper, allowed people to get jobs, helped entrepreneurship and growth, and helped Britain to no longer be the sick man of Europe. People voted for that. We should not turn the clock back to a day when we are chipping away bit by bit at those rights, so that people will not have the freedom to earn and this country will not be able to pay its way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling Amendments 205, 206, 207 and 208. I acknowledge that the noble Lord introduced the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness. I will also address the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, on their opposition to Clause 55 standing part of the Bill.

I am sorry that the tone of the debate has somewhat deteriorated this afternoon. I thought that we were having a reasonable, grown-up conversation until now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, because he admitted that what he was saying were his prejudices—and that is certainly what it sounded like. He was talking about a period 50 years ago, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, the world of work has changed significantly since then. As we absolutely acknowledge, we now have outdated employment processes and huge levels of exploitation, including a climate where it is not easy or encouraged to be a member of a union. That is one of the issues that we are seeking to address here.

I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who tried to give us a talk about democracy, that this Government were elected with a huge win on a manifesto to introduce the legislation that we have before us today.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I do not know that a mandate of 33% of the electorate is indeed a very strong mandate for overturning the reforms that have brought stability to the workplace.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We can have a long discussion about that, but if we are talking about mandates, it may well be argued that probably Baroness Thatcher did not have that kind of mandate either. The fact is that we won that election with a huge majority, and I am very sorry that the party opposite lost so badly. They might want to reflect a little bit more on why that was, because some of the issues that noble Lords have been talking about in relation to the state of our economy are exactly what we inherited from the previous Government. Those issues are absolutely the result of that Government’s economic policies and not ours. We have been taking great steps to improve the situation. While I am on that issue, I should say that, as a result of this Government’s actions, we had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 at the start of this year; we have done three trade deals in three weeks, with India, the US and the EU; interest rates have been cut four times—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 214 is designed to provide an effective remedy against an employer which defies an order of the CAC to provide trade union access. This is a situation where the trade union has applied to the employer for an agreement for access and been refused. The trade union has then gone to the CAC and succeeded in obtaining an order for access, which the employer has defied. The employer has had the opportunity to appeal to the EAT and has either declined to appeal or has had its appeal refused. In that situation, the Bill merely provides that a union can apply for a fine to be paid, not to it but to the CAC. That is no real deterrent and no incentive either for the union to enforce the CAC award, knowing that it will not result in compulsion for the employer to obey the order of the CAC. My amendment provides enforcement by way of a High Court injunction. That is an established procedure often used against trade unions for breach of their obligations in relation to industrial action. Some equivalence is surely justified here.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support Amendments 212 and 213 in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I agree that a 24-hour notice period is necessary, particularly for small businesses, because access to the workplace by third parties can be disruptive. Visitors calling unannounced can disrupt a carefully organised schedule between an employer and his or her employees. The 24-hour notice period would allow employers to prepare for a visit and to reschedule certain tasks. I support exempting smaller businesses from some of these arrangements, because it is very hard to organise smaller businesses with third-party interruptions.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and others. This clause strikes horror in my heart. The idea that someone could come into my business, access my premises with no notice—good luck with that, because I sit in a room on my own—or even worse, access my systems and my server, which are all heavily password-protected because I am regulated, strikes horror not just in my heart. I can assure the Minister, who says that she has consulted business groups, that she will see surveys coming out in the very near future that show the fear, horror and dislike that small businesses have of this Bill, and in particular the clauses we have been debating tonight. I hope she will have the opportunity to meet again with business representatives and listen to what they are saying.

The draftsman on this Bill is working in another era. What does physical access to a business mean? I like the clauses restricting this for smaller businesses, because most small businesses do not have a physical presence. In many businesses, literally tens of thousands of them, the employees work from home. They might have a WeWork office where they meet every now and then, but it is meaningless to give right of access to most small businesses. If we then go to right of access to digital communications, that implies, from the wording I have read, that a trade union official would have to be given the passwords to enter the systems.

What protection is there? What indemnities are there to ensure that this is not abused? We know that abuse happens, particularly in these days of cyber fraud, where someone who has accessed the system could take advantage. Obviously, I am not suggesting that that is going to be prevalent or happen in the majority of cases by any means, but I do not see any protection for small businesses should that happen.

It seems to me that the whole concept of access is misconceived. I would quite understand it if the legislation were drafted to require an employer of any size to pass messages to an employee—I would understand that; it would be reasonable—but can the Minister explain to us why she is demanding access to both physical and digital assets of small businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendments 208A, 209, 209A, 210, 210A, 211, 212, 213, 213A, 213B and 214.

Before we get into the detail, I will frame my remarks by pointing out that we have heard previously in this debate in quite heated tones a discussion of the role of trade unions in our society. From our perspective as a Government, and from my perspective—for what it is worth, I have been a member of a trade union all my working life—progressive legislation and reform, which we on this side have always tried to pursue through working with the trade union movement, have done much to improve not just the world of work and the rights of workers but the economy as a whole. We are proud of this progress and history. This Bill represents a further stride towards a successful, mature framework for employment relations in this country.

It is important when we talk about striking the balance between employers, unions and workers—in particular, between employers and workers—that we do not equate the two as having equality in terms of power dynamics. That is often missed from this debate. Many employees, whether they work in Amazon’s warehouses, an SME or a microbusiness, do not necessarily feel that they have the same equality of relationship with their employer as their employer has with them. That may be natural, but one of the roles of a trade union or employee representative is to level that playing field. It is always important when discussing trade union rights to bear that in mind.

In Amendments 209, 211 and 213, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are seeking to exempt smaller businesses from Clause 56. The right of access is a key part of our wider commitment to strengthening workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership, participation and dialogue. My noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway ably illustrated why, in some cases, trade unions do not need any improvements to access because they have a perfectly good and amicable working relationship. It is worth noting that in roughly 30% of the cases referred to the CAC the applications have been withdrawn because there has been a voluntary agreement, and that is a very good thing to see. However, there are cases where there is not that level of co-operation and access, which is why the Government are legislating to provide it.

We have heard in debates on previous groups that noble Lords on the Benches opposite think that trade unions are a good thing and have a role in the workplace. I absolutely take them at face value on that. To have that role in the workplace, they need to have access to workers. We cannot be starry-eyed about this; not all employers behave as responsibly and open-mindedly as we all believe they should in creating access for employees to their representatives. That is why we are discussing these bits of the Bill tonight.

The policy we have developed has been designed to be fair, consistent and workable for all employers. We will consult on specific details of the framework before they are set out in secondary legislation, including with the CAC, and we encourage businesses and unions to share their views. I understand the points around legal ambiguity raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, but, in the previous group, we discussed the levels of granularity and specificity in a particular statement that it is proposed that employers should give to employees about their rights to join a trade union. I posit that, if we had had the level of detail that the noble Lord suggested, we would have had a similar level of discontent from Members opposite. That is of course their right, but I make the point gently that you cannot have it both ways.

I turn now to Amendments 212 and 213B. Amendment 212 would require that trade unions provide a request for access to a workplace in writing, and with more than 24 hours’ notice from the requested date and time that access would happen. Amendment 213B would introduce two additional factors for the CAC to consider when making a determination on whether access should occur: first, the method, frequency and timing of the access requested, and, secondly, whether the purpose of access could be reasonably met without physical entry into the workplace. The Secretary of State will, by regulations, be able to set the time period in which an employer is required to respond to a request for access from a trade union, as well as the form that the trade union’s request must take and the manner in which it is provided to the employer.

I will respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, around the difference between this sort of trade union activity and organising for industrial action. As far as I am concerned, it is pretty obvious that this is about organising for recognition, where the legal conditions can be met, and indeed organising for recruitment and awareness for other very reasonable trade union activities, such as promoting health and safety at work, which we all agree is important and worthwhile.

The Secretary of State will also be able to set, through regulations, the circumstances the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made, and we will invite all interested parties to provide us with their views on these matters when we launch our consultation. To pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he may find that 24 hours after the consultation is deemed to be just right, or indeed too short a period. That is the reason for this consultation, rather than just prescribing everything at this point in time. If we had prescribed it in the Bill, and it was less than 24 hours, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would not be at all happy.

Amendment 214 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The proposals in this amendment would make declarations by the CAC under new Section 70ZI(5) enforceable, as if made by the High Court, opening a greater possibility of an employer being found to be in contempt of court. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that new Sections 70ZH and 70ZK, which were introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, already provide for a strong remedy against employers who do not respect these new rights of access, mainly in the form of CAC orders but ultimately backed by serious financial penalties when necessary. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said, these need to be serious financial penalties and they need to have heft. The new sections that were tabled on Report in the other place say that penalties can be linked to various metrics, such as annual turnover or, indeed, the number of workers employed in the liable entity. In the case of large companies, that would make a very serious penalty indeed. We do not want them to be fined; we want them to grant the access to trade unions and trade union representatives that their employees deserve. In our view, the available remedies are already powerful and proportionate. The Government do not consider it necessary to go beyond these.

Lastly, I turn to Amendments 210, 208A, 209A, 210A and 213A. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, are seeking in Amendments 210 and Amendments 208A to 213A to exempt digital forms of communication from the right of access policy. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that can be found in new Sections 70ZA(4)(a) and (b) in the Bill as it left the other place. This clause was designed for the modern workplace and with various working practices in mind. It is important that this clause provides for a digital right of access to ensure that unions can reach workers who may not work in a physical workplace, such as home workers or those who work in a hybrid manner. In my opinion, if I may be so bold, the noble Lord, Leigh of Hurley, answered his own point. As he acknowledged, in some businesses, it is not as simple—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am a bit puzzled about how access to digital can work side by side with the protections we have for data security.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I was going to mention it later, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that existing data protection legislation will continue to apply. I do not want to say that shrouds were waved, but there were a lot of quite fanciful hypotheses as to what digital access might involve. To be frank, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested—sorry to pick him out—it could simply mean that employers are, through their own email system, obliged to cascade a message from trade unions to their employees without the trade unions having direct access to the systems at all.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 83 to 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Clause 20, on harassment by third parties, although well-intentioned, has triggered this batch of amendments, none of which is perfect. Most seek to damage limit the Bill or bring in exemptions.

I will focus on the exemptions proposed in Amendment 85 and declare up front a relevant interest, in that I hold a significant minority stake in a rural community pub in mid-Wales. As we have already heard, the hospitality sector is low margin and struggling with a range of issues, including shortages of staff, smoking bans, competition from supermarkets, the rise of home entertainment, big tech and social media. Pubs specifically have had a horrendous time. In England and Wales alone, we have lost 13,000 pubs in the past 25 years and, as we have heard, each and every week another 10 close their doors for the final time.

Now this Bill expects the owner or the bar manager, often on low pay and inexperienced, to take on the role of a conversation arbiter or chat monitor in case a customer says something to their drinking or dining pal that is overheard and deemed offensive by an employee. To be clear, I accept that employers should step up if their customers or clients are being offensive to their staff. Yes, they have a responsibility to their staff’s welfare and to their code of conduct, but is legislating in this way the answer? It leaves so many questions, on a subjective level, of what is offensive and what is not.

That brings me to the second sector proposed for exemption by Amendment 85: sports venues. This is where Clause 20 threatens to become unworkable. This struck me only yesterday while I was in the London Stadium, with 60,000 others, watching West Ham stumble to yet another home defeat, this time against Nottingham Forest. There was a lot of anger in the crowd and much of the language could be described as vulgar or offensive. Others would call it passionate, fruity, spiky or humorous, but these views could be heard—or, importantly, overheard—by club officials, security staff, stewards, the police, bar staff, programme sellers and burger flippers, all of whom are employees of the club, the stadium, or various contractors and subcontractors. These views, in the space of 10 minutes, included the manager’s IQ being questioned vigorously and frequently; savaging of the players and their work ethic; forthright suggestions that the referee’s assistant should book multiple appointments at Specsavers; and, finally, the referee himself being repeatedly accused of practising self-love.

I am choosing my words carefully and not quoting directly in order to meet this House’s Code of Conduct, which I respect and have signed up to, but if I did not and repeated some of the profanities I heard yesterday, I would be in trouble. Here is the thing: Parliament, as an employer, would not currently be taken to a tribunal by a colleague, a doorkeeper or a Hansard employee who found my language offensive, but that could change if this Bill has its way.

The point is that most workplaces are covered by a code of conduct or employer’s handbook that sets out the markers and helps sort most of these incidents without the need for dispute litigation, employment lawyers or, indeed, tribunals. Much of this is driven by common sense and human decency, and the mutual interest of employer and employee to ensure a productive and harmonious working environment. Clause 20 threatens to undo much of that. I ask the Minister and this Government to seriously think again.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I rise to support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes to Clauses 20 and 21. Both noted, as have other noble Lords, the impact these clauses will have on small businesses already struggling under a juggernaut of burdens, particularly those introduced since last July.

I begin with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to Clause 21, which, as she noted, amends the Equality Act 2010. These amendments, Amendments 89 to 96, would require regulations to specify the steps an employer needs to take to prevent the harassment of an employee and to cover all forms of harassment so that, provided those steps are followed, the employer is protected from liability. This change is reasonable and proportionate, in that it would oblige regulations to specify the steps needed to protect employers from liability to claims. It is a matter of fairness and good law that a measure should be clear about the duties under it, rather than leaving it to litigation.

The measure also has precedents, such as health and safety regulations in which employers’ duties are set out. In the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 the main duties are to identify risks, assess them and reduce them. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide adequate lighting, heating, ventilation and workspace and to keep them in a clean condition—and so on throughout the health and safety regulations of the 1990s. As if to egg the cake, we have the HSE’s guide on the steps needed to manage risk, which sets out step by step the process for controlling health and safety risk, in line with the regulations to identify hazards, assess risk and so on.

My noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to Clause 21 would ensure that employers know what is required in respect of preventing harassment, which matters in itself and is germane to good law. I therefore support them.

I also support Amendments 83 to 88, to Clause 20, in the names of my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes. They address what is and is not required of employers in protecting their employees; clarify harassment to exclude

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

exclude the hospitality sector, university settings and sports venues so the obligation on the employer does not apply; exclude indirect harassment; take account of the employee’s perception of the circumstances and whether it was reasonable to have the effect; and take account of whether it was an isolated incident. These are all important amendments that have a great deal of support across the Committee.

Noble Lords have already explained how Clause 20 could undermine freedom of speech. We are not speaking of an employer’s liability for direct harassment by a third party, such as customers or clients, against an employee. That is covered by Section 40 of the Equality Act 2010. Rather, the clause being amended has the effect of making the employer liable for what third parties say when speaking among themselves, and which is then overheard by an employee. This might occur in a bar, restaurant, shop, the foyer of a cinema or theatre or on public transport. Customers in a restaurant or a bar might be discussing the latest immigration figures, the likelihood of yet more unsustainable migration into the country, the shortage of housing, schools and hospitals, ever longer waiting lists for a place or a bed, or an inability to understand English. To hold an employer liable for a private conversation among customers overheard by an employee is wrong. It would bring the law into disrepute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

There is harassment, and what we are debating now is third-party harassment. Obviously, tribunals would have to take into account the practicality of enforcing third-party harassment, and I have been trying to set out the grounds on which it would be considered either reasonable or unreasonable. That would have to be considered case by case, but nevertheless the issue is very different from an employee’s absolute right not to be harassed directly in the workplace.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am a bit puzzled as to how the tribunal will measure this alleged harassment, given the different interpretations that could be put on it. There are some conflicts, as we have heard today.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thought I had explained that in my description, and I do not really want to have to repeat it. I explained the grounds that would be considered when comparing harassment with acceptable behaviour.

Amendment 85 also seeks to significantly reduce the scope of Clause 20 by excluding the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education. This would create a disparity and a hierarchy of protections across employers and sectors, leaving swathes of employees without equal protection. This cannot be justified, given that employers in these sectors will be required only to do what is reasonable, and this will depend on their specific circumstances.

Amendment 86 seeks to reinstate the three-strike rule that was repealed in 2013. However, as I have explained, an isolated or one-off incident is much less likely to amount to harassment than continuing acts. The recent Free Speech Union campaign against this clause stated that

“when the Equality Act was originally passed, it included a clause making employers liable for the harassment of employees by third parties, but it was repealed in 2013 because it proved to be so costly and difficult for employers to comply with. We mustn’t make the same mistake again”.

We agree that we should not make that mistake again. We cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would wish to impose on employers the unnecessary costs and burdens that this amendment would bring. By contrast, the Government’s approach will make it simpler for employers to understand their obligations and will ensure that victims can be confident that they are protected by law.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think that is a slightly odd question coming from the supporter of a Government who are not coming forward with either intangible or tangible benefits in monetisable ways. Were that in the impact assessment or the economic analysis of the Bill, I would defer to the noble Lord’s argument, but neither of them are there. Frankly, it is difficult for us to make a value judgment on the balance of obligations and responsibilities between the workforce and the employer when the data is not provided. I think the noble Lord has probably made my case. With that, I support the amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral in proposing this impact assessment and thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for making the case so persuasively from the Front Bench. I shall simply pick up on a few points that were made in the amendment and his speech. The amendment asks for an impact assessment on free speech. Proposed new subsection (1) asks for an assessment of Sections 19 to 22 of this Act on employers. Proposed new subsection (2) says:

“The assessment must report on … the impact of sections 19 to 22 on free speech”


and include

“an assessment of the likely costs to employers”

of these sections, which must include types of occupations at risk and proposals for mitigations.

I want to comment on this amendment in the context of universities. I spoke earlier in Committee about the mitigations a university might take in its rules and in the checklist that it hands out to potential candidates for a place who want to come to that university to study and who are asked to abide by certain arrangements or rules. These rules will, if the employer and the university follow what they are required as trustees of a charity to follow, protect the costs: whatever endowment of funds the university has, it will have to follow caution. I have no doubt that undergraduates or graduate students coming in for postgraduate work will be asked to promise not to complain, or be overheard doing so, or speak ill of lecturer A, whose lectures they may not approve of, may think are no good or whatever, as happens in normal intercourse in a university.

One of the standard things you will hear as undergraduates leave the room is, “What a rotten lecture that was” or “Isn’t it interesting that such a subject didn’t touch on the kernel of the matter?” or whatever they think is important. This is the sort of education we want to impart. We want students to question and challenge. We want them to make the case against what they have heard and to think about it. To make an employer liable for a student doing what a university education should encourage—we encourage it at school too—seems to me silly. We should have an impact assessment of what will happen and what sort of steps a university will take to curtail that freedom to argue or to criticise an employee of the university. We should ask for an impact assessment. It would not be very difficult to consult universities and find out exactly how they would get around this potential liability as employers.

The same goes for mitigation and the costs which will be incurred. For example, take the costs to an institution such as a university of fighting a claim in an employment tribunal. The member of staff concerned, against whom the criticism has been made, will be on tenterhooks all the time. They may be distracted, may have to continue to give evidence to the employer, and so on, with a lot of back and forth. As for the employers, think of the staff costs, counsel charges, legal charges, administrative costs and committee costs they will incur, and the time that will be spent on that rather than on running their universities to do what they ought to do—to educate undergraduates and do research. This is the most moderate request for an impact assessment that I have heard. Noble Lords would be well advised to agree that we need an impact assessment, both on free speech and the likely costs—particularly the costs of going to a tribunal and waiting for all that period.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, have my name on Amendment 97, which would introduce yet another impact assessment. I know that so many impact assessments have been proposed in relation to the Bill that it has become a bit of a cliché, but I am especially concerned that this one is taken seriously because the third-party harassment sections of the Bill are ill thought out in a way that could lead to unintended consequences.

One noble Lord a few moments ago asked why there was a desire for an impact assessment rather than thinking of the potential positives of the Bill. The response of the Government in relation to concerns about Clause 20, for example, which is to say that there is nothing to see here—no problem at all—is an insufficient way of responding to some quite detailed scrutiny that has been put forward. If there is any exaggeration of the potential problems, an impact assessment should be able to resolve that for us.

I will focus largely on Clause 20, looking first at its potential cost to employers. That is especially important given that the Minister’s counter to my remarks earlier was that Clause 20 will be good for business. The Government’s own assessment advises that the total economic impact of complying with Clause 20 will be under £10 million and will have negligible economic impact on businesses. That is irresponsible; some might go so far as to call it misinformation. For example, that assessment says that the cost of familiarisation with the Bill and its ramifications will be £30 per medium business and only £19 per small microbusiness. I am not sure where these woeful underestimates come from or what they are based on, but if noble Lords have never met an employment lawyer, I can assure them that that is an unlikely figure.

We need a serious cost-benefit analysis. Let us consider what this section of the Bill requires businesses to do. Employers must show that they have taken all reasonable steps; that sets a high threshold for preventive action, as we heard earlier. Let us think what that means. There are direct costs for the initial implementation of anti-harassment policies, including familiarisation with the new regulations and checking exactly what their legal liabilities will mean. As we have seen during this debate, it is not necessarily as clear as day what the Bill requires.

As we have been arguing, if you are a small microbusiness trying to concentrate on being a business and trying to grow bigger, having to study the Bill and work out what your liability will be could be quite time consuming, nerve-wracking and so on. They will have to seek out third-party and legal advice—no doubt, there will be lots of consultants queuing up—because, as responsible businesses, they will want to safeguard themselves from the financial risks of not complying. One of the main risks they will be trying to ensure they do not have to deal with is the possibility of employment tribunals.

In what seems like an entirely arbitrary figure, the Government predict that only 30 employment tribunals a year will come from these clauses. There is no explanation as to how the Government reached that figure, and it is certainly completely at odds with industry experts who expect that Clause 20 alone will see an increase in employment tribunals of 15%—in other words, an additional 14,750 cases a year. As we heard earlier in a different context, already in 2023-24, employment tribunal courts received 97,000 cases, up from 86,000 the year before. That is an increase of nearly 13%. More and more people are forced into employment tribunals for a variety of reasons.

This Bill threatens to create even more cases—an unknown figure because it is a new provision. The Government are saying that it will be only 30 a year, but that is just making it up. There is, at least, an attempt in this amendment to try to work it out. According to the chambers of commerce, the cost of one employment tribunal is, on average, about £8,500, and if a claimant is successful, there is no financial limit to the compensation in a harassment case. Imagine you are a business worried about what is going to happen: this clause will lead to risk-averse and overcautious behaviour, not detailed in the Bill, to try to avoid being held liable. Some of us fear that this is what this kind of over-regulatory, precautionary approach will lead to.

Businesses will not be able to be slipshod about their potential liability. Smaller SMEs and microbusinesses —often with no dedicated HR or EDI offices—will need to think about employing new staff dedicated to protecting them from claims and giving them advice. The idea of a whole new generation of HR and EDI staff roles in every business in the country is frightening enough, but, anyway, it has nothing to do with their core businesses. Let us also note that the average salary of an EDI officer in the UK is £42,084.

I want also to stress why an impact assessment must include which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment claims through no fault of the employer and the impact, specifically, on free speech. These parts of the amendment are very important because we were asked earlier in a different group why there had been a focus on hospitality, sport and universities. There may be other sectors but, in a way, this is an assessment to see which sectors would be affected. It also asks for an impact assessment on free speech. As we have heard, the Government simply deny that there will be any impact in relation to free speech. I disagree, but let us scrutinise it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made the point that we should not worry about free speech because it is protected by the convention on human rights. She cited a number of clauses. It is true that, on paper, none of us should be worried about free speech; our free speech in this country is fully protected. And yet, daily—I stress, daily—there are more and more instances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is not in her place, indicated earlier, in which free speech is under stress in this country. More and more people are walking on eggshells and are, in many instances, getting sacked or disciplined for speaking their minds in workplaces, so I am not convinced by “Nothing to see here, don’t worry about it, all is well”.

Earlier, the noble Baroness—

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, my main concern with the changes to statutory sick pay in this Bill is the impact on smaller businesses, which is why I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which provide for rebates for SMEs. Of the two amendments, I prefer that of my noble friend Lady Coffey because it clearly undoes the harms that Clause 10 will cause.

I could not find much data on how much businesses actually pay in statutory sick pay, but I suspect that, unless an employer is unlucky enough to get an employee who has long-duration sickness, most will be paying relatively little at present, because absences are mainly for less than four days. What the data does show is that most sickness absences are for minor illnesses, which are unlikely to exceed three days. The average days lost per worker per year in 2023, which is the most recent data I could find, is just short of eight days. Among smaller and micro-businesses, that falls to around five days.

Extending the days for which payment is made is likely to increase the number of days lost to sickness, as the current incentive to work if the illness is mild will simply disappear. The Government say they have no idea what the behavioural impact of the changes will be—whether positive or negative—but I am prepared to bet that there will be far more short-duration absences, which will qualify for statutory sick pay, than there were before.

If I am right that most SMEs do not currently pay much in the way of statutory sick pay, the changes in the Bill will straightforwardly increase their costs. An average small business of between 10 and 49 employees has about 20 employees, which means that the average for a small business will be to pay for at least 100 days of sickness that they do not currently have, which would amount to around £2,000 in additional costs each year, even if no additional sick days were taken, which I doubt. That is not a huge amount per business, but it adds up to many billions of pounds across the whole economy. It also, of course, comes on top of the jobs tax and the very significant increases in the national minimum wage, which leads me to the likely real consequences of this change on top of the others. Put simply, SMEs will not hire workers unless they absolutely have to. We can already see evidence of that from the surveys of smaller businesses and in the weakening labour market—my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom gave us an up-to-date view on that. It is only going to get worse.

Furthermore, all those groups that we as a nation want to get back into work, in particular those who are long-term sick, will simply not be attractive to employers. Any hint of an illness record in a job applicant’s background will count against them, because no employer would want to take on the additional costs that would automatically come with that employee.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that SMEs employ nearly half the private sector work- force. A reluctance to hire among SMEs will kill growth and opportunities for many of the groups that we need to be employed in this country. There is a simple way to solve this problem, set out in Amendments 73 and 74. The Government would be wise to go down that route.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 71A and 71B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Amendment 73 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a rebate scheme.

Amendments 71A and 71B propose a sensible modification to Clause 11 and strike a more affordable approach for a business paying the employee for time not worked, as well as for the compliance and record-keeping involved. I say “more affordable” rather than “fair” because many businesses—particularly small and micro-businesses, as we continue to hear in Committee —will struggle to stay afloat and in business, given the juggernaut of additional costs, burdens and increased obligations imposed by this Bill. That includes those in this clause and those in previous clauses that we have discussed.

In Clause 11, such costs are to be imposed for those below the lower earnings limit, as we have heard, which will add to the extra costs paid by employers. They will potentially open further problems raised in the impact assessment, the modelling for which suggests a rosier picture for business than the available evidence warrants but also raises questions of behavioural response. Indeed, that consideration was a fundamental principle addressed in the welfare state proposals by Sir William Beveridge in his blueprint Social Insurance and Allied Services in 1942. The original National Insurance Act was framed as a contributory scheme with strict conditions on benefit to avoid creating perverse incentives.

The impact assessment for this measure—which models outcomes on the basis of a variety of factors, including some unproven assumptions—contends that there is evidence suggesting that overall sickness absence may be reduced but, on the basis of evidence considered from other countries, says that it is

“possible that regulation changes induce a behavioural response”

and that

“studies from other countries have found that the incidences of sickness absences are higher when sick pay is more generous. There could be an increased number of sickness absence days taken due to improved financial protection”.

We can read that in whatever way we like, and we have heard different interpretations of more generous statutory sick pay, but it is incumbent on the Government to return to some of the original principles in the national insurance system in this country and to think further about not creating perverse incentives. There will now be days for which the employer will pay for which there is absolutely no productivity gain.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

Unions; thank you. Remove flexibility and you remove opportunity. This will especially attack young people looking for their first job. We will end up with more workers’ rights but fewer jobs. That is why we need to examine this Bill and take account of all of the amendments—or, possibly, just scrap the Bill altogether.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support—

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I remind noble Lords that we are in Committee, not at Second Reading. We have heard a few speeches now that have strayed a little from the precise content of the amendments that we are speaking to. I urge noble Lords to concentrate on those amendments rather than making Second Reading speeches so that we can get on and make progress.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for reasons of transparency and clarity. As we have heard today, there is too much being added to the Bill. We have not had proper sight of the Government’s amendments until it is too late. How can any business plan for the future with this hotchpotch of a Bill changing by the day?

On top of that, I echo what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said and I would add a competitiveness and growth purpose here. We had it in the Financial Services and Markets Act. It helps to focus people’s minds on the law, on the overall purpose, on what we mean by the economy we run and on what its aims are.

I cannot agree with the noble Lords opposite who point out, with different conclusions, that our labour laws are streets behind those of European countries. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I believe that the dynamism in Britain’s economy is due to it being a competitive market economy—one that has historically been open to trade and competes and, for that reason, can offer job security and good wages on a competitive basis. Part of that is a flexible labour market.

I am worried that this Bill—particularly given that the purpose is not economic growth and competitiveness—will stultify and freeze growth and, as a consequence, the labour market. The people who will suffer will be workers themselves, who will not get jobs or job security. For these reasons, I support the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

I close by remembering a German economist who worked under Chancellor Merkel in her global economics department at the time of the discussions around whether Britain would remain in the EU or leave it. This economist implored Britain to stay, because, without Britain, Europe would have a frozen economy, its labour market would lack dynamism and its competitiveness with the wider world—with the Asian and global markets—would stultify. It therefore seems very bizarre that we are trying to put the clock back on labour market legislation and stop the flexibility which should be at the heart of any dynamic market economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is with some trepidation but some pleasure that I follow that speech. I rise to speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name, and to offer support to Amendments 7 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Goddard, although he will speak to those on his own account.

Speaking on the previous group, I said that there should be a change in the polarity of the guaranteed hours offer from an obligation to offer to a more streamlined right to request. We have heard in the previous two speeches that the aim is for this offer to be made to people who want it rather than there being an obligation to make it to everybody, when we know for a fact that a large number of people who will get the offer will not want to take it up. It is unnecessary activity when there is plenty to do in business. It is a very simple principle, and I genuinely do not think it subverts the intention of the Bill, in the same way as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was trying not to subvert the purpose of the Bill but to help it succeed while helping business at the same time. In a sense, that reflects the point I made before withdrawing Amendment 1. It is really asking the Government to have some understanding of how these things will be delivered on the ground, in the workplace. That is why the previous speech was so helpfully revealing.

I think that a large part of the early part of this Bill is designed to deal, in essence, with a number of employers who the Government have in the back of their mind as not doing the right thing and not achieving what we would all like to achieve. I understand that. Unfortunately, it is dragging the whole business programme, from microbusinesses right up to huge businesses, into a series of practices to crack those particular nuts. Later in Committee, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will introduce Amendment 318, which targets the sort of employer who I think the Government have in their mind as bad or exploitative. It would create, in essence, a new class of employee, the dependent contractor, which is in fact in many cases what we are starting to look at. It would sharpen the regulatory focus, particularly on some elements of gig economy employers, but avoid the heavy-handed approach that we are in danger of using with this Bill.

Amendment 4, and I think there are a couple of others that are very similar, would simply reverse that polarity to: if employees ask for it, the employer is obliged to deliver it. Some obligation on employers occasionally to remind their employees that they are entitled to ask for this would help the process.

As for the rest of the group, I will listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, when he comes to his amendments. I think much of this will be addressed also when we get to the issue of freelancers and to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, so I imagine this is not the last time that we will have some elements of this discussion, but some sign from the Government Front Bench that they understand that something should and could be addressed in this area would be a good starting point.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 3, 6 and 9 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I also support Amendment 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, but for different reasons. I will not speak on that, but I like the idea of a low-hours contract. I will speak about zero-hours contracts, because I do not believe they are getting a fair look in.

These amendments would give workers the right to request, rather than putting an obligation on employers to guarantee hours. I think they are worth while and worth supporting. In the labour market this year, there are 33.9 million people employed. Of them, 1.3 million are on zero-hours contracts. There has been an increase since 2000 of 805,000 people on this type of employment contract. This is 3.1% of employment in the UK. Most are young people in the 16 to 24 age group. This is a popular way of working; the figures speak to that. There has been far more significant an increase in this type of contract than in the overall type of working arrangements chosen by employees and their employers.

Much of the popularity lies in the flexibility on both sides. The evidence is that the majority of people on zero hours, 60%, do not want more hours, although some, 16%, do. Amendments that would allow an employee to request guaranteed hours as distinct from obliging the employer to guarantee certain hours seem more in tune with people’s wishes. Of those on zero-hours contracts, around 1 million are young people. However, 946,000 16 to 24 year-olds are not in employment, education or training; that is around 50%. Yes, people on these contracts may work fewer hours than other workers—I gather the average is around 21.8 hours a week compared with 36.5 hours for all people in employment—but is it not better that there are jobs which people want and can get, particularly young people who may not yet be in the labour market or who may have been thrown out of the labour market or left it for one of the many reasons we hear about it? I am afraid that it seems from the Government’s approach that they do not think so.

This Bill and Clause 1 must be seen in the overall context of the party opposite’s approach to labour market and economy reform. Not only is the NIC tax hike on the productive sector along with the decrease in the NIC threshold taking £24 billion out, affecting 800,000 businesses and their ability to employ people and offer opportunity to the 16 to 24 age group, but other costs have been piled high, one on top of the other, since the party opposite came to power. Of those employed in December 2024, 27.8 million were in the private sector and 6.14 million in the public sector. If employers are obliged to move to guaranteed hours, that will most likely serve to cut the number of people productively employed under these arrangements, with a corresponding decrease in output and growth. Surely these amendments speak for themselves, and a Government whose priority is to increase economic growth should accept them.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. As someone who has been an employer for over 40 years for various small businesses, and knowing that these amendments were coming up, I spent the weekend speaking to small and medium-sized businesses, particularly the small businesses in my home city of Leicester. All were very concerned about the impact that the Bill may have, if it becomes law, in providing a set amount of guaranteed hours.

I come from the home care sector—that is one of my businesses—which really does work on contracts in which we do not, and cannot, guarantee hours, simply because of the nature of the job. We do not know when people will require care or for how long, how long they will be in hospital for, or whatever. The hospitality sector is in exactly in the same place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, it a pleasure to support my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, on Amendment 5 and their other amendment.

Small businesses and microbusinesses form a vital component of our national economy. These enterprises, while often agile and innovative, are particularly vulnerable to regulatory and financial pressures. Like all businesses—I should declare that I work for a very large American insurance broker—these enterprises have had to absorb the recent increases in the national minimum wage and adapt to the changes in national insurance contributions legislation. However, unlike larger businesses, they often lack the structural resilience and financial buffer to absorb such changes with ease. The impact on them is therefore disproportionate. This amendment proposes a sensible and measured opt-out for SMEs from additional obligations stemming from the proposed changes to zero-hours contracts—specifically, the move towards tightly prescribed guaranteed hours. As the Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges, these reforms are likely to have a disproportionate cost on small businesses and microbusinesses. I stress that this is not speculation but is drawn directly from the Government’s impact analysis.

Small businesses and microbusinesses span a wide range of sectors, but many are embedded within the UK as world-renowned creative industries that bring global acclaim and substantial economic benefit to this country. Many are driven by the energy, passion and commitment of individual entrepreneurs and small teams. I have had the privilege of speaking with several such business owners during the course of this Bill, and a recurring concern has emerged: the smaller the business, the harder it is to digest and manage such legislative change. Some have gone so far as to tell me that they are considering closing their operations altogether. That is a deeply troubling prospect. It is no exaggeration to say that measures such as these, if applied without nuance, risk undermining the very entrepreneurial spirit that we so often celebrate in this House.

There seems to be a regrettable habit forming on the Government Benches of legislating in ways that hinder rather than help the economic engines of this country. This approach is not conducive to national growth. It is not conducive to competitiveness. It is not conducive to job creation. It is certainly not conducive to easing the burden on the Exchequer—quite the opposite. Driving small businesses to closure will reduce tax receipts and increase demand for state support. We need to encourage investment, not chase it away.

Can the Minister explain clearly why this legislation must apply so rigidly to a critical sector of our economy? Why must we impose further burdens on the very businesses that we rely on so much for our innovation, employment and growth? Is there no room for proportionality and no scope for recognising the distinct challenges that are faced by the smallest enterprises? What I have said applies, to a great extent, to the middle-sized companies mentioned in Amendment 282, tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of Wirral.

I leave your Lordships with a quote from the Spirit of Law by Montesquieu:

“Commerce … wanders across the earth, flees from where it is oppressed, and remains where it is left to breathe”.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the other amendments in this group. I do so as an employer, and my interests are declared in the register.

I am a very small employer, in a not-for-profit company. I am therefore one of the microbusinesses to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has referred—those which have zero to nine employees. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said: smaller businesses will find it very difficult to afford the costs which this Bill will impose upon them.

Small businesses and the employers in them are not the adversaries of those we take on. Many small businesses, including a number in the digital sector, are start-ups—some started in that garage, about which Hermann Hauser once spoke. They build up their teams and develop by commitment. Each member of the team taken on is an asset—not just an expensive potential asset but a cost to begin with, in time and in the compliance of dealing with every member of the workforce. Such businesses do not have large HR teams or sometimes any HR teams. There is a cost in the salary and in trying to keep the employee by continuing to raise the salary as often as one can. There is also a cost in the investment of time.

Future of the Post Office

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I think we have all learned the lesson from the Horizon scandal that you cannot assume that the computer is always right. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that we need to be much more sceptical when presented with that kind of evidence in future.

On digital exclusion, the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is a huge issue for the Government and we are taking it very seriously. A huge piece of work is going on around this. Obviously, our ambition is to make sure that everybody has the skills and capacity to go online and access services, because it is to their benefit; it makes their life easier. The proposals we have—for example, the Government’s One Login service, will always have the option for individuals to go in person to a post office to access those services as an alternative. We will make sure that people are not excluded. But the real challenge relates to the discussion we were having earlier with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about education and skills; it is our intention to make sure that people have the skills, education, capacity and equipment to go online and have all the advantages that the digital world will offer them.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that no joined-up assessment has been made of the impact of potential closures on local economies. Could the noble Baroness correct me if I am wrong? I ask her to commit to making an impact assessment of the Budget adding £25 billion to employers’ employment costs, which will drive down confidence, especially in small businesses, for either awarding pay rises or hiring staff. This will have a great impact on local post offices—added to this new question of insecurity. Could the noble Baroness commit the Government to making an impact assessment of local employment prospects should these closures go ahead, and to bringing that impact assessment to this House?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a matter for the Post Office and the strategic review it has carried out. It will have to make the decisions about the cost-effectiveness of its proposals. We are talking and liaising with them, and I reiterate the point I made earlier: no decision has been taken yet. A full consultation is taking place with, among others, the unions about the future of these properties that are potentially on the line. We are looking for alternative ways to keep those post offices open.

On the issue of the Budget, as I said earlier, we had to make some difficult choices, but we have increased the employment allowance to simplify and reform employers’ national insurance contributions, and we have delivered a permanent reduction of 40% in business rates relief for eligible retail properties, which will include a lot of high street post offices as well.

Construction Sector: Cash Retentions

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as I have said, it is important that we seek the views of industry on any reforms. We will take further action and obviously we will welcome the views of Members of this House, as well as the construction industry, as part of that process. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have talked about safety and we are acutely aware of the situation with the Grenfell Tower final report, which highlights the systemic failure of institutions and individuals to ensure building safety and the safety of construction products and materials. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Building Safety and Homelessness tabled a Written Statement on 2 September that commits the Government to a system-wide reform of the construction products regulatory regime. Those reforms will take account of the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her replies so far. On her last answer, what proportion of businesses and organisations will be small or will represent small contractors and businesses in this trade? It is they who suffer most, which, as noble Lords have said, can lead to bankruptcies. If you are stuck with payments to make yourself for materials and supplies and you have not been paid by the overall contractor, you may go out of business. It is very important to bear in mind that we should give higher emphasis to the smaller contractors and businesses.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that the smaller businesses are getting squeezed at the end of the supply chain, but we are already making progress with the steps that have been taken, which will continue with the new regulations that we will introduce. There have already been improvements in payment performance since 2018: for example, the average time to pay invoices has come down from 45 to 32 days. We are doing this on a step-by-step basis and we are working with industry—the construction sector—to make sure that this is what people want and truly effective.