Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

At first sight, Amendment 283 might seem like a long list but, in fact, it is not half of how this Bill will reach into working life. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish a code of practice that provides employers with guidance on complying with the Act. The code should set out best practice, compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures. It should ensure necessary consultation with stakeholders and would enshrine a review every five years. We need to see a draft of this code before this Bill progresses to its final stage; I would be happy to discuss with the Government how to make this happen. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, briefly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing forward this important purpose clause amendment, which I must tell him—I know he is always surprised when I praise him—is a very cleverly worded amendment to which my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I were very happy to add our support.

I do not know why this Bill has had to be rushed through within 100 days. Given the significance of this legislation, surely it would have been better if the Government had committed themselves to ensuring thorough and proper scrutiny. However, we have seen the introduction of 160 amendments on Report in the House of Commons—amendments which, in many cases, received no or little meaningful examination.

Even more concerning is the fact that the Government have tabled 27 amendments for Committee in this House. We have received a letter from the Minister warning us that there are more amendments in the pipeline on fire and rehire, the fair work agency, employment Bill time limits, trade union reform and maritime employment. What on earth is going on? Why was not this Bill properly prepared? This has meant that the letter to which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred is virtually saying to the House of Lords, “Please, on behalf of all the employers—and, indeed, all the businesses in the UK—we rely on you in the House of Lords to scrutinise this Bill properly”. I just do not think that this is the right way to treat Parliament. We owe it to the legislative process and to the public we serve to ensure that our scrutiny is neither rushed nor compromised.

No doubt the Minister will argue that a purpose clause is completely unnecessary. However, we respectfully disagree, and not only for the reasons raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is vital for the Bill clearly to articulate its overarching aims: not simply to modernise employment rights in name but to set out a clear ambition to create a fairer, more secure labour market; to encourage genuine co-operation between employers and workers; to protect rights and well-being in the workplace; to ensure proper standards for pay and conditions across sectors; and to guarantee robust enforcement of labour protections. I have to say that, without a purpose clause, this Bill risks being directionless and, worse, risks unintended consequences that neither workers nor businesses can possibly afford.

I think also—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will agree—that a purpose clause is particularly important where there are a large number of delegated powers to make regulations within it. In effect, the Government are saying, “Please give us the power to do whatever we would like to do whenever we would like to do it”. The committees of this House have, time and again, urged Governments to turn their back on these Henry VIII clauses and present Parliament with clear cases to amend primary law, not do it through secondary legislation.

Well, there is growing concern about this Bill, which is why the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors and, in particular, the Federation of Small Businesses, which between them represent thousands of businesses across the country, have published this open letter to the House of Lords, asking for urgent changes to the Bill. They did so because they are deeply concerned that, as drafted, the Bill will make it harder, not easier to create fair, secure and co-operative workplaces. They warn that the Bill will increase risk and uncertainty for businesses precisely at the moment when we need businesses to invest, to hire and support in particular those who are at the margins of the labour market.

I do not think that the substantive concerns of all the businesses quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, have been listened to. I just hope that the Minister can respond when she winds up this debate. I look forward to the speeches from all sides of the House. I will not quote in detail from the letter, but it does remind me of the words of Milton Friedman. If I am ever to find myself quoting Milton Friedman, I suppose that this is the moment. He said:

“One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results”.


Well, fine phrases about modernising employment rights and updating legislation are no substitute for carefully considered, properly scrutinised measures that deliver real-world improvement. So that letter from all those businesses is not a warning but a plea to this House. It is a recognition that we as the revising Chamber have a unique and critical responsibility to ensure that this Bill works. They are not closing the door on the Government but offering, at the end of the letter, to work with us all and with Ministers to help improve legislation.

In conclusion, if we are to get all these amendments, can we hear from the Minister how many more amendments we are going to get and when? The Government Chief Whip is constantly referring us to the Companion. I have never quoted from the Companion before, but it has pretty severe words for a Government who choose to table amendments at the last moment, without proper notice. So could we hear from the Minister what further amendments are planned, when we will receive them, and which parts of the Bill will be fundamentally altered? Here we are, at the start of Committee, still not knowing what the Government are proposing.

In an unguarded moment, the Minister disclosed to me that she has an implementation plan, which I understood from her was in draft. This House ought to see the draft implementation plan. Why can we not see it? Perhaps we could help the Minister produce the final draft. We should not get an implementation plan half way through Committee. Could we hear from the Minister on when we will see the implementation plan? A lot of businesses up and down the length and breadth of this country are totally uncertain about what the detail of this Bill will be. It is about time that we heard from the Minister about what the Bill seeks to do, what its purpose is and whether we can see it in its full form before we go any further with Committee.

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 1 and avoid the temptation to engage in a mini-debate across the whole width. So far, I feel I have been sitting in a Second Reading debate. I have given speeches in this House before, reflecting similar sentiments to those in this amendment about fairness and co-operation. These are the words used in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I gave them in the context of the debates on Conservative anti-union laws, which we have addressed in this House in my time. Sadly, no one on the Conservative Benches, except for the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, who is in his place, paid any heed. The laws then proceeded to the statute book and the result was an imbalance in British employment law very much in favour of employers.

The Bill goes some way towards correcting that. Once it has been implemented, I hope we can look again at a system of mature collective bargaining of which we all can be proud. But first, we must replace the imbalance, and do so speedily, because it is glaring. Change is desperately needed; our labour market is characterised by high inequality—only two OECD countries have a bigger gap between rich and poor and between top earners and the very low-paid.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his detailed engagement with our Bill and for Amendments 1, 283 and 327. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate, which has revisited many of the debates that we had at Second Reading.

Amendment 1 seeks to insert a new clause of the beginning of the Bill to set out the overarching purpose and to provide a framework for understanding the aims of the legislation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his challenge on this issue, but it is important to reflect on why we are bringing the Bill forward and what we hope to achieve through it.

The plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for the modern economy, to empower working people and, importantly, to contribute to economic growth. Delivery of that plan was, as we have heard, a manifesto commitment and part of the mandate on which the Labour Government were elected. On 10 October, the Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill.

The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, and others have asked about the later amendments that have been tabled. I reassure noble Lords that these are technical amendments and that the Committee will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise them all properly. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others asked about an implementation plan. I reassure noble Lords that that will be shared as soon as it is available. We agree that businesses need guidance on the timescale and implementation of the measures in this Bill. We are working at pace to ensure that they have that information.

There is strong support for the measures included in the Bill. The Institute for Public Policy Research found that every constituency in the UK has a majority or plurality of people who believe that workers’ rights should be strengthened. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned the latest poll. In addition, the TUC’s polling and that of HOPE not hate of over 21,000 people across the political spectrum has found strong support for key policies in the Bill. More than seven in 10 of UK voters—72%—support a ban on zero-hours contracts. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers the right to statutory sick pay and ensuring that it is paid from the first day. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers protection from unfair dismissal from the first day in their job.

This is a comprehensive Bill which delivers on a clear mandate from the British public. Once implemented, the Bill will represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. Good employers support this package, because many of them are already delivering these standards. What they do not want is to be undercut on an uneven playing field.

I can give a few examples; I know the Opposition like to ask this question. Centrica, the Co-op, Richer Sounds, Nationwide, IVC Evidensia and IKEA UK and Ireland have all given their support to the measures in the Bill, and a lot of SMEs have done likewise, so it does have resonance with the business community.

Modernising the world of work will raise standards and tackle undercutting so that businesses are empowered to compete in a race to the top. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government, of course, recognise the concerns about the costs to business. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment is a top-end estimate of the costs, which will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the bottom end of the range close to £1 billion.

The costs, therefore, are likely to be under 0.4% of our national wage bill and could even be as low as 0.1%. Furthermore, improving workers’ well-being, increasing productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits worth billions of pounds per year. That is why delivering the benefits of the Bill would offset the costs.

I can reassure noble Lords that a number of these measures, as I have already said, have strong support from businesses, and we will of course carry on consulting them as we put these plans into practice to ensure that they are as effective as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned the tech sector and will know that I am very minded of this. We will continue to engage with the tech sector on a regular basis to make sure that it contributes everything it can to the Government’s growth strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others have mentioned SMEs, and we will have the chance to debate this later in the Bill. In short, we do not agree that there should be two-tier employment rights: employment rights for all is a fundamental principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about skills. We are absolutely committed to a new skills agenda, which is why Skills England is modernising our skills provision. It is an area where, traditionally, the unions and employers have made common cause to make sure that the upskilling of the workforce happens on a comprehensive basis.

This Bill shows the Government’s commitment to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. Our approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, our reforms remove hurdles that frustrate the voices of workers, but trade unions will still need to win a majority of workers’ votes in a ballot to be recognised by an employer. If workers do not want to be represented by a trade union, they will have the option to vote against recognition in that ballot.

On Clause 1 and the proposed list of priorities, I agree with my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Carberry that the purposes are already covered in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hendy pointed out that the Long Title already addresses the purposes within the Bill, and as my noble friend Lady Carberry pointed out, the list is not exhaustive. If we are to have a list, it would need to be a whole lot longer than it is at the moment and cover a whole range of other aspirations already covered in Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised other issues that could be included in that list. Again, I assure her and others that all these issues have been consulted on extensively in the Bill. I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is no need for such a clause to be inserted to achieve this aim. The Explanatory Notes set out the purpose of the Bill clearly and provide further detail on the aims of the legislation. These notes were updated when the Bill transferred to this House and will be updated again when it receives Royal Assent. The Government have also published a series of fact sheets, which are available on GOV.UK and aid the understanding of the Bill’s aims.

Finally, from a legal perspective, inclusion of such a clause could risk producing unintended consequences on the interpretation of specific provisions within the Bill, which have been drafted to achieve the particular purposes concerned. While I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is trying to achieve, and I appreciate the debate that he has created, I hope I have persuaded him that it is not appropriate to include this in the Bill.

Amendment 283 seeks to require the Secretary of State

“to publish a code of practice providing employers with guidance on complying with the Act”.

This has had much less attention in the debate but, nevertheless, I will attempt to address the concerns that the noble Lord raised.

We have consulted and remain committed to consulting widely on the detail of implementation. The Government have also committed to ensuring that, where appropriate, guidance is published to ensure that all stakeholders have the information they need to make necessary adjustments. However, a Bill-wide code of practice, as suggested in the amendment, would be duplicative of the policy-specific guidance and codes of practice that the Government will already produce to support workers, employers and trade unions in implementing the reforms.

There is existing provision for the issue of guidance and codes of practice across employment law. Where relevant, the Bill amends those provisions to reflect that they will need to be updated to take account of the changes made by the Bill. This includes codes of practice issued by ACAS under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Such codes are subject to consultation requirements and must be laid in draft in both Houses for approval, and we are already working closely with ACAS to plan ahead for this work.

Where new statutory guidance is required, this is also provided for, such as in Clause 30, which inserts new Section 83D into the Procurement Act to make provision for the issue of codes of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts by appropriate authorities.

By requiring a single Bill-wide code of practice, this amendment would also risk delaying the Government in offering certainty on the details of policy and regulation on individual issues as they become available. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that this would therefore result in duplication and unnecessary delay.

Amendment 327 would prevent the implementation of measures in the Bill until the point at which the Government produce a Bill-wide code of practice. Some measures in the Bill will not require any further guidance before they are implemented—for example, the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Delaying the date on which these measures can commence would unnecessarily delay the point at which workers can benefit from measures in the Bill.

Codes of practice are used to provide guidance to employers on how to comply with employment law. By nature they are detailed, building on and clarifying requirements set out in statute. There are several measures in the Bill where further consultation will be required to develop regulations setting out key details of reforms. Within six months, it would not be possible for all the outstanding policy details to be finalised to inform the content of a Bill-wide code of practice. Codes should bring clarity, but these timelines would risk patchy or unclear content if we were to go ahead on the basis of these amendments.

I agree with the need to ensure that workers, trade unions and employers are sufficiently supported for the implementation of the Bill, but this amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that the codes of practice that he envisages would not help to provide the detailed guidance that employers and workers require. I thank him for raising the issue, but I hope I have persuaded him not to press those amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The Minister has shared with the Committee that there is an implementation plan. As we are now moving to consider each clause, the first few in particular, it would be helpful for the Committee to be made aware of the part of the implementation plan that governs each and every clause. Is she able to share it with the Committee and, if so, by when? Might we at least see a draft of the implementation plan, so that businesses across the UK know what lies ahead?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord has already raised this, and he tempts me, but there has to be further consultation. He will understand that. Part of the legislation obviously requires further consultation to take place. We are still looking at the timescales for all this, and we obviously understand the need to provide guidance as soon as we can, but what I can say that will be reassuring to everybody concerned is that this will be a phased process; this is not a day-one process. We just need to make sure that the phasing of all this makes sense for employers so that it can be done on a proper basis and with the appropriate guidelines behind it. We are working on it, we will share it as soon as we can, and we understand the need for it, but it is not available at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am channelling the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who has been called away. He, on behalf of these Benches, cannot accept a two- tier workplace in regard to employment rights, which obviously form the content of this Bill, so we will not be supporting these amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for setting out the position so clearly, but I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes because, as a result of her moving the key Amendment 5, we have had a remarkably positive debate about what I believe is the lifeblood of the UK economy, namely the small and medium-sized business sector. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, of course, is a great authority on all this, and it was good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, as well.

When we reflect for a moment on the speeches that have been made in this debate—apart from that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer—we have not had any contributions from the Government Benches. But, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out, the most important contribution will be made by someone who really does understand. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, knows all about small businesses, and I am thrilled and delighted that he is summing up the debate because he understands what so many of my colleagues have tried to point out. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said that bureaucracy can get in the way of success. Look at the amount of rules and regulations and bureaucracy.

I agreed with all my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Ashcombe when he pleaded for a sensible and measured response. We all want to see bereavement leave—all good employers allow for bereavement leave. We want to see rights established very clearly, but my noble friend Lady Verma pointed out that if we impose them on the small and medium-sized sector in the way that my noble friend Lady Noakes outlined, three, four or five employees will suddenly have to deal with all this legislation.

Let us remind ourselves of the importance of small businesses. As several of my colleagues pointed out, at the start of last year there were 5.45 million small businesses with up to 49 employees, making up a staggering 99.2% of the total business population in the UK. We are talking about a massive sector, and therefore we have to worry and concern ourselves about the effect of the Bill. As the Federation of Small Businesses put it, in its current form the Bill risks becoming nothing short of a disaster for small and micro-businesses.

The noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches spoke about a two-tier workforce system, which those Benches object to. But as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, we do in fact have tiering alive and well throughout the UK economy. It is not trying to impose one size fits all; it is recognising that over 99% of businesses in this country are small and cannot possibly cope with the burden of this Bill.

It just so happens that I already have a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, which I readily move to. We have heard from the Government on multiple occasions that they are committed to supporting SMEs and ensuring that they are not burdened with excessive costs or red tape. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, made a very important point during the passage of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill:

“we do not want to burden SMEs with additional regulatory or financial cost”.—[Official Report, 25/11/24; col. GC 138.]

What wise words: we would love to hear those words from him again tonight. He will realise that the reality of this Bill is starkly different. The only thing this Bill seems to do for SMEs is to burden them with additional regulatory and financial costs. It is incredibly difficult to reconcile the Government’s stated intentions with the actual impact this legislation will have on small and micro-businesses across the country.

I know that my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I have Amendment 282 in this group, but I do not want to go into it. I was taking the old Companies Act definition, and I do not need to go into all the findings of the Bolton committee and all those who have sought to define this, because I think my noble friends have done a great deal to define small and medium-sized enterprises.

We just need to know what the Government intend to do to alleviate the burden on small and micro-businesses. The impact assessment has highlighted the significant challenges that these businesses will face in implementing these reforms, and at the moment there is no adequate plan to support them.

I would like to ask the Minister these questions. First, will he please outline what the three main expected benefits of this Bill will be for small and micro-businesses? Secondly, how will the Government support small businesses in complying with the provisions of this legislation? What kind of guidance, training and resources will be made available to ensure that these businesses can navigate the new regulations without inadvertently falling foul of the law? Finally, can the Minister provide an assessment of the risk of unintentional non-compliance by small businesses? What steps are the Government taking to mitigate this risk and ensure that these businesses are not unduly penalised as a result of a lack of guidance in the legislation?

The Government have not consulted the small and medium-sized sector. If they have, can we please have a great deal more detail on what their conclusions were? If they have not consulted, will they please do so now?

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this group of amendments with such passion. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, together with the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, tabled several amendments—Amendments 5, 124 and 282—that seek to remove micro-businesses and small and medium-sized businesses from the scope of large sections of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to stick with being very brief. We have had three exceptionally powerful speeches. Amendment 16 is, in a sense, tackling a subset of a debate that this Committee has already had on Amendment 7 in the name of my noble and good friend Lord Goddard. I hope that the Government are beginning to accept that not all work comes in steady flows; it can have peaks and troughs and be disrupted by events way beyond anybody’s control. I hope that the Minister is going to take this away and work out how the current drafting needs to change in order to make the necessary allowances, whether it is for theatres, festivals, farmers or food and drink. A whole series of activities that experience those irregular patterns must be incorporated into this Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we need to brief as we have debated this area already. But we do have a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment. He was, of course, a distinguished Minister for the arts. I do not think people have yet recognised the dangers of one size fits all.

We are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I join with him in wanting a detailed impact assessment, particularly for the instance he gave of front-of-house workers. I do not believe that the effect on creative industries has been properly assessed so far as this Bill is concerned, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, said, there is a need for flexibility.

The theatre industry has only just now recovered—or perhaps it has not yet recovered—from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The last thing it needs now is to be hit by this crude instrument of a Bill, which makes no allowance for the unique nature of the work that it does, and the flexibility that is necessarily inherent in how it delivers for audiences. I really do want to hear from the Minister the extent to which theatres—the larger groups, such as ATG and Delfont Mackintosh, but also small and independent theatres—have been consulted. To what extent have they been consulted about the effects of this Bill?

I will finish off with five questions for the Minister. First, does the Minister accept that the right to guaranteed hours as drafted risks reducing work opportunities for the very people it claims to support, such as students, carers, disabled workers, et cetera? Secondly, can the Minister explain how theatres and other seasonal or project-based employers are meant to reconcile guaranteed hours with programming closures, touring breaks or production gaps?

Thirdly, what modelling have the Government done to assess the potential job losses or reduced shift allocations that could result from this policy, and will they please publish that modelling? Fourthly, why have the Government ignored the clear expert evidence submitted by the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre to the Public Bill Committee? Finally, does the Minister seriously believe that this legislation embraces inclusion and opportunity for the creative sector, when the sector itself is warning that it will do precisely the opposite?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling Amendment 16, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to sector-specific work patterns when making regulations relating to the right to guaranteed hours. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for highlighting the sometimes unique employment practices that occur in the creative sector and, in particular, the theatre sector.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would say that we have engaged extensively with the Society of London Theatre and are happy to carry on doing so. We appreciate that some sectors—including the theatre sector, which is highlighted in the noble Lord’s amendment—do have fluctuating demand across the year.

This is a sector that I know all noble Lords recognise we need to support, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, particularly for social value reasons. We therefore want to take note and make it right for the sector.

I reassure the Committee that flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways under the Bill that an employer could approach that issue while upholding the new rights to guaranteed hours depending on the circumstances, particularly by using limited-term contracts where that is reasonable. Those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn those down and remain on their current contract or arrangement if they wish. Furthermore, through the Bill we have also allowed for employees and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero-hours contract measures. Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers.

We will ensure that the needs of different sectors are considered when we come to design the regulations. We will continue to work in partnership with employers across the different sectors, their representatives, the recruitment sector and the trade unions to develop those detailed regulations, and we will provide clear guidance for both employers and workers in advance of implementing these measures.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, had a new concept of available hours for sectors with varying seasonal demand. We would push back on that issue. It could risk creating a two-tier guaranteed-hours framework for workers in sectors with more or less seasonal fluctuation. We believe that the reference period provided for in the Bill will ensure that qualifying workers are offered guaranteed hours that reflect the hours that they have previously worked.

I hope that, in that short contribution, I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that we are aware of the issues and are on the case. We feel that there is considerable flexibility in the Bill as it stands. We are happy to have further discussions. As we have heard from noble Lords, there are a range of issues and a range of options here, so there is not just one way of solving this problem. We are happy to get round the table and talk some more. We feel that, as the Bill is currently designed, it answers the concerns that are being raised with us, but we are happy to talk further. I therefore hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Steel Industry

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by echoing the words of the Government Chief Whip: I thank all the staff of Parliament for their tremendous efforts in facilitating this recall today. It is no small task to bring us all together at short notice, and their dedication to the democratic process is deserving of recognition.

At its heart, this debate is about whether we have a steel sector in this country at all, and whether it is run in the national interest. Earlier today, the Government confirmed that they will take control of British Steel, following the collapse of negotiations with its Chinese owners. This is a pivotal moment, not just for the future of British steel-making but for the future of Britain’s industrial base itself.

Before I go any further, perhaps I may say that our thoughts today must be with the steel-workers, their families, their suppliers and the communities whose futures now hang in the balance. They deserve better than uncertainty and neglect, and they must certainly have a Government who are on their side.

This the first time that Parliament has been recalled to sit on a Saturday since I was sitting in the other place in 1982, after the Falklands war began. It is only the sixth occasion since the end of the Second World War—and for a Bill published just two hours ago. There has been no respect for Parliament whatever. I really must say that this is not the way in which to treat this precious institution.

The Bill itself grants far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State. The Government will argue that this is necessary because of the emergency we face. However, just now, in the other place, the Secretary of State said:

“I do not want these powers a minute more than necessary”.


So where is the sunset clause in this Bill? How can we be assured that these extraordinary powers will not be abused or extended indefinitely? The Government have to make clear the precise timeframe for these powers and, more importantly, they must demonstrate how they intend to ensure that public and Parliament are not left in the dark once this emergency has passed.

The choice before Ministers should never have become this stark. Faced with the collapse of British Steel, the Government had little option but to intervene. Let us be clear: nationalisation is not a triumph but a last resort made necessary by failure. Without it, Britain would indeed have become the only G7 country without primary steel-making capacity. However, today’s events are not simply the result of forces beyond the Government’s control. The truth is that nationalisation must be a platform for urgent and permanent modernisation, not a short-term bailout or a delaying tactic. Without decisive action, Britain’s steel industry will wither under the combined pressures of global competition, green regulation and technological change.

It is essential that we consider the effect and impact of green targets, which have placed immense strain on our industries. The policies driving us towards net zero by 2050 have hit our industries hard, especially energy-intensive sectors such as steel. Energy costs in the UK are now the highest in Europe, and four times those in the United States, and the current trajectory of green regulation is making it harder, not easier, for our industries to compete internationally.

We just need to ensure that our environmental goals do not come at the cost of our industrial base. The Government must urgently review their net-zero policies to ensure that they support, and do not strangle, British industry. If we do not strike the right balance, we will continue to see industries such as steel driven offshore, taking with them not only jobs and investment but the very emissions targets we champion. We cannot allow this to happen.

Let us remember that, just a few months ago, Ed Miliband banned coal and coke production in the UK and boasted about sending a signal to the world. Yet today, as we heard in the other place, the Government are going around the world with a begging bowl, trying to find enough coal to keep the last blast furnaces running. Could British Steel survive today if access to coal was not artificially restricted? Possibly, but we are in this mess because decisions such as this have been made in pursuit of political point-scoring by this Government, with no thought for the long-term health of our core industries.

How is it possible that no one in the Government saw this crisis coming? How could they have been so unprepared? The warning signs have been flashing for months: ageing infrastructure, soaring energy prices and growing global competition. We debated in this Chamber just a short time ago the fact that there had been no serious contingency planning, as yet no coherent industrial strategy and certainly no sense of urgency. Instead, the Government are now scrambling to nationalise British Steel as a last resort. That is not leadership; it is crisis management at its worst.

On 31 March, the Minister stated that

“we will be producing a steel strategy very soon”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 18.]

Following the events of the last 24 hours, and now that the Government have found time to lay an emergency Bill, it is surely time for them to publish an emergency steel strategy too. Where is it? The Secretary of State in the other place just referred to quotations from the steel strategy, so it must exist in draft. Should this House not be given a copy? Steel-workers and their families, and the taxpayer, need more than vague assurances—they need clear timelines—so when will this strategy be published? Will it commit to the urgent modernisation that our steel sector desperately needs? Will it address the crippling energy costs faced by our steel-makers? Will it set a clear and credible path to return British Steel to private ownership?

We have to learn from industry. The last time steel was nationalised, back in the 1960s, the results were disastrous. I will cite figures from Hansard. Grants and loans to the British Steel Corporation between 1967 and 31 March 1980 totalled £4,925 million, and the net total loss for BSC since 1967 has been £1,552 million. Rather than revitalising the industry, nationalisation led to bureaucratic inefficiencies, losses, a decline in productivity and widespread industrial action.

The Government’s approach to the steel sector is compounded by the broader challenges they face and are imposing on employers right across the country. The Government increased employers’ national insurance contributions and they are rushing through the unemployment Bill, which, in its current form, will add further strain to the already fragile labour market. It is difficult to see how these measures align with any credible strategy to attract private investment. Surely the Minister must acknowledge that the Government’s policies have made it more difficult to deliver the investment that the steel industry so desperately needs. If they are serious about a future where British Steel is returned to private hands, they must urgently reconsider their policies. We agree that uncertainty has to end, so will the Government confirm today that, should nationalisation be pursued, it will be only a temporary measure? Will they clearly set out the timeline for that transition to private ownership?

We cannot afford to hear again the standard vagueness of “all options are on the table”. This does not provide the certainty that workers, who deserve clarity about their future, need. It does not provide certainty for the taxpayer, who is now footing the bill. Which brings me to my final point: can the Minister tell us what estimate the Government have reached of the cost of nationalisation to the taxpayer? This is not leadership; this is not planning; this is a crisis, and one that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for raising that question. I am sure that we would be happy to consult with the relevant committees within your Lordships’ House as well.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the cost of providing these safeguards. We are directing British Steel to act in a way that safeguards its assets, and this funding should be provided by the company. If the Government need to spend money, we will look to recover that from the company if we can and where reasonable. We have committed up to £2.5 billion for steel, via the National Wealth Fund and other routes, and no further government borrowing is envisaged to support any intervention. The alternative would be importing steel at considerable extra cost to our economy. As noble Lords have pointed out, we would then be the only country in the G20 without domestic steel production. There is a cost either way, and we must balance those costs when we make decisions going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked what was happening in Port Talbot and whether we are nationalising British Steel in response to this situation. As I made clear in my opening comments, we are not nationalising anything. We have put forward a Bill to ensure the continued safe operation of the blast furnaces. Without swift intervention, there was a risk of accelerated closure, jeopardising the safety and production outcomes of British Steel.

Tata Steel decided to close the blast furnaces at Port Talbot in January 2024 under the previous Government, and the decision to provide a grant agreement towards Port Talbot’s transition project was made by the previous Government. This transition was already well under way by the time we came into office. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made. However, I say to the House that we negotiated an improved deal with Tata, after just 10 weeks in office, with better terms for workers, future investment opportunities for the area and the highest voluntary redundancy package Tata has ever offered. Since then, we have provided more than £50 million directly to the local community, from the £80 million available from the UK Government to help people learn new skills, to support the supply chain and to protect people’s mental health.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others asked about the endgame for British Steel. Our long-term aspiration for British Steel remains a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation. We are determined to see a bright and profitable future for steel-making in this country.

A number of noble Lords asked about energy prices and the cost of energy. The Government are committed to tackling high industrial prices in the UK. The British industry supercharger package of measures for energy-intensive industries came into force in April 2024 and brings energy costs for strategically important UK industries, including steel, closer in line with other major economies around the world, so that they remain competitive on the world stage. Once fully implemented in April 2025, the measures will save eligible businesses on average £24 to £31 per megawatt hour on their electricity costs. The total value of reduced electricity prices is estimated to be between £320 million and £410 million in 2025 and around £5.1 billion over 10 years. This will help keep business energy costs down.

To reiterate the point about future scrutiny of the implementation of the Bill, as the Secretary of State said in the other place, we are happy to engage with relevant committees, and I am happy to keep the House updated on these matters. We will continue to update the House every four sitting weeks on the use of these powers.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Can I just say to the Minister how grateful we are that she understands the House’s concern about the use of these powers? As I understand it, she has told the House that she will return every four weeks to update the House on the use of the powers. However, she was intervened on by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to suggest that she might go a little further than that and have a clear debate after six months. I still think that this whole question of a sunset clause is very relevant indeed. Can the Minister expand on what she said earlier—that she believes that a fixed sunset clause would not be workable or acceptable? Why not? It is generally accepted in this House that powers of this nature should have a sunset clause. Can she perhaps expand on that and give a little more detail before we consider whether to table such an amendment?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had answered that point. The Bill, as it stands here, is to deal with one emergency. As we know, it is a volatile sector and we might need to use those powers at other times. We will use them judiciously and with care, and, as I keep saying, we will continue to update the House as to the use of those powers. We do not feel that a sunset clause is necessary or desirable in this Bill. To clarify, my general comment to the noble Lord was that we would continue to engage with the Lords committees to make sure that they are fully updated with progress going forward.

In concluding this debate, I convey my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and for helping us to pass this legislation so that we can retain steel-making capacity in the UK—for British workers’ security, for British industry’s future and for the future of British Steel workers and their families. That is our priority and that is how we intend to go forward.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral)]

1: Clause 2, page 1, line 6, after “undertaking” insert “within a period ending one year after the passing of this Act”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, as I indicated earlier today, in this House we have a responsibility to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised and debated, and that it does not give unlimited powers to the Executive without the essential checks and balances that are largely portrayed in the work in depth of this House, in particular.

My noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie reminded us that, in its report, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards, the Constitution Committee stated that

“whenever possible sunset clauses should be incorporated into emergency legislation particularly in relation to legislation that impacts upon civil liberties”.

It continued,

“emergency legislation should automatically be subject to post-legislative review”.

A number of us have had a chance to reflect not only on the debate we have just had but on the words of the Minister, who, in her closing speech, said that she would regularly update the House every four weeks. Reflecting, though, on what the Constitution Committee said, we do not believe that that goes far enough. That is why my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and I have tabled this amendment, to ensure that there is a sunset clause. We look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether or not she accepts the need for some check on the power of the Executive.

A number of noble Lords quoted from the Bill, which we have, of course, seen for the first time only today. One such quotation was the unfortunate wording in Clause 3 that:

“The Secretary of State may do anything for the purpose of securing the continued and safe use of the specified assets”.


It is essential that that power is there available for the sake of the future of the Scunthorpe steelworks, but should it be there available in perpetuity? That is the key question that this Chamber must now decide.

The fact that the Government are saying that they may need to return to Parliament to extend these powers is not, as they seem to believe, an argument against a sunset clause. I believe that it is imperative that emergency powers are subjected to constant oversight, and I hope that the House will agree with me. These amendments that we are proposing would simply allow Parliament to do its job. Emergency powers should never be allowed to become permanent by default. Surely, they have to be justified continually, not assumed indefinitely.

We recall the Coronavirus Act, as my noble friend pointed out. That was a piece of emergency legislation containing a sunset clause. That was in recognition of the fact that the Bill provided extraordinary powers—it was not power that should ever be delegated to the Government indefinitely. What we are now proposing has a strong precedent, and we would strongly encourage the Government to adopt this. If these are emergency powers designed to allow the Government to intervene in Scunthorpe’s steelworks in the short term, why would the Government resist a sunset clause? Indeed, in the debate in the other place, the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention that these are short-term measures to deal with an emergency situation, and he used “temporary” in opening. Why can the Government not accept that these are temporary but necessary powers?

I suppose there is also the argument that there is greater certainty if we know exactly where we are so far as the powers devolved to the Government are concerned. Earlier today, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in calling for a sunset clause, and heard his further comment that a debate might perhaps help to focus attention in a way that would then enable Parliament to understand the motivation behind it. I am slightly nervous at that. There is no substitute for an out-and-out sunset clause, which I believe is the right thing to do in these circumstances. I hope that the Minister, particularly accompanied by the wording of the Bingham lecturer, the person sitting alongside her—with which I agreed and have quoted on many occasions—agrees that it is time for a reset between Parliament and the Executive. This is the time. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I speak very briefly to my Amendment 2. Clause 3(4) makes it clear that the Secretary of State has power to enter premises and make orders on the premises, but the wording in subsection (4)(a), in which it says that

“the Secretary of State may … be accompanied by any person”

could be read to imply that the powers are invested in the Secretary of State in person—that is, that the Secretary of State themselves would need to be present on the premises. After speaking to the Public Bill Office, I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to clarify that a designated representative of the Secretary of State would be imbued with these same powers, so that any intransigent company could not seek to delay government action by demanding that the Secretary of State was present in person.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that by now noble Lords will be more than familiar with what the Government are seeking to do with this legislation. It will allow us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. As such, I will turn swiftly to the amendments at hand.

Noble Lords across the House have raised a number of important issues relating to the parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government take these concerns very seriously. With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that seeks to add a sunset clause to the Bill, I will reiterate what I said earlier: because of the speed at which this legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline on those specific interventions. As noble Lords are keenly aware, the current international situation is unpredictable. A fixed sunset clause would not be practical and would cause an unacceptable amount of uncertainty if a solution to the issue at hand became protracted. In those circumstances, we might have to come back to Parliament and go over this whole process again.

We can revoke directions given to a particular steel company at any time once the need for intervention has passed. As I have said, we would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee in the other place and relevant committees of your Lordships’ House, to make sure that we work with your Lordships and Members of the other place and keep everyone updated, so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary.

I was clear in the debate earlier today that the Government will provide an update to Parliament every four sitting weeks, as well as providing information to relevant Select Committees. I do not want to pre-empt discussions in the usual channels across both Houses about the nature of these updates, but it is our intention that the first instance will be an Oral Statement and that subsequent updates will be made in an appropriate manner. What this means in practice will be subject to further discussion but could, for example, be determined by the reality on the ground at that time.

Given the interest in both the steel sector and the use of powers in this Bill, I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act. This will take place within six months, with exact details to be subject to further discussion in the usual channels. In addition, as stated in the Government’s letter to all Peers this morning, we intend to publish our steel strategy in the spring. We will continue other related work, such as on our modern industrial strategy, and we will of course update noble Lords on that as well. All of these moments will allow scrutiny of the Government’s use of the powers in this Bill and of our wider efforts to support the vitally important steel industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, draws attention to Clause 3(2) and his concern about the words that the Secretary of State can do “anything”. I have to say to him that those words need to be read in conjunction with the rest of that sentence, which limits them to anything that a

“relevant person in relation to that undertaking could do”.

It is for only a very specific purpose. I hope that this commitment satisfies the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

I underline that a sunset clause would create further uncertainty for thousands of workers, who need to know that their jobs are secure on a long-term basis. Inserting a sunset clause would create an arbitrary deadline by which the long-term future of that plant would need to be settled. As I said before, nothing is off the table in our response to securing the future of steel in this country. We should send a strong message today to those whose livelihoods depend on the steel sector that this Parliament stands behind them.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, seeks to add to Clause 3(2), after “the Secretary of State”, the words,

“or a responsible person they designate”.

I can confirm that Clause 3(2) entitles the Secretary of State to do

“anything … that the steel undertaking, or any relevant person … could do”.

So officials can act in the name of the Secretary of State.

Regarding the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about using force if necessary, this will be a statutory power to be carried out by those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Officials or their agents could use force to enter the premises, but this would have to be lawful force; therefore, they could not assault anyone, and there would have to be clear barriers on their actions. It is up to police judgment as to whether they would intervene, based on usual policing principles.

I hope I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters. I therefore respectfully ask that all the amendments in this group are not pressed.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in wanting to send a strong message from Parliament to all those involved in the Scunthorpe steelworks that we are solidly in support of them, and that everything we do today is directed to that end.

Turning to my amendment and the debate we have just had, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very important point about civil servants being able to act in the name of the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lady Coffey confirmed that that was the case, so at least we know where we are.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, very much indeed. He and I have been working together on this as hard as we possibly can to find a way through, because we do not want to stop this action in its tracks—far from it. We just feel that Parliament—in particular, the House of Lords—and the words of our Constitution Committee should not be disregarded. The committee has a right to stress the importance of sunset clauses.

However, having heard this debate, I am quite happy, following discussions through the usual channels, to indicate that such a debate could be postponed until we know a little more clearly where we are. In six months’ time, if we are to have—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have suggested—what he referred to as a substantive debate, and, as the Minister said, further debate on the operation of this legislation, we have made a great deal of progress. The voice of this Chamber has been heard, and I am very pleased to have been able to speak in this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Moylan that he and I still await the reply to the question that he posed, but no doubt the Minister will write.

I do not think that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has had an answer to her point about force. That is something that we will have to leave for another day, but it is a very important issue. We should not be giving powers in this Parliament to individuals to use force without clarifying exactly the circumstances in which they can be used.

All in all, we have reached a reasonable conclusion, and I am very grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and taken to heart the concerns of this Chamber about the need for this legislation to have an end date. We will return to that in the debate that we will have in October on a substantive Motion, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill: Productivity

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how the Employment Rights Bill will “support the Government’s mission to increase productivity”, as stated in their factsheet for the bill, and what evidence they have to suggest that it will increase productivity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, last year we published a comprehensive package of analysis showing how the Bill could increase productivity. Evidence included in that impact assessment shows that making workers happier and healthier helps boost productivity. This analysis draws on the best available evidence and consultation with external experts and stakeholders. For example, research from the University of Cambridge shows:

“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity”.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economy. What analysis have she and her colleagues in Government carried out of the effect on small and medium-sized enterprises of day one rights?

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will of course be aware that there would be severe economic and social implications if these blast furnaces are closed, but does she acknowledge there would be vitally important national security concerns as well? Will she ensure that such concerns are taken fully into account right across the Government?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister for Industry made clear on Thursday, this Government believe in the UK steel sector. Of course we take national security issues very seriously. We keep developments in all strategic industries, including steel, under constant review. For example, high-quality steel, including for defence programmes such as the Royal Navy’s new Dreadnought-class submarines, is already being made by UK EAF producers. British Steel is not a critical supplier for other defence programmes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we have made a very generous conditional offer of financial support to British Steel and negotiations are continuing. This is a live negotiation, and I cannot comment on commercially sensitive details at this stage, but we believe that our co-investment offer is fair and generous. We call on British Steel to accept that offer and the associated conditions. Obviously, there is a point at which those negotiations will not come to fruition, and we are making contingency plans, but we very much hope that we do not have to use them.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we should all just reflect for a moment on the agonies that so many families who are so deeply involved in this crisis must be going through. Following the remarks that the Minister has just made, can she give us some idea of the timescale to which the Government are working? She has made much of the fact that a generous offer has been made and, obviously, there are so many different interests to balance. However, returning to the point I made at the start of this short exchange, there are, above all, huge areas of national security here. Will she ensure that, within a limited timescale, all the Government, in particular the Ministry of Defence, are involved in reaching the decisions that must be made?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

First, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is a very worrying time for British Steel’s workers and all those who are affected. First and foremost, we are thinking of them. The negotiations are live and continuing. We will continue to negotiate for as long as we can. There is certainly no deadline in our mind. We will continue to keep that pressure up. We want this matter to be resolved. We feel we have made a good offer and very much hope that those negotiations will be fruitful and that we can find a package with British Steel that is acceptable.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interests as detailed in the register, in particular as a practising solicitor and partner at DAC Beachcroft.

I thank the Minister for opening the debate and we look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham.

I have always believed fervently in workers’ rights and trade unions. Indeed, as a young solicitor, I often acted for the Transport and General Workers’ Union in a wide variety of cases. By the late 1970s, however, by which time I was a Member of Parliament, it had become abundantly clear that something had gone seriously awry with the trade union movement. The unions seemed to be abusing their powers, pursuing not only the legitimate interests of their members but an overtly political agenda.

I remember being in the House of Commons when, in the final year of the Callaghan Government, the unions all but brought the country to its knees. A new settlement was needed. Successive Conservative Governments, between 1979 and 1997, gradually changed the nature of the social contract between employers, employees and the unions. Days lost to strikes tumbled from tens of millions a year to a tiny fraction of what they had been. Thanks to the more flexible labour market we had created, renewed economic growth brought a dividend of rising employment and falling unemployment far more quickly than anyone expected. That was not the Wild West. Indeed, workers’ rights and protections were often extended, not diminished.

The last Labour Government, under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, broadly accepted that renewed social contract and embraced the flexible labour market that serves both employers and employees so well. So, what has changed? Furthermore, what has changed during the passage of the Bill? It has had a brief lifetime, yet we have already had 160 government amendments in Committee in another place, including 11 new clauses and two new schedules. This farrago was followed by a further 40 new clauses and five new schedules on Report.

It was an extraordinary decision to run the progress of the Bill in parallel with a series of directly connected public consultations. As they showered us with amendments of their own, Ministers used their majority in the other place to defeat some very sensible ones from my own party and from the Liberal Democrats. More amendments are now promised—or should we say threatened? No one can convince me that there has been fair, effective and comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation, which is scandalous when we think of the profound effects it is bound to have on British business and how our businesses operate.

To date, 11 government Bills, including this one, have included Henry VIII powers. This Bill contains 11 such powers. So great is the uncertainty this creates that a meaningful Second Reading debate is almost impossible. What, in fact, are the principles of this legislation? Whatever they are today, might they change significantly with further amendments, or when the Henry VIII powers are triggered? Ministers are, in effect, asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide to do, whenever they decide to do it.

Apparently, in total, the Bill contains 173 delegated powers. I was musing that, if Henry VIII were alive today, he might be tempted to use this kind of skeleton legislation to legalise uxoricide—but whatever. Why are Ministers so disdainful towards the concerns expressed by the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture on the rule of law last October, when he warned that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive”?

He recommended

“a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.

Perhaps the most chilling warning about the specific inadequacies of the Bill came from the Regulatory Policy Committee, which identified eight of the Government’s individual impact assessments as being not fit for purpose, six of which were in the highest impact measure category. Surely it is the principal responsibility of Ministers fully to think through the potential impact of legislation before unleashing it on the world. This Government have failed in that basic task.

Meanwhile, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s Voice of the Worker campaign vividly reminds us that temporary work is often a choice made by workers, not an enforced compromise. Its survey of temporary agency workers found that 79% of respondents appreciated the flexibility that temporary work provides, while more than two-thirds believe it affords them a better work-life balance. These values—flexibility and balance—should be celebrated and supported by us all, not jeopardised by half-baked laws. Workers should be empowered to engage in the workforce in ways that best suit their personal circumstances. We must ensure that legislation does not restrict their ability to do so.

Although the intention may be to increase security, these measures risk overregulating agency workers, who are already well provided for under the Agency Workers Regulations. Under current law, these workers are made aware of permanent vacancies and enjoy protections that balance flexibility with job security. Additional regulations could well tip this balance too far, ultimately harming the very workers who the Bill seeks to protect. I also wonder whether Ministers have fully considered the financial, economic and social impact that the measure would have on public bodies, especially in the National Health Service.

Let us consider the proposal around statutory sick pay eligibility. Reducing the eligibility criteria and requirement for SSP to just one day would increase financial pressure on employers, particularly those who employ workers on temporary contracts or in sectors that rely on flexibility. Employers now face the prospect of greater tribunal risk when managing employees’ sickness leave, which could act as a further deterrent to hiring.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are so often the driving force in our economy, delivering growth in production and jobs. They need our encouragement and support, not new burdens. They will inevitably be more hesitant about taking on new employees, if they fear facing immediate legal risks from day one. I implore Ministers always to look at proposals from the point of view of an employer making a marginal decision on whether to take on that extra employee. The proposed new union recognition rules would also hit SMEs disproportionately and, as I will argue on these Benches, unnecessarily.

I turn, as the noble Baroness did, to strikes and ballot thresholds. Under current law, unions must provide 14 days’ notice before a strike, allowing employers sufficient time to prepare contingencies and manage the potential disruption. The proposed change to reduce this notice period to just seven days raises significant concerns. Will this help to generate the much desired and much needed economic growth about which we hear—and have heard today—so much?

In response to the latest ONS labour market data, the Institute of Directors shared some deeply troubling data of its own. That data showed that 47% of business leaders facing higher national insurance bills plan to reduce employment as a result. Business hiring intentions over the next year remain around lows last seen at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even the Government’s own rather feeble impact assessment concedes that this Bill will impose a £5,000 million cost on businesses. What did they offer in return? Unfounded, optimistic speculation that this legislation could lead to growth—with no evidence and no guarantee. Their own declared primary mission is economic growth and yet they put forward a policy that actively undermines it.

The Bill is not only anti-business but, in my view, anti-worker. If it passes in anything like its current form, it would be more appropriate to call it an unemployment Bill. The measures in the Bill will make it harder for existing businesses to thrive and near-impossible for new businesses to emerge. The result will be a stagnating economy, diminished opportunities and worse outcomes for workers right across the country. The only growth that this Bill would deliver would be growth in industrial strife, growth in administrative costs for business, growth in uncertainty, and, ultimately, growth in unemployment. Unless it can be seriously improved, on these Benches we will oppose this Bill all the way, in the best interests of the working people of this country.

Plant Oxford Site

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by saying how delighted we all are to see the Minister back in her place on the Front Bench. We were all appalled to hear about her sad accident and hope that her appearance today means that she is now restored to full health.

Having said all that, given BMW’s decision to review its £600 million investment in electric Mini production due to slowing EV demand, I ask the Government whether they now acknowledge that their decision not to delay the 2030 ban on internal combustion engine cars was a mistake. Will they reconsider their approach to ensure that the UK remains an attractive destination for automotive investment?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and look forward to working with him in our new roles in the future.

The precise timeline for the launch of Oxford’s Mini new electric vehicle models is a commercial matter for the company. It is not unusual for a manufacturer in the automotive industry to adjust its plans for future products, including production dates. However, the reasons given by BMW are the “multiple uncertainties” that it is facing rather than any specific issue. Its concerns are about the timings and not about the willingness to invest. We are, of course, in regular dialogue with BMW to understand its future investment timelines and to discuss its plans for the UK plants and those employed there.

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I first draw attention to my entry in the register of interests; in particular, as chair of the financial services division of DAC Beachcroft. I welcome the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, not only to congratulate him on an important speech but to thank him and his colleagues for making such an important contribution to this debate.

This report excels particularly in its shrewd and practical analysis of the eternal tension between independence and accountability. As it states in paragraph 171:

“Regulators should be held to account for aspects of their performance by their sponsoring departments within government. Given the importance of regulatory independence, accountability cannot be left to the Government alone, and Parliament must play a critical role”.


Experience tells us that regulators have their ups and downs. In the unlikely but possible event of one going rogue—acting outwith its statutory remit, demonstrably underperforming or even failing completely—there must be some mechanism for dealing with that. Sometimes we joke that the sign of a successful regulator is to be equally unpopular with producers and consumers, and with Governments and Oppositions.

Financial regulation—the very foundation of our economic system—failed disastrously, resulting in the crash of 2008. Thereafter, the debate seemed to be between rules-based versus principles-based regulation. I say that we need proportionate, flexible and targeted regulation. There is always a risk of regulating to prevent the last catastrophe, rather than creating a system that can prevent the next one.

In May, the previous Government produced a very good White Paper, Smarter Regulation, which included the observation that

“regulation should only be used where strictly necessary, with a high bar for introducing it and laser-like focus on how it will be implemented and felt”.

Labour’s manifesto said:

“Labour will ensure economic regulation supports growth and investment, promotes competition, works for consumers, and enables innovation”.


I hope that the new Government’s policy on regulation will continue to have its roots in their oft-stated intention to promote growth. For any consensus about the future of regulation to be truly sustainable, it should be across parties and not just within them. I hope to hear from the Minister a repeated echo of the spirit of practical common sense that so characterises this report.

Adam Smith, who I suppose is the father of free market economics, famously wrote:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.


There, in a proverbial nutshell, is the case for regulation: a totally free market might well unleash countless instances of honest entrepreneurship and public benefit, but it would also facilitate all kinds of mischiefs.

As Secretary of State for Wales in the early 1990s, much of my effort was directed towards securing inward investment. When considering where to invest, major international companies, especially those in financial services, will naturally take account of taxation rates and regimes, but they will also subject regulatory systems to formidable scrutiny—and, believe me, they really do their homework.

What attracts much-needed inward investment is a regulatory system that is stable, predictable and proportionate, not one that wastes everyone’s time and resource with pointless box-ticking and form-filling. I very much hope that we can all agree on that.