Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

247: After Clause 70, insert the following new Clause—
“Workplace intimidation in regard to balloting (1) The Employment Relations Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) After section 54(12)(c) insert—“(d) measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to consider whether there are sufficient measures to be in place to prevent workplace intimidation before they make any order to allow balloting to take place by a means other than by posted ballot.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 247, 248 and 250 stand in my name and in the name of several of my noble friends. Amendment 247 requires the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation before approving any balloting method other than postal ballot.

I believe the postal ballot has served as a cornerstone and a guarantor of democracy for good reason: it provides privacy, anonymity and time for reflection. Workers receive their ballot papers at home, and can consider the issues away from workplace pressures, mark their ballot in complete privacy and return it without anyone knowing how they have voted. This system has protected workers from intimidation for generations. Alternative balloting methods, while potentially more convenient or faster, create new possibilities for intimidation that simply do not exist with postal ballots. When voting moves into workplace environments and on to devices that can be observed, we fundamentally change the dynamic of how workers participate in crucial decisions about industrial action.

Consider workplace balloting stations. Denied the privacy of home voting, workers might find themselves voting in break rooms, meeting rooms or other workplace locations where colleagues, supervisors, or even union officials can observe who is participating and when they are voting—and potentially seek to influence their decision through presence alone. The queue to vote becomes visible; the time spent considering options becomes observable; and the act of voting transforms a private decision into a semi-public one. Electronic balloting presents its own challenges. They might use personal devices in workplace settings where screens can be observed or where pressure can be applied to vote immediately rather than after proper consideration. The technology that enables quick voting can also enable quick pressure.

Each of these alternative methods, while offering potential benefits in terms of speed and convenience, also creates vulnerabilities that postal ballots simply do not have. The private space of the home; the sealed envelope; anonymous returns—these features of postal balloting provide protections that we must be careful not to lose as we embrace new technologies and methods.

We simply want assurance that, before any alternative balloting method is approved, proper safeguards exist to prevent intimidation scenarios. These might include requirements for private voting spaces, prohibitions on observing voting, secure systems that protect voter anonymity, or cooling-off periods that prevent immediate pressure to vote on the spot. Workers should be able to vote according to their genuine views about proposed industrial action, free from any form of pressure or intimidation, regardless of the source.

The employee who has concerns about strike action, or worries about lost wages, or simply needs time to consider the implications should be able to participate in balloting without feeling rushed or being observed. This protection is particularly important because industrial action ballots directly affect workers’ livelihoods. These are not abstract political decisions. They are choices about whether to risk wages, potentially face disciplinary action, or take steps that could affect their employment. Workers deserve the space and privacy to make these difficult decisions according to their own circumstances and conscience.

Amendment 248 takes a clear and necessary step to protect the fundamental principle of democratic voting by prohibiting balloting taking place in the workplace. This would prevent the Secretary of State making any order that would allow trade union ballots and elections to be held in workplace settings. The workplace is fundamentally incompatible with free and fair democratic voting. When balloting moves into the workplace environment, we create a setting where the very people who have power over workers’ daily lives, career prospects and working conditions, can observe, influence and potentially intimidate voters during the democratic process.

This prohibition recognises a simple truth: the workplace is not a neutral space. It is not a safe space for democratic participation; it is an environment structured by power relationships, hierarchies and dependencies that can compromise the integrity of voting. When workers must cast ballots surrounded by colleagues, supervisors, union officials or managers, the essential privacy that democracy requires is fundamentally undermined.

Consider what workplace balloting means in practice. Workers would be voting in break rooms, where conversations could be overheard; in meeting rooms, where attendance could be monitored; or in common areas, where voting behaviour becomes visible to everyone present. The simple act of participating or not participating in a ballot becomes observable workplace behaviour, rather than a matter of private and democratic choice. The physical presence of authority figures during workplace balloting creates inherent pressure. Union officials can observe who votes enthusiastically and who hesitates. Shop stewards can monitor participation levels and, potentially, identify workers who seem reluctant to engage. Supervisors, even if not directly involved in the balloting process, may become aware of industrial action votes taking place on their premises during work hours.

This pressure operates both explicitly and implicitly. Workers may feel compelled to demonstrate loyalty or enthusiasm through their voting behaviour when that behaviour occurs in workplace settings. The colleague who takes time carefully to consider ballot questions may be seen as insufficiently committed. The voter who votes quickly may be assumed to be following group pressure rather than individual conscience.

Workplace balloting also creates logistical pressures that can compromise democratic participation. Workers may feel rushed to vote during limited break times or lunch periods. They may worry about being seen as taking too long away from their duties. The natural rhythm of workplace life—shift patterns, busy periods and urgent deadlines—can interfere with the thoughtful consideration that democratic voting requires.

Amendment 250 would introduce a crucial requirement for transparency and accountability in industrial action by requiring trade unions to conduct and publish economic impact assessments and family tests before balloting their members on strike action. It would require trade unions to take three essential steps before any ballot for industrial action can take place: publishing an economic impact assessment; publishing a family test on the impact of industrial action; and informing their members that these reports have been published. That would ensure that workers had access to comprehensive information about the broader consequences of proposed industrial action before they cast their votes.

The case for impact assessments is compelling when we regard the real-world consequences of industrial action. For example, in 2023 the RMT union estimated that its industrial action had cost the UK economy £5 billion. The Office for National Statistics reported that during those 16 days of NHS strikes between December 2022 and February 2023 at least 93,000 out-patient appointments, 18,000 elective procedures, 9,500 mental health and learning disability appointments and around 28,000 community service appointments had to be rescheduled because of strike action. That had a significant impact on people who were in urgent need of important support.

The ongoing Birmingham bin strikes provide a stark illustration of how industrial action can affect whole communities. Birmingham City Council declared a major incident after 17,000 tonnes of rubbish were left uncollected on the streets, requiring assistance from not only other local authorities but even Army specialists for logistical support.

The strike has disproportionately affected lower-income and inner-city areas, such as Sparkhill, Balsall Heath, Small Heath, Sparkbrook and Ladywood, where refuse has piled up to a greater degree than in more affluent suburbs. The health implications have been severe: uncollected waste has the potential to create not only nuisance for the community from flies and vermin, but public health risks. The policing costs alone have been substantial, with the costs of policing the Birmingham waste dispute reaching almost £1 million.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill will still require trade unions to ask the members on the ballot paper for industrial action which type of industrial action they want to take part in, expressed in terms of whether this is strike action or action short of a strike. Ballots will also continue to be independently scrutinised. This will help ensure that trade union members are able to make informed decisions when voting on proposed strike action. In light of this, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to withdraw Amendment 247.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I had not thought, when preparing my address, to look back to 1834. The only time I ever talk about 1834 is recalling that on 16 October 1834, this whole place burned down and gave rise to the new mother of parliaments we know today. Only Westminster Hall survived that terrible fire in 1834.

All I will say about the Tolpuddle Martyrs who were sentenced to be sent to Australia is that two years later they were pardoned, and they all went to Canada; I think Canada benefited hugely from that exodus. But I am not quite sure that we can read across because so much has changed, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, reminded us.

The noble Baroness also referred us back to the coalition—it was not a Conservative Government but a coalition in 2014—and cited Bruce Carr KC, who I respect hugely. He is a brilliant advocate in this whole field of employment law, but I am not quite sure that I read across in the way the noble Baroness did.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that it is all a question of balance. We have to try to do our best to get the balance right but, as we draw the debate on these amendments to a close, I want to say how sorry I am that the Government declined to accept these modest but essential amendments, although I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for saying that they are well intentioned. Of course they are, because they are rooted not in ideology but in common sense, democratic principle and a genuine concern for those people who will be affected most by this legislation.

Throughout this short debate, we have tried to put across the case that industrial action is not just a technical but a deeply human process. It involves individuals making weighty decisions that affect their income, their job security, their families and the wider community. That is why the processes we set in place to govern these decisions must be fair, private and informed.

We argue in these amendments that workers deserve to vote on industrial action in conditions that are free from coercion or surveillance. We said that the workplace, structured as it is by hierarchies and power dynamics, is not and cannot be a neutral environment for democratic expression. I do not need to go back to the 1970s but, of course, that is when I entered Parliament for the first time, and we saw a lot of decisions made in the workplace that people regretted afterwards.

I ask the Government to consider the very real risk of intimidation, whether explicit or subtle, and to preserve the privacy that postal balloting has long guaranteed. We were not asking the Government to turn the clock back on technological progress; we were just saying that any movement away from the postal ballot has to be accompanied by genuine, enforceable safeguards. Yet, sadly, the Minister refused to accept even the simple premise that the method of voting matters—that how a person votes is as important as the person for whom they are voting.

We also asked for transparency. Through Amendment 250, we sought to ensure that unions undertaking industrial action do so with an honest reckoning of the broader consequences—economic, social and familial. We know that strikes do not happen in a vacuum; they ripple outward, touching the lives of patients, parents, commuters, businesses and whole communities. I certainly do not want to prohibit strikes, but we believe that workers have to be given the full picture before they make a serious decision to withdraw their labour.

I am particularly disappointed because these amendments would strengthen the public’s confidence in this legislation. They would have shown that Parliament is serious about protecting not only workers’ rights but democratic process, public welfare and social responsibility. Instead, the message is now that efficiency is more important than privacy, that speed matters more than integrity, and that the consequences of industrial action—no matter how far reaching—need to be honestly appraised before the strike begins.

All I will say in conclusion is that the debate does not end here. I do not believe that these concerns will go away. The consequences of inaction, the risks of intimidation, the lack of transparency and the damage to public trust will, in time, make themselves known. When they do, I hope the House will remember the case that we have made today. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 247 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, for describing this amendment to us. It is simple and easy to understand but founded on a very difficult and testing industrial dispute. Looking back over my time as a parliamentarian, I often found that facts get distorted, beliefs underpinned and positions entrenched. The last thing that should ever happen is an overt change in the law. I do not believe that is necessary. Let me explain why.

The Minister should not support this amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, explained, seeks to extend Section 145A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to cover the exclusion or omission of a worker from an offer on grounds related to trade union membership or activity. While the noble Lord presented this amendment as a measure to strengthen workers’ rights and reinforce freedom of association, in reality, on reflection, as he virtually admitted when he introduced it, it is poorly drafted, conceptually flawed, legally confusing and potentially deeply damaging to the legitimate and practical functioning of workplace relations.

At its core, the amendment misunderstands the balance that needs to be struck between protecting the rights of trade union members and preserving the autonomy of employers to make operational decisions in good faith. The current law already provides robust protections against unlawful inducements that seek to undermine collective bargaining. I recall, because I was in government at the time, that Sections 145A and 145B were carefully crafted to target deliberate attempts by employers to bypass or undermine collective agreements. This amendment goes significantly beyond that, seeking to introduce for the first time in statute a wholly ambiguous and legally unstable concept—exclusion from an offer—without providing any meaningful guidance or definition as to what such exclusion means, how it is to be assessed and in what contexts it is to be deemed unlawful.

An offer, by its very nature, is made on the basis of specific criteria—sometimes economic, sometimes strategic and sometimes tied to an individual’s performance or to business need. To say that a worker has a right not to be omitted from any offer and to link any such omission to trade union membership or activity would place an intolerable burden on employers. It would open the door to speculative claims and second-guessing of decisions that may have been made for entirely legitimate and neutral reasons, relying on an inference of motive in the absence of solid evidence. Effectively, it demands that employers should treat all workers identically in every instance of any offer—whether it is financial, procedural or preferential—or face litigation and the reversal of the burden of proof. Let me explain.

The amendment proposes that in any case brought under the new Section 145A(1A), it will fall to the employer to demonstrate the grounds upon which the worker was excluded. That is a fundamental reversal of the ordinary legal principle that a claimant must prove their case. It turns routine management discretion into presumed unlawful conduct unless proven otherwise. Such a reversal may be appropriate in narrow cases where discrimination is clearly alleged and supported by a pattern of conduct, but to write it into statute so broadly and in such general terms is not only disproportionate, it is potentially destructive to employer-employee trust and clarity. No employer, however well intentioned, will be able to manage negotiations or individual agreements with confidence under such a regime.

Furthermore, the amendment also risks creating legal confusion by overlapping with other provisions already in place to protect against victimisation or unfair treatment. Section 146 already protects against detriment related to trade union activities. Section 145A already prohibits inducements that would bypass collective bargaining. If the goal is to ensure fair treatment of trade union members, the proper route is through targeted enforcement of those provisions, not through the introduction of vague and speculative new rights that overlap and conflict with existing law.

The amendment is also unbalanced in its approach. It fails to consider that there are many reasons why an individual might not be included in an offer that are entirely unconnected to trade union status. It might be on account of their role, their location, the timing of their employment or performance-based factors. Yet under the proposed amendment, a worker could simply allege that their omission was because of trade union membership or activity, and the burden would shift entirely to the employer to justify its actions. That is not just an invitation to abuse; it is a structural distortion of fairness in employment law.

It must also be acknowledged that this amendment could have chilling effects on legitimate collective bargaining. Employers may feel compelled to make across-the-board offers rather than engaging in more flexible, targeted negotiations that take into account differences in role, responsibility or need. That could undermine not only business efficiency but also the ability of unions themselves to secure advantageous outcomes for specific groups of members. The very act of negotiating special terms for one group might now trigger complaints from others, citing this amendment as grounds for a claim of exclusion.

In conclusion, let me be absolutely clear: freedom of association is a vital right and must be protected. I do not believe, however, it would be served by new laws that are unclear, that burden employers without cause or that generate more confusion than clarity. This amendment—despite its rhetorical appeal to equality and fairness—will in practice be a blunt and imprecise instrument, increasing litigation, reducing operational flexibility and contributing little, if anything, to the genuine promotion of union rights. I hope the Minister will agree with that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his lengthy contribution. All he had to say was, “I do not support the amendment”. I thank and appreciate my noble friend Lord Prentis of Leeds for tabling Amendment 253A, which sets out that workers have a right not to be omitted from an offer by their employer because, among other reasons, they are trade union members. This amendment has been laid in response to a particular matter regarding the housing association Livv Housing Group, which last year reportedly made a pay offer to only those members of its workforce who confirmed that they were not trade union members. I am pleased that this matter has now been positively resolved in the workplace, as set out by noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this whole group of stand part notices is basically about the removal of powers from the certification officer. We have already debated Clause 77. In thinking through what is going on here, I wondered whether there would be anything of a certification officer left, because it feels like a lot of this stripping out of certain aspects—for example, in Clauses 79 to 83—is very limiting in terms of what could be left to be done.

Since the Trade Union Act 2016 came into effect, the world has somewhat moved on in terms of transparency and wanting to know what is going on in an organisation. I appreciate they are not state bodies, but trade unions play an important role in our country. It is important that, while recognising there is a declining membership, not in the public sector but in the private sector, for those people who are contributing money every week, every month, every year—whatever it is—having a good amount of information in a consistent way is a good thing in terms of thinking about how we promote aspects of transparency.

We have had considerable debate, as I say, about Clause 77. But I am struggling to understand what the issue really is—why it is so difficult for these things to be produced. In thinking about investigatory powers, let us put a bit of reality or real life into this. There has been a situation within the last six months where an election for the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union happened. On a 29% turnout, a person was elected. That turnout of votes equated to something like fewer than 10,000 people casting their votes in favour of that candidate. However, it was subsequently discovered that 3,000 ballot papers were not issued. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but the difference between winning and losing was less than 3,000. Understandably, the person who lost, who had been in post for nearly 20 years, was somewhat aggrieved. However, when it was decided there had obviously been a breach and something had gone wrong, the certification officer went through a proper process. The Government may well argue that it would have been safer to email out ballots, or do an online ballot, rather than relying on the post. I am sure the union staff were not the only people struggling with things not being delivered by Royal Mail at that time. However, after that process, the losing candidate chose not to require the election to be rerun, which would have been within the gift of the certification officer. In terms of general justice, without having to go to the expense of going to the High Court, a certification officer was a simple way to try to remediate something that was clearly unfair.

However, the person who lost—I am not going to name them—was then very quickly appointed general secretary of another trade union. This time, that was challenged directly by the union’s members. In that instance, I think they went not to the certification but immediately to the High Court. So, one person having lost an election, another trade union—that is the teaching union—used its procedures incorrectly to put them in place as its new general secretary. Then, thanks to the legal challenge, the executive committee of that union recognised that it had not acted properly. This same person, by the way, is still acting general secretary of that trade union. The election commences on Thursday; it is up to the members who they decide to vote for, of course.

I looked at the fairness of a variety of the decisions that the certification officer made over time, and the same teaching union was in breach a few years ago because its general secretary outstayed their elected term. They were then made an acting general secretary and, about a year later, there was another election. It is very expensive if trade union members have to go to the courts over these sorts of things. As I researched these clauses and found out what has happened in real life, it reminded me somewhat of Animal Farm, and how—what was it?—“Two legs bad, four legs good” evolved over time to suit the needs of those who decided that they would be in charge.

I appreciate that trade unions might feel that we should not need to have a certification officer, but these are good examples of where people have had recourse to an independent person who, by law, is not subject to ministerial direction. Those people can have complete confidence in the integrity of the certification officer, and that going to them will lead to somebody having a look, without the cost of going to the High Court—as we know, that is expensive. I understand that Labour has this mantra that it is going to repeal anything to do with the 2016 Act, but I really want the Government to consider why, seeing some of the changes that have happened. By the way, at the same time, they are bringing in different rules for employers in dealing with their employees. It is perfectly valid for them to do so, but just imagine the impact these sorts of stories have. It so happens that both the trade unions in my examples are public sector unions, and we have seen their overall membership increase, but we should not be surprised if lack of confidence has started to drift people’s concerns away on why they need to pay to be a member of a trade union.

I wish the Government would consider carefully what the removal of any of these clauses would do to help the average worker and the average trade unionist, who may not be highly connected and may not have chosen to join a political party or to dedicate their lives, from quite an early age, to being part of that trade union leadership. They should also think about, and this is one of the reasons why I got triggered, what happens when somebody completely left-field—or right-field, whatever—comes in and their union’s ruling body decides, “Yeah, we like the look of that person” and they are not sure why; it may have felt sorry that he had just lost an election elsewhere. Let us think carefully about whether it is the right approach to remove all these powers from the certification officer, which I think people from every level can see are used, rarely and not extensively, to apply some common sense.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I thank her for bringing forward these crucial amendments to oppose Clauses 76 and 78 to 83 standing part of the Bill. In doing so, she not only upholds the integrity of trade union regulation but calls out a deeply troubling double standard in the Government’s approach to industrial relations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, but not for the reasons my noble friend gave. Many years ago—Members on the Government Benches may realise quite how long ago this is when I give the names of the unions concerned, which are long since consigned to history—I was the director of a small haulage firm. It no longer exists or trades, but I cut my teeth on labour relations behind the wheel.

In our small business, which employed about 50 people, there were three types of worker: those who were not in a union at all, a small number who were with the TGWU—that dates me—and those with a new union, the United Road Transport Union. The shop steward of the URTU came to see me and said: “It’s like this, John. I think that you should recognise our union”. So I did. It was personally convenient to deal with one person rather than try to have a mass meeting with 30 or 40 people, all with different views. Unlike what some noble Lords might think of those on the Conservative Benches, I found a huge amount of value in being able to negotiate with the URTU, which had the most members but was not entirely pervasive in our company. Arthur Harris was in the TGWU—he was such a long-standing member of our business that he was employee no. 1 on our payroll system—and was not about to go to the URTU for a moment.

The point of this story is that I negotiated in good faith with the URTU and recognised that it had the most members. When making an agreement, we were somewhat apart but not completely, and I said: “Peter, put this offer to them and let’s see what they say”. He did not really want to, but the point is that I needed to make the offer as well to the other union, the TGWU, and to those members who were not in a union at all.

My noble friend made the point about the Port of Felixstowe and I inferred from her remarks that there was a single union to deal with, but that is not the landscape for many organisations. Later this evening I will talk about my experiences in local government, where there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and the GMB—and a complicated negotiating environment.

I support this amendment because it provides equality to the smaller unions, not just the big ones, some of which have their own agendas. It is incumbent on all unionised labour to at least see what is on the table, whether or not their union negotiated it. That is why my noble friend’s Amendment 257A is very important and should be given proper consideration; it recognises the complex labour landscape found in many companies, particularly in private business, not just the monolithic larger organisations where there are single unions, facility time and other things.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment, which, as she explained, addresses a fundamental democratic deficit in our current industrial relations framework. I thank my noble friend Lord Fuller for giving his personal experience of how important this deficit can be if it is not addressed.

This amendment would require trade unions to present any employer offer to their membership for a vote, regardless of whether the union leadership supports it. My noble friend gave the example of Felixstowe; others could give similar examples, such as what has been happening with the Birmingham strike. This is not an anti-union measure—it is a pro-democracy measure that seeks to strengthen the voice of individual workers within the collective bargaining process. It recognises that in a democratic society it should be workers themselves, not union officials, who decide whether an employer’s offer meets their needs and aspirations.

The principle underlying this amendment is simple and would be seen as uncontroversial in any other democratic context: those affected by a decision should have the right to make that decision for themselves. When union leaders can simply reject employer offers without consulting their membership, they effectively deny workers the fundamental right to democratic participation in decisions that fundamentally affect their livelihoods. We would surely not accept a system where parliamentary leaders could reject government proposals without allowing MPs to vote. We would not tolerate local councils where executives could dismiss motions without having to present them to councillors. The same should surely apply to trade unions.

This amendment recognises that the priorities, circumstances and risk tolerances of individual workers may differ from those of their union leadership. A young worker saving for a house deposit may take a very different view of sustained strike action from that of an established worker nearing retirement. A worker in precarious financial circumstances may prefer settlement on reasonable but suboptimal terms to prolonged uncertainty and loss of income. Surely we all want to avoid a situation where workers are denied a voice in decisions that so profoundly affect their lives.

Contrary to weakening collective bargaining, this amendment would strengthen it by increasing member engagement and ensuring that union positions truly reflect membership priorities. When workers know that they will have the final say on offers, they are more likely to engage with the bargaining process and provide clear guidance about their priorities. Enhanced member involvement can improve union negotiating positions by ensuring that they are based on genuine membership preferences rather than leadership assumptions. It can also increase employer confidence in the bargaining process by ensuring that negotiated agreements will not be undermined by membership rejection.

Although many trade unions always act in good faith when considering employer offers, this amendment would put protections into legislation to prevent bad actors denying workers their democratic voice. Without legislative safeguards, the system could enable a dangerous information asymmetry where union officials control what information reaches members and the manner in which that information is presented.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which have been tabled in good faith and with good intent, aim to clarify employees’ rights for reasonable time off and to maintain a balance of obligation between employers and employees. However, this tempting repeated emphasis on balance and responsibilities risks adding unnecessary complexities to what should be a straightforward provision. The focus on sustainable assessments closely tied to individual circumstances, while well-intentioned, may create complicated decision-making for both the employer and employees, rather than finding the guidance we are looking for.

I am not a clairvoyant; I am summing up from the notes I have in front of me. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talk about linking facility time for equality representatives with statutory performance targets in the public sector—that is what the time off is for—to introduce additional conditions aimed at ensuring accountability. The proposal for a sectoral cost assessment before these changes take effect offers a measured way of evaluating their impact. It will be important to monitor how these conditions interact with the support available to employees’ representatives to maintain an efficient and effective balance.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments. I will not comment on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, tonight. I will leave that for the Minister to deal with.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for their amendments and contributions to today’s debate.

I speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, where we seek to make the provision of facility time for equality representatives conditional on public sector employers meeting their statutory performance standards. I believe such amendments are not merely sensible but essential if we are to ensure that public resources are allocated responsibly and with accountability.

It is no secret—we hear it constantly—that politicians and civil servants routinely claim that they want to protect taxpayers’ money, yet too often the rhetoric is hollow and budgets expand unchecked. One glaring example is the unchecked proliferation of equality, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, roles in the public sector. For those unfamiliar, EDI is a branch of human resources. There are now some 10,000 EDI officers employed across public sector organisations. There has been a veritable explosion of spending that has occurred with minimal scrutiny or measurable outcomes.

Against this backdrop, it is right and proper to demand that facility time—a significant use of public resources—should be granted only to employers who are delivering on their statutory performance targets. Our amendments would introduce a performance condition that requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a public sector organisation is meeting relevant standards before facility time can be allocated.

I believe this to be a vital safeguard that Clause 62 as currently drafted just fails to provide. Clause 62 in its current form risks allowing facility time to be given indiscriminately, without regard for whether the employer is fulfilling its primary obligations to service users and taxpayers. That is a pretty laissez-faire approach, which I believe is unacceptable in an era of tightening budgets and growing demand for public services—no doubt we will hear much more of this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow morning. Without this condition, facility time risks becoming yet another unchecked entitlement, further diverting scarce resources away from front-line delivery.

We must be clear, however, that supporting and moving these amendments does not mean opposing equality representatives themselves or the very important functions they perform. Rather, it just means insisting that public funds should be spent prudently, and that facility time should be tied to organisational performance. If a public sector body is failing to meet statutory targets, I believe it is irresponsible to allow additional resource commitments without first addressing those failures. Moreover, our proposed new clause would require a sector-by-sector cost assessment of facility time, introducing much-needed transparency and evidence-based policy-making. Before expanding facility time or making it more widely available, Parliament must understand its real financial impact and weigh it carefully against the public benefits.

We urge all noble Lords to refuse to accept Clause 62 in its current form but to embrace these amendments, and then we will have a crucial performance condition. In that way, we will ensure that facility time is provided responsibly, with accountability, and only when public sector employers are meeting their statutory obligations.

However, I commend my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough on introducing what I felt were very reasonable amendments. Of course, he is drawing on extensive experience serving on council business and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, on which he served with such distinction, so I hope the Minister will accept those amendments.

I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that I was appalled by the stories she gave, showing the experience of Nurse Jennifer and Nurse Peggie. They are shocking stories, and how right she was to bring them to the attention of the Committee. There is a great worry that somewhere, deeply embedded in the system, is systemic sexism. I suppose I am looking back—it is far too long ago—to when I was, and I think I probably still am, the only man to have been appointed Minister for Women in the Cabinet. I have to say that the experience I had in that position warned me of the impending problems about which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke so passionately and so clearly.

We really have to get something right. In many ways, I know that the Bill has been put together with great haste, but Clause 62 in particular at least requires amendment, or perhaps another clause more carefully thought through should be presented to the House on Report. That is why we look forward to hearing from the Minister. We are talking about not just good governance but a necessary step to protect both taxpayers and front-line public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It seems to me that the key purpose behind this group of amendments is seeking to shift the balance of power a little bit more towards working people. I think you would find that many people in the country agree that that balance of power has swung too far against ordinary working people for too long.

I just want to very, very briefly say a word on Amendment 253 and underline the very grave sense of injustice that prison officers feel about the removal of what is a fundamental human right, the right to withdraw your labour, back in 1994. There is a sense that that did not in any way improve the Prison Service; I think many of us would agree that the Prison Service has subsequently faced huge challenges. We know of the huge problems that prison officers face very often, day to day, in their workplace: violence, poor conditions and vermin. I stress the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. Given the grave sense of injustice that is felt by people who not only stand up for fellow workers as members of the POA but stand up for a service that we could become proud of as a country, a prison service that also, I hope, does the job of rehabilitating people, we must look to engage with the POA to find a remedy to the real sense of injustice that they feel.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will quickly follow and agree with my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their speaking against the amendments in this group. We feel that these amendments collectively represent a dangerous and retrograde step that would just take us back to the industrial chaos of the 1970s.

Such amendments would fundamentally undermine the carefully balanced framework of industrial relations that has served this country well for, now, over 30 years. I suppose the conventions of the House require me to address each amendment in turn, starting with Amendment 239. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, described, this would remove Section 223 of the 1992 Act, which currently renders unlawful any industrial action taken in response to dismissals for unofficial action.

When workers engage in unofficial action—that is, action not sanctioned by their trade union and without proper balloting procedures—they are essentially taking the law into their own hands, so employers must retain the right to dismiss workers who breach their contracts in this manner. To permit official industrial action in response to such lawful dismissals would create a vicious circle where lawlessness begets more lawlessness. It would effectively immunise unofficial action from any meaningful consequences, and encourage workers to bypass the proper, democratic procedures that unions themselves have surely fought hard to establish.

Amendment 240 is perhaps the most pernicious of all these proposals. It would restore secondary action, the ability of workers not just to strike against their employer over their conditions, but to support disputes elsewhere. We banned secondary action for compelling reasons. It allows disputes to spread like wildfire across the economy, dragging innocent third parties into conflicts that have nothing to do with their industrial relationships. A dispute between workers and one employer could paralyse entire supply chains, disrupting businesses that have committed no wrong and harming workers who have no stake in the original dispute.

The amendment would also remove the sensible restrictions on picketing, allowing pickets to target any workplace, rather than just their own. This opens the door to flying pickets and the mass intimidation tactics that we witnessed in the darkest days of industrial conflict. When pickets can descend on workplaces with which they have no employment relationship, the result is not legitimate industrial pressure but mob rule. Furthermore, by changing the definition of trade disputes from those “wholly or mainly” relating to employment matters to those merely “connected with” such matters, this amendment would politicise industrial action. Strikes could be called on the flimsiest of pretexts, with only the most tenuous connection to genuine workplace issues. This is a recipe for politically motivated disruption that serves no legitimate industrial relations purpose.

Amendment 241 would restore the right to strike for union recognition. We have established statutory procedures for union recognition that are fair, democratic and effective. These procedures protect workers’ rights to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union, without the coercion that inevitably accompanies strike action. When recognition can be achieved through industrial action, the process becomes tainted by intimidation, rather than informed by genuine worker preference. No worker should ever face the choice between supporting their family and supporting union recognition demands.

Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for unions to provide employers with notice of strike ballots. This seemingly technical change would also have profound practical consequences. Employers need advance notice to make contingency arrangements, to protect vulnerable service users and to engage in meaningful dialogue that might resolve disputes before they escalate. In essential services—our hospitals, schools and transport networks—such notice is crucial for public safety. To remove this requirement would be to abandon the vital principle that industrial action should and must be a last resort rather than a first response.

Amendment 243 would eliminate the requirement for separate workplace ballots, allowing unions to aggregate completely different workplaces and employment relationships into single ballots. This strikes at the heart of democratic participation. Workers in one workplace may face entirely different conditions and concerns from those in another. They should not be bound by the votes of workers with whom they share nothing but a common union membership. Workplace-specific ballots ensure that industrial action has genuine support from those who will participate in it, rather than being imposed by a union hierarchy pursuing its own agenda.

Taken together, these amendments would create a perfect storm of industrial instability. They would restore the legal framework that gave us the winter of discontent, when rubbish piled up in our streets, bodies went unburied and hospital patients were turned away by striking workers. They would empower union leaders to spread disputes across entire industries, to bypass democratic procedures and to hold essential services hostage to political demands. We must not forget the lessons of history. The industrial relations reforms of the 1980s and 1990s did not destroy trade unionism; they civilised it. They required unions to be accountable to their members and responsive to legitimate concerns while preventing the abuse of industrial power.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, would have us believe that they simply want to restore workers’ rights. But rights without responsibilities are merely privileges, and privileges being exercised without regard for their impact on others quickly becomes tyranny. The right to strike is not an absolute right; it is a powerful tool that must be used judiciously and with proper safeguards.

Moreover, these amendments would do nothing to address the real challenges that face working people today. They would not raise a single wage, improve a single workplace or create a single job. Instead, as my noble friends pointed out, they would create uncertainty, discourage investment and ultimately harm the very workers that they purport to be helping. Businesses need stability and predictability to grow and prosper. Industrial relations law that encourages conflict and chaos will drive investment elsewhere, taking jobs and opportunities with it.

I urge this Committee to reject these amendments. They represent not progress but regression, not liberation but license, and not workers’ rights but workers’ wrongs. We must maintain the balanced approach that has served our economy and our society so well. Let us resist the siren call of those who would drag us back to an era of industrial warfare that all of us hoped that we would never see again. The choice before us is clear. We can preserve a system that protects workers’ legitimate rights while maintaining economic stability and social peace, or we can return to those bad old days of secondary picketing, political strikes and industrial anarchy. I think and I hope that I know which path this Committee would choose.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his amendments on the right to strike and for raising the issue of prisoner officers’ right to strike, which was strongly debated in the other place.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has taken such a strident approach to the issues which my noble friends have raised. Although we do not necessarily agree with everything that my noble friend has put forward, I would say equally that we distance ourselves from the tone and attitude that has been presented by the other side this evening.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and will speak to my Amendment 200ABA. Our seafarers are the engine of a vital part of our trading economy, but their conditions of work are often out of sight and out of mind. Among other problems, as set out by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, the gender imbalance and isolation on most ships has resulted, sadly, in risks for women which need clear measures of protection.

Of the 23,700 United Kingdom seafarers counted in 2024, only 16% were female. These were mainly among ratings and uncertificated officers—that is, those with the least authority and power. I heard of a nasty case of rape on a cruise ship, where the victim, significantly, said that she had no help from the HR department because she was too shocked to report it immediately. She was advised that her only recourse was to leave the ship, because the perpetrator was needed on board—a not uncommon reaction. Some privately owned super- yachts require applicants for jobs to submit photographs and “be comfortable with nudity”, which gives a flavour of the work environment.

Research from the Seafarers International Research Centre at Cardiff University shows how fearful women seafarers on cargo ships are of sexual assault and how lonely they can feel in their workplace. We have now the seafarers’ charter, announced by the Government last December. This provides the vehicle for vastly improved standards for seafarers’ working conditions, but it needs to clarify that it will specify protection against sexual harassment and bullying—hence my amendment.

Our shipping force is declining, not least in the retention of women, and there are skills gaps. This has put pressure on workplace standards, resulting in seafarers in general having a higher rate of sickness and accidents than onshore workpeople. There are industry initiatives to encourage recruitment, but little thought on making workplaces safe, convenient and welcoming to women. We can attract more people into it if everyone feels safe.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for so clearly setting out the case for a range of amendments. As he made clear, the matters under discussion go to the heart of how we uphold standards for those who work at sea, an essential part of our economy and infrastructure. Of course, we are all well aware of the extent to which the events surrounding P&O Ferries in 2022 were a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities that are faced by seafarers operating in and around UK waters. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for reminding us of some pretty stark situations that are faced by people who work in this environment.

I was very pleased and proud when the Conservative Government took clear and concrete steps to improve protections, most notably through the Seafarers Wages Act 2023, the introduction of the voluntary seafarers’ charter and a broader nine-point plan aimed at promoting fairer treatment and higher standards across the sector. These reforms represent a record of action that reflects the seriousness with which we take the obligations owed to maritime workers and our determination that what happened—that unacceptable practice that we all saw and were so concerned about—must never happen again.

Today’s amendments reflect continued concern for the welfare and rights of seafarers. They raise, though, a number of detailed questions about scope, enforcement and the role of harbour authorities. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, here to reply to this debate, because we want to hear from him how the Government see these provisions fitting alongside the reforms already undertaken. We await with bated breath his reply to this important debate.

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first speak to government Amendments 200B and 200C. These amendments relate to Clause 54, which amends the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to provide powers to make regulations giving effect to international agreements relating to maritime employment. Amendment 200B provides that such regulations cannot be used to bring into force an international agreement, or an amendment to an international agreement which requires ratification, before the UK has ratified it. By implication, the effect of this amendment is that such regulations can be made ahead of ratification of the agreement or amendment. For the UK to ratify an international agreement, it is usual for any necessary implementing legislation to be passed or made in advance of ratification, so the amendment helps ensure that the UK can fulfil its international obligations. Amendment 200C is simply a consequential drafting amendment.

Amendments 143A and 143AA, tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seek to amend the requirements of the collective redundancy notification provisions to apply to services calling at a port in Great Britain at least 52 times a year, rather than 120 times a year. We are, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, related, yet again dealing with the appalling events surrounding the P&O dispute in March 2022. As with the Seafarers’ Wages Act, the frequency requirement of this measure was designed to ensure that it applied to those services with a close enough connection to the United Kingdom to justify it. Any broadening of the scope would require further consideration of the impact of bringing further vessels into it. I will come on to the proposed amendments to the scope of the Seafarers’ Wages Act, but we do not accept the proposal to amend the scope of those measures. We will apply a consistent approach to the proposed changes to the scope of the collective redundancy requirements, which has the same frequency requirement. Any change would require stakeholder engagement and full consideration of the impacts on industry. However, having listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, we will agree to meet the trade unions, as he suggests, where a number of the issues that he has raised tonight can be further discussed, including the requirement for a summary of the Government’s position before Report.

Amendments 200AA, 200AB and 200AC, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seek to apply the measures under the Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023 as amended by this Bill to weekly services rather than those calling 120 times a year as drafted. The existing minimum frequency requirement for the new remuneration and safe working declarations is consistent with the requirements under the existing Seafarers’ Wages Act 2023, which was brought into force on 1 December 2024. It is important that this measure be limited to services with a close enough connection to the UK to justify intervention in their working practices; the current requirements in the Seafarers’ Wages Act and in the Act as amended in this Bill have been designed with this in mind. Extending the scope of this measure would require careful consideration of the international law implications of bringing into scope less frequent services to the UK, as well as the impacts on the market. With these considerations in mind, we think that the existing scope strikes the correct balance. It would also not be right to accept this amendment without undertaking a full public consultation, which cannot be done in the timescales required to make this change as part of the Bill.

Amendment 200AD and the consequential Amendments 200AE to 200AK would go beyond the existing powers in the Bill to make safe working and remuneration regulations. It would provide further powers to specify conditions relating to sick pay, holiday pay, pensions and other training, and to require harbour authorities to request the associated declarations from operators, following the approach taken by the Government in relation to the remuneration and safe working regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

Removing this clause would risk depriving many employers of a useful and necessary framework for understanding the inequality dynamics within their own workforce. Data without action achieves little. Equality action plans help translate information into strategy, encouraging employers not just to measure the problem but to engage with it. You have to have the data before you can actually deal with that. At a time when many organisations are seeking to do more to build inclusive and equitable workplaces, this clause offers structure and accountability. I urge noble Lords to resist the clause stand part notice and to support this considered and constructive provision.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Jackson of Peterborough because they rightly question whether this clause is necessary to establish what we all agree should be the vital place for equality of opportunity.

It is vital in the workplace that merit should win the day, but there should also be equality of opportunity. Women and men should have equal opportunities, fair treatment and the freedom to thrive regardless of their background. So I hope all those who have spoken, including the noble Lords, Lord Watson of Invergowrie and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, would agree that we all support equality of opportunity, not just in principle but in practice.

Therefore, it is right that every time there is another step, particularly when it creates more paperwork and more bureaucracy—as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, put it—it is important that we just question whether this is the right way to proceed, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, because this is really giving the Government power to do whatever they want to do whenever they wish to do it, by regulation. We do not know what the Government will do because they have not yet consulted on the power that we are about to give them. It is exactly what this House has always preached long and hard against. We should not give Henry VIII powers to the Government to do whatever they would like to do by statutory instrument.

I would have thought that my successor as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie—would know that more than anyone else. Giving the Government this power has to be justified. My noble friend Lady Fox of Buckley does not need me to defend her against the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, as he saw her move across the political spectrum, but she is right to question this in the way she did. As my noble friend Lady Lawlor put it, we are, in a way, promoting positive discrimination, which undermines achievement on merit.

I hope that the Minister will give very serious thought to explaining exactly what is proposed, rather than wait for the secondary legislation. Let us know, straightaway and in detail, what additional equality action plans are being proposed. We have to pause for a moment to worry about the serious and often unintended consequences that policies such as these can have, particularly for women on the margins of the labour market. The principle behind the measure is commendable —to close the gender gaps, to support women through challenges such as the menopause, and to shine a light on structural inequalities—but, in practice, these kinds of top-down mandates too often result in box-ticking compliance, statistical quotas and public relations targets, and never in real progress.

What gets measured drives what gets managed. When employers are judged by headline figures—gender pay gaps, representation in senior roles—there is an inevitable temptation for them to focus their efforts where the optics are best improved, on high-status, high-visibility roles. As a result, employers might feel pressured to hire or promote individuals with certain characteristics into elite positions just to improve those diversity statistics, rather than genuinely supporting a larger number of people, who are often the minority, who hold lower-paid, insecure or part-time roles and who would benefit most from meaningful reform.

Regardless of sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation, merit should always be the basis for the advancement of an individual. I worry that we risk a situation where the beneficiaries of an equality policy are disproportionately those who are already relatively privileged, while those in cleaning jobs, care work, warehouses, and food processing and service are pushed further to the margins. Even worse, if statistical appearances become the basis of legal or reputational risk, employers may become reluctant to hire minority women at all into lower-paying roles for fear of what the data might suggest. That is not progress; it is perverse.

I warmly applaud the fact that this debate is taking place. Equality is not achieved by engineering the statistics; it is achieved when every person, regardless of sex, class, race or role, has access to fair work, safe conditions, proper pay and genuine opportunity to get on in life. I ask colleagues to consider: will these equality action plans bring meaningful change for working-class young men, people from ethnic minorities and women on zero-hours contracts, or will they largely serve the HR departments of large organisations by helping to polish their diversity reports while little changes on the ground? We cannot effect equality by appearance; we must demand equality by substance.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for initiating this probing debate on Clause 31. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, highlighted—I like to call him my noble brother after all these years of working together—it enables us to put forward a very strong case. One can always be concerned about Henry VIII powers and secondary legislation, especially when employers are not consulted and the objective is to undermine good industrial relations. I remind my noble brother about the debates we had on the strikes Bill, which was precisely about those issues of unintended consequences.

Ensuring that women can remain in and progress in work is crucial—vital—to economic growth, and yet the national gender pay gap remains at 13.1%. We know that women often face barriers in the workplace that impact their pay, progression and economic participation. Eight in 10 menopausal women say that their workplace has no basic support in place. This lack of support is a barrier and can lead to a significant loss of talent and, just as importantly, productivity.

This is not new. As a trade unionist, I, and my noble brother opposite, know full well—we have heard about all the legislation that has been brought in—that real progress has been effected in the workplace by supporting and amplifying that legislation and giving people the tools to ensure that that legislation has an impact. As a trade unionist, I have seen many initiatives that have delivered better facilities and ensured that women can remain active in the workplace.

I remember a campaign in the 70s and 80s about breast cancer. Many women would not even dare talk about it, but the trade union movement launched a campaign for workplace screening and opened up a debate, so that people could acknowledge the risks and address them, rather than live in isolation and fear. It is important that women are able to talk about the menopause openly and can address it. Breast cancer does not make women victims. We should all be focused on how we can deliver for women. That is really important, and there are many examples.

Since 2017, large employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data. The additional publication of an action plan is precisely to do what the noble Lord opposite has said. How do we see and assess the impact? The additional publication of an action plan has been encouraged, but it is voluntary. However, analysis in 2019 discovered that only half of employers reporting data were voluntarily producing a plan on how they can make improvements. What the noble Lord described is what has happened: they produce the data and do nothing. That is why this legislation is so important, and the next step for improvements for women in the workplace is to make that mandatory.

Of course, we recognise and applaud the best employers, which already recognise the value of supporting women to thrive and are already taking action—many noble Lords addressed that. Following their lead, large employers will be required to detail the actions they are taking to improve gender equality and support employees during the menopause. The intention is to motivate employers to take meaningful action, to break down the barriers and help all women to thrive.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

131: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Right of refusal to undertake instructions which would lead to inaccessible goods or services(1) A worker has the right to refuse an instruction or direction from his employer or anyone acting for his employer such as a manager which would—(a) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the creation, development, deployment or sale of an inaccessible good or service,(b) cause the worker to undertake work which would result in the development, deployment or sale of a good or service, previously accessible, made inaccessible as a result of this instruction.(2) Any worker receiving such an instruction described in subsection (1) may report the nature of that instruction and their reason for refusing it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, as we have already heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond cannot be with us today, so I will move his amendment on his behalf and speak to the others in this group. In doing so, I declare a past interest as a consultant to the Royal National Institute of Blind People. For many years, I worked with Ian Bruce CBE, who was the director-general for many years, to promote access to work for those suffering blindness. That is particularly relevant to Amendment 297, but I will speak first to Amendment 131.

Amendment 131 raises important questions about accessibility, accountability and the role of workers in upholding inclusive standards in the goods and services we create and deliver. The principle at the heart of this proposal—that workers should not be compelled to participate in making a product or service less accessible or in producing something that excludes by design—is serious and worthy. As technology and infrastructure continue to evolve, ensuring access for all, including people with a disability, is a matter not merely of compliance but of basic fairness and social responsibility. The amendment seeks to give workers a right of refusal where they are being asked to carry out work that would knowingly—that is, knowingly to them—result in the development or sale of inaccessible goods or services. It also establishes a route for reporting such an event to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I can certainly see the intent here to empower those on the front lines of design and delivery to raise concerns and to prevent regressions in accessibility. There are of course many questions about how this would operate in practice, particularly around definitions, scope and the safeguards needed to ensure clarity and fairness for both workers and employers. These are not reasons to dismiss the amendment, but they suggest that further discussion may be needed around implementation, enforcement and the supporting mechanisms that would then make such a right meaningful and workable.

We all have a role to play in embedding accessibility into our systems and structures. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will engage with the substance of the proposal and give thought to how the principle behind it might be taken forward, whether through this amendment or through other means.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied that the Government are already taking many steps in support of disabled people, inside and outside the workplace. I therefore ask the noble Lord, my dear friend, to withdraw Amendment 131.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, who always responds positively to any suggestions that I make, particularly in the corridors of this House. I should have declared not only my long-standing work with the Royal National Institute of Blind People but the much-appreciated instructions that “Brother Hunt” used to receive in substantial form from the Transport and General Workers’ Union. I was delighted, when I was Secretary of State for Employment, to be invited to the retirement party of Mr Albert Blighton, who was much cherished by all those who worked so hard for him.

I thank the Minister. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. We disagreed a little about royal commissions. I recall being told that they took minutes but wasted years—I think it was a previous Labour Prime Minister who said that. There is a problem in that, as soon as you set up a body, you are postponing the opportunity to make the key decisions that are necessary. I guess the Minister did recognise that in his response; we do need to move on. These statistics have been at a seriously low level for a long time, and we have to find a way to break through so that people with disability are much more widely recognised as people of great talent who can contribute to the growth and competitiveness that we all so desperately want to see.

I recognise that the Government have taken a number of initiatives, and I will consult with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond as we consider how to approach this issue on Report, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 131 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment raises questions about notice periods and how they are handled under employment contracts. I make no particular case for or against it, but it draws attention to a more pressing issue: the complexity introduced by this Bill around notice periods and contractual exits. For many employers, particularly those without specialist legal support, understanding and implementing these new requirements will not be straightforward.

I am appreciative that this amendment attempts to bring some clarity and firmer parameters to that part of the framework. Striking the right balance is crucial: while shorter notice periods can support quicker recruitment and flexibility, they may limit employers’ ability to ensure a smooth handover or maintain continuity in key roles. Any reform should therefore weigh the benefits of agility against operational realities.

If the Government want compliance, they must ensure that the legislation is not only sound in principle but clear in practice. That means providing details on how these provisions interact with existing arrangements and what precisely is expected of employers. A complex system with vague guidance helps no one. That is not the first time we have made that point to the Government tonight, and we will keep doing so.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and the gentle way in which he introduced what could be a very important move to simplify what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us is becoming a hugely complicated employment situation, with so many differing, complex and contradictory requirements.

It could be said—and is being said by a number of HR departments—that this is just the sort of Bill that will give an enormous boost to human resources as a profession. There are already queues of people lining up to join HR departments. My noble friend seeks a simple aim: to incentivise shorter notice periods and avoid situations where individuals are financially disadvantaged for moving jobs, especially when their employers insist on enforcing long notice terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness said, because this is about fairness and making sure life works. There are a lot of companies, big and small, where, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working. However, there are a number of instances—including somewhere like where I work—where I do not think this would work.

I will just give your Lordships one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge insurance broker. We had a client in the United States who by 5 pm had not decided whether to renew his insurance contract in London. If he had not renewed it by 1 June—which I guess was a Sunday—he would have had no insurance on that specific part of his business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word—he was probably out and about with the phone in his pocket—and the call came through at some time after 9 pm. Looking at the way the clause is drafted, I am not sure whether that would be considered enough of an emergency to get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak. Equally, that company might have had to stop working, doing whatever it was doing in the oil and gas industry—I know that will not endear me to the noble Baroness, but that is a fact. But we had to bind that insurance contract once we got the order. It was all ready to go; it was just a question of sending a number of emails to say that it was done. So there are huge swathes of the country where it is in fact in place already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has said, but in some of the big City environments where you are working across time zones particularly, it is extremely difficult to enact.

On working from home, we all worked at home for some time; personally I loathed it—I am back in the office almost as much as I can be. However, I have members of staff who like working at home, and, let me tell your Lordships, they know how to turn themselves off when they do not want to talk to us anymore, and they are good at it. So they should be, and I respect them for it. But if you really need them, you can always find them.

Finally, you can turn the damn machines off. Be it a telephone, a computer, an iPad or whatever it is, there is an off button out there. Certainly when I was a child, we were told never to call anybody after 9 pm, and that was friends and family. So there are some unwritten rules out there that are already very effective.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing us to a fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put us in touch with the real world, and then my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Ashcombe reminded us about what happens in real life. I suppose I have immediately to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. My phrase, which I always used to share with Albert Blighton, was that I was available 168/52. The number 168 is 24 times seven. So you quickly appreciate that, as a solicitor, you have to be available all the time.

When I won the contract to represent cricket with the England and Wales Cricket Board, they wanted to know whether I would be available on a Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match, and I said, “Yes, of course I would”. So it is very much up to the individual to make themselves available.

When I was asked to join the Front Bench in the House of Commons in 1977, I do not think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an Adjournment debate, even though it might have been at 3 am, which it was on one occasion. Therefore, you set your working parameter in the way in which you develop your own workaholic tendencies, but you should not expect it of everyone, and I think that is what the amendment is all about.

Do you have the right to disconnect? Although I am sympathetic to the idea that you should be able to switch off, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, put in context, when the Bill is already introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around shift notice periods, payment for cancelled shifts and wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, we have to be very cautious about layering on yet another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation.

The noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal, giving workers a right not to respond to emails or calls outside their contracted hours, but in reality, as the Government have quickly realised, despite what they may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions. What does “working hours” mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, in customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, and in businesses operating across time zones?

Employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs. This would add yet another administrative requirement. There would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect, a consultation process, enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims. So, we must ask: is this really the right moment to introduce such sweeping regulation?

The Bill already creates new rights and obligations that will take time to bed in. There is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effect of this amendment would be to increase that uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly. A blanket legislative approach risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught, especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 141B, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

We firmly recognise the vital importance of achieving a healthy work/life balance. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, can be confident that we will indeed introduce a right to switch off. We understand that, in today’s fast-paced world, it is more important than ever to ensure that individuals and families are able to manage the demands of their work alongside their responsibilities and needs at home.

Our close consultation with businesses and civil society since the election has shown how important it is that we develop this policy in collaboration with those who will be affected: workers and the firms who employ them. The right to switch off must account for the full diversity in types of employment and sectors that exist in our modern economy. It represents a substantial shift in the way some businesses operate. This amendment does not account for that diversity and the need for collaboration. That is why we have decided to take a careful and considered approach to introducing the right to switch off, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe.

The focus for now is the Employment Rights Bill, which contains decisive and immediate action, such as reforms to flexible working that will make it easier to strike a better work/life balance. These reforms are not just policies; they are practical steps to support everyday lives and help people to draw clearer boundaries between their work and personal lives.

To add this amendment to the Bill would not do the right to switch off any justice. As drafted, it could create unnecessary burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Significant new requirements in proposed new subsection (3)(a) to (d) would force all employers, no matter their size, to produce written disconnection policies and specify new technological and organisational measures and protocols, while also establishing reporting systems for any violations. These new rules would be onerous and inflexible.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

141BA: Clause 27, page 47, line 13, at end insert—
“(B1) Subsection (A1)(a) shall not apply where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings.(C1) Where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings, the duty to consult shall arise only in accordance with subsection (1), by reference to the number of employees proposed to be dismissed at a single establishment within a period of 90 days or less.(D1) For the purposes of subsection (B1), “relevant insolvency proceedings” has the same meaning as in regulation 8(6) of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that employers in formal insolvency proceedings are not subject to the new entity-wide redundancy consultation trigger. Instead, the existing “20 or more at one establishment” threshold would apply. The amendment relies on an established definition of insolvency proceedings, consistent with Regulation 8(6) of TUPE 2006.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 141BA to 142B stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

Collective redundancies often occur in the context of an insolvency. Increasing the penalty for failure to inform and consult will exacerbate the difficulties for insolvency practitioners. Under the Insolvency Act 1986, administrators are required to act in the best interests of creditors as a whole. However, keeping employees in employment beyond the 14-day window afforded to administrators to decide whether to adopt the contract, to carry out an information and consultation process, in effect makes those employees super-priority creditors. This would elevate their claims above those of other creditors and reduce the funds available for ordinary creditors. In some cases, the resulting employment costs could make administrators reluctant to take on their role. This may lead to fewer contracts being adopted, increasing the liabilities that ultimately fall on the National Insurance Fund. Amendment 141BA gives insolvency practitioners clear legal guidance to apply the single establishment rule during consultations. This helps them make faster decisions without dealing with complex, entity-wide assessments, reducing delays and protecting insolvency processes. It supports rescuing businesses and, of course, maximising creditor returns.

I turn to Amendments 141C and 141E. Clause 27 significantly expands the duty to consult on collective redundancies. It requires employers to start a consultation if 20 or more redundancies are proposed in total across multiple establishments, even when those redundancies are unrelated. This overreaches, because simultaneous job cuts can result from distinct decisions, such as automation in a warehouse, reduced demand in customer service or restructuring in head office, affecting different people in different locations. Yet, under Clause 27, those decisions could be swept into a single mandatory consultation process simply because the total number affected crosses the arbitrary threshold. This means that HR and management teams would have to delay necessary action while they co-ordinated across unrelated departments. This means that representatives and employees would be dragged into consultations about matters with no relevance at all to them, and it risks undermining the quality of consultation itself by overloading it with conflicting priorities and timelines.

This would introduce legal uncertainty, particularly for mid-sized employers who may not have the resources to second-guess whether redundancies in different divisions are connected enough to trigger a combined consultation. If they get it wrong, they will face a protective award. If so, the risk-averse approach is to consult everyone about everything all at once. These amendments would make it clear that where redundancies across different establishments arise from a common underlying business reason, or from a connected series of events, a combined consultation is indeed required. However, where they are unconnected, made independently and for distinct reasons, the employer may conduct separate consultations at the level where the impact is felt.

Moving to Amendment 141D, we have continued to make the point that the one-sized central planning approach that this Bill uses is not appropriate. Many sectors rely heavily on seasonal or fixed-term workers. Agriculture, hospitality, logistics and retail businesses scale up and down, predictably, year in, year out. They take on workers for peak periods—the summer season, the Christmas rush, the harvest—and release them at the end of the contract. These are not sudden decisions; they are built into the business model and are clearly understood by all parties. For example, a national employer may let 12 seasonal workers go at a distribution hub in the north in July. A month later, it may make seven short-term administrative contracts redundant in the Midlands. In September, it might end six fixed-term roles in a tourist-focused retail unit in the south. Those are unconnected, expected and localised decisions. However, under Clause 27 as drafted, those 25 redundancies must be aggregated, triggering a full collective consultation process across all three events as if they were part of one co-ordinated business strategy. Is that really the policy intention?

Amendment 141F tackles the risk of retroactive liability—the possibility that employers who have already commenced consultations in good faith could be told after the fact that their earlier actions were invalid or insufficient, simply because the later redundancies pushed the total over the threshold. This problem arises from the way in which the 90-day window operates. It is measured forwards and backwards from any given proposal, which means that an employer making a set of redundancies today must ask, “Did I make others 30, 60 or 89 days ago?” If so, they now need to be bundled into a new retroactive consultation process. Let us say that an employer consults properly with a small team—five redundancies, full process, representatives informed; and then some weeks later, it identifies the need to make redundancies in another part of the business. The total now crosses the threshold and suddenly, it faces legal uncertainty. Was the earlier consultation valid? This creates a legal trap for employers acting in good faith. It penalises those who move early, communicate openly and begin consultation promptly—the very behaviours the law should be encouraging.

This amendment would bring common sense to the process. It says that where meaningful consultation on a proposed dismissal has already begun, whether individually or collectively, those redundancies are not to be re-counted towards a later threshold. It prevents the law demanding the impossible: that employers retroactively reconvene consultations that were lawfully and properly carried out before a threshold was even triggered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for tabling these amendments. We have been listening to feedback from businesses on the clause as introduced. It requires collective consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies are proposed to be made across an employer’s organisation. Businesses told us that this would put them in a constant state of consultation. That is why we have made amendments in Clause 27 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; they aim to limit the burdens on employers while still expanding protections for employees, by ensuring that collective consultation is triggered when a threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across an entire organisation.

The purpose of Clause 27 is to strengthen collective redundancy rights. The Government worked with stakeholders, including businesses, to address their concerns, which include not counting employees who are already being consulted on redundancy. We will set an appropriate threshold number in due course, via secondary legislation, following further engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. We will look to balance the interests of both employers and employees when setting this threshold. Business stake- holders have welcomed the Government’s engagement on this clause and the opportunity to input to the threshold number via a public consultation.

Amendment 141BA seeks to exclude employers going through insolvency proceedings from the scope of a new trigger for collective consultation. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, about how one expects an employer which is going insolvent to consult employees across the entire organisation. The Government believe that collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. The benefits of consultations are felt by both. I heard what the noble Lord said, and I must say that employees are an important part of the organisation, as are the suppliers and the whole supply chain. Whatever is due to them should be paid, as is the same for other creditors.

The law already recognises that consultation may not always be fully practical in insolvency situations. That is why Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a special circumstances defence for employers to depart from the collective redundancy obligations where it is genuinely justified and they have shown that they have taken all practical steps to comply. That flexibility should be applied on a case-by-case basis, not by removing that duty altogether.

Amendment 141C seeks to ensure that obligations are triggered only where redundancies are linked to a connected reason. We recognise that collective consultation will be most productive when workers and employers are focused on a common issue. However, employers and unions have told us that they believe it is not possible to define what is connected or “common reasons” in a suitable, clear way and that this could lead to more litigation. They tell us that attempting to restrict these new rights to connected redundancies in this way would create further burdens, rather than relieving them.

Amendment 141D seeks to exclude seasonal workers or those on fixed-term contracts from the scope of collective redundancy measures in the Bill. First, it may reassure the noble Lord to know that the expiry of a fixed-term contract at the end of its term does not trigger collective consultation obligations. Therefore, any fixed-term contract expiring at the end of its term will not add to the running total for the new threshold introduced for collective redundancies. We will consider further how employees on fixed-term contracts should be counted for the purposes of calculating an employer’s overall workforce that might be needed for the purposes of a national trigger for collective redundancies.

Amendment 141E aims to avoid an obligation to combine consultation by inserting two new subsections into Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but new subsection (2A) already strikes the right balance here. Employers will be well placed to determine how to divide consultations appropriately where the national threshold has been met. We agree that each group should receive meaningful collective consultation and intend to set up guidance on this point in a new code of practice.

On Amendment 141F, it is already the case that where collective consultation on redundancies has already begun those redundancies will not be counted when determining whether subsequent new redundancies reach the threshold for collective consultation. We do not believe that this should be extended to exclude employees who have been individually consulted, as individual redundancy consultations have a different character and purpose from collective consultations.

On Amendment 142, we agree with the noble Lord that the threshold number that will trigger collective consultation should be proportionate and not overly and unnecessarily burdensome on employers. However, this amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to address this issue.

On Amendment 142A, the term “establishment” has already been settled and is well understood in employment law. It works well in practice, so we consider that attempts to change the definition here would create confusion and lead to more litigation with very few clear benefits in return.

Finally, Amendment 142B would undo the Government’s extension of the protective award period to 180 days. This change was made following a full public consultation in October 2024 and has been carefully considered. It makes it harder for unscrupulous employers to price in non-compliance with their collective consultation obligations, as we saw in the case of P&O Ferries. The Government are committed to strengthening employment rights in this landmark legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 141BA.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The Minister started off by referring to government amendments. I just wonder which amendments he is referring to, because I am not aware that any other government amendments to Clause 57 are planned.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I apologise. I can be much clearer. I said the amendments tabled in the other place which are now under Clause 27.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

This has been a very valuable debate on a very important clause, Clause 27. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, who gave some practical examples, particularly of the unintended consequences of previous legislation. A lot of questions have been raised by the Minister. I do not want to prolong this debate now, so I summarise by saying that there are many questions that we still want to ask and we will be returning to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 141BA withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

That is why we are proud of Amendment 135, and I am delighted with the support we have had across the Committee. This is the Bill that can deliver paid carer’s leave; this is the Bill that should deliver paid carer’s leave. The Committee has made it clear what it thinks the Government should do in response to Amendment 135.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whose fox has not been shot.

This has been such an interesting, important, fascinating and deeply moving debate. We owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for very positively introducing the fact that unpaid carers are the backbone of the care system, and for bringing us up to date with the reality of modern families. I think the Committee has spoken with one voice as we await the reply from the Government Front Bench. Have we not united in saying what we want the Government to do? It will be very interesting to hear the response. I hope they will use every moment between now and Report to be more specific about how they wish to respond to the issues that have been thrown up in this debate.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I acknowledge the importance of kinship carers—the grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings and other close family members who step forward when children need a stable and loving environment. These individuals often take on significant responsibilities with little preparation or support, and they always do so with compassion and commitment. The contribution of kinship carers cannot be overstated. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle reminded us, they help prevent children entering the care system. They keep families together, and often do so at great personal and financial cost.

I have to acknowledge the contribution of my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who had some wonderful specific quotes to share with the Committee. There is an important strategic alliance here, particularly with the noble Baronesses, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Lister of Burtersett, and it will be important to respond positively to the points that they have made.

I believe there is a genuine case for us to explore how we might better support those who take on these caring responsibilities in such difficult circumstances. While I appreciate that statutory leave may not be straightforward to implement, especially in the current economic climate, there is room, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, suggested, for a wider conversation about what more might be done. There should therefore be further consultation on this matter—with kinship carers themselves, with businesses and with the wider public—to understand the practicalities and to gather the necessary evidence. If we can find a solution that is proportionate, workable and rooted in the realities faced by both carers and employers then that will deserve our serious consideration. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, has said, there is room here for a modest move forward that would make a significant contribution.

We have to acknowledge the moving speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton, about bereavement leave. He spoke movingly of his Commons colleague Sarah Owen, MP for Luton North, who has blazed a trail of understanding in some areas that previously have not been properly understood, and we need to respond positively to that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about serious childhood illness, pay and leave, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. That that is another area where we need to explore how we can better tackle these challenges. In all these areas, I am confident that, through continued dialogue, we can work towards a sustainable strategy.

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

My Lords, this has been another wide-ranging debate and I am grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my opposite number, just said, it has been a moving and profound debate that has demonstrated the complexities of the issues in front of us. There is unanimity across the Committee, I am sure, that we should do as much as we can to support carers. We have to ask ourselves how best we do that. We have picked up the baton from the last Government, who passed the Carer’s Leave Act, and we must move forward on that—but I am getting ahead of myself.

I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting the issue of kinship care in front of us, tabling Amendments 77, 78, 79, 134, 135 and 144. I also thank my noble friend Lord Brennan of Canton for tabling Amendment 81. I will do my best to get through these amendments at a decent pace.

I will begin with kinship care, speaking to Amendments 78 and 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I join others in emphasising how greatly I and the Government appreciate kinship carers, who generously step into the breach and offer loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. I am sure that the whole House shares these sentiments.

I reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that all employed parents and carers receive the support they need to manage both their work and their family lives. As we have heard, Amendment 78 aims to establish a new “kinship care leave” entitlement for employed kinship carers. Amendment 79 then seeks to creates a legal definition of “kinship care” to be used to establish eligibility for kinship care leave.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, himself, rightly talked about the amazing work done by kinship carers across the country, supporting children in times of greatest stress and need, in their own households, and in so doing relieving local authorities and the wider care system.

The Government recognise that the current support for working families needs improvement. We have already begun work to improve the system for kinship carers. We are defining kinship care through other legislation that is currently before this House, and later this year we will begin trialling a kinship allowance in several local authorities.

We are pleased to say that, for the first time, through the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will create a legal definition of kinship care for the purposes of specific duties within that Bill: the requirement to provide information about services to kinship families, and the duty to promote the educational achievement of children in kinship care. This will help to ensure that all local authorities interpret and apply the definition uniformly in relation to the new duty to publish information required, reducing ambiguity and potential disparities in information provided about support by different local authorities. This will, we hope, make life much easier at the sharp end of providing kinship care. It is a vital part of our commitment to keeping families together and supporting children to achieve and thrive.

I am also very pleased to say that the Government have recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance. This is the single biggest investment made by any Government in kinship care to date; indeed, it is the first of its kind. This financial commitment could transform the lives of vulnerable children who can no longer live at home. It would enable children to be raised within their extended families and communities. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and others, it would minimise disruption to their formative years, allowing them to focus on schooling and building friendships—in short, having a normal life, as we want for all our children.

In addition, qualifying employed kinship carers may already benefit from various workplace rights aimed at supporting employees in managing work alongside caring responsibilities. These include a day one right to time off for dependants, which grants a reasonable amount of unpaid leave to deal with unexpected emergencies involving a child or dependant; the right to request flexible working; and unpaid parental leave, which, through this Bill, we are making a day one right.

Employees may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but they can acquire parental responsibility through different legal methods such as a special guardianship order. The Government have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. This review will be conducted separately from the Employment Rights Bill, and work is already under way on planning for its delivery.

Amendment 77 would provide foster carers with one week of leave every 12 months. As we have heard, foster carers play a life-changing role in the lives of children who need a safe and supportive environment. At times when young people are facing significant challenges, foster parents offer not only care and security but emotional support and consistency. I pay tribute to all those who step forward to provide the essential service of foster-caring—not least, as we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who has now changed his place but is very much with us in the Chair.

It is important to highlight that a range of workplace rights already exists to help employees who take on the responsibilities of fostering. From their first day on the job, employees have the legal right to take unpaid time off in emergency situations involving their dependents. This enables them to respond swiftly to sudden issues, such as arranging care for a foster child. If a foster carer is looking after a child with a long-term illness or disability, they are entitled to carer’s leave. This provides them with up to a week of unpaid leave in a 12-month period, to manage healthcare needs or attend appointments. Those fostering with the intention of adopting may be eligible for paid adoption leave, provided they meet the necessary criteria. In addition, all employees are entitled to submit a request for flexible working arrangements from day one of their employment. Given that these existing provisions go a long way to help foster carers to balance work and their foster care responsibilities, it does not seem right to add a new entitlement without a proper assessment of the need for it and the impact it might have.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

19A: Clause 1, page 10, line 3, at end insert—
(c) in determining whether it was reasonable to enter into a limited-term contract, regard must be had to the employer’s operational circumstances and information available at the time the contract was made, including—(i) genuine short-term business needs or uncertainty,(ii) seasonal, project-based, or event-based fluctuations,(iii) relevant financial or staffing forecasts, and(iv) industry norms or practices relating to temporary contracts.(d) a decision to enter into a limited-term contract must not be considered unreasonable solely because subsequent business conditions changed in a manner not reasonably foreseeable at the time the contract was entered into.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that the reasonableness of entering into a limited-term contract should be assessed based on the employer’s operational context and the information available at the time of contracting. It lists specific factors that may be relevant to that assessment and states that unforeseeable changes in business conditions after the fact should not, by themselves, render a decision unreasonable.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, with Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe, we return to guaranteed hours. As drafted, our concern is that the Bill risks creating rigidity which does not properly reflect the real-world operational needs of businesses across key sectors of our economy, particularly retail, hospitality and tourism, all of which contain seasonal work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had already offered to have further discussions, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were looking for the draft regulations. I do not think I need to remind the Committee of my declaration of interests; at Second Reading, I reminded the House that I am still a practising solicitor. It is no accident that, last week, City AM—a newspaper circulated widely through the City—said that the Bill is the biggest boost for the legal profession that anyone had ever seen. Many more lawyers will be needed to wade through the complexities of the Bill.

In particular, as my noble friend just pointed out, we are constantly debating the Government’s power to introduce regulations, but Parliament is not allowed to see those regulations when it passes the primary legislation that gives Ministers the power, after consultation, to do whatever they wish whenever they wish to do it. We are going to have this time and again in this series of debates. Surely it is right that, if the Government are taking the power to introduce detail—in particular by amending primary legislation—we should see that detail, if only in draft, before we decide to give that power to Ministers.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I do not know whether I am allowed to intervene on this, but I wonder whether the noble Lord heard the Minister say that the Government are consulting on draft regulations. Perhaps he might ask the Minister to share those draft regulations with us during the process of consultation.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I completely agree and am very grateful to the noble Lord, who introduced the whole concept of “lumpy”. As well as “lumpy”, we are all talking about “flexible” and he also said “fluctuating”.

This has been a very helpful debate. I particularly enjoyed my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea describing the history of the introduction of the minimum wage and how it gave rise to zero-hours contracts in the first place. It is a reminder that we have to be careful every time we take a key step down the road to creating more employment law, as we have to be mindful of the consequences.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that we have to keep thinking of the start-ups and scale-ups, and the effect that this legislation will have on them. It was good that my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us of the truth behind the Low Pay Commission 2018 Report that small and micro-businesses, as she put it to the Committee, need flexibility. My noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us that one’s job quite often depends on whether it is raining, as she put it. I think it was Mark Twain who once wrote that, in England, everyone talks about the weather but no one ever does anything about it. It is a fact that demand often fluctuates according to the weather and this was a good reminder of that.

I welcome the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. His four points were key; I accept them and will carefully ponder each one—particularly his point about escape routes. Our purpose—mine and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom—is to ensure that we do not need escape routes, because we will get a law that fits the way in which the economy can grow and be more competitive. That is what it is all about. It is not about short-term contracts being the answer here and another form of contract being the answer there. Most employers want stability so that they can look forward with confidence.

How right the noble Lord was to remind us of the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. It must surely be a worry in his mind as to the effect this onerous Bill will have on those small and medium-sized enterprises looking to grow and expand that do not have an HR department that can set out for them exactly the way ahead through all the bureaucratic routes they have to follow. They want to be able to grow and expand without carefully checking which rulebook applies. They, of course, always allow bereavement leave. All the employers I have known, when there was a tragedy in a member of their workforce’s family—I am not talking about just my clients but across the whole sector—did, of course, allow people time off. Therefore, we should not be establishing rigidity.

This is where I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we do not want a two-tier system. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on our previous Committee day, there are various tiers already in the tax system. The exemption I sought in Amendment 21 surely does not in any way undermine the rights of workers but gives the Bill the flexibility it needs to succeed in practice. We have heard in this debate and from businesses across the country that a rigid one-way system for guaranteed hours simply does not reflect the way in which large parts of our economy function. Retail, hospitality, tourism, logistics, seasonal industries—all rely on flexible staffing, and they operate in environments that can shift rapidly, sometimes overnight.

I plead again with the Minister that these amendments provide a narrow, principled route for employers to propose changes: not to walk away from commitments but to respond when there is a genuine and material change in business operations. No retaliation, no loopholes, just a basic safeguard to ensure that businesses are not locked into obligations that are no longer viable.

Let us be honest, if employers are not able to make changes in response to real pressures—a drop in demand, a loss of control, over-capacity—they are far less likely to offer guaranteed hours in the first place. That is not speculation; it is what we are hearing from so many of those making representations about the Bill at the present time. The result is clear: fewer jobs offered, fewer guaranteed hours and fewer opportunities, especially for the very people who rely on flexible and part-time work. That means young people, students—who we will come to in a moment—workers with disabilities, carers and, of course, those trying to get their foot on the ladder.

Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sharpe that it would be helpful to sit down with the Minister and her colleagues to see if we can find a way through. Otherwise, we shall have to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19A withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

19B: Clause 1, page 10, line 26, at end insert—
“(13) The duty to offer guaranteed hours under Section 27BA(1) does not apply to workers who are full-time students.”Member's explanatory statement
This subsection provides that the duty to offer a guaranteed hours arrangement under Section 27BA(1) does not apply to workers who are full-time students.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, as I indicated, we now return to students and the guaranteed-hours exemption for full-time students. Amendment 19B is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

At Second Reading, I heard the Government’s intention, as part of their growth agenda, to get young people back to work who are not in education, employment or training—referred to as NEETs. Retailers provide flexible and part-time jobs tailor-made for people coming off benefits and the nearly 1 million 16 to 24 year-old NEETs. However, the evidence available clearly shows that the guaranteed-hours reforms, as currently drafted, fail to realise the realities of student employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate on the subject of those who may be made exempt from the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. First off, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is quite right that the Government have a detailed plan to get young people into work and training. Of course, we want to provide new opportunities for all young people, and we are determined to do that.

Amendment 19B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to take workers who are full-time students out of the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Government appreciate that zero-hours contracts or those sorts of arrangements can work well for many full-time students, who desire the flexibility that they provide. We have heard that from around the Chamber this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about term-time or seasonal work, but I urge him to look back through the previous debates we have had and the comments I have made, because there are a variety of ways in which employers can offer that flexibility of contract and the limited-terms contracts that could address those term-time only or seasonal work issues. I am not persuaded of his argument in that regard.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, that there are workers who nevertheless are full-time students, and they can still experience that one-sided flexibility, similarly to the workers who are studying part-time. It seems disproportionate to exclude workers from the scope of that right simply on the basis that they are enrolled in full-time studies. Full-time students may value guaranteed hours to help them manage their job around their studies or arrange their childcare in the same way as those in full-time work.

I think there is an assumption in this debate that we are talking only about a particular age group of people and that it is a group of young people who are earning some extra beer money. This is far from the case. Many full-time students are mature students with family or other caring responsibilities, or even simply with rental or mortgage commitments. For those people, guaranteed hours can be a financial lifeline. According to a 2024 TUC poll, the majority—80% of students on zero-hours contracts—also reported that they had experienced difficulties managing study and education alongside their work. They certainly, in this generation, try to manage both of those a lot more than they did in my generation, and it is now much more expected that young people will work alongside their study. Many of those students want the opportunity to have regular hours to avoid the burden of incurring long-term student debt, which they would otherwise take into their ongoing working life. As we have said, it is entirely up to the student to say what is right for them, but there are very good reasons why the guaranteed hours should apply to all people and we should not make an exemption for students.

However, as we noted, flexibility for workers is important and the Government are not seeking to change that, where workers value that flexibility and have some benefit from a zero-hours contract. As I say, that is why workers who are full-time students and want to retain their zero-hours contracts or arrangements will be able to do so by rejecting the guaranteed-hours offer. They can accept it or reject it.

However, it is the Government’s view that they should be able to choose, based on their individual circumstances, whether to accept a guaranteed-hours offer, rather than being denied that right, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks, purely on the basis of the fact that they are studying. I hope the noble Lord will look again at his amendment. I feel as if it is penalising young people and students in a way that feels quite unreasonable in the circumstances where everybody else is entitled to this right. Therefore, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a valuable debate; I agree with the Minister. Indeed, I welcomed her admission that zero-hours contracts work very well for students and are valued by them. I was interested in the TUC survey. All the surveys I have seen so far tell this Committee that full-time students do not want to lose zero-hours contracts.

It may be that the Minister will say, “Why is this amendment necessary, because they will not request full-time employment?” However, under the Bill, the employer has to work out how the business will be able to offer someone on a zero-hours contract full-time employment as and when they request it. It comes later, of course, when we are moving amendments, that we can say that it should not be the duty of the employer to give the opportunity of full-time employment; it should be the right to request full-time employment. What I think we are arguing about is whether all employers will have to go through the process in advance of any request being received. Under this legislation, they have to work out how they will be able to respond positively to an offer.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor shared the real-life experience and the way in which various students have taken advantage of these contracts. But what if they are not going to be offered them and given the opportunity of working as and when, in the flexible, lumpy way they want to organise their studies, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, pointed out? I thank him for going down memory lane; it was a fascinating glimpse of life as a stacker. I suppose all of us will remember what we did as students. I volunteered. I crossed Whiteladies Road in Bristol and offered my services to the BBC. The BBC took me on as a freelance newsreader.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

As everybody does.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Yes. I had to turn up at 5 am and then read the news.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am excited by the noble Lord’s anecdote, as I was by other noble Lords’ anecdotes, but would he perhaps concede that that was several years ago and the employment market, and indeed the student body, might have changed somewhat since then?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Sadly, yes. I was on a student grant and they were abolished, so I cannot draw too many analogies. My noble friend enticed me down memory lane.

I just wanted to see what the adverse effect of this amendment might be if we were to exclude full-time students. My noble friend Lady Coffey quite rightly reminded us that there is such an exemption in other legislation, such as that around universal credit. Therefore, the Minister will not be blazing a new trail; she will merely be responding to the very fact that, under legislation, full-time students do not necessarily fit into the pattern laid down by the Bill.

I am sure we will return to this. In the meantime, we can hardly wait for this meeting with the Minister, in which she will take us through the way this will all operate to cover flexible and lumpy employment. While reserving the right to return to the issue on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 19B withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Although the noble Lord expects me to give him a specific timeframe, I cannot do so now. I will consult with my officials and come back to him.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

On the first day in Committee, we already discussed the implementation plan of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. We then moved on to discuss the draft implementation plan, and the noble Baroness gave us a commitment. Can the the noble Lord, Lord Leong, update that commitment? By when will we see the draft implementation plan?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I give the noble Lord my commitment that it is very much a work in progress.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

33: Schedule 1, page 167, leave out lines 28 to 30 and insert—
“(2) Determining whether reasonable notice of a shift was given must include an consideration of—(a) whether the work-finding agency offered the shift to the agency worker as soon as reasonably practicable after receiving confirmed information about the shift from the hirer in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 (S. I. 3319/2003);(b) any time reasonably required by the agency to carry out suitability assessments in accordance with those Regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies how “reasonable notice” should be assessed for agency workers. It ensures that the work-finding agency must offer the shift to the worker as soon as reasonably possible after receiving confirmed details from the hirer, and after the agency has conducted suitability assessments, in line with relevant regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, as we now move to consider reasonable notice in agency work, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.

Unfortunately, and despite all their show of consultation, I believe the Government have failed to realise how agencies operate in the labour market, so once again the drafting of the Bill shows the failure of a one-size-fits-all approach. The challenge we face in the context of the Bill is clear. Work-finding agencies operate in a highly dynamic and often unpredictable environment, where the flow of information from hirers is essential in matching workers to available shifts.

This brings us to the core concern. Agencies often rely on information from hirers about the availability and cancellation of assignments. Without timely and sufficient details from hirers, agencies cannot predictably or properly fulfil their role. Therefore, any new obligation to provide reasonable notice for agency workers must consider the time taken for agencies to receive this confirmed information and make the necessary arrangements and assessments.

Regulation 18 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 lays down that an agency cannot

“introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless the agency or employment business has obtained sufficient information”

to assess the suitability of the worker for the role in question. The issue here, therefore, is straightforward. Agency workers often find themselves without income as a consequence of cancellations initiated by hirers, yet agencies are held financially liable for those decisions, even though they have no control over the cancellations.

To illustrate the risk, let me provide a scenario. A work-finding agency places an agency worker with a hirer for a shift. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the hirer cancels the shift at short notice. The agency, having no control over the cancellation, is still required to compensate the worker. The financial burden therefore falls on the agency, despite the cancellation being the decision of the hirer.

How will this amendment help to ensure that small and medium-sized agencies are not disproportionately impacted—that is what we seek to do here—bearing in mind the financial responsibility associated with hirer-induced cancellations, particularly when the business in question may already be financially vulnerable? Do the Government believe that it is justified to place the financial burden of a cancellation or curtailment on the agency when the failure to provide notice lies entirely with the hirer?

I believe that the Minister understands the complexities of the agency-worker relationship, but the Bill in its present form does not make proper allowance. How do the Government propose to monitor and enforce the full accountability of hirers for failures in notice arrangements? This is an issue that has to be faced, given the rigidity of the legislation we are required to consider under this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, which seek to clarify the framework governing agency workers, and I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this matter. It seems to me that a third person looking into this process will see the Labour Party trying to protect employees and give them 100% rights and the Conservatives trying to ensure that small and other businesses have a level playing field to employ, create jobs and grow the economy, which I thought was the Government’s objective. I wonder why, with this employment Bill, we cannot get a little closer to dealing with the mechanics.

The answer that the Minister gave to my probing amendment baffled me. I wanted to get up to ask him to explain what he said to me. Millions of people who listened to it or who read Hansard tomorrow will not have a clue. As my lumpy noble friend has said in previous debates, we seek clarity before the Act comes into power. We need to know these things. I spent four years on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The watchword on that committee was quite clear: do not give Ministers unfettered powers. What is in the tin of a Bill is what it says on the front of the tin of a Bill. I wonder whether this tin will say “tomatoes” but when you open it, you will have carrots—a problem for somebody that does not eat carrots.

Running through this group of amendments, we on these Benches are trying to bring the parties together to understand that it is a two-way thing. I have been a committed trade unionist for 25 years. I have also run a business and employed 20 people. Those two things are compatible, but they are complicated, because you have different pressures from a different standpoint. As with all legislation, we try to move it through by being sensible and finding common ground for what the trade union movement wants, what the Government want and what employers want. I had guests in yesterday who were asking about the Bill. I roughly outlined it, and they could not believe it. They employ 30 people. They said, “We can’t afford HR, we can’t afford lawyers, we can’t afford for people to take us to tribunals. We just want to employ people, make a small profit and grow the business”. I cannot understand how this has become so complicated.

On Amendment 33, concerning the interpretation of “reasonable notice” when shifts are offered to agency workers, the aim appears to be to require agencies to make offers promptly once details are confirmed by the hirer and all the checks have been completed. While this may be an attempt to bring greater clarity, I question whether that proposal and that language fully address the practical realities of agency work. The intention may be sound, but there is a risk of replacing one form of ambiguity with another. That said, for agency workers some degree of predictability and transparency is important and long overdue.

Amendment 36 introduces the idea of joint liability between work-finding agencies and hirers when a shift is cancelled or curtailed at short notice. There is merit in exploring whether a shared responsibility could lead to fairer outcomes, particularly when neither party should be able to shift all risk on to the other. Equally, it is important to consider how such provision would work in practice and whether it risks disincentivising the use of agency labour altogether.

Amendment 37 proposes that compensation should be triggered only when a shift has been formally confirmed, rather than relying on the more subjective “reasonable belief” test. I appreciate the effort to bring objectivity to a murky area, but workers should not be left guessing whether an assurance from an agency amounts to a genuine commitment. We need to understand how this might interact with the fast-moving nature of some temporary staffing such as seasonal work or that connected with the weather. Ambiguity in the current framework serves no one, least of all the workers.

Finally, Amendment 38 provides that the agency would not be liable to pay compensation where the hirer fails to give appropriate cancellation notice. This is arguably a fairer allocation of risk, as agencies should not be penalised for the failure of others. However, it must be clear that such changes would not weaken the overall protections intended for the worker.

While these amendments raise important issues around the treatment of agency workers, I am not yet convinced that they strike the right balance in all aspects. There is a risk that in seeking to impose clearer structures, we introduce new complexities and unintended burdens. I think that this is what the Government are trying to say. Nevertheless, the underlying objectives—clarity, fairness and accountability—are ones that we should continue to pursue. Any changes to the framework must support clearer obligations and deliver fairer outcomes, for the workers and for the agencies and hirers. If these amendments highlight anything, it is the pressing need for the Government to offer clarity and consistency in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

So, the Bill includes provisions in new paragraph 27 to enable agencies to recover costs from the hirer, but only where the arrangement between the agency and hirer was entered into no later than two months from Royal Assent and not modified since. The Government consider this the right approach to protect contractual freedom while ensuring timely payments for agency workers. It will protect agencies in existing arrangements from being liable for payments that they were not responsible for incurring. I hope those responses reassure the noble Lord and that he can withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a helpful short debate. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, in seeking clarity, fairness and consistency. The Minister has given us some answers to the questions we posed, but it is just another example of where it is so important to think through the issues, as they affect all those who are in any way covered by the Bill. We will need to return to this matter during the further passage of the Bill to ensure that my objective and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is fulfilled—namely, that the provisions offer a fair and workable solution for all the parties involved.

Lastly, in an unguarded moment, the Minister, in responding to the previous amendment, said that the draft implementation plan was “a work in progress” and that he was considering it with his colleagues. I make an offer on behalf of all in the Committee: we would be willing to help this work in progress by looking carefully through the first draft of the implementation plan, while accepting that it may not be the final draft. At least it would give us an idea of what is in the Government’s mind as to implementing rather complicated provisions in the Bill, which are currently shrouded in some degree of mystery as to what they will bring forward in secondary legislation.

I just repeat what we have said several times in the debate so far: when you amend primary legislation through secondary legislation, it is far better, in our view, to have those amendments in the Bill rather than being left to some further process—admittedly, consultation—that would then amend that primary legislation through secondary legislation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I too have served on the other committees of this House, which find that Governments perhaps do not give secondary legislation the priority it needs but should never seek to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation. Many of our committees have said that time and again. If we could see the first draft of the implementation plan, we could assist the Minister and his colleagues to get this Bill right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

62: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment: sections 1 to 8(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a review of—(a) the impact of sections 1 to 8 on the operation of employment tribunals, and(b) the ability of employment tribunals to manage any increase in applications resulting from those sections.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the review made under subsection (1) and the Government’s response to the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact on the employment tribunals of the Bill’s provisions on zero hours workers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we now move to consider the impact assessments, or lack of them. Amendment 62, which I will speak to first, considers the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hour contract provisions. Amendment 63 would require an impact assessment within six months, specifically for the hospitality sector, the retail sector and the health and social care sector. I greatly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who has kindly given her name to that amendment, along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

Earlier this week we heard, and it was reported in the Financial Times, that the UK employment tribunal backlog had hit record levels. Some 49,800 cases were waiting to be heard by an employment tribunal at the end of the final quarter of last year, up from 39,000 in the same period of 2023. That is according to data from HM Courts & Tribunals Service. Earlier this afternoon, the Government refused to accept Amendment 21, which I spoke to and which would allow businesses to make a dismissal in the case of genuine business needs. By rejecting this amendment, as well as any suggestion from businesses throughout their consultation, I think that the Government are risking overloading the employment tribunal system even more than is the case today.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the Government have previously tabled so-called technical amendments that would have required employers to make work available to zero-hour workers. This alone highlights how impractical the current zero-hour contract provisions are when viewed through the lens of tribunal risk. It is deeply concerning, in particular, that the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the Government’s impact assessment on day-one rights over unfair dismissal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Fox and Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Stowell, for their contributions, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 62 and 63. These amendments cover the impact of the Bill’s zero-hour contracts provisions on the employment tribunal system and on specific sectors.

Let me place on record that the Government recognise the vast contribution that the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors make to the nation’s economy, and that they employ millions of people. I will give some examples. The hospitality sector currently employs 330,000 people on zero-hours contracts, which makes up 28.9% of the workforce. The retail and wholesale sector employs close to 90,000 people, equating to 7.8% of the workforce. The health and social care sector employs 190,000 people, contributing 16.5% of the workforce.

Zero-hours contracts offer flexibility for some workers, but evidence indicates that they have been exploited by certain UK companies, leading to job insecurity and limited work rights. This pro-business, pro-worker Bill aims to address these issues by effective enforcement and by closing the loopholes, to ensure fair treatment for all workers so that we can grow our economy.

Amendment 63 seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill on specific sectors of the economy within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee will know, the Government have already published a very comprehensive set of 27 impact assessments, spanning close to 1,000 pages. These are based on the best available evidence of the sectors likely to be affected by these measures. As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, the RPC’s opinions refer to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment and not to the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow. We will therefore be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue consultation and engagement.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Can the noble Lord respond to the red rating which the RPC has given the Government’s impact assessment? Are the Government continuing discussions with the Regulatory Policy Committee to try to reverse that red rating, to meet the necessary requirements that the Regulatory Policy Committee imposes on all Governments? When will we see an end to the red rating and an acceptance that the Government have learned from the experience and judgment of the RPC?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. This impact assessment will continue. I will be mentioning later in my speech that there will be further impact assessments. Regarding his specific point about the RPC’s rating, I will write to him.

We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that analysis is published outlining this. We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, to meet our Better Regulation requirements. In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, as we have said on previous groups, including those from the sectors listed in the amendment.

Amendment 62 would insert a new clause to require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill. The detailed package of analysis, to which I referred a moment ago, also includes an illustrative impact assessment of the Bill’s measures on employment tribunal cases. We intend to refine this over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. We recognise the importance of assessing the impact of these policies on the enforcement system and have worked in partnership with these organisations throughout policy development.

We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, as I mentioned earlier. In the meantime, the Government are taking various steps to increase capacity within the employment tribunal system. For example, ACAS currently provides information to employees and employers on employment law, and early conciliation for potential employment tribunal claims. It also offers post-claim conciliation. The Government have taken various steps to increase capacity, such as the deployment of legal caseworkers and recruitment of additional judges.

HMCTS continues to invest in improving tribunal productivity through the deployment of legal officers to actively manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We are committed to looking at what more we can do in this area, working with the Ministry of Justice and wider stakeholders such as ACAS, as I just mentioned. We are already helping many employers and workers to reach settlement before they need to go on to a further hearing.

Our work will also include looking at opportunities for the fair work agency to take on enforcement, where that would help both workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to an employment tribunal.

I refer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about gaps in the Bill. The Bill does not have any gaps. Some elements of the Bill await engagement or future engagement and consultation with stakeholders, so that we can ensure that the policies work for all involved.

I hope I have reassured your Lordships and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. At the rate the Bill is going, we may reach recess before we come back again to discuss it further.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, that was a very significant admission by the Minister, for which we thank him. We will need the recess to rethink quite a lot of the Bill.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that this is a gap-filled Bill. I know that the Minister is told in his brief to say there are no gaps, but there are gaps. Wherever you look in the Bill, there is further work to be done before the Government will say what they will do. It takes huge powers—Henry VIII powers—to amend primary legislation through statutory instruments. That is a hugely significant step, and we as a reasonably sensible Chamber cannot possibly allow the Government to get away with that.

You cannot get away with saying to Parliament, “We’re not going to give you the detail of what we’re going to do. Indeed, we’re not going to tell you what we’re going to do, because we’re going to consult and then we will do it by statutory instrument”. That is not the way to legislate. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has been very helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for reminding us about the creative industry—the gig industry.

As the noble Baroness reminded us, we have to have a relevant impact assessment so that Parliament can see what effect the Bill will have on a rapidly changing workforce. The workforce has changed dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years and the modern landscape has changed substantially.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate what he has said. We are all for parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill—we welcome it. We welcome every single amendment and clause being scrutinised. The Government believe that the delegated powers in the Bill are necessary. I am pleased, as the noble Lord will have noted, that the DPRRC found it

“heartening that in a Bill with so many … powers it has only found four on which to raise concerns”.

The Government will respond formally in due course to the DPRRC.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I just happen to have the report of the DPRRC here, and it does raise serious concerns. One of the concerns it has constantly raised about all Governments is that they should not amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. They should be upfront about what they are going to do, and change.

It may well be that the Minister will take great comfort in the fact that there are only 18 black lines of criticism—18. I hope that he will take the advantage that has been given to him on all sides to take the Bill away and try to find a better solution.

We must not forget that the Bill I originally saw at Second Reading in the House of Commons has changed substantially: 160 amendments were tabled on Report in the Commons. They were not scrutinised line by line—they could not be, because they were produced at the last moment.

The Government have to recognise that, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it may well be that the Bill is going to disincentivise a whole range of employment situations, which is going to have a massive impact on the whole employment scene. It may well be that my noble friend is right that it is going to create more problems. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already got a major concession concerning the utilisation of the recess, but we need to pause and say to the Government, can we now see the overall impact assessment and, in particular, have an undertaking that they will continue to scrutinise carefully the effect of all this legislation on the employment market before it is too late?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I was looking to a longer holiday for us all to scrutinise the Bill. There is no need for the Minister to keep clarifying his comments. I just take them at face value, and it is an undertaking on his part to reflect on all the issues that have been raised, particularly the impact assessment. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

68: Clause 10, page 37, line 9, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) in subsection (2), for “four” substitute “two”.”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 standing in my name. I will speak to Amendment 68 first. It concerns the removal of the three-day waiting period for statutory sick pay. While we recognise the principle of supporting workers during periods of ill health, we also have to acknowledge the pressures that this places on employers, particularly small businesses which, unlike the state, bear the direct cost of statutory sick pay.

The original waiting period served as a guard-rail, ensuring that statutory sick pay was reserved for genuine and sustained periods of incapacity. Its removal would risk increasing claims for short-term absences, many of which might previously have gone unclaimed or been resolved informally.

The proposal in the Bill to abolish waiting days for statutory sick pay for all workers, including those on temporary contracts and working via employment agencies, introduces an additional cost burden for many small and medium-sized recruitment firms in particular, especially in a period of stagnant growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have moved on and that we are now debating the Bill’s important provisions to improve the provision of statutory sick pay for millions of people across the country. I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 on this topic and speaking to them. These amendments would significantly change the statutory sick pay measures in the Bill.

The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship. Strengthening statutory sick pay is part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring that the statutory net of sick pay is available to those who need it most. These changes are important. Estimates indicate that up to 33% of influenza-like illnesses are acquired in the workplace. One sick employee coming into work can lead to 12% of the workforce becoming sick, according to WPI Economics’ modelling.

The changes to remove the waiting period and lower earnings limit from the SSP system will therefore benefit employers by reducing presenteeism, which in turn can lead to overall productivity increases and can contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff. This can help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, and also contribute to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I will turn first to Amendments 68 and 70. Removing the waiting period is essential to ensure that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover from being sick, regardless of whether they are an agency worker. Removing the waiting period will also better enable phased returns to work, which evidence shows can be an effective tool in supporting people with long-term health conditions to return to and stay in work. This change should help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, contributing to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I regret that the noble Lord’s amendment would make this more challenging, as it would mean that employees would have to take two consecutive days off to be eligible for statutory sick pay. I do, however, understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the impact of the waiting period removal on businesses, but if employers have the right policies and practices in place—and most good employers do—the risks of inappropriate absenteeism can, of course, be mitigated. Crucially, the additional cost to business of the SSP reforms is around a relatively modest £15 per employee. We have been lobbied from both directions on these provisions because, for example, many on our own Benches would say that the rates we are proposing here should be much higher. I am sure they will make their concerns heard at some point during the passage of the Bill. It is not a great deal of money—as I say, it is £15 per employee—and it is certainly aimed at the lower rate that could be available.

On Amendment 69 regarding agency workers, one of the fundamental principles of the Bill is to ensure that people who work through employment agencies and employment businesses have comparable rights and protections to their counterparts who are directly employed. Amendments that limit the entitlement of agency workers would undermine this objective and have no reasonable justification. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that employment agencies have more of an arm’s-length arrangement with their agency workers, but I would say the opposite: in fact, employment agencies are in a powerful relationship over their agency workers, meaning that those workers are less likely to abuse such a scheme.

Amendment 71 seeks to limit the maximum entitlement of SSP for employees with multiple employers so that they would receive no more statutory sick pay than they would be entitled to if they worked for only one employer. However, this would be administratively very complicated to deliver for businesses, particularly SMEs, and carries a high risk of SSP being miscalculated and employees being underpaid. It would particularly harm the very lowest-paid people who are working a limited number of hours. I also question the necessity of such an amendment. As it stands, employees with more than one job can already receive SSP from their employers if they earn above the lower earnings limit. The measures in the Bill will not change that, and I regret that this amendment would impact only the lowest-paid employees.

That is all I have to say on this issue at this stage, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that the Minister says that she understands the concern that has been expressed. We are aware too that many agencies have raised with the Government the serious impact on small businesses and the risk of increased absenteeism. I believe their concerns are valid and I hope the Minister will continue to keep an open door for those agencies to perhaps respond in more detail directly to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, it would be very helpful if he could confirm and clarify that, in expressing a concern that removing the waiting days would lead to more and sporadic absenteeism, it is not being implied that workers are swinging the lead. If it was being implied, where is the evidence?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Of course it is not being implied. It is outrageous that the noble Baroness should think so and voice so in this debate, which has seen a very calm and careful consideration by the Minister, who sets a good example for us all. I hope the noble Baroness will follow it. I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 68 withdrawn.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Frost, and I will speak very briefly. I am concerned about the Government’s likely resistance to this amendment being moved, because this goes to the very heart of what the Bill is about: proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

We have had many debates about the Delegated Legislation Committee and its significant reservations about the enabling powers and Henry VIII powers which will potentially be discharged by Ministers. The kernel of the debate is: why should we of necessity default to just one regulatory regime? People like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will say that it is our closest economic partner and, of course, it is absolutely logical.

I hesitate, because I know I will be accused of relitigating the Brexit battles, from which I have many scars on my back. However, the fact of the matter, is that, rightly or wrongly, we no longer have direct input into the design and execution of those regulations. So to put in primary legislation, with the background of the Delegated Legislation Committee expressing those significant reservations, a sub-clause which defaults to the position that any regulation, because it comes from the EU, is of necessity the right regulation for our country—in the context, as we have previously debated in Committee and on Report, of an expanding global economy where we will be trading with many different countries and different regulatory regimes outside the European Union—seems to me to be a mistake. On that basis, it is eminently reasonable and sensible for Parliament to have the opportunity to look in detail at these regulations via the affirmative procedure.

For that reason—I know the hour is late and there is other pressing business in the House—I ask Ministers to at least look at supporting this very important amendment on Third Reading. On that basis, I am delighted to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Frost.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, to echo what my noble friend Lord Lansley has just said, we are reflecting at the moment on how this country is governed and the extent to which the Executive can be held to account.

In many ways we take pride in our committees. I know from what he has said in the past about government legislation that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has many times criticised what we describe as skeleton Bills. In effect, the Government are saying, “Please allow us to do whatever we eventually decide we would like to do, but give us that power now and we will then do it by secondary legislation”. Speaking as the immediate past Chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I always worked very closely with my colleagues in the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Although my noble friend Lord Lansley said a few moments ago that the Government had introduced a number of amendments, they came back before the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which said, “That’s not enough”. So, in a way, we are now deciding whether or not the Government are right to ignore the unanimous report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I turn to Amendments 48, 57 and 58 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I commend my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Lansley, for all that they have said. But, to summarise, this is our last real opportunity to deal with what is in effect a skeleton Bill that allows an unacceptable transfer of power from an elected legislature to the Executive.

We welcome the amendments the Government have put forward, but let me quote from paragraph 8 of the unanimous report of 20 February from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, from which I have quoted before. Having considered all the issues, it said,

“these are limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill”.

There is of course provision for consultation, which is warmly to be welcomed, but the committee said,

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

Surely, we as a House must agree with that.

It is not enough simply to engage stakeholders behind closed doors while sidelining proper legislative oversight. The Bill in its current form creates a dangerous precedent. This Parliament is asked to cede control over critical regulatory decisions in favour of unchecked Executive power. That is surely not how this democracy should function. If the Government are serious about ensuring transparency, accountability and proper legislative oversight, they must surely go beyond mere consultation and commit to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny at every stage of the regulatory process.

In a moment we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Leong. Will he allow me to quote him? In Committee on 20 November, he said this:

“Some regulations will relate to very minor technical changes, so it really would be taking up too much parliamentary time for that, whereas other regulations may need a full scrutiny, and we will have avenues for that”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. 39.]


What I ask is—and I hope the Minister will reply in a moment—what are those avenues exactly? The Government are yet to provide any clarity at all on how they will distinguish between so-called minor technical changes and more significant regulatory shifts. They have yet to explain why the negative procedure will apply to all subsequent provisions. If some regulations will require full scrutiny, as the Minister acknowledged, why do his Government, in this Bill, predetermine that every future provision beyond the first use of the power will require the negative procedure?

The Government cannot state for a fact that all future provisions will be technical. Markets change, technology advances and legal interpretations, as all lawyers in this House know only too well, will shift. This is precisely why proper parliamentary scrutiny must remain in place for all product and metrology regulations, as recommended by a committee of this House. If the Government concede that some regulations may need full scrutiny then it follows that the affirmative procedure should apply in all cases. Anything less simply hands Ministers a blank cheque to determine the level of scrutiny after the fact, with Parliament left powerless to insist on proper oversight.

I said that I would refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, because I remember what he said. I looked it up when I heard he was going to be here. He said about the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, admittedly in 2021:

“We are increasingly seeing the use of skeleton Bills and Henry VIII clauses. We really must come to a point where we say to the Government”—


I would add any subsequent Governments—

“that we will not put up with this any longer”.—[Official Report, 12/1/21; col. 657.]

As he reflects on his words, I hope he will offer some wise advice to his good colleague.

I urge the Government to reconsider their position and accept the DPRRC’s recommendation that powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are, in all cases, subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny. Surely that is the very least that is required to ensure proper democratic accountability.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will speak to the government amendment and respond to the debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the development of the government amendment for raising in Committee the important matter of ensuring that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under the Bill.

I will touch first on the affirmative procedure. In the light of concerns from Peers, the DPRRC and the House of Lords Constitution Committee, Amendment 55 increases the number of provisions that will be subject to the affirmative procedure to include certain types of new or novel provisions. These provisions are product regulations made in relation to online marketplaces and where requirements are imposed for the first time on any new category of actors in the market. The amendment will ensure that appropriate parliamentary scrutiny is applied to new regulatory approaches for online marketplaces, and for regulations that place duties and product requirements on new supply chain actors for the first time, while maintaining the flexibility to make timely, uncontentious technical updates to existing regulations.

However, the Government accept that making regulations for new or novel matters makes the higher level of parliamentary scrutiny more appropriate. Therefore, when product regulations made under the Bill seek to impose a requirement on a new type of supply chain actor that is not otherwise listed in Clause 2(3), the affirmative procedure will apply the first time such requirements are laid.

I turn to Amendments 48, 56, 57 and 58. I thank all noble Lords for their concerns regarding the affirmative procedure. On Amendment 48, we discussed the importance of consultation last week, particularly in relation to the Government’s statutory consultation amendment. I do not really want to repeat these arguments, apart from saying that regulations brought forward under this Bill will have been informed by consultation with key stakeholders. Specifically, on Amendment 43A, our recently published code of conduct sets out that regulations under this Bill will be subject to assessment and engagement with an appropriate range of stakeholders, including scientific evidence where appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

48: Clause 9, page 9, line 33, at end insert—
“(5) Regulations made under this section that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(6) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;(b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.(7) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires that any regulations made under Clause 9 that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that there is any need to detain the House very much longer, except to say one thing. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, was shouting from a sedentary position when I quoted him earlier. I just remind him that he said the only answer is the super-affirmative procedure. Does he remember that? That is what he advocated. All I am asking for this House to agree is that the affirmative procedure is the right approach. I do so, finally, by quoting a committee that I thought we all respected. The Delegated Powers Committee has looked at all the government amendments and, in a unanimous report, agreed by all the parties on the committee, concluded this:

“We would add that, even if the House were to agree to those delegations of power, in our view those powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are in all cases subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny”.


That is why I beg to move Amendment 48 and wish to test the opinion of the House.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will try to be brief on this set of government amendments, as outlined in the Marshalled List. They are largely intended to ensure absolute clarity and that the Bill covers a number of matters raised by noble Lords in Committee. Amendments 14 and 17 make clear that the Bill’s powers are able to set requirements on how products are installed in wider systems and on the people who carry out that installation. Many products do not operate in isolation and their safety can be significantly affected by how they are installed in the wider systems. As I explained in Committee, the Bill already enables requirements to be set on the installation of products. However, I accept that absolute clarity on this matter in the Bill is helpful.

Amendment 23 covers a similar matter. The Bill covers tangible products and the risks they present. Software is now a fundamental component of many physical products and can significantly affect their risk profile. Amendment 23 makes clear that software as a component of the physical product is included.

Amendments 50 and 51 relate to the definition of online marketplaces. These amendments reflect the points raised by noble Lords in Committee and aim to ensure that marketplaces that are part of a wider platform —such as Facebook Marketplace as part of Facebook—are captured. Our use of a broad and clear definition of online marketplaces in the Bill enables new requirements to be introduced in a flexible and proportionate way via secondary legislation by using the powers provided in the Bill—for instance, by tailoring specific requirements to particular online marketplace activities or business models.

On Amendment 67, which addresses aviation, in Committee my noble friend Lord Liddle raised the question of wider products used in aviation. The Department for Transport oversees a comprehensive body of legislation that extends beyond the finished aircraft to the whole system of components that make it up. The Government have no plans to create any kind of parallel regulatory framework. This amendment therefore clarifies that, alongside the exclusion of aircraft, the Bill does not apply to component products and parts in so far as they are used or designed for use in aircraft. As an exception to this, the amendment would allow for the Bill’s powers to be used in relation to unmanned aircraft that are toys, or for radio equipment used to operate or control unmanned aircraft.

It is useful to clarify that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill, but we are aware of questions from industry about several other areas. We will always work closely with all sectors before bringing regulations, but it is not our intention to use the powers under the Bill to regulate where there are existing comprehensive product regulatory regimes—for example, in relation to transportable pressure equipment and ships and their equipment.

I hope I have been able to provide assurance to noble Lords and I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, while the Minister recovers his breath, we will all carefully reflect on every word that he has just said but, given the speed with which he delivered that speech, I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond in detail. I shall just deal with what we believe is the overly broad current definition of an “online marketplace”, as the scope could be inadvertent. I speak to Amendments 49 and 53 on behalf of my noble friend.

The current definition of an online marketplace would inadvertently capture a number of online services not thought of as marketplaces, such as search engines, online advertisements and price comparison websites. Potentially, even further removed services, such as app stores, could be captured by this proposed definition. This risks placing disproportionate requirements on services whose functionality is not what the Bill is intended to regulate and will require careful drafting of the necessary secondary legislation to avoid confusion and potential challenges. That is not guaranteed, however, due to the extensive delegation of powers and limited oversight provided by the Bill.

This broad scope will create unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses that were never intended to be covered by the legislation. It could also discourage innovation and investment in digital services if companies fear that they will be subject to complex and costly compliance requirements. Our amended definition would therefore capture services that are not meant to be dealt with under the Bill but is more appropriate in its scope when it comes to goods and products, giving greater context and identifying the subjects of the sellers being provided, namely consumers and third-party sellers. I hope that gives an indication to the Minister of why we feel these amendments are required.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in the amendments that he is putting forward, really puts his finger on the problem and the challenge of defining an online marketplace. What was not an online marketplace yesterday can be one tomorrow. You can be looking at what starts off as a chat site where people exchange photographs, which suddenly becomes somewhere you can sell things. The problem that we therefore have, in being very specific in the definition, is that we create the loopholes for other people to use.

I am sympathetic to the problem that the noble Lord sets out, which is the inadvertent inclusion of other things, but the more we try to nail it down with a framework, the less likely we are to legislate for what is coming round the corner. I am very happy to have that discussion with the noble Lord. Perhaps there is a way of having something that can flexibly move, but we have all seen the changing world of online selling—it is absolutely changing every day. I am sympathetic, but sceptical that the amendment would do what we need it to do.

I co-signed government Amendments 23 and 51, which took on board issues that I brought forward in Committee. I thank the Minister for his reaction to that. Overall, with the exception of that key issue—marketplaces are where this is happening and we need a process whereby liability can be properly attributed, but I am convinced that primary legislation will not be the place to do that because of the changing world that we live in—and with those provisos, I think we need a way of moving forward that gives us that flexibility.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1)

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 2, I will speak also to Amendment 60, both standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Amendment 2 seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under “Product regulations”.

As my noble friend stated in Committee:

“Clause 1 grants wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations through statutory instruments, SIs, a process with limited parliamentary oversight. Such discretion risks undermining democratic accountability, as SIs are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 20/11/24; col. GC 24.]


Unfortunately, since Committee, the Government, despite the valiant efforts of the Minister, have still failed to address this adequately.

I am very grateful for the tremendous amount of work that has been done on the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. In October last year, the DPRRC published its second report on the Bill after an evidence session with the Minister and his Commons colleague. The committee was not mollified and, on 28 October, published the following:

“In our view, the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the democratically appointed legislature to the Executive”.


Having now had a chance to look at the Government’s recent concessions, the committee has just published its latest views, on 21 February. Its unanimous view is that

“these are limited changes that do little to address the significant concerns that we expressed about the Bill in our Reports of 15 and 28 October. The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill … We remain of the view that … the delegation to Ministers of law-making powers in this Bill involves legislative power shifting to an unacceptable extent from the legislature to the Executive”.

Nothing, therefore, has changed.

Meanwhile, on 18 October our colleagues on the Constitution Committee also published a very scathing report. They unpicked the Government’s arguments that much of the existing law in these areas is already secondary legislation by pointing out that the transposition of EU law into domestic law by way of secondary legislation was previously constrained by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, which allowed for the use of delegated powers only to implement EU law, and that invariably this law had been subject to scrutiny by EU law-making institutions. They were backed up by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee, among others.

This Bill will replace those limited secondary powers with potentially open-ended ones. I do acknowledge—and the House must acknowledge—that the Government, and in particular the Minister, have moved a long way in terms of consultation and some use of affirmative powers. Nevertheless, the DPRRC noted on 21 February that,

“even if the House were to agree to those delegations of power, in our view those powers should be constrained so that product regulations and metrology regulations are in all cases subject to affirmative procedure scrutiny”.

This is not to oppose for the sake of opposition; it is a vital issue of principle. We take the view that, if two vitally important committees of this House express such serious reservations on more than one occasion, those reservations should be taken seriously. We accept, of course, that the Government have the right to disagree and to make their case—indeed, we did so in government on a number of occasions—but this Bill quite simply asks us to go too far.

It is not just the committees that think this. I speak, of course, as the immediate past chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We have dealt so much in the past with the inadequacy of controls on the Executive so far as secondary legislation is concerned. I do not know whether the House will remember— I do not want to go too far back in history—but the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee published on 10 October 2022 Losing Impact: Why the Government’s Impact Assessment System is Failing Parliament and the Public. Then, on 2 February 2023, came Losing Control? The Implications for Parliament of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill. Even more important was the report published as long ago as 24 November 2021—so this is a reflection on the previous Government—entitled Government by Diktat: A Call to Return Power to Parliament. I suppose that is what I am now asking for.

I do have an ally. My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has quoted very persuasively already, although he was unconstitutionally interrupted twice by my fellow Lord Hunt, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. This was totally contrary to the rulebook, as I understand it—but I hesitate to criticise because I am sure I have probably done the same thing myself. Report stage, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, quite correctly pointed out, is constrained. Here am I, asking everyone to pay attention to the views of our Select Committees; I should also ask everyone to pay attention to the Companion.

It is quite right. I saw the Attorney-General last night during the course of the votes and warned him that we would be quoting, as my noble friend did, from his Bingham Lecture. I thought it was an absolutely brilliant lecture. Indeed, it was so good that I circulated it at the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, will know, to all my fellow members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and asked the clerk to make sure that all our Select Committees were made aware of what was, I felt, a brilliant speech by the Attorney-General.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope this assures noble Lords that the regulation-making powers in the Bill serve the interests of consumers and provide clarity for businesses, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, by allowing our product regulation framework to be responsive. Consequently, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I thank the Minister for his kind tribute to me at the start of his remarks. We have had a good tour d’horizon. It reminds me of someone I always counted on in moments like this; we still hugely miss Lord Judge. He taught me so much about Henry VIII clauses. In fact, he told me things that I did not know as a practising solicitor. He was brilliant, and we miss him so much.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox—I read his contributions in Committee, particularly about the Delegated Powers Committee—that he was in total agreement, and I do not know what has happened. Perhaps we should have a consultation about a consultation. I will come back to what the Minister said in just a moment. The Attorney-General said that

“the new Government offers an opportunity for a reset in the way that Government thinks about these issues. This means … a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.

The one message that I take from this short debate—but one of great substance—is that we need to give further reflection to the Private Member’s Bill of the noble friend of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill. I made a special journey—I will not go into the detail—to support that Bill. My colleagues on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee thought it was a breath of fresh air, but it met with a stonewall from the Government. If only the Government would just think again about how we deal with secondary legislation, so much of what we have been discussing would be unnecessary.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, how wounding it can be to describe this important constitutional debate as a wrecking amendment. I was giving the Minister an opportunity to come forward with some new proposals. He has failed to convince the Delegated Powers Committee. Are we to consign that committee’s further report to the rubbish tip? I will not; I will continue to return to its theme that the Government have got it wrong at the moment.

It is perfectly possible for the Government to come forward with something on Third Reading. If we pass Amendment 2 tonight—I am minded to test the opinion of the House—the Government have a real opportunity to listen even more closely to this latest report, which they have only just received from the committee. It was a unanimous report: Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat, Conservative and Labour Peers all united in saying that the Government have got it wrong in producing what is in effect a skeletal Bill.

I am disappointed that the Minister, who had an opportunity to give more ground and to go away and consider this further, did not take that opportunity. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley, who directly contradicted what the Minister has just said about the effect of this amendment, as it would not have that effect. His Amendment 4 is such a good amendment.

I am so surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, should come forward and oppose this. It flies in the face of many of the speeches he has made before. My noble friend Lord Deben—it is like old times; we worked together for 16 years in government—pointed out that we are on a slippery slope, and we just need to make the Government think again.

My noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has a really good amendment in Amendment 39, as does my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in Amendment 41. We have had such a good debate, and it is a shame that the Government have refused to think again. That is why, in my view, we should test the opinion of the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, I must reinform the House that if Amendment 2 is agreed, I will not be able to call Amendment 3 or Amendment 4 by reason of pre-emption.

Operation Conifer

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, both noble Lords can get in; we have plenty of time. Shall we take the noble Baroness’s question first?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

If I may, I will look into the issues that the noble Baroness has raised and write to her with the detail very shortly in response.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, in declaring my interest as the immediate past chair of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation, I warmly welcome the Minister’s commitment to this House that he has an open mind, which I believe has tremendous support. But it is not just what is in the police files; there are a number of other matters that require scrutiny. The first is the fact that the former chief constable of Wiltshire, Mike Veale, has now been totally discredited. There is also the fact of the manner in which the police and crime commissioner was cut out of the whole investigation by the appointment of a so-called scrutiny committee, and then there is the fact that so many of the police logs at the entrance to Sir Edward Heath’s home, Arundells, were wantonly destroyed. All these matters require close investigation.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his comments. It draws me back to the point I put to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, on the suggestion of the Opposition Front Bench. The chief constable of Wiltshire rightly has the investigatory powers to investigate any matters that are of concern, including those raised by the noble Lord in relation to her police force, as indeed does the police and crime commissioner in response to this, who is a different police and crime commissioner to the one who was operational at the time. I would suggest that, whatever my reflections on these matters are—I will make those reflections—it would be helpful for the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, to raise those issues again with the current chief constable and the current police and crime commissioner.