Employment Rights Bill

Lord Jackson of Peterborough Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough]

205: Clause 55, page 73, line 11, leave out “A worker’s” and insert “If a worker’s employer has more than 50 employees, the”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the statement of trade union rights applies only to larger employers.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who is unable to be in her place today. I have to say that these parts of the Bill, Parts 4 and 5, will be the most contentious, but I think this is the meat and drink of what the Bill is intended to do, which is essentially to repeal most of the labour relations legislation put in place by successive Conservative Governments since 1992.

I am tempted by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and her hagiography of labour relations and trade union activity before 1979, as if it was a land of milk and honey, the closed shop did not exist and the trade unions had not brought the country to its knees, to the extent that a third of trade unionists in the 1979 general election voted Conservative. In fact, Conservative trade unionists were one of the most powerful and influential groups in the Conservative Party at the time.

That was the reality of the situation then: the closed shop bringing the motor industry and various other industries to their knees. Many working-class people were sick to death of the trade unions, which is why they voted Conservative. The idea that it was a dark, draconian period of the evil capitalist bosses forcing the horny-handed sons of toil into penury was nonsense. I am more than happy for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, to disabuse me of my prejudices, but I do not think that she will. Historically, we won general elections as a party because trade unionists supported us as they knew that reform was vital. We will no doubt debate that at length as we go on.

While I am being slightly contentious, I note the Cross Benches are empty, bar the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, whom it is always a pleasure to see. In many of the Bills over the last two years, the Cross Benches deprecated the use of excessive reliance on delegated powers. They would pop up during every piece of primary legislation, every Bill, to complain about the ministerial misuse of delegated powers, which is happening in this Bill in spades. Yet where are they? They are not present to remonstrate with the Government, take issue with the Government or hold the Government to account on that. Anyway, we must proceed.

In moving Amendment 205, I will speak also to Amendments 206 to 208, and the Clause 55 stand part notice tabled by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The practical and economic consequences of Clause 55 without amendment are likely to be damaging to the very workers whom the Bill claims to protect. This is against an economic background where we have growth becalmed, flat growth of GDP and a very tough labour market out there. Yet the Bill will load further incumbencies on small businesses in particular.

Amendment 207 seeks to exempt micro-employers—those with fewer than 10 employees—from the obligation in respect of access. These amendments reflect a recognition that a one-size-fits-all mandate across employers of vastly different scale is neither fair nor sustainable. Micro-businesses and SMEs are already struggling under the weight of administrative obligations. Writing in an open letter, signed by FTSE 250 firm Mitie, industry leader OCS and other employers from the £60 billion facilities sector warned that the Bill’s radical package would “discourage growth”, damaging their businesses and harming their clients and, crucially, their staff. Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, put it succinctly:

“The Government also needs to think again and rework the parts of the Employment Rights Bill that will wreak havoc on hiring”.


This is a Government ostensibly focused on growth who have created—although we have never seen it written down in a comprehensive way—the so-called growth test that the Chancellor has referenced. Tina McKenzie’s concerns are far from abstract. We are facing a sustained fall in payroll employment. Small businesses, the engine of British job creation, are being hit hardest. The rise in national insurance contributions and a growing web of compliance burdens are already pushing small firms to the edge. This clause in its current form risks tipping many over.

Amendment 205 seeks to ensure that the obligation to issue this statement applies only to employers with more than 50 workers. This is a reasonable and proportionate step. Larger firms are more likely to have a human resources infrastructure to absorb such obligations. For smaller enterprises, every new administrative requirement pulls resources from service delivery and job creation. It has an impact on the bottom line, which inevitably will feed through to decisions to not employ people or to make people redundant, which we would all deprecate.

Let us not be naive: the cumulative effect of obligations like this can and will lead to reduced hiring, increased redundancies and the potential acceleration of automation. Faced with mounting costs, employers may choose software over staff. The Government must be mindful that even well-intended regulation carries a cost. In the words of the very employees this Government say they want to support:

“We are deeply concerned that some of the Bill’s provisions will have serious unintended consequences that could harm both good employers and the very employees that the Bill seeks to protect”.


My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom referenced the British Retail Consortium survey published on 29 April. It bears repetition, because it is a pretty damning indictment of the very significant concerns that employers at the sharp end—this is a survey of HR directors—have about the Bill as it stands. Some 70% believe that the Bill

“would have a very negative or negative impact on their business”,

52% said it would result in fewer staff members in their businesses and 61% said it

“would reduce flexibility in job offerings”.

They have urged the Government to engage, and today I echo that call.

Finally, Amendment 208 seeks to probe why the requirement to issue this statement must extend beyond the point of employment commencement. Is there any compelling justification for placing employers on a continual alert to reissue the statement at “prescribed times”? What does that even mean? Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene in the minutiae of a business—in the very weeds of how a business runs to make money, make profit, provide jobs, pay taxes and deliver public services for people? Why is it important for Ministers to involve themselves in the prescribed times a statement can be given? Surely, if the goal is awareness, combining this with the statement of employment particulars under Section 1 of the 1996 Act would suffice. We should not mandate bureaucracy for its own sake.

Let us step back and consider the broader context. If the Minister did not want to listen to the British Retail Consortium, she will no doubt be aware of other surveys published recently, such as that by the Federation of Small Businesses earlier in the year, which revealed that

“92 per cent of small employers are worried about the Employment Rights Bill, with 67 per cent saying they plan to recruit fewer staff, and 32 per cent set to reduce headcount”.

The Minister will know that her ministerial colleague, the MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, has been challenged in the other place on a number of occasions to name just one small business that supported the Bill, and has hitherto been unable to come up with a name. The Government have come forward with Richer Sounds—which is not a small business by any stretch of the imagination—and Centrica, which is a massive business. I know that, under the Bill, big businesses will probably soon end up as small businesses, but that is a different matter. They also mentioned the Co-op. There is a surprise: the Co-op supporting the Labour Party; “The Pope likes balconies” will be the next one. Yes, the Co-op supports the Bill.

It is important to step back and think about the Bill. In an already fragile market where businesses are battling inflation, rising taxes and regulatory fatigue, we must not view administrative obligations as cost-free, because they are not. They weigh heavily, particularly on the smallest firms. I speak from experience. A number of years ago, I was an Investors in People manager, when I used to help small and medium-sized businesses with their quality standards. They often did not want to engage, because they did not have the time and the energy as they were focused on chasing invoices, chasing new businesses and giving presentations to potential new clients. These are the burdens that small businesses face every day. They become big businesses, and they pay taxes, so I ask the Minister to give some consideration to that.

--- Later in debate ---

I appreciate that Justin Madders, who I am sure is a decent Minister, hoped this would be uncontroversial. I hope this reflects an opinion—I accept that they might not share it and think I am creating some kind of drama—that it is about the tone. It is the tone of the Government deciding the direct relationship that employers have on something that is entirely optional. It should be irrelevant to whether somebody has a job and we will get into other debates on that in other parts of the Bill. For that reason, I will encourage my Front Bench—

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that our very serious concerns about this clause would be assuaged were the Government to have properly followed Cabinet Office protocols and updated expeditiously the impact assessments, which are normally present in Bills of this size and magnitude?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. I have tried to get deposited in the Library, or sent through some other form of communication to all Peers, a response I have received from the Secretary of State on this matter. By the way, I have still not received a reply from the Cabinet Secretary, who is supposed to uphold Cabinet Office guidelines. In essence, the answer came back: “We’ll do a full impact assessment once the Bill is completed”. We know that industry is looking for that. We have no idea when these regulations will be introduced; I assume that they could already have started the consultation. It is important that the Secretary of State—I am trying to remember; I do not have a photographic memory—basically said, “We haven’t really changed that much”. That is where we are. I will continue to make the point. My noble friend is right and reminds me to chase the Cabinet Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am fully aware that it would help to see the implementation plan and, as I said, we are working at pace to get it to your Lordships as soon as we can.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate. I think you always know when your arguments are hitting home when you are admonished by the Front Bench about tone. It usually means that you are hitting the target. I particularly thank my noble friends for the typically erudite and forensic analysis of Clause 55 by my noble friend Lady Coffey, the excellent real-world experience articulated by my noble friends Lord Ashcombe and Lord Leigh, and, of course the passion, from real-world experience, of my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea.

I do not want to get into a historical discussion, because the hour is late, but Margaret Thatcher was mentioned. Margaret Thatcher never won an election with the puny mandate that this Government had, because what we are seeing is a counterrevolution in favour of the trade unions based on 20% of the electorate, a turnout of 66% and a 34% poll. That is no kind of mandate. In fact, it is a post-dated cheque to the trade unions paid for by the British taxpayer and working people of this country.

There is news from Birmingham, incidentally, as Birmingham was mentioned earlier. Four hundred Unite members have just voted today to carry on striking all the way to Christmas. This is an interesting quote from Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, known to our collective trade union alumni. I do not know what the collective term is: union barons, perhaps. She said:

“It beggars belief that a Labour government and Labour council is treating these workers so disgracefully … Unite calls on the decision makers to let common sense prevail in upcoming negotiations”.


The reason I quote that is that I have to say very gently to the Government Benches: be careful what you wish for. The 1974 Labour Government was destroyed by the trade unions’ actions in the winter of discontent of 1978-79. If the Government proceed with this Bill unamended, they run the risk that that unintended consequence might also be the end of their Government. I would not wish that to be the case, of course, because I think that they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. Nevertheless, it is a risk.

Let us step back from the historical discussions that we have had in what has been an interesting debate. We are being asked to vote for a clause in primary legislation with huge delegated powers in the hands of Ministers. That brings me to a very interesting quote, that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”.

That was beautifully put, by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture, proving that he is not always wrong about everything.

We have tabled these amendments because this clause does not give us the detail, it will have unintended consequences, and it will have a real-world impact on small businesses in particular. It is not about bashing the trade unions. I would concede, as someone who was a trade union member, that the trade unions have done a brilliant job in terms of member welfare, insurance schemes, et cetera, over the years. They are a force for good generally, but the measures in the Bill far too easily tip the balance against businesses trying to earn a living, in favour of unions, by repealing all the legislation from 1979 and 1992.

The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, are doing a difficult job and defending a sticky wicket, but I do not think that the Minister really engaged with the arguments. I hope that on Report there is an opportunity to alter this clause, to make it a little less onerous and burdensome to businesses while keeping the spirit of the legislation for workers. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 205 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, that brings me to the second consideration: whether the purpose of the access could reasonably be achieved without physical entry. In many ways, the amendment does not prefer one side over another; it just provides a structured way for the central arbitration committee to make balanced, informed and context-sensitive decisions that reflect the diversity of modern workplaces and the need to accommodate both access and operational stability. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to my Amendments 212 and 213. Naturally, I wholeheartedly agree with the excellent points made from our Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, particularly on Amendments 210 and 213B.

My two amendments are probing amendments, essentially, and I think they are very sensible and reasonable. The perhaps slightly more contentious one would restrict these powers to businesses with over 250 employees. I cannot and will not rehearse the arguments my noble friend made about disruption, interference and taking resources and time away from the main job of work in the business. Interestingly, it could be “one or more” trade union officials, so it could be one but it could be 25 going into a small business. We do not know because the clause is drawn very widely and is very permissive. That is Amendment 213.

Amendment 212 is basic good manners and common sense. If you want to facilitate a good relationship between the trade union representatives—properly elected and appointed by the workforce—and the employers, you want an agenda and an objective place that you wish to reach. That might be to avoid industrial action, to look again at a pay offer, to discuss a suspension of a worker or something like that. But what is wrong with giving 24 hours’ notice? It takes the heat out of the potentially disputatious nature of the relationship that you might have between the employer and the trade union representative. I think it is just basic good manners and would make things work better. It does not diminish the role of the trade unionists and it does not undermine their integrity or their bona fides; it just says, “Let’s give 24 hours’ notice to enable a more fruitful and productive relationship to be expedited between the two sides”. For those reasons, I would like the Minister to at least consider the amendments, perhaps with a view to looking at them again on Report.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

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