Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Lord Frost

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 1, although possibly not for quite the same reasons as those already expressed in this Chamber, and I regret I was not able to speak at Second Reading.

When dealing with a purpose clause, one cannot avoid spending a moment dwelling on the broader principles behind the Bill before coming to the amendment itself. It is worth noting that one of the reasons the British economy has surprised so many people over the last decade or so on the upside, despite all the gloomy predictions, is because it is an extremely flexible and responsive economy, particularly in the labour market. Most indices of these things put us in the global top 10 of labour market flexibility, which I regard as a good thing, although clearly many noble Lords who have spoken do not.

There is a paradox here, in that flexibility is the best way of delivering security—maybe not in any individual job, but security of employment and income over a period. The Government seem to think that the only way to ensure job security is to put in place more and more intrusive and detailed legislation to require it. That is why we are going to be discussing, no doubt at great length and with huge complexity, this massive Bill which tries to do just that. It is damaging that the Bill is being made up as it goes along to such a large extent; it just multiplies the complexity and difficulty.

I do not think that is the right way to look at job security. The best way to look at it is that flexibility produces security. If it is easier to change the terms and conditions of a job, or easier to dismiss people if they do not fit, then it is also easier to re-employ or shift resources from low-productivity to high-productivity sectors and to deliver growth in the economy. The approach in the Bill protects insiders at the expense of entrepreneurs and those who are outside the labour market, so it is not surprising that the representatives of trade unions are so supportive of it. The trade unions represent the insiders, but they are not the only people who have an interest in labour market flexibility.

I make these points because they go to the difficulty of drafting a satisfactory purpose clause for this Bill. It is desirable to have a purpose clause for something that is so complex and sprawling in the way it tries to legislate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has written it as cleverly and clearly as he possibly could in the circumstances. It is cleverly written, but the difficulty is not so much that it is not sufficiently exhaustive but that it contradicts the contents of the Bill. It sets out a number of things which the Bill simply does not do. For example, in paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause, it talks about “fairness”. Well, that may be fairness for employees on one definition but not for employers or those who are outside the formal labour market. Whose fairness are we talking about?

Paragraphs (b) and (d) in the proposed new clause do not “facilitate”—to use the word in the amendment—good labour relations; they actually make them more bureaucratic, complicated, difficult and hard to implement. Paragraph (c) makes provision for pay and conditions but, arguably, it should not be doing that at all—that is not the business of the Government but the business of employers and employees. The only one that is an accurate description of what is in the Bill is paragraph (e), the simple statement that it is to

“make provisions about the enforcement of labour market legislation”,

which it certainly does.

I am not sure that there is a satisfactory way of dealing with this. Nevertheless, I support this purpose clause amendment, because it seems to me that if it were to pass, the logical consequence, to be consistent, would be that large parts of the rest of the Bill would have to fall away to be consistent with the expressed purpose in this purpose clause. If the Bill were to be internally consistent with the things that we say are desirable, then much of this Bill is simply not consistent with that. Now, what goes first—the purpose clause or the rest of the Bill? I think we know how that is going to play out. Nevertheless, that is why it is difficult to get to a satisfactory purpose clause for this Bill. It would be good if much of the Bill fell away—no doubt we will come on to that in the next seven days—as it is going to cause a lot of damage to the economy and to growth.

To conclude, I support the amendment, if not perhaps for exactly the same reasons that others have supported it. It will enhance and make clearer, to some extent, what is a very sprawling, complex and unsatisfactory Bill.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to all of the amendments in the group. I spoke at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, we only had four to five minutes then, so this gives us an opportunity to consider further what the purposes should be. In the document published by the Labour Government, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade referred to the fact that this would be about getting more people into work. So far under this Administration, we have, unfortunately and regrettably, seen unemployment rise.

At the same time, comments have been made by noble Lords on the other side, such as by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who referred to income inequality. What he may have forgotten is that, under the previous Labour Administration, income inequality rose. Meanwhile, under the recent Conservative Administration, income inequality fell. So, this is a case of trying to make sure that, as we take the legislation through, we focus on the outcomes it will have for people right across this country, rather than dogma. There is a combination of factors where, frankly, flexible labour has generally improved the prosperity of people in this country.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, complained that people in work were on universal credit. That is a large point of it. We have finally got rid of tax credits, which went earlier this month. Those had been introduced by previous Labour Governments in order to increase people’s pay—which employers were not doing. It was done in a rather crude way, such that capital was not taken into account. When we were moving people from tax credits to universal credit, we discovered—particularly early on, when we were doing some of our test and learn approach—that there were people with capital of over £100,000 who were still receiving tax credits and who decided that, although they would be entitled to one more year of such a transition payment, they did not think it was right to do so.

It is about that sort of element, of trying to consider what we want to see as an increase in prosperity and productivity. However, I am concerned, given the recent increase in unemployment and all the messages that we are receiving from businesses, small and large, that we will instead start to see a significant increase in unemployment and indeed more people going on to benefits. As I say, the whole point of universal credit is that you will be better off working than not working. The approach is to try and support people as they reach higher salaries.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to say that, if we were considering further things to add to the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 1, competitiveness and growth should be there. I would add that the outcome should also be about increasing the number of people in employment. I know that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has set an exceptionally ambitious target of 80% of people being in work—which would be the highest in an exceptionally long time—but, to do that, she needs to work with other parts of her Government to make sure that more jobs will be created, so that people can go into those jobs at the rate that is set.

After thinking through what will happen with this legislation, I made the point at Second Reading that the Bill started off at 149 pages—and I am conscious of the 100-day deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister to present it—and that it had basically doubled by the time it left the Commons. Not a huge amount of time was set aside for consideration of the additional 103 pages that were considered on Report there. As we have already heard, we are starting to see more amendments come in from the Government that this House needs to consider.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Baroness Coffey and Lord Frost

Report stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I support Amendment 1, in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I should declare at this point that I live about five miles away from Sizewell B nuclear power station and one that is about to be built, Sizewell C, and less than a mile away from other energy infrastructure that is still going through the planning process.

A lot of my time at the other end was taken up with considering the importance of energy, not only for a long-term sustainable future but the security issues rightly referred to in these objectives. The reason these objectives matter is that this is an unprecedented situation, where we are handing, in effect, a blank cheque to an arm’s-length body. Admittedly, it will have strategies set by the Secretary of State, but, as has been pointed out, there will be absolutely no reference to Parliament in its consideration. That is why the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Frost has attraction, in proposing at least having a direct connection with two Select Committees of the other place and a relationship with the chair of GB Energy. As my noble friend pointed out, these are the reasons that the Government gave us for having this new entity. Therefore, it would make a lot of sense for the Government to accept this amendment directly.

On Amendment 17, where I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that I do not believe we should get into legislation that dictates the amount of taxpayers’ money that will be spent. I have seen that happen before in legislation, and then all of a sudden money starts getting wasted. The whole purpose of this financial vehicle is to de-risk and bring in external private investment. That is a sensible approach, especially given the amount of uncertainty, which I appreciate the Government are trying to address in other ways. Nevertheless, for something such as energy security, a significant amount of investment is going to be required right across not just Great Britain but the United Kingdom, and this is a critical moment for our nation. That is why, while I think there will be money well spent, we should not be dictating a minimum.

The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, is really sensible. This company will be in an unusual situation—not unique, but unusual—and the extra information required, particularly in proposed new paragraph (d), is the core essence of why this company is being set up: it is stepping forward to try to get others to do so.

If anything, what has evolved over many years is the need for transparency and understanding. The amount of trust that people have in how their taxpayers’ money gets spent really matters in the contract that Parliament and government have with the electorate—the taxpayer. So, elements such as this will enforce the rationale rather than just necessarily seeing energy bills tick upwards, unfortunately.

So if Amendments 1 and 37 are pressed, I will certainly support them—although, regrettably, not Amendment 17 from the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 39 in my name. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for putting his name to it, and thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his warm comments on at least aspects of this amendment.

The broad aim of Amendment 39 is to do what a lot of other amendments have sought to do, both in Committee and no doubt today, which is to ensure that GBE gets the kind of scrutiny that a major public company would get: that is, its internal procedures, processes and purposes get a degree of public attention and comment. I worry that we are setting up a company over which there will be relatively little oversight and perhaps rather idiosyncratic governance compared with a normal public company. So it is with that in mind that I have tabled Amendment 39.

There are two aspects to the amendment. One is about pre-appointment scrutiny and the other is about what happens once the chair has his feet under the desk, as it were. I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the first part of this is the most important part of the Bill.

Before getting into the substance I should declare an interest, which is that I am an unpaid director of the group Net Zero Watch—I am sorry for not mentioning that at the very start.

On the first aspect of this amendment, its purpose is to make sure that the appointment at least attracts a degree of scrutiny and comment from relevant Select Committees. When I put this amendment down in Committee, I had in mind only the Treasury Select Committee in the Commons, but I have picked up the suggestions made by others that the Environment and Climate Change Committee also ought to have a role in this. I emphasise that this amendment would not give those committees a block. The right to make the appointment does not go to those committees; it is the right to comment on a decision that the Secretary of State proposes to make and which he or she will still be able to make after the Select Committees have looked at it. That degree of public scrutiny is important. The chair is a public figure in many ways, and in fact we have seen, from some of the statements he has made already, that he intends to use that public platform to make comments. It seems right in these circumstances that there should be a degree of political scrutiny of this.

The Minister said in Committee that this was not in line with the guidance of the Cabinet Office for such appointments. But I suggest that, even under the hard rein of the internal regimen of the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General, guidance written by a department cannot constrain the Government, or indeed the legislature. Indeed, we see that in real life, because the appointments of the chairs of Ofgem, the Climate Change Committee and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, and so on, are all made in accordance with such a procedure. So there is really nothing novel here: it is the right thing to do for a major company of this nature and I hope the Minister will think hard about the defensibility of the position as it currently stands.

I will speak briefly to the second part of my amendment, which is really probing. The current arrangements for the accountability of the chair seem rather unclear. I guess formally he is accountable to shareholders, but the shareholder is obviously the Secretary of State and a chat with the Secretary of State is perhaps not enough for accountability for a company such as this. It may be that the auditors are not best placed to do that and it may be that there should be a degree of confidentiality to it, but there surely should be something that is formal and agreed and which can produce a degree of political debate. Perhaps the Minister can say exactly how this accountability will be achieved in practice, if it is not via some formal process of this nature. I repeat, to conclude, that the first subsection proposed by my amendment is the most important, and indeed, really quite substantively important to the nature of the body we are creating.