Employment Rights Bill

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Kyle]

In all the Front-Bench jobs I have had, I have enjoyed my exchanges with the hon. Gentleman, who is always constructive and well intentioned. I did not expect that we would enjoy that renewed relationship so soon in my new position. I say to him, and to the incredible businesses in his community, which I have had the pleasure of visiting, that a healthy workforce is a productive workforce. We intend to ensure the health and wellbeing of employees, and to ensure support for them in the workplace, structured in a way to get the very best out of them. That will be of benefit to employees, and certainly to employers as well.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend will, without doubt, remember those dark days of covid, when people had to turn up in the workplace, despite being poorly. That contributed to the spread of the pandemic. Does that not illustrate the need to ensure that when people are ill, they can rely on a sickness absence framework that supports them, and allows them to return to work when they have recovered?

[Peter Kyle]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. Both in times of crisis, such as during covid, and in good times, there are good employers and those who sometimes fall beneath standards. Covid shone a light on the challenges that can be faced in the workforce. In those times, we needed to see the best from everyone. The majority of businesses supported their employees through that time of challenge. We want to ensure that the floor is high enough, and that the standards for every workforce are those that were set by the best, not by those who fell short of what we expect in Britain in the 2020s.

Today, I ask the House to renew its commitment to this legislation. I will ask hon. Members to endorse Government amendments that seek to clarify and strengthen a number of measures, and to reject the amendments of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers who joined forces to undermine the progress that we are attempting to make. I make an exception of those in the other place who had the sincere aim of scrutinising, and who ensured that the Bill was steered through the legislative process there with a steady hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

The reassurance that I give is that we will implement this policy, having listened to employers. We will make sure that the rights to which we have committed in our manifesto are fully upheld.

What employers want is to have workers who are fully committed to their life in the workplace. If employees feel that they have an unreasonable sword of Damocles over their head, employers will not get the best productivity out of those workers.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Peter Kyle]

I am going to make some progress.

We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide a less onerous approach for businesses to follow in order to dismiss someone during the statutory probation period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. The Government are committed to undertaking a public consultation to get the details of the statutory probation period right, to keep it light touch and to get the standards right. Most employers who use contractual probation periods operate them for six months or less. The Government’s preference is for the statutory probation period to be nine months long. That will enable an employer to operate a basic six-month probation period, with an option for extension where employers wish to give their employees further time to improve their performance. We will consult on the duration, which is why the Government will not agree to Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120.

Lords amendment 48 seeks to impose a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the requirements for seasonal workers when making regulations. The Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, because the Bill already reflects the realities of seasonal work. For example, it allows guaranteed offers for limited-term contracts where appropriate, such as for task-based or time-bound roles. This Government do not believe the amendment is necessary, as the approach taken in the Bill already protects seasonal jobs while ensuring fair rights for workers, which is why the Government decline to support this amendment.

Lords amendment 49 seeks to require a consultation on the effects of provisions in part 1, and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized businesses are included in the consultation. SMEs are the backbone of the British economy, and their insights are vital to shaping policy that works in practice. That is why our approach to the implementation of the Bill includes 13 targeted consultations, running through to 2026. We think it is more effective and proportionate for us to engage extensively with SMEs, as planned through the consultation that we have described in our road map, and to ensure that SMEs’ views help shape the implementation. Given the comprehensive process, the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 46 would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations within six months to extend the circumstances in which an employee is automatically considered to have been unfairly dismissed for whistleblowing. It would require certain employers to take responsible steps to investigate whistleblowing claims. The Government do not support the amendment. We recognise that the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996 may not be operating as effectively as it should be, but we believe that any reform should be considered as part of a broader assessment of that framework. That is why the Government consider that the amendment must be rejected.

Lords amendment 47 would insert a new clause into the Bill that relates to workplace representation. The amendment would allow workers and employees to be accompanied at grievance hearings by a certified professional companion. The law already guarantees workers the right to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a fellow worker, a trade union representative or an official employed by a trade union. Employers may allow other companions to attend formal meetings on a discretionary basis. The current law has served workers and employees for well over two decades. It strikes the right balance between fairness, flexibility and practicality, and we believe it should remain this way.

Lords amendment 60 seeks to remove the restrictions on young people aged 14 to 16 working on a heritage railway or a heritage tramway from the meaning of

“employment in an industrial undertaking”.

The Government do not believe that this amendment is necessary. The benefits of youth volunteering in heritage railways cannot be overestimated and, with proper health and safety management, it already works well. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 does not ban youth volunteering in appropriate roles on heritage railways. Well-run schemes, such as the one in Swanage, show that young people can still take part safely and legally.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that many special constables across the country, including Emma Murphy in my constituency, will be watching and waiting for the results of this review. I trust the Minister recognises that and will deliver them the result they deserve when she reports back to this House next year.

[Andy McDonald]

I proudly refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which relates to support from trades unions. I welcome the Secretary of State and the new Employment Rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), to their places. I especially pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax for her support and hard work in the taskforce, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Employment Rights and Protections, that led to the production of the new deal for working people. We are in good hands as she carries on the excellent work. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his excellent stewardship in securing the Employment Rights Bill and taking it thus far.

I welcome the return of the Employment Rights Bill and the opportunity to address the urgent priorities of the people of this country, which are improving employment rights for better security at work and, ultimately, better pay from work. The cost of living crisis remains a burning issue, and giving people the tools at work to tackle in-work poverty is crucial. This Bill starts the process of delivering much-needed dignity and security for working people. It will not have escaped the attention of colleagues that Members of the party now purporting to speak for working people are nowhere to be seen in this debate. We know whose side the Reform party is on, and it is not working people.

These Lords amendments demonstrate the problems before us. I urge the House to reject the Opposition’s amendments, which, if passed, would weaken the rights and protections that this Bill seeks to deliver.

On Lords amendment 1, which would water down the right to guaranteed hours, let us be clear: moving from a duty on employers to proactively offer secure contracts to a model in which workers must request them would completely undermine the purpose of the Bill. Vulnerable workers, often young people on their very first job, should not be left in the position of having to plead with their employer for basic security. We have heard from Unite members such as Izzy, a pub worker who felt unable to raise issues for fear that her hours would be cut, and Caren, a restaurant worker who was left with 40 hours one week and barely any the next, with her mental health paying the price. This House cannot endorse a model that forces workers into the role of Oliver Twist, asking, “Please, Sir, may I have some more?” The duty must rest firmly with employers.

Lords amendments 7 and 8 would reduce access to short-notice cancellation payments. Again, the effect is to let employers off the hook. A 48-hour limit is wholly inadequate. Imagine a parent who is told late on a Friday night that their Monday shift has been cancelled; there is no compensation, but there is still childcare to pay for.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman says that a 48-hour time period is unacceptable, yet the Bill does not specify what time period would be acceptable. Does he have an idea in mind of what that number would be? How many businesses has he spoken to about that?

[Andy McDonald]

The amendment speaks to those sorts of figures. I am making the point that that sort of notice is simply not acceptable.

People cannot live structured lives and be able to plan for their futures under such a dreadful regime, and I reject it wholeheartedly. That is not reasonable notice; it is a transfer of cost and stress on to the worker. USDAW’s evidence shows that, in many sectors, workers already get four weeks’ notice of shifts. The risk here is that by lowering the standard, we drag conditions down across the board. That is why the Government have rightly committed to setting notice periods through consultation, not through arbitrary amendment.

[Chris Law]

The challenge is that we are waiting years before we have any response to what the numbers might be. Does the hon. Member find that reasonable? In the meantime, we have no protections whatsoever for these people who we are all trying to protect.

[Andy McDonald]

We want to get through this consultation as quickly as possible and to get this Bill on the statute book so that the position is clear, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. We need to move on these issues as a matter of urgency, and he is right to point that out.

Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months. We cannot support that halfway measure. Our manifesto is clear: Labour will deliver day one rights. Accepting these amendments risks entrenching insecurity and delaying meaningful reform. Workers should not have to serve a probationary period of six months or two years before being protected from arbitrary dismissal. We will fully consult on probationary arrangements to get them right, but we will not compromise on our principle of security from day one.

I must urge the rejection of Lords amendment 62, which seeks to retain the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The threshold was a deliberate barrier imposed by the Trade Union Act 2016. No other democratic process in this country faces such a hurdle—not parliamentary votes or local elections. This House was elected without such restrictions. Trade unions must not be uniquely singled out. Removing the threshold restores fairness, strengthens industrial relations and honours our commitment to repeal draconian Conservative legislation.

Finally, Lords amendment 121 would permit academies to deviate from pay and conditions agreed through the school support staff negotiating body, which risks entrenching inequality. It could mean teaching assistants in the same trust being on wildly different terms, creating a postcode lottery in education and exposing staff to equal pay disputes. Instead of undermining sectoral bargaining, we should be expanding it, ensuring fair, consistent and collectively agreed standards across the board. Let us be frank: after years of pay erosion, school support staff truly need a pay restoration deal that values the vital work they do.

In every case, the Lords amendments before us risk weakening rights, not strengthening them. Our task is to make work pay, end one-sided flexibility and ensure fairness and dignity for every worker. If this legislation does not go far enough to meet union demands for sectoral bargaining and a single worker status, Members of this House will rightly call for a second employment Bill this autumn. We cannot sustain this anathema of fragile, insecure work for so many millions of people in this country; they need that security to plan their futures, and they need to have the protections that those in employment enjoy. In addition, were they to be brought into that architecture, the Treasury would benefit to the tune of more than £10 billion per annum, opposite the uncollected tax and national insurance contributions.

Working people have waited long enough. It is time for us to deliver the stronger rights and protections that they truly deserve.

[Damian Hinds]

I intend to speak mainly to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours, but I begin with a word of thanks to the Government for what they have announced about special constables. It is not quite as good as adopting the amendment, but I welcome the review. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for the work he has done. I hope the review will report quickly, and I hope for a growth in the number of special constables, not only in neighbourhood policing, which my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, but among people working in the tech sector. We need cyber-specials to tackle the scourge of cyber-crime and fraud, which is now the single largest category of crime, and is, sadly, growing once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for suggesting that he will try.

I turn to the provisions dealing with guaranteed hours and zero-hours contracts. I understand why it is attractive to the Government and the Labour party to seek to restrict the availability of contracts that do not have a guaranteed number of hours. From listening to Labour colleagues, it seems almost as if “exploitative zero-hours contracts” is one word. It is as if those words must always go together. We all want to end exploitation—that is why, in 2015, the then Government passed legislation to stop employers imposing exclusivity. We said, “If you are not going to guarantee your employee a minimum number of hours, it is not all right to say that they must not work for somebody else.” But not all zero-hours contracts are necessarily exploitative.

One of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in our country is none other than the national health service, through its use of bank staff. I notice that the Liberal Democrats announced a new policy today, which would require extra pay for people on zero-hours contracts; I do not know whether they have yet costed that policy. By the way, for many of the people working as bank staff in the NHS, that is not their primary job but a second job. This allows a hospital or other setting to respond to spikes in demand. For many people with a zero-hours contract job, it is their second job, not their primary source of income. Zero-hours contract jobs are also very important to people coming back into work, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) said powerfully in an intervention.

Many people on zero-hours contracts are students. Particularly in hospitality, there is a pattern of work whereby an employee lives in two places: at home, and at their term-time address. They can stay on the books of their employer at home—it might be a local pub—while they are away studying during term time. It could be the other way around: they could have a job in their university town, and stay on the books when they come home. They can dial up or dial down their hours; for example, many students do not want to work a lot of hours, or any hours, during exam time. Contrary to what we might expect, and contrary to the all-one-word conception of “exploitative zero-hours contracts”, some people actually prefer a zero-hours contract.

[Andy McDonald]

And some people do not.

[Damian Hinds]

And some people do not, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly says.

When I was working at the Department for Work and Pensions, the issue of zero-hours contracts became a totemic issue under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the immediate predecessor of the current leader of the Labour party. There was this idea that there had been a huge increase in the number of people in the country on a zero-hours contract. We discovered that less than 3% of people had a zero-hours contract as their primary source of income, and the average number of hours those people worked was not zero or close to zero, but 25. Even more unexpectedly—this was the bit that really got people—the average job satisfaction of people on a zero-hours contract was higher than it was for the rest of the workforce.

I think we understand why the Labour Government wish to legislate in this way. It is something for Labour MPs to bring home. When so much else in their manifesto is falling apart before our eyes, they can say, “At least we’ve killed off this modern scourge, this huge growth in zero-hours contracts.” As I say, the number of those contracts is not nearly as big as most people think. If you think about it, we have always had zero-hours contracts in all sorts of forms, whether it be piecework, commission-only sales, agency catalogue work or casual labour. In fact, it is possible that today, there are fewer people on a zero-hours contract than ever before in the history of the labour market. Many colleagues might reflect on their first job. Mine was washing dishes in a restaurant. We did not have the phrase at that time, but it certainly would have been a zero-hours contract, apart from the fact that there was no contract at all.

If the Government wish to reform this area, as they may, I ask them to consider the situation in sectors with great seasonality, including hospitality, tourism and retail, and to please look again at the concept of a 12-week reference period, which does not reflect the reality of seasonality. I know that this will be introduced through regulations, not the primary legislation, and I welcome what the Secretary of State said; I think he indicated that the Government were open to looking at a more sensible length of time. The Government could also do things differentially by sector; there could be one period for employers in general, and another for sectors or sub-sectors that have particularly strong patterns of seasonality.

I also ask the Government to reconsider the requirement to not just offer guaranteed hours once, but keep on doing it. That is introducing unnecessary bureaucracy. If the Government want to make changes in this area, I encourage them to at least ensure that once an employer has made the offer once, the right can become an opt-in right.

The Government think that these provisions are something for Back-Bench Labour MPs to take home, but I ask Labour colleagues whether they really want to take them home. Do they want to take home higher unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for people returning to the workplace after many years away? Do they want to take home fewer opportunities for ex-offenders—those furthest from the labour market? Do they want to take home—because this will come as well, as night follows day—a further trend away from permanent employment and towards fixed-term temporary employment? Do they want to take home a shift from waged or salaried work to more self-employment? Is that really what Labour wants to deliver?