Employment Rights Bill

Laurence Turner Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

If the hon. Lady supported Lords amendment 1, the catering worker would have a right to request, and could get the certainty she requires. The amendment would very much offer that right, which she currently does not have, but it would also mean there was no requirement on the employer to maintain records, and the employer would not have the administrative burden of being forced to offer those hours to workers in the industry who did not require such flexibility. That is why we think the amendment strikes the right balance.

We strongly support the principle of enabling workers to obtain fixed-hours contracts, but we have concerns about the implementation method proposed in the Bill. Small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant administrative burdens. Many small employers lack human resource or legal departments, and the change could be a significant cost for those with limited resources. That would compound other challenges, such as the recent increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. In the retail and hospitality sector, part-time and entry-level roles are often taken up by young people looking for flexible hours, people with caring responsibilities, and others who may not want to make long-term work commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) offered a compelling example of a zero-hours contract giving someone what they required from work. For all those groups, flexibility is key.

The amendment is in line with our long-standing manifesto commitment to give zero-hours and agency workers the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a right that employers could not refuse unreasonably. The measure would maintain a flexibility that benefits both parties, whereas an obligation to offer guaranteed hours imposes a significant burden, which does not benefit either party.

We are clear that employees should be supported to exercise this right—and all employment rights—without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace, and we are pleased that the Government have taken steps to set up a unified Fair Work Agency. We hope that the Government will look into our other proposals—for example, the proposal to give zero-hours workers a 20% higher minimum wage to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours.

The amendment strikes a balance between security for workers and flexibility for employers. Much of the contention about the Bill relates to the lack of detail and clarity around key definitions, which makes it hard for businesses and employers to plan. That is why I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8, which would define a short-notice cancellation as a cancellation with 48 hours’ notice. That provides a workable balance. It gives employers clarity, while ensuring that workers are compensated when shifts are cancelled late.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may be relative to the industry we are talking about? What is fair notice in, say, the retail sector may be completely different from what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not think so. Forty-eight hours is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of notice that enables, for example, parents to rearrange childcare, or other members of the family to rearrange their shifts. The 48 hours is a proper definition of reasonable notice, and 48 hours is 48 hours, whether you work on an oil rig or in a shop. I disagree that it is context-dependent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful for being able to contribute to this debate. It is a privilege to follow so many powerful speeches, and the speech delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) was the most powerful I have heard in this place. Her words rose to the moment; mine are inadequate by comparison. I can only thank her for speaking so powerfully about an issue that affects so many of us.

I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and thank him for the way in which he opened this debate.

At the outset, I draw the House’s attention to my background as an officer of the GMB union and my current unpaid role as chair of the GMB parliamentary group. In that capacity, I thank the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), as he leaves the Chamber, for what he said about Members’ staff in this place. GMB is the union that represents the majority of people who work in support of us as Members of this House. I am sad to say that they are perhaps uniquely vulnerable to some of the abusive practices that have shamed our democracy for too long, and I am at a loss to understand how the relevant Lords amendments were ever brought forward from the other place.

I wish to speak specifically against Lords amendments 121, 11 and 1, and in support of the Government amendments that seek to strike them out. Before doing so, I want to say a few words about my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is not in his place at the moment. As a former shadow Minister and latterly as the sponsoring Minister for this Bill, he unfailingly and characteristically brought graft, industry and good humour to the brief. This will be a weaker and lesser Bill without him, and those of us who support the Bill and its principles owe him a debt of thanks. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), who brings a real depth of knowledge and understanding to the role of Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, is now guarding the Bill’s passage to Royal Assent. I know that she will be both pro-worker and pro-business in her approach.

I believe that Lords amendment 121 contains significant drafting weaknesses and would fundamentally alter the nature of the proposed and restored school support staff negotiating body. First, the amendment states that employers may introduce new terms and conditions of employment that

“meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB.”

In legal terms, however, the SSSNB will not set or determine those standards; it is a statutory forum for negotiation. The actual conditions of employment will be set through regulations drafted by the Secretary of State and approved by Parliament.

Secondly, the actual parameters of a future pay and grading structure will be negotiated by the relevant parties: the representatives of employers, and the representatives of employees. That was the spirit of the original 2008 Act and the actual operation of the SSSNB in its original incarnation. Given my experience as a former trade union officer representing school support staff, I know the contractual issues that need to be addressed are so complicated that they cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the Floor of the House. That complexity is a result of 14 years of drift, dither and political disinterest in the 800,000 support staff workers in England who keep our schools going, and it is a damning indictment of the decision to cancel the original SSSNB.

Finally, Lords amendment 121 risks creating confusion at a local level. The amendment states that employers must not be restricted from introducing “improved terms and conditions”, but changes to contracts are not merely introduced; they are consulted on and agreed, either individually or collectively, under existing statutes. The effect of the somewhat loose wording in the amendment may be to encourage local attempts to make unilateral variations to contracts and terms and conditions. Members who support this amendment might say that only improvements could be made under it, but both “improvement” and “detriment” are subjective terms. They are in the eye of the beholder, and I believe that if the amendment were to be carried through, the actual effect may be to increase the number of court cases concerning school support staff.

I urge the Opposition not to push a point, and to reconsider their wider opposition to the school support staff negotiating body. School support staff undertake essential roles, and they deserve the same professional standards and professional respect that is afforded to teachers. That is what the restoration of the school support staff negotiating body will achieve.

We have debated the official Opposition’s amendments many times at various stages, but I want to comment on some of the Lords amendments that stand in the names of Liberal Democrat peers, either in whole or in part. When I entered this Chamber at the start of the debate, I did not presume that those amendments necessarily enjoyed the support of the Liberal Democrat Front Benchers in the Commons, but I am afraid that impression was dispelled by the contribution from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).

I am at a loss to understand how the radical change in approach has come about among the Liberal Democrats in this House between Committee stage, Report, Third Reading and the debate that we are holding today. In fact, listening to the hon. Lady, I felt an uncomfortable sense of déjà vu: it was like watching the Rose Garden press conference all over again. After all, her Front-Bench colleagues—the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Torbay (Steve Darling)—were at all times appropriately critical in Committee, but they were essentially supportive of the principle of enhancing workers’ rights. Lords amendment 11, which was originally a Conservative amendment in the Commons but now stands in the name of a Liberal Democrat peer, was not supported by the Liberal Democrats in Committee.

Lords amendment 1, which stands in the names of both Liberal Democrat and Conservative peers, seeks to amend clause 1. However, the Liberal Democrats supported that clause in Committee and only voiced concern, which was reasonable, that timely guidance to employers must be issued to accompany it; indeed, they voted with Labour Members when it was put to a vote in Committee. I fear that this amendment, too, could have serious unintended consequences.

The clause that it seeks to amend puts a duty on employers to offer regular-hours contracts to “workers”—that is the language used in the legislation as it stands at the moment—but the amendment seeks to convert that duty into a right to request by employees. “Employees” is, of course, a more restrictive category than “workers”; indeed, clause 148 of the Bill as drafted makes it clear that for the purpose of the interpretation of this Bill, “workers” and “employees” mean two different things. Many of the people who are classed only as “workers” are precisely those who may benefit the most from these protections. Some 5 million people who are nominally casual workers in sectors such as social care, construction, hospitality, security and retail could be excluded from these protections if the amendment, which stands in the names of Conservative and Liberal Democrat peers, were to be carried. I hope it is not the intention of those on the Conservative Benches to exclude those 5 million people. At the start of this debate, I could not believe that that was the intention of the Liberal Democrats, but now I am not so sure.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

The Women and Equalities Committee heard compelling evidence earlier this year about misogyny in the music industry. That is exactly one of the areas where people who are classed as “workers” need protection, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a very powerful and relevant point. She is absolutely right that those are the groups of workers who would enjoy greater protection as a result of this legislation being carried.

I want to respond to a couple of points that have been made in this debate. It was a shame that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is not currently in his place, did not have the self-confidence in his arguments to take interventions on his points. He referred repeatedly to the validity of estimates of the number of workers employed on zero-hours contracts, but there are good reasons for not having confidence in these estimates. After all, they are derived from the Office for National Statistics labour force survey, which has had well-advertised and well-understood problems with response rates that have wider implications for both the current Government and the previous Government. It is well known that the number of people who identify as being on a zero-hours contract corresponds to changes in the wording of that particular question. In addition, the labour force survey has well-understood limitations when it comes to reaching people who are employed in what might be called the most marginalised parts of the economy. I therefore urge Conservative Members not to have too much confidence in those estimates, but to look instead at the surveys of workers undertaken by many organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and trade unions.

It was a shame to hear during the debate the number of references to trade union political funds only in the context of party funding. Of course, the great majority of trade union political funds are operated by trade unions that are not affiliated to any political party. Furthermore, the political funds even of Labour-affiliated unions in practice often support meaningful and consequential campaigns that are supported by Members across the House. One example to which I would draw Members’ attention is the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018—sometimes called the protect the protectors legislation—which began as a result of trade union campaigning that was not party political in its nature, and that legislation has since been broadened. I pay tribute to USDAW’s “Freedom From Fear” campaign and the work that has been done to extend the same protections to retail workers. These are exactly the sort of valuable campaigns that, sadly, Members from both the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats are looking to restrict.

Finally on points raised, I had not intended at the start of the debate to talk about heritage railways. Indeed, it must be said that during those long years in opposition, when we were looking closely as trade union officials at the potential future issues that would be covered by trade union legislation, I think it is fair to say that that issue never once came up, but perhaps we were guilty of tunnel vision. [Interruption.] Sorry, I will not do that again. Throughout all the debates on this matter in the other place and here, it has been discussed purely in theoretical terms. The contention has been that the 1920 Act has had a chilling effect on the of operation heritage railways across the country. I do not think, but I would be glad to be corrected, that any actual examples have been brought forward of either court cases being taken or legal advice being received from those organisations, but it certainly feels like an issue that the Transport Committee may wish to consider.

I have tried to limit my comments only to the details of the Lords amendments, but if I may, I will make two general comments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough said, the Labour manifesto committed to

“implementing ‘Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay…’ in full…and introducing basic rights from day one to parental leave, sick pay, and protection from unfair dismissal.”

Yet in front of us are Lords amendments that would either obviate many of those commitments or reduce their potency to homeopathic levels. As he also rightly said, there can be no question of nodding through amendments that contradict the clear mandate we first received a year ago, and which commands broad support among voters of all parties.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Rushworth]

It will, absolutely. We should not have people working in those kinds of conditions and that sort of poverty in 2025.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend speaks about care workers. Does he agree that one issue so brutally exposed during the pandemic was the fact that many thousands of care workers were classed as workers, not employees? As a consequence, they could not get full access to sick pay. One consequence of that was that the fatality rates among both residents and workers were much higher in the care homes that did not make that provision available. If the provisions in the Bill were in place then, many thousands of lives could have been saved.

[Sam Rushworth]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Another great provision in the Bill is that right to sick pay, which is so important and would have been so important for many care workers during the pandemic.

In my mind’s eye are those women sitting at that bus stop in the cold. Two other people I met who were also care workers—one lives in High Etherley and the other in Etherley Dene—told me similar stories. They did not vote for me. They did not vote for anybody, because they did not believe that anybody could fix their problems. They just told me that their lives were tough. They had to pay for their own uniforms. They were not really getting the minimum wage for their work. They felt disrespected by everybody. They felt vulnerable and left behind. But I made them a promise that if I came to this place, I would speak up for them. I am doing that today and I am voting for them today.

Finally, the Employment Rights Bill is not just good for workers; it is also good for businesses. So many family businesses in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Crook and Barnard Castle all tell me the same thing. They tell me how much they enjoy contributing to our local economy and how important it is to them that they are a responsible, decent employer. But they tell me how tough it is when there is a race to the bottom. They want employment rights strengthened. They do not want the watered-down version coming to us from the Lords. They want the full-fat version of this Bill, because they know it is good for their workers and good for their businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Euan Stainbank]

I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident. I have worked in some of the most insecure industries in hospitality, and people trying to rush themselves back into work was a severe issue, especially just after the pandemic, because they did not have another source of income. If they had to isolate, there was financial support, luckily, which was just about enough to cover wages for a period, administered by local authorities. However, there were still a lot more people who tried to drive themselves back into the workplace. I remember coming back after a 10-day isolation period after having covid, and I could tell that I was not prepared physically or mentally to re-enter the workplace. It did make me think that I wanted to call in sick. It is then substantially more difficult for someone to re-enter work, especially in high-intensity industries. We often forget how physically intensive hospitality and retail workplaces, where people are working on zero-hours contracts, can be.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I rise merely to support what he is saying. About a decade ago, the University of Manchester published research that found that being in forms of insecure employment may be more damaging to health than being unemployed.

[Euan Stainbank]

That is substantially clear. I would add the concern that long-term sickness translates into long-term unemployment, which is often seen in the most insecure workplaces. We often think of people burning out in a very high-stress, high-income job, but it happens right through our labour market. In my experience, it has led to devastating consequences, but those are personal stories that I do not have the permission or time to go into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Kyle]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues for conducting this debate so efficiently and effectively. I am grateful to Members from across the House for the contributions they have made to the debate today and throughout the development of this legislation. It has been exhaustively debated—in Committee and in both Chambers—and now it has come back again to be exhaustively voted on this evening.

The Employment Rights Bill will benefit millions of people across the country, raising the floor for workers and strengthening protections in the modern workplace. It will help unlock higher productivity, drive innovation and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth. This has been a constructive debate, and I thank Members from across the House for their varied and valuable views. I will now turn to individual contributions. Many Members spoke about their broad views on the Bill without asking specific questions, but I would like to unpick as many as I can, because it was a good, high-quality debate.

I start with the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), whose contribution I enjoyed very much, particularly because we are both Sussex MPs. He referred to many places in his constituency and asked whether I had visited some of them. I grew up in Bognor Regis just down the road and at weekends would often walk to places that he now represents in Parliament. It is one of the most beautiful parts of the Sussex Downs.

The shadow Secretary of State said that the Bill was a bad day for democracy. He is not unknown for overstatement, but given that the Bill was in the manifesto that won the trust of the public, I would say that today is a good day for democracy. It is a day when the Government elected by the people deliver on a promise made to the people, when a Bill that was introduced in the House of Commons, debated here in Committee, and debated extensively in House of Lords, has come back. This is democracy at its very best. I hope he will reflect on that.

There are a lot of issues with voting percentage thresholds, which the shadow Secretary of State also raised. I point out that he was elected to this place on 28% of the vote of the community that he represents. If we apply his logic, he is advocating one rule for him and another for every other worker in the country. To the Labour party, that simply does not stand.

I also point out that during the Conservatives’ period in government from 2010 onwards, employment tribunal delays increased by 60%. We therefore take no lectures from those who criticise some of the costs that may or may not be incurred as a result of the Bill, because they inflicted enormous measures and costs on businesses around the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) made a passionate, detailed and personal speech about the Bill. It is clear that the Bill is the culmination of his career before coming into politics and in politics, both in opposition and in government. I cannot thank him enough for his work and for how he has engaged with me since I was appointed to this job just over a week ago. I hope that he sees in the debate and the approach of this Front-Bench team the legacy he left being represented loud and clear.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke passionately about the cause of seasonal workers. He spoke for the consultation that we have pledged to have to ensure that we get this right. Several hon. Members from across the House spoke about seasonal workers; it was good to see them represented. As a Member of Parliament for Sussex—my hon. Friend is a Member of Parliament for Kent—we care deeply about these issues, and we will strive to ensure that we get it right.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) raised an important point on non-disclosure arrangements, which she has campaigned so hard for. I thank her not only for speaking with passion but for standing on a record of delivery on this matter. She is an advocate for whom we should all be proud, because she has used her parliamentary prowess to deliver the real change needed on NDA reform. I thank Zelda Perkins —I believe she is not in the Gallery now, but she was here—who has shown extraordinary bravery through her advocacy for victims of harassment and discrimination. I have stood by in admiration of the work she has undertaken.

My right hon. Friend asked what the consultation will cover. We will consult on the regulations that expand the types of individuals and measures that apply beyond those who were within the definition of “employee” and “worker”, and on the conditions for excepted NDAs. To give an example, where a victim requests one and workers are covered by an excepted NDA, they can speak about the relevant harassment and discrimination to, for example, a lawyer or a medical professional.

My right hon. Friend also asked about the timings. Unfortunately, I cannot provide a timetable tonight, but I want to be clear that this is a personal priority for me. I reassure her that we will be moving as fast as possible to consult on the related secondary legislation and commence the measure. I will stay in touch with her so that she is fully informed along the way.

I am grateful to hon. Members across the House for their contributions today and for their hard work in getting the Bill where it is. It is of paramount importance that we get the Bill on to the statute book and start delivering for businesses and workers as soon as possible.

[Laurence Turner]

My right hon. Friend is rightly talking about the contributions made in the debate by hon. Members of various parties. I am always reluctant to criticise individual Members who may not attend a debate, because they often have good reasons, but there has now become a pattern: at no point in the Bill’s passage has any Reform Member spoken to justify their stance of scrapping thousands of laws, including employment laws. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a democratic deficit in not one Reform Member ever having spoken to defend their stance?

[Peter Kyle]

Yes, indeed. When we talk about seasonal workers, we do not mean Reform Members. Of course, Members have lots of duties elsewhere, but it is not surprising to me that a party led by somebody who goes to another country and invites that country to punish this country would be absent from a debate all about giving rights to workers right across the country. Reform wants to strip our workers of their rights, their dignity and, through its actions, the pay in their pockets. The absence of Reform Members today suggests nothing else.

I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider carefully the amendments I have proposed in lieu of those made in the other place. One of my predecessors as President of the Board of Trade once argued that workers need protection because, without it,

“the good employer is undercut by the bad, and the bad employer is undercut by the worst”.—[Official Report, 28 April 1909; Vol. 4, c. 388.]

That predecessor was Winston Churchill. He knew that the best employers need protecting from unfair competition by companies who trade at the expense of rights at work. The Bill protects workers from exploitation and protects businesses from unfair competition. That is why the Bill is pro-worker and pro-business.

Government amendment (a) made to Lords amendment 22.

Government amendment (b) made to Lords amendment 22.

Lords amendment 22, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 1

Right to guaranteed hours

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Peter Kyle.)