Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire. I think there is a consensus across the House that the most outrageous cases of fire and rehire should be outlawed. The particular case and example is P&O Ferries, which was not so much fire and rehire, but just fire: nearly 800 staff were dismissed without consultation or notice. Nevertheless, it serves to highlight the urgent need for stronger protection for workers and clear restrictions on the use of fire and rehire.

The series of government amendments in this group clarifies that distinction through the introduction of restricted variations that would permit contract negotiation to proceed in limited circumstances. Government Amendment 72 sets up the condition of restricted variation which, in short, it defines as the removal or weakening of entitlement relating to pay and broader terms and conditions. This approach reflects the intentions behind my Amendment 75, which would allow contract variations where they are not detrimental to employees’ terms and conditions and do not concern paid hours. I am glad that the Government have reconsidered the operability of these provisions, and we are happy to support these amendments to the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that, as we warned when we discussed it in Committee, Clause 26 was, as originally drafted, quite simply unworkable.

As we reminded noble Lords throughout Committee, the clause was far too broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases. That approach was not only impractical but potentially damaging to employers and employees alike. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward amendment that define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation. Although I would not go so far as to say that the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible.

The Minister quoted Unite. May I quote Unite back at him? It has just issued a statement saying that it condemns the Government’s amendments, which in its own way suggests that progress is being made. The Minister would be well placed to consider the rather detailed brief that Unite has delivered, condemning the way in which the Government are now reworking Clause 26. It suggests that progress is being made and all our warnings are coming to fruition. One now has to wonder, I suppose, whether the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government’s own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.

Of course, these amendments, while helpful, have added layers of complexity. Look at what Clause 26 now represents: it is a recipe for going to Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and asking, “What does this mean?” There is so much here that is very difficult to understand; these amendments have added layers of complexity. The fire and rehire provisions are probably slightly more workable now—I say this slightly optimistically—but, my goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government are preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn; that consultation will be crucial.

I quote another major figure: Mike Clancy, the general secretary of Prospect. He has warned that

“the government must be careful it doesn’t inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change”.

Surely that is the risk. Among the restricted variations now listed are reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times, and reductions in leave entitlements. These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make—not recklessly, but to adapt, restructure or just survive during periods of financial strain. So we urge the Government to conduct this consultation with care. The views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-sized businesses must be fully understood. Yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. If we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst but support the best.

As amended, this clause is better, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought for a minute that concord might break out across the House—it did at least partially, but not quite. However, as the short debate we have had today and the debates we had in Committee have shown—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, identified this—there is wide agreement across your Lordships’ House that the unconscionable tactics we saw P&O Ferries use should never be allowed again. We have also heard clear arguments that employers will need to make reasonable operational changes and that this should be permitted.

I begin with Amendments 74 and 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seek to make it clear that, where an employer makes redundancies because they have had to change location, this should not be an automatic unfair dismissal. We agree. If there is no longer a job for the employee at a work location because that location has had to close down, this is unfortunate but is still a redundancy situation. That is why new Section 104I will apply only when the principal reason for the dismissal falls within that section. Where an employee’s place of work is closed, the principal reason for their dismissal is likely to be redundancy. We will set out further detail on this matter in our planned code of practice.

Further, the changes that the Government are making through their amendments will mean that a change to the location at which an employee works is a non-restricted variation. This means that, even in cases where there is no redundancy situation, a dismissal for failing to agree to a new work location will not be automatically unfair. An employer must still follow a fair process when making such dismissals.

Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to limit the protections in the Bill to cases in which fire and rehire was used to reduce pay and benefits. Government Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 will focus the clause’s protections on variations to certain terms—specifically pay, leave, total hours worked and specified shift patterns. Those terms were identified because variations to them would have a significant impact on employees and should not be imposed under the threat of fire and rehire. This is, we believe, in line with the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment.

In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised the comments from Unite and Prospect. I think I am right in saying that they were askance. They show that there is a variety of views within the trade union movement as well as across industry. We understand that Unite would like stricter conditions on fire and rehire. We feel that, having consulted a wide range of trade unions—including, of course, the TUC—and a number of business organisations, as well as businesses themselves and representative business organisations, including the CBI and the BRC, we have struck the right balance in the way we have constructed the clause.

Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, proposes to limit the clause to contract variations that are not one of a list of protected terms and are otherwise minor and non-detrimental. The Government’s amendments, which limit the clause’s automatic unfair dismissal protections to a list of restricted variations, achieve the noble Lord’s intended outcome; he very graciously acknowledged this. They also have the benefit of being specific. For example, the Government’s amendments will not require an employment tribunal to come to a decision about whether a variation should be considered minor on the facts of each case. They also give employers flexibility to make reasonable location changes, which employers have told us is an important operational consideration and which would not be possible under the noble Lord’s amendment.

I therefore beg to move the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not to move Amendment 73.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I speak for these Benches in support of Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Noble Lords will remember that it was regrouped, and I referred to it in an earlier debate, as so many of these issues are interlinked. Rightly, it introduces a right for parents to take paid leave

“to care for a child between the ages of 29 days and 16 years who is receiving … specified types of medical or palliative care”.

The amendment is a valuable addition that recognises the significant demands placed on families caring for seriously ill children. I was amazed when I discovered that our laws provide only for parents of babies under 28 days via the neonatal care Act.

I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, very moving, and I thank him for sharing that sad history with us. This is a sad history, and we are just trying to put right the problems in some way. It has been referred to as Hugh’s law, after the child diagnosed with cancer, and I think that is how many of us will remember it.

Amendment 97 would close the gap and create a stand-alone entitlement, modelled on neonatal leave, to ensure that no parent is forced to choose between their child and their livelihood. The proposal, according to figures I have, would cost between just £6 million and £7 million a year, yet the difference it would make to families in crisis is immeasurable. It is targeted and reasonable, and it is a compassionate step forward to protect some of the most vulnerable working families in the UK. It is a positive and complementary amendment, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for having raised what is a profoundly important issue, one that deserves very careful consideration by your Lordships’ House.

As my noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us, serious childhood illness places unimaginable strain on families, and it is not just a case of emotional turmoil. There are so many practical challenges as well, including hospital visits, overnight stays, unexpected emergencies and a need for sustained and focused care that no working parent can possibly schedule around.

I am pleased to say that many good employers already recognise this: in the most extreme circumstances, they show compassion and flexibility, ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between caring for a seriously ill child and retaining their job. At the heart of this is not only compassion but continuity. A child battling serious illness often requires a parent at their side, not occasionally but consistently. Without job protection and some form of financial support, the very people whom we would expect to be there—parents—may find themselves unable to be so.

Of course, any new entitlement must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, reminded us, designed carefully, with due attention to cost, clarity and implementation. Whereas on these Benches we do not take a fixed position on the amendment itself, I welcome the fact that it prompts us to engage seriously with a difficult but crucial area of employment and social policy.

I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate, and I hope that the Government will take from it not only a recognition of the challenge but a willingness to explore how it might be best addressed in law.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate on Amendment 97, which seeks to introduce financial support and leave for the parents of seriously ill children, and I thank all noble Lords who participated in it. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his painful and very personal story. It is clear that, even after a fair number of not just years but decades, the indelible mark of the pain that he and his partner and the rest of his family went through is still with him. On behalf of the whole House, I thank him for sharing that story.

I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute, as, I am sure, does every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate, to the excellent work done by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis and their charity, It’s Never You, which provides vital support to the parents of seriously ill children. Ceri and Frances set up this charity in memory of their late son, Hugh, who died tragically in 2021 after battling a rare form of cancer. It’s Never You has worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to draft this amendment, and I know that Ceri and Frances have campaigned hard on this proposal to honour the memory of their son Hugh and to provide support to parents who face the same tragic circumstances that they did.

It is of course vital that parents be able to spend time at the bedside of their sick child without the fear of loss of employment or financial difficulties adding to a situation that can already be mentally overwhelming, isolating or physically draining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, set out so well. One can only imagine the trauma of being in such a terrible situation. I say that one can imagine, but perhaps one can never really fully understand unless one is in that situation.

I know that this challenge has been raised previously in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and I want to emphasise that the Government are keen to continue to look at the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and It’s Never You. As the noble Baroness said, I have personally met Ceri and Frances several times already, and I have been struck by their selfless determination and resolve to provide for other parents what they did not have. We intend to continue this engagement. I want to ensure that parents of sick children are not ignored or left behind.

However, we do not believe that incorporating this amendment into the Bill would achieve this end, despite the very best of intentions with which it has been prepared. I will highlight three reasons for this.

First, we are concerned about the approach of amending the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act, which was taken through your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, as she set out a moment ago. Although the amendment rightly seeks to provide much-needed care to older children, it risks unintentionally undermining some fundamental principles of neonatal leave and pay, which were designed with the specific situation of newborns requiring medical care in mind. Much of the eligibility criteria for the leave and pay entitlements in the existing Act, for example, are connected to birth-related forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity, that simply would not apply to parents of other children. Similarly, the specific definition of “neonatal care” in the current Act has been carefully constructed through extensive consultation. Again, this amendment would require that to be overhauled, risking creating a gap in existing support.

Secondly, more detailed analysis is required to fully understand the total cost implications of this proposal. We need to understand how many parents may be eligible for support across England, Wales and Scotland, as well as the estimated take-up, familiarisation and business costs. Initially, external estimates suggest that the cost of this amendment could be in the low millions—the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to that specifically—based on data from England only. However, those figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of all parents who may be eligible for support. The actual cost could be significantly higher, depending on how serious illness and other eligibility criteria are defined. Therefore, the overall financial impact will depend on the final definitions and scope used to determine eligibility.

Thirdly, it is also right that the Government consider other suggestions of support that have been put forward by parents who are put in this incredibly challenging and difficult situation, such as the right to a career break to enable parents to take an extended period of time out of work to provide care for a seriously ill child, as has been highlighted by Conservative MP Mark Francois in the other place and his constituent Christina Harris. It is right that the Government explore all proposals before proceeding to legislate in order to ensure good law—indeed, a workable law—and the very best outcome for parents, which I think we all, across the House, agree is needed.

The Government appreciate that there is a significant challenge to be addressed here, but more work needs to be done to understand the best approach and costs of tackling it. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised GoFundMe and the way successful fundraising campaigns interact with the benefits system. That is undoubtedly an area that needs to be understood.

As the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, said, we need to understand the costs, and to have clarity and full consideration. More work needs to be done to understand the best approach and the costs of tackling this issue and addressing it properly. However, I want to be very clear that we are listening, and I have been moved—as we all have—to hear of the distress caused by the incredibly challenging situation of serious childhood illness and the financial strain that comes with caring for a sick child.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for a way forward, and I hope noble Lords will take what I am about to say in the spirit intended. I make a commitment to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to Ceri, Frances and It’s Never You, that we will consult on support for parents of seriously ill children, including the proposal for Hugh’s law, to gain views from all interested parties on the specifics of the support. We are doing this at pace—the consultation will run next year in 2026. We wish to continue working with It’s Never You, the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who are interested—having heard the debate this evening and the strength of opinion across the House—on this extremely important matter, as we further explore this proposal.

It is appropriate that we consult publicly and provide space to hear a range of views to ensure that we arrive at the most appropriate policy outcome. We want to do something that is right. We want to make sure we have a solution that sticks, is workable, and provides the support that so many parents need—indeed, that Ceri and Frances needed but did not have. It is important that we do not rush into it but have a considered approach. I therefore ask, while we undertake this consultation, that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 97.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 103 in my name. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill on Report, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register as a member of the global advisory board of Endeavour plc and of the science and technology advisory committee of the Crown Estate, and I had a speaking engagement with the FCSA earlier this year.

Amendment 103 is incredibly simple and extraordinarily important for all those young people who have the most appalling start to their career through finding themselves on the wrong end of an unpaid internship. This has been going for decades and it goes on in some of our smartest industries in the 21st century.

The amendment is a reincarnation of a Private Member’s Bill that I brought forward in 2017. I am delighted to say that when I brought that Bill, which is now Amendment 103 to this Bill, it received full-throated support from the Labour Opposition, whom I thank. It also received full-throated support from the TUC and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, whom I thank.

The amendment simply seeks to give young people the right to have a positive experience—often their first—of entering the labour market. Unpaid internships are already illegal under the National Minimum Wage Regulations, but this amendment further clarifies and specifies what work experience is and, crucially, what it is not. It stops work experience being used as a cover for unpaid internships.

When I drafted the amendment, my first inclination was to have work experience paid from day one. But after wide consultation with businesses and trade unions and across civil society, it was clear that four weeks was the right point to suggest that young people—indeed, any person—could do genuine work experience, overseeing, learning and replicating tasks. If that person is brought on board and is doing work from day one, they are protected by the National Minimum Wage Regulations and are entitled to pay. Work experience has a vital role to play in our society and, as the results of my consultation underpin, four weeks is the right point at which to set the limit.

When the amendment was debated in Committee, when sadly I could not be present, a number of views were put forward that suggested there were difficulties with it because unscrupulous employers could simply have numerous rounds of four-week or part-of-four-week periods, but that is not accurate. The wording describes it as a

“continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks”,

so the drafting already caters for employers who might seek to get around it by having continuous periods of unpaid work experience.

As one young person put it to me, you cannot pay the rent or pay for food with a glowing CV. Ultimately, it is just a question of talent. Why would we want businesses and organisations not to be able to take from the widest, broadest and most diverse talent pool to go into these roles? Some of these roles are at the classier end of the labour market, but it goes through all strata of the labour market. Surely these positions should be open to all on a fair and equitable basis. That is what this amendment would allow for.

We have the ideal opportunity with this Bill to put this right. It seems more than extraordinary, with so many of the other issues that are covered in this not unsizeable Bill, that there is nothing on unpaid internships, nothing to protect those people who find themselves being exploited at the beginning of their career. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, what Bill? If not this amendment, will the Government not bring forward some wording to end this pernicious practice, which still prevails in 21st-century Britain—a desperate, dispiriting, Dickensian practice that still goes on across our labour market? Why would the Government, alongside all their other measures, not take this opportunity to close this loophole? It would allow young people, or any person seeking to get their first foothold in the labour market, to have a positive, supportive work experience into paid employment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate. As he has pointed out, the challenge is to strike the right balance. We must protect individuals from being exploited or drawn into extended unpaid roles that are in effect jobs by another name, but we also must avoid placing undue burdens on organisations whose motives are benign and whose placements offer genuine social and developmental value. I welcome the debate that the amendment has prompted, and I hope that as the Bill progresses, the Government will engage closely with stakeholders to ensure that any future regulations achieve the twin goals of fairness for individuals and viability for those offering valuable early opportunities.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate around Amendment 103 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks to prohibit work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. With regret, as he said, the noble Lord was unable to join us in the Chamber in Committee when we debated this amendment, which was moved on his behalf very ably by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I do not believe is in his place at the moment.

The Government have always been clear that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. You need only look at the Government’s track record on the national minimum wage and the provisions in this Bill to see how the Government are delivering on this commitment. I will reiterate what I have said on this issue previously because it is worth emphasising: the existing legislation is clear that aside from a very small number of exemptions, workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage should be paid accordingly. No ifs, no buts. These are the rules that our enforcement body enforces, and these are the rules that we expect businesses to abide by. Of course, the vast majority do, but those that do not undercut the responsible businesses unfairly, and we should all be agreed that this is not behaviour that we should tolerate. This means that an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them. I want to repeat this very important point, not only for your Lordships’ House but for those who are listening to this debate outside: an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them.

If workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage are not being paid what they are due, there are protections in place so that they can receive what they are owed. The Government and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs have raised and continue to raise awareness on workers’ rights, so that no one is left out of pocket. I have previously stated that the Government will be consulting on this issue soon. In fact, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships’ House that this consultation will indeed begin tomorrow with a call for evidence. I do not believe that I am overstating the case when I say that all of us in this House care about this issue, in particular, ensuring that our young people have access to opportunities, regardless of their background, whether they can afford to work for free or where they are based in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke powerfully on that basic right and I think that we are all in agreement with the principle.

This amendment, while well-intentioned, risks creating loopholes, where existing workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage from day one could find themselves working for free for up to four weeks. I am sure that we would all agree that this is not right and not what any of us wants to see. Adopting this amendment could well lead to an influx of four-week roles appearing, with only those who can afford to work for free accessing them. We do not want to lock away valuable opportunities and create unintended consequences by rushing through this amendment. These issues are complex, which is why I reiterate that it is important that the Government consult on this issue first. To make clear, we are standing by our words in Committee. When we said that we would be starting the consultation “soon”, in this case, that means tomorrow. As I stated in our debate in Committee, the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address can be dealt with most effectively outside of this Bill. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 103.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches do not support these amendments. The obligation to consult collectively in redundancy situations is a vital safeguard for workers, providing them with a voice and an opportunity to understand and respond to proposed job losses. Reducing consultation rights, especially during the turmoil of insolvency, would leave employees even more vulnerable at a time of significant uncertainty. Similarly, cutting the notice period would deny workers essential time to plan, seek advice and make necessary financial and personal arrangements. We believe strongly that these protections must be preserved and not weakened.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea for his amendments. I thank the Minister and her team for the way in which they have entertained and thought through some of the key points made by my noble friend. As he rightly pointed out, collective redundancies are, sadly, not uncommon in cases of employer insolvency. In such circumstances, the role of the insolvency practitioner, which my noble friend has outlined so clearly, is both time-critical and highly constrained. The legal duties placed upon practitioners can come into direct tension with the obligation to consult collectively with employees, a tension that is not merely theoretical but is borne out time and again in practice.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that the amendment does not seek gratuitously to diminish the rights of employees. My noble friend has drawn the Government’s attention to a genuine gap in the law, one that has become more acute in the light of the changes that the Bill introduces. As it stands, the duty to consult can place insolvency practitioners in an impossible position, bound by law to take urgent decisions to preserve value or manage a collapse while also facing legal jeopardy for failing to comply with collective consultation obligations that were not, and never were, designed with insolvency in mind.

We have to be realistic. Where a company is collapsing, consultation—however desirable—cannot always be carried out in the prescribed way. It is in nobody’s interests, least of all that of employees, to put insolvency practitioners in a position where they are forced to choose between compliance with employment law and their fiduciary responsibilities.

I believe that the Government should take my noble friend’s arguments seriously. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a matter of practical urgency. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the implications of the clause and to engage with my noble friend’s proposal in the constructive spirit in which it is offered.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Amendments 108 and 109, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, would amend Clause 27. I thank the noble Lord, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for their engagement in this matter when we met.

On Amendment 108, the clause as drafted does not alter how collective redundancy obligations apply to insolvent employers. It is right that, when employers know that their business is in trouble and redundancies will be necessary, they should be required to do as much as possible to collectively consult on those redundancies. That was the case before and it will be the case after this legislation comes into force, so nothing has changed.

Employers should consult when they propose to make a qualifying number of redundancies, and they will face penalties if they do not. However, crucially, as my officials and I have discussed with noble Lords, those penalties are set by a tribunal, which will take into consideration the seriousness of the employer’s default, as well as any mitigating factors. The amount set out in legislation is a maximum award, but tribunals may award less where the employer or insolvency practitioner has taken all reasonable steps to consult for as long as possible in the circumstances.

Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already affords flexibility for employers who cannot fulfil their collective consultation obligations. It allows employment tribunals to assess on a case-by-case basis whether there are special circumstances which make it not reasonably practicable for an employer to comply with their collective consultation obligations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his important words when he talks about the impact of the Bill on small and medium-sized enterprises. The fact is that while the Government recognise the impact, they have not really taken enough time and trouble to identify the extent of that impact. The Government may argue that they cannot predict the future. We are not asking them to, but we are asking for greater effort in understanding the likely incentives that their policies will create and for a thorough, transparent review of the impact on small businesses. Only then can this House exercise proper scrutiny and ensure accountability.

I will now deal primarily with Amendment 166 in the names of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s existing impact assessment a red rating. We have referred to this before, and the Government have never denied that rating. The rating means that they have failed to provide an adequate analysis of most of the Bill’s provisions. The Government talk about the Bill representing the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in decades, and one that is long overdue. If that is indeed the case, we should expect a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis of its effect, in particular on small businesses, which make up 99% of all businesses in the UK.

Amendment 194 is not a wrecking amendment. The fact is that the Government have provided no evidence of any tangible benefit from their proposed trade union reforms—we will deal with those in much more detail on our next day on Report. The Government optimistically suggest that the changes might improve industrial relations, but no one seriously believes that—I doubt that even the trade unions do. We have seen the chaos that these types of measures have caused in the public sector. Our worry is that the Government now want to import that chaos into the private sector. Even if strike days are reduced, it will come at a high price: unaffordable pay rises and extreme regulatory burdens designed to placate union demands. That will ultimately harm hiring, weaken competitiveness and make the UK a far less attractive place in which to invest.

As for Part 5 of the Bill, the Government are proposing to hand sweeping powers to the new fair work agency without any meaningful safeguards. Will a minor accounting error mean that family-run businesses face raids from civil servants and property seizures? Will everyday employees with small workplace grievances, who simply want to resolve them informally, find themselves sidelined as the Secretary of State pushes their case to a tribunal, without their knowledge or consent?

Let us be clear: when the Conservative Party wins the next general election, we will repeal these sections and restore a labour market rooted in growth and prosperity.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to his amendment.

Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seeks to repeal Parts 4 and 5 of this Bill, as well as Sections 149 and 150 at the end of this Parliament. In Committee, we debated at length the merits of Part 4 and 5 of the Bill, as I am sure we will again next week, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Parts 4 and 5 are key to delivering the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, so I do not wish to repeat myself to your Lordships’ House tonight.

Amendment 166, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, proposes a review process that effectively duplicates what we are already doing. As I have outlined previously, the Government already have robust monitoring and evaluation plans in place. The Government’s impact assessment sets out how we will review the Bill and any secondary legislation that follows, including effects on small businesses, which we know are vital to the economy. The recently published road map shows that implementing this Bill will take several years and its full effects will not be realised until long after Royal Assent. Significantly advancing a post-implementation review would not allow for an effective assessment of its impact, including on small businesses.

On Amendment 111, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, this Government know the importance of making sure that employers of all sizes are supported in preparing for employment rights reforms. As set out in our road map, the Government are committed to ensuring there is sufficient support and guidance for employers of all sizes. As set out in paragraph 24 on page 8 of the road map, we will be working closely with ACAS and others to develop codes of practice and guidance on measures where these are needed. We have committed to ensuring time is built into our implementation plans to allow stakeholders, including many small businesses, to familiarise themselves with changes in law, codes of practice and guidance. Many of the measures in the Bill build on existing legislative provisions which already have guidance and codes of practice. When we make changes to regulations, we will also work to update relevant guidance and codes of practice as a result.

We know one of the main places that people turn to for reliable, accurate information on legal requirements is GOV.UK. Work is currently under way to ensure that our digital content is usable, easy to navigate and accessible for all stakeholders. In addition, we have engaged, and will continue to do so, with stakeholders of all sizes to understand what support will be useful for them in implementing these changes.

The noble Lord’s amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. An additional code of practice on top of the guidance and support that the Government have already planned risks causing confusion among stakeholders as to where they should turn for clarity and certainty. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 111.