Employment Rights Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to welcome the maiden speeches of four new colleagues, each of whom will clearly make powerful contributions in the years to come in your Lordships’ House.

I start off by chiding the Whips somewhat. Many speakers today have gone beyond the four-minute limit, which is perfectly understandable. This is a Bill of 300 pages, 157 clauses and 12 schedules. There is much to say. I wonder why we are finishing at 7 pm this evening when we are sitting tomorrow and those noble Lords who normally leave on a Thursday to go home do not have to do so today. It would have been better if we had a bit longer for this debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, talked perhaps a little pejoratively of those speakers who wait until the end, listening and nodding sagely. Well, I have nodded sagely to some of the contributions that I have heard—mainly of course from this side. I see that the noble Lord is now nodding—sagely, I hope. For what it is worth, I do regard him as the finest orator in the House currently. But, having said that, I agree with hardly a word that he says. To paraphrase perhaps Ella Fitzgerald or, more recently, Bananarama, “It’s not what you say, it’s the way that you say it”.

When I looked at the list, I saw the number of Tories down to speak and thought, “That’s interesting, they’ve come round to our view on unemployment rights”. Unfortunately, having heard the contributions, that is not the case for far too many. I would definitely accept the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, from the Benches opposite. Employment rights actually means employer rights. That is the big divide that we have heard in the debate today.

Some of the doom and gloom almost defies description. Some noble Lords who were here, as I was, 25 years ago, at the time of the national minimum wage, thought that the economy would crash, that there would be mass unemployment, that employers would never be able to pay that. Well, here we are, 25 years later, and the national minimum wage, and indeed a figure beyond it, is now widely accepted. So those sorts of comments are not justified.

Because of the spread within the Bill, we have had many briefings, as my noble friend Lady Goudie said. We have all had them: in my case from the National Education Union, through the Law Society and even UKHospitality. We cannot possibly do them justice in this debate.

One of the briefings that I found most moving was a briefing in person this week from the TUC. We heard from workers who came to tell us what they thought the Bill would do for them in their situation. I remember particularly an USDAW shop worker, Fionulla Rhodes, who told us how some of her colleagues go to work in fear. That is an intolerable situation. We heard from Ceferina Floresca and Garfield Hylton, GMB members at Amazon, about the appalling tactics of that company when the union was trying to organise a ballot to legitimise the union. They reached the threshold and just as they got beyond it, what did Amazon do? It employed 1,000 new workers to move the threshold further away. This Bill will stop these sorts of abuses and will give to people like Fionulla, Ceferina and Garfield not just protection at work but dignity at work. That is a huge step forward.

There is not much time to say anything else. I enjoyed the contributions from many colleagues. The noble Baronesses, Lady Prosser and Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned the Equal Pay Act. My university dissertation, in 1974, was on the Equal Pay Act and now, half a century later, although progress has been made, so much more still needs to be made. This Bill will undoubtedly help to redress the balance, addressing a lot of the imbalance in employment legislation over the past four decades. Next, we will be going into Committee, and I remind noble Lords that in Committee they will have up to 10 minutes to speak on amendments.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 134, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

The aim of this amendment is simple but vital. It seeks to provide day one financial support for parents of children diagnosed with a serious or life-limiting illness. It would create a new statutory right for parents to take a period of paid leave from employment to care for their seriously ill child. This right would apply to parents of children aged between 29 days and 16 years old who are receiving or have received specified types of medical or palliative care. The duration of this leave, including rate of pay, would need to be set out in regulation.

This amendment is tabled in honour of a young boy named Hugh, who sadly lost his battle to rhabdomyosarcoma, a rare form of cancer, at just six years old. His parents, Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis founded the charity It’s Never You to help support the parents of children who have been diagnosed with serious illnesses. They have been campaigning for three years to change the law and are here in the Gallery tonight to listen to this debate.

Throughout Hugh’s treatment, Ceri and Frances saw first hand the immense challenges faced by parents—not just the emotional and physical strain of caring for a seriously ill child but the severe financial pressures that come with it. Each year, around 4,000 families in the UK spend two months or more in hospital with their child, who is undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness. These parents are being forced to make the impossible choice of earning a living or being by their child’s bedside. The current system is leaving these families unsupported at the most vulnerable moment in their lives. Many are selling their homes, their clothes and turning to crowdfunding sites like GoFundMe just to cover basic living costs, which can go against them in any application for universal credit.

At present, no parent is entitled to any financial support in the first 90 days of their child’s illness. After 90 days, they can apply for disability living allowance, which would help with the costs of caring for their sick child. But even then, successful DLA applications can take up to 20 weeks to be approved.

Of the families surveyed by It’s Never You, 90% believed that immediate financial support would have made a critical difference to the hardships they faced following their child’s diagnosis and treatment. This amendment seeks to build on important progress made through the 2023 Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act. Under this Act, parents of babies admitted to neonatal care within the first 28 days of life and who require a hospital stay of seven continuous days or more, are now entitled to up to 12 weeks of statutory leave with pay for those eligible. This leave is also in addition to existing maternity or paternity entitlements.

Regarding these recent legislative changes, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, remarked:

“No parent should have to choose between being with their vulnerable newborn or returning to work … We are giving parents peace of mind so they can focus on their family.”


Considering this statement, I would like to ask the Minister just one question. The Government clearly recognise that no parent should be forced to have to make such choices between their child’s health and employment. So why are they so reluctant to provide essential financial support to those vulnerable parents who are in equally devastating situations?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 77 on foster carers’ leave, and Amendments 78 and 79 on kinship carers’ leave. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on bringing them forward.

Both types of carers, as the noble Lord said in tabling his amendments, provide a huge service by allowing children to remain in loving family settings, and both types will be the subject of wider consideration in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. But today there is a need to ensure that the essential caring role they provide is acknowledged by making provision for them to have a right to leave, as do employees.

Foster carers at least receive fees and allowances, although a survey by The Fostering Network last year found that 32% of local authorities pay less than the national minimum allowance to their foster carers, and even those rates are out of date and fail to meet the costs of caring for a child. It is also essential that recognition be given to foster carers’ right to leave from work to enable them to respond to situations in the same way as birth parents are able to do.

There are over 150,000 children in kinship care in England, and yet there is a lack of understanding among the general public as to just what kinship care is and what it involves. It is any situation in which a child has been raised in the care of a friend or family member who is not their parent. The arrangement may be temporary, or it may be long term. Kinship carers need employment leave because they step up in times of crisis to provide love and care to children who may otherwise be sent to the care system—a situation that has often come about because of tragedy and/or trauma.

The period when the child moves in with a family can be difficult. They are likely to need a lot of support. Often, the carer has not planned to take on parenting responsibilities for one or more children, so they may have to spend time attending meetings with children’s services, being involved in court proceedings, finding a nursery or making arrangements with the child’s school and GP. Sometimes, children’s services place an expectation on kinship carers that they at least temporarily stop working, if they think it necessary to meet the needs of the child.

Whether the carer receives any local authority support, in a financial sense, in this situation is dependent on where the carer lives, the type of arrangement and whether the child is or was previously in the care system. More often than not, kinship carers become dependent on social security, which is simply not right or fair. Surveys by Family Rights Group have found that a third of working-age kinship carers are not in paid employment due to their caring responsibilities, and six in 10 kinship carers have to give up work or reduce their hours when the child comes to live with them.

The contrast between adoptive parents and foster carers is stark. Adopters are entitled to 52 weeks of leave and 39 weeks of pay to enable them to settle a child into their home. This is paid at 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, followed by a payment which currently stands at £184 a week for the next 33 weeks, and employers can usually reclaim almost all those costs. There is no equivalent employment leave entitlement or payment for kinship carers, but there should be. Amendment 78 would introduce significant steps towards that, because providing kinship carers with paid leave would provide families with financial security and lead to direct savings for the Treasury from kinship carers remaining in employment, reduced universal credit claims and greater tax revenues, not to mention wider social benefits from gains in children’s well-being and in GDP.

Foster carers and kinship carers do not simply provide a service to the children they look after: they provide a service to the Government by lessening the demands on children’s services and saving public expenditure. I very much hope that my noble friend will recognise this and give an assurance that she will bring forward a government amendment to right these very obvious wrongs around leave for foster carers and kinship carers, and recognise the vital service that they provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I appreciate what the Minister has said. If I heard him correctly, he said it would not be appropriate to introduce this leave without undertaking an assessment of how it would be applied. Will such an assessment be undertaken? I think it is important.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to my noble friend with more details. We will cover some of the issues on carer’s leave in the round later in my speech, but I thank him for his intervention.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 143B standing in my name, regarding outsourcing measures and their applicability to higher education providers across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Universities, like other employers, are preparing for the enactment of the Bill and will be adapting to the new legislative expectations around workers’ rights. I want to stress from the outset that universities wholeheartedly support the Bill’s objectives to ensure fair employment practices for workers. They do, however, have some technical concerns about Clause 30. I hope that, through Amendment 143B, my noble friend can provide helpful reassurances to the higher education sector—so this is a probing amendment.

As noble Lords will be aware, Clause 30 outlines expectations that contracting authorities must treat any employee transferred from a contracted body no less favourably in the terms offered than core employees. Many universities consider themselves to fall within the definition of “contracting authority”, meaning they may inadvertently be caught by this clause. This is of great concern to the higher education sector and, so far as I am aware, does not appear to have been scrutinised in the Bill so far.

The enormous financial challenges facing universities are well documented, and I know are of grave concern to many Members of this House. The potential imposition of further costs for universities from Clause 30 should therefore be of concern. For the many universities that constitute as contracting authorities, there are likely to be significant cost implications, as well as increased difficulty in finding contractors as a result of this clause. Crucially, unlike with public bodies, these additional costs for universities will not be met by the Government.

In addition to the financial implications, there is also the potential for policy divergence across the UK. Given that Scotland and Wales will be able to set their own regulations and code of practice, there may be inconsistency in arrangements, which could discourage agreements with suppliers. This would have a particular impact in the complex environment that the higher education sector operates in and could have a significant impact on its moves towards greater efficiency.

I would appreciate assurances from my noble friend on three questions. The first is whether, and in what circumstances, universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation. Has my noble friend’s department or the Department for Education made an assessment of the likely impact of Clause 30 on the university sector? Secondly, are the outsourcing measures defined in Clause 30 applicable to pension provision? Where employees are transferred to another organisation, will their pension arrangements form part of the requirement that they be treated no less favourably? Thirdly, what consideration will be given to the impact on shared services where many providers, including across UK nations, will work with the same body as a key driver of efficiency efforts? If my noble friend is unable to provide assurances from the Dispatch Box today, a letter would be very warmly received.

I urge my noble friend and her department to engage closely with the higher education sector to ensure that the implementation of Clause 30 does not inadvertently undermine the financial sustainability and operational flexibility of our universities. While of course we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to fair employment practices, we must also ensure that the legislation takes full account of the distinct nature of the higher education sector and supports our universities to continue their vital work.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Warwick on an issue that, as far as I am aware, has not appeared anywhere else but is of some importance. There is growing unease in the higher education sector about the potential implications of Clause 30. Universities UK has said it is frustrated that its letters to both officials and Ministers—they would be the same thing, I imagine—remain unanswered. UUK is probably being a bit polite in saying that it is frustrated; I suggest that it is unacceptable for a letter from any UK-wide organisation not to receive a response. If nothing else, I hope my noble friend will be able to give an assurance in her reply that she will ensure that Universities UK receives a considered response to its very legitimate concerns.

As my noble friend said, the higher education sector is concerned at the potential impact of measures proposed in Clause 30, which relate to outsourcing, on current arrangements within the sector and on the viability of steps that universities have taken or are planning to take in order to stabilise their financial position. Many universities consider themselves as falling within the definition of contracting authorities and may therefore be inadvertently caught in this clause of the legislation.

As originally introduced, the public sector outsourcing provisions applied to contracting authorities in England only. However, Ministers introduced an amendment in Committee in another place, and provisions now apply to contracting authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Again as my noble friend said, the major point on which clarification is essential is whether and in what circumstances universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation.

There is also the question of whether the planned separate outsourcing rules for different UK nations will or even might create complex and prohibitive arrangements for universities. As an example, if an institution is working across the UK nations—a good example would be the Open University—that could mean it is subject to two or more sets of outsourcing rules, potentially providing a conflicting legislative framework for its operational practice. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify how the Government envisage such separate outsourcing rules will operate, and that in doing so she will provide reassurance to many in the higher education sector who, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, are very supportive of the Bill in general but fear that universities could become victims of unintended consequences.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for her introduction to her Amendment 143B. We think it is important to recognise the unique position of higher education providers when considering worker protection in public sector outsourcing. Because universities and similar institutions operate outside the traditional public sector framework, they possess a level of autonomy that sets them apart from government bodies, so applying the same regulatory requirements to these institutions clearly risks imposing unnecessary burdens that could affect their ability to focus on their core missions of education and research.

The amendment seems to us to thoughtfully acknowledge that difference by excluding higher education providers from the scope of these specific worker protection provisions. Such an approach would allow the focus of these protections to remain on core public sector organisations, where procurement processes are more standardised and closely tied to government accountability. At the same time, it would respect the operational independence of universities.

The fair treatment of workers remains an essential principle across all sectors, including higher education. Encouraging good employment practices within universities should continue through other means, but the amendment recognises the practical realities faced by these institutions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the proposition that Clause 31, on equality action plans, should not stand part of the Bill. We meet tonight with the knowledge that the OECD has downgraded the UK’s likely GDP for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said, I think I am right in saying, that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of the Bill. This is an example of exactly that.

I am very concerned about this clause, because it is very widely drawn and relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled, or laid before the House, once the Bill becomes an Act. I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Is it really the duty and responsibility of a Minister in the sixth-biggest economy in the world, a mature economy of 68 million people, to impose by ministerial fiat, in primary legislation, the minutiae, the weeds, of

“the content of a plan”

for every business that has more than 250 employees,

“the form and manner in which a plan or information is to be published; when and how”

that plan is published, and, in new subsection (5)(d)—maybe I am being obtuse, but I do not even understand the meaning of this—

“requirements for senior approval before a plan or information is published”?

What does that even mean? Does it mean the chief people officer, the chief executive, the managing director or what?

It would be much better were the Government to use their energy, and the good will that is behind significant parts of the Bill, to work with people such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others to develop professional, timely briefings for employers. But they are not doing that. They are instead insisting, in the Bill, that they will direct these equality action plans, irrespective of what type of business is being transacted and whether it has a workforce of 251, 25,000 or 250,000.

In fact, the clause does not even define “employee”, “employer” or “descriptions of information”. It fails to define them and says that those details will be reserved for regulations to be laid after the Bill gets Royal Assent. New subsection (7) is also very opaque when it states:

“The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed”.


Again, that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what it means or what sanctions will be in place and available for Ministers to lay down in regulations. New subsection (6) states:

“The regulations may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently”.


It does not say “must not”, so Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications of and changes to these regulations.

For all those reasons, this is an unnecessary clause. It will add costs and administrative burdens. It will certainly take a significant amount of time, for instance, to get in specialists in human resources as consultants to draw up these plans on perhaps a 12-monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative time and take away from employing people, for the bottom line and profit, which will impact employability. For that reason, I support the proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to express a view that I did not think I would be expressing in your Lordships’ House. I am utterly appalled by this proposition and the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who, lest there were any doubt, has given the clearest possible indication of her political journey from the extreme left to the extreme right, which is there for all to see.

It is an absolute disgrace to suggest that to seek to help women in the workplace gain equality is somehow to treat them as victims. I did my university dissertation in 1974 on the Equal Pay Act, when the gap between men and women was 25%. Half a century later, it is down to something like 7% or 8%. Yes, that is a huge improvement, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others who have spoken have said, “Well, that’s okay. We can leave it there. We don’t want to push it any further, because it’s going to burden industry with costs”. What about the women who are burdened with wages lower than they are entitled to get for the job they do on a day-to-day basis?

It is well known that inclusivity in the workforce increases levels of production, is good for problem solving and enhances job retention. I am talking not just about gender issues but wider diversity. The speech that the noble Baroness made and others have echoed will be cheered to the rafters by Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, because it is exactly the sort of thing they have been saying, and I think it is a very dangerous line for Members of this House to push. It is a perfectly legitimate expectation in a Bill such as this that an equality action plan is something that employers should be expected to have. Many already do—they do not need to be told. Good employers have one in place and are benefiting from the standard of output they are getting from employees who are more satisfied because they are clearly better valued. To suggest that we just leave it there is absolute nonsense.

I will not talk about the menopause, but I just could not believe what I heard—that, somehow, women are being painted as victims. As a man, it is difficult for me to comment, but there is a broad spread of opinion that the issue has to be dealt with by employers. To be perfectly fair, some employers do, but others do not, and there should at least be the opportunity for women who want to take advantage of this to be able to do so. To try to slam that door in their faces is an absolute disgrace.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, what a relief to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Watson—I thought I was going to be on my own with the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. They were prophets of doom and living in another world.