Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Steve Barclay Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of employment rights on businesses.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Members across the House will know that I have the distinct honour of being the Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, which is not in Lincolnshire or Lancashire; it is everything south of Heathrow airport until hon. Members get to the River Thames. There are 4,500 small businesses in my constituency. They are its lifeblood. There are also huge employers: BP’s global headquarters is in Spelthorne, as is the world’s second biggest film studios, at Shepperton. I visit as many small businesses as I can, and it is always fascinating to get their insight.

Indeed, I am very much looking forward to next Wednesday, when the Spelthorne Business Forum riverboat trip will see a number of small and medium-sized enterprises come together to go two hours along our beautiful stretch of the River Thames, networking and comparing stories and views. I have to be frank and say that our consideration of the Employment Rights Bill comes in the context of these businesses already smarting, struggling and, in some cases, closing as a result of this Government’s Budget—in particular, the triple whammy of the rise in employers’ national insurance, the minimum wage and business rates.

I should explain that I have a fair experience of life in business. After my 25 years in the Army, I spent 10 years in venture capital and private equity, running, investing in and, we hope, improving small businesses, and growing them into mid-sized businesses and publicly listed bodies. They were mostly in the financial sector, and all had a tech underpinning. Latterly, I spent four years attempting to get Britain’s first ever defined-benefit pension consolidator, the Pension SuperFund, past the Pensions Regulator—an experience from which I still bear the scars.

Yesterday, the House had the opportunity to discuss the measures in the Employment Rights Bill in some detail and to vote on a number of proposed improvements thereto, but I want to concentrate today on the cost of the Bill for businesses. In my view, the cost has been significantly underestimated, and I fear it will come as a shock when the Government see the extent to which it acts as a further sea anchor on growth and employment. Sadly, we have already seen unemployment rise by, I think, 300,000 since this Government took office.

The Government’s impact assessment estimates that the measures in the Bill could cost businesses up to £5 billion annually. According to the Institute of Economic Affairs,

“the £5bn figure is likely to be a considerable underestimate. It almost entirely relates to increased administrative burdens, failing to calculate the significant impacts on business costs and hiring from making it more expensive to employ people.

There is no attempt, for example, to calculate how many fewer people will be hired due to limiting zero hour contracts and day-one rights to unfair dismissal protection”

or

“the costs of more strike action as a result of repealing the measures that made it harder to strike in the Trade Union Act 2016.”

I have been in businesses where people are making very hard decisions. They want to generate growth, they know there is considerable work to be done, and they want to take the next step and make the next investment, but that is a very big decision point, as we will see as I develop this theme. I have seen with my own eyes, talking to Spelthorne businesses, that even today people are curtailing their growth and investment plans. My huge fear is that the new measures in the Employment Rights Bill, which will eventually become an Act, will further dent business confidence, meaning that these businesses will not grow and natural leavers will not be replaced.

Economic studies and business surveys suggest that that will largely be passed on to consumers through higher prices, workers earning lower wages or job losses. I am sure that the Government Members never wanted that to be the outcome of this legislation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that around 80% of the extra costs are passed on in the form of lower wages than would otherwise have been paid. According to the Government’s impact assessment:

“Costs will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses due to the fixed costs of admin and compliance burdens”.

There is, of course, an irreducible minimum: if a business needs a menopause management plan and it has only three employees, someone still has to write and manage that plan. The legislation does not seem to derogate, whereby certain sizes of business can just take a knee and have a bye.

The Regulatory Policy Committee, which assesses the quality of Government impact assessments, says that the Government’s impact assessment for the Employment Rights Bill was “not fit for purpose” and that the Bill could lead to lower wages and fewer jobs. It assessed eight of the 23 individual impact assessments as not fit for purpose, and six were at the highest impact measure category of the original assessment.

The Regulatory Policy Committee said that the Government need to provide more evidence to support an

“imbalance of power between employers and workers in certain sectors of the economy”

as its rationale for introducing the Bill. I am sure hon. Members will have seen that the Bill is, to a certain extent, riven with trade union speak—they will have seen trade union interests being played out in the legislation. Of course, hon. Members in certain parts of the House benefit hugely from being the recipients of donations, as does the Labour party as a whole.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the flaws in the impact assessment—there has been wider commentary supporting that point. Does he agree that one of the issues is the accumulation of different aspects of the Bill? For example, not only will there be more hooks for grievances to be based on, but the removal of the 50% threshold for strike action makes it easier for strikes to follow as a result of those grievances. That is at odds with what Ministers themselves have said. For example, when the British Medical Association went on strike, the Health Secretary criticised the low turnout in the ballot, yet this Bill makes it easier to take strike action on some of those more dubious grievances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I was just about to get to that point. I thank the shadow Minister for the reminder.

I pay tribute to my predecessor for all his work and to the officials and colleagues who worked with him. Many Members of this House and the other place engaged constructively with the team, and their insight has materially shaped the Bill. I thank them for their valuable insights. Likewise, the Bill has been shaped by extensive engagement from external stakeholders, businesses, trade unions and civil society alike. I thank them all for their engagement to date, and I reassure them that this Government remain committed to full and proper consultation on the Bill’s implementation.

I declare my interest as a proud trade union member. I look forward to working with trade unions, businesses and all stakeholders, and to continuing the positive engagement that many stakeholders have had with the Department and with this Government so far.

The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to implementing “Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay” in full and to putting more money in working people’s pockets. The Employment Rights Bill is the legislative backbone of that promise. We will deliver the single biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. That is good for workers and good for business, because we believe that a strong package of workers’ rights and protections go hand in hand with a strong economy. Many good employers already know that. When staff feel secure, they stay longer, are more productive and help the business to succeed. The Bill will help to make that the norm across the economy.

Our first mission as a Government is to deliver economic growth in every single part of the country. The Employment Rights Bill is a vital step. It represents a cornerstone of our mission to grow the economy, and it is designed to modernise the UK labour market, raise living standards and support long-term growth.

Securing that growth is worth doing only if working people actually feel the benefits of it in their pay, in their security and in their daily lives. Too many people face practices that undermine both their security and our economy, from fire and rehire to zero-hours contracts and last-minute shift cancellations. Those practices breed insecurity, and insecurity stifles productivity.

That is why the Bill is at the centre of the Government’s plans and is so significant. It will benefit at least 15 million workers, or half of all UK workers, protecting them from those practices and providing economic safety for the lowest paid in our labour market.

Let us consider a few of the changes that the Bill will bring. Some 9 million employees will gain protection from unfair dismissal, not after two years, but from day one. Workers in some of the most deprived parts of the country will keep hundreds of pounds a year in their pockets instead of losing them to the hidden costs of insecure work, and nearly 1 million more people each year will benefit from bereavement leave when they lose a loved one.

I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her comments in support of the Bill and of the Government’s work in this area, and for her work on the impact of bullying in the workplace over a number of years. I would be happy to meet her to discuss those matters further.

Economic impacts were a key part of the contribution of the hon. Member for Spelthorne. Some still argue that stronger rights are a cost, but I reject that. Stronger rights are an investment in people, in stability and in long-term growth. As set out in the Government’s published impact assessments for the Bill—I will respond in detail to his points on that—there are clear, evidence-based benefits to tackling issues holding back the UK labour market, which will have a positive impact on economic growth and will help to raise living standards across the country.

[Steve Barclay]

I join colleagues in welcoming the Minister to her place. She said in her reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) that there would not be an additional cost, but the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services has raised concerns about the additional costs and the funding gap, given that it will fall on local authorities and will therefore, in turn, require Government support. Could she clarify what she expects to be the extra cost of the Bill in terms of social care?

[Kate Dearden]

I am happy to come back to the right hon. Member on the particular social care interests and concerns that he might have.

Improving worker wellbeing, supporting productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits, worth billions of pounds per year. That is why delivering the benefits of the Bill would offset the costs. That assessment is shared by organisations such as the Resolution Foundation. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment, which the hon. Member for Spelthorne mentioned, is a top-end estimate of that cost, and will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the central estimate close to £1 billion. Even if we take that high-end estimate, the costs are therefore likely to be less than 0.4% of our national wage bill, and could even be as low as 0.1%. That is our best estimate at this stage.