Tuesday 29th April 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (29 Apr 2025)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking from the Back Benches to make two brief points. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading.
First, if we have to have a purpose clause—it is not an approach that I particularly favour—it has to include a reference to competitiveness, growth and perhaps, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, has suggested, productivity. Does the Minister agree?
Secondly, like my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I am shocked at the number of government amendments made to the Bill at such a late stage, and to legislation that is so important to all parts of business, all employers in the public sector and of course all employees, and their representatives, whom the noble Lord, Lord Monks, rightly referenced.
I have some sympathy for the Minister. I had a similar experience with the Procurement Act, although it was not quite as bad because we had consulted extensively, and it was a Lords starter. But like this Bill, it was introduced before it was ready and needed a large number of amendments. As the responsible Minister, I was very keen to listen to criticism of the detail and respond by agreeing to amendments or tabling government amendments that responded to the genuine difficulties, and I think there are genuine difficulties with this Bill. We worked across the House very well and I hope the noble Baroness will consult her Front-Bench colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Hayman of Ullock, who engaged constructively in scrutiny on all the procurement detail.
Another good example is the minimum wage legislation referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I remember when I was at Tesco persuading the then Labour Government that they should not include a requirement to put the national minimum wage on all payslips. It was going to cost us millions and require a change in our IT systems. Labour listened and the implementation of the Act went more smoothly as a result. It is very important to listen to the practicalities when making these changes. They can affect different parts of the Bill in different ways.
Finally, we have heard a lot about Europe and comparisons with Europe. I have spent a lot of time in Europe, but I would be interested to hear also about what is going on in the growing markets of Asia and—I suppose until more recently—the growing market of the United States.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 1 from the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. Paragraph (c) would
“make provisions about pay and conditions in certain sectors”.
My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston made some very good points about the tech sector—those entrepreneurs and businesses of the future. It was very important to hear what she had to say. However, I wish to stand up for the hospitality sector. Do any of the Members opposite know what it is like to run a hospitality sector business and the challenges of employing people to cater and serve in that sector?
UKHospitality recently launched the social productivity index, which shows that the hospitality sector is also a key driver in socially productive growth, not only contributing to economic expansion but fostering social mobility and regional development. With 57% of the workforce working 30 hours or fewer per week, the sector offers flexible employment options that make it particularly accessible to students, carers and parents—I do not know how many noble Lords in this Chamber today at some stage in their career worked in hospitality, but it is an excellent first opportunity to get into the world of work.
Unfortunately, in broad terms, the proposed changes in the latest set of amendments to the Bill seem destined to result in a framework of requirements that are more likely to hinder than to promote growth in the hospitality sector. In particular, without further addressing the concerns of businesses and considering alternative options, it is felt that the Bill is likely to lead to reductions in staff recruitment, the rate of wage growth and the level of investment. The Bill looks likely to hinder hospitality businesses and restrict growth. It seems to assume that all employers are bad actors with regards to their dealings with their staff. This is patently not the case for the majority of businesses, which recognise the need to recruit and retain staff and ensure they are supported and secure at work.
There still appears to be a disregard for seasonal business models and unpredictable trading in sectors such as pubs and wider hospitality businesses, which are required to adapt quickly to changes in trade patterns determined, for example, by weather or other events outside their control. A reduction in businesses’ ability to respond quickly and proactively to changing demand will undoubtedly result in higher operating costs. That will naturally need to be met by either increasing prices, reducing other staff costs or reducing investment.
These impacts are compounded by the Budget announcements on employer NICs and national living wage rates. Spiralling employment costs will be exacerbated by the additional cost and administrative burdens that the Bill will layer on top, all impacting investment and growth. The unintended consequences of this Bill are slower wage growth and recruitment. I am sure the Minister does not intend that to be the case. Can she reassure the Committee that it will not be the case if the Bill goes ahead as it is?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1, although possibly not for quite the same reasons as those already expressed in this Chamber, and I regret I was not able to speak at Second Reading.
When dealing with a purpose clause, one cannot avoid spending a moment dwelling on the broader principles behind the Bill before coming to the amendment itself. It is worth noting that one of the reasons the British economy has surprised so many people over the last decade or so on the upside, despite all the gloomy predictions, is because it is an extremely flexible and responsive economy, particularly in the labour market. Most indices of these things put us in the global top 10 of labour market flexibility, which I regard as a good thing, although clearly many noble Lords who have spoken do not.
There is a paradox here, in that flexibility is the best way of delivering security—maybe not in any individual job, but security of employment and income over a period. The Government seem to think that the only way to ensure job security is to put in place more and more intrusive and detailed legislation to require it. That is why we are going to be discussing, no doubt at great length and with huge complexity, this massive Bill which tries to do just that. It is damaging that the Bill is being made up as it goes along to such a large extent; it just multiplies the complexity and difficulty.
I do not think that is the right way to look at job security. The best way to look at it is that flexibility produces security. If it is easier to change the terms and conditions of a job, or easier to dismiss people if they do not fit, then it is also easier to re-employ or shift resources from low-productivity to high-productivity sectors and to deliver growth in the economy. The approach in the Bill protects insiders at the expense of entrepreneurs and those who are outside the labour market, so it is not surprising that the representatives of trade unions are so supportive of it. The trade unions represent the insiders, but they are not the only people who have an interest in labour market flexibility.
I make these points because they go to the difficulty of drafting a satisfactory purpose clause for this Bill. It is desirable to have a purpose clause for something that is so complex and sprawling in the way it tries to legislate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has written it as cleverly and clearly as he possibly could in the circumstances. It is cleverly written, but the difficulty is not so much that it is not sufficiently exhaustive but that it contradicts the contents of the Bill. It sets out a number of things which the Bill simply does not do. For example, in paragraph (a) of the proposed new clause, it talks about “fairness”. Well, that may be fairness for employees on one definition but not for employers or those who are outside the formal labour market. Whose fairness are we talking about?
Paragraphs (b) and (d) in the proposed new clause do not “facilitate”—to use the word in the amendment—good labour relations; they actually make them more bureaucratic, complicated, difficult and hard to implement. Paragraph (c) makes provision for pay and conditions but, arguably, it should not be doing that at all—that is not the business of the Government but the business of employers and employees. The only one that is an accurate description of what is in the Bill is paragraph (e), the simple statement that it is to
“make provisions about the enforcement of labour market legislation”,
which it certainly does.
I am not sure that there is a satisfactory way of dealing with this. Nevertheless, I support this purpose clause amendment, because it seems to me that if it were to pass, the logical consequence, to be consistent, would be that large parts of the rest of the Bill would have to fall away to be consistent with the expressed purpose in this purpose clause. If the Bill were to be internally consistent with the things that we say are desirable, then much of this Bill is simply not consistent with that. Now, what goes first—the purpose clause or the rest of the Bill? I think we know how that is going to play out. Nevertheless, that is why it is difficult to get to a satisfactory purpose clause for this Bill. It would be good if much of the Bill fell away—no doubt we will come on to that in the next seven days—as it is going to cause a lot of damage to the economy and to growth.
To conclude, I support the amendment, if not perhaps for exactly the same reasons that others have supported it. It will enhance and make clearer, to some extent, what is a very sprawling, complex and unsatisfactory Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to all of the amendments in the group. I spoke at Second Reading. As my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out, we only had four to five minutes then, so this gives us an opportunity to consider further what the purposes should be. In the document published by the Labour Government, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade referred to the fact that this would be about getting more people into work. So far under this Administration, we have, unfortunately and regrettably, seen unemployment rise.
At the same time, comments have been made by noble Lords on the other side, such as by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who referred to income inequality. What he may have forgotten is that, under the previous Labour Administration, income inequality rose. Meanwhile, under the recent Conservative Administration, income inequality fell. So, this is a case of trying to make sure that, as we take the legislation through, we focus on the outcomes it will have for people right across this country, rather than dogma. There is a combination of factors where, frankly, flexible labour has generally improved the prosperity of people in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, complained that people in work were on universal credit. That is a large point of it. We have finally got rid of tax credits, which went earlier this month. Those had been introduced by previous Labour Governments in order to increase people’s pay—which employers were not doing. It was done in a rather crude way, such that capital was not taken into account. When we were moving people from tax credits to universal credit, we discovered—particularly early on, when we were doing some of our test and learn approach—that there were people with capital of over £100,000 who were still receiving tax credits and who decided that, although they would be entitled to one more year of such a transition payment, they did not think it was right to do so.
It is about that sort of element, of trying to consider what we want to see as an increase in prosperity and productivity. However, I am concerned, given the recent increase in unemployment and all the messages that we are receiving from businesses, small and large, that we will instead start to see a significant increase in unemployment and indeed more people going on to benefits. As I say, the whole point of universal credit is that you will be better off working than not working. The approach is to try and support people as they reach higher salaries.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is right to say that, if we were considering further things to add to the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 1, competitiveness and growth should be there. I would add that the outcome should also be about increasing the number of people in employment. I know that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has set an exceptionally ambitious target of 80% of people being in work—which would be the highest in an exceptionally long time—but, to do that, she needs to work with other parts of her Government to make sure that more jobs will be created, so that people can go into those jobs at the rate that is set.
After thinking through what will happen with this legislation, I made the point at Second Reading that the Bill started off at 149 pages—and I am conscious of the 100-day deadline set by the Deputy Prime Minister to present it—and that it had basically doubled by the time it left the Commons. Not a huge amount of time was set aside for consideration of the additional 103 pages that were considered on Report there. As we have already heard, we are starting to see more amendments come in from the Government that this House needs to consider.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 283 and 327 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I note that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has dealt with the purpose clause in Amendment 1 very comprehensively, so I will say no more on that. I remind the Government Front Bench that it was the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who opened the attacks on Margaret Thatcher. My noble friend is perfectly within her rights to defend the great lady’s record.
There is a growing troubling feeling in many of the businesses that we have spoken to, across sectors, regions and sizes, that the Government see them not as partners in growth or employers to be supported but, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, noted, as bad actors to be restrained. The sense is that the Government have concluded that virtually all businesses cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so they are pressing ahead with a centrally planned, top-down approach to employment reform. It is an approach that prioritises control over co-operation, uniformity over flexibility and ideology over evidence. This approach does not benefit businesses: it burdens them with cost and complexity; it strips away the flexibility on which many sectors rely, especially those with seasonal, part-time or rapidly evolving workforces; and it will impede their functionality.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said that this Bill is popular, but it is not popular with the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, nor the Recruitment and Employment Confederation—and, as we have learned from my noble friend Lady Stowell, it is not popular with techUK. They have all raised serious concerns and called for urgent changes.
If there is a groundswell of support out there, it is an incredibly well-kept secret. If there is a group of employers which believe that these changes will make them more confident to hire, invest and grow, we have yet to meet them. Judging by the open letters, briefings and consultations that have been submitted to Parliament, neither have the Ministers opposite. Let us not pretend that this Bill is being driven by the demands of business, because it is not.
I move on to the amendments. The Government claim that this Bill is about protecting workers, but it is time that we recognised that protection cannot come at the cost of opportunity. For many workers, the most important protection is the ability to get a foot on the ladder, gain experience, build skills and find stable, long-term employment.
In that regard, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his Amendment 283. I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that, in some ways, it risks creating a monster, but I think that, in this case, and because of the nature of this Bill, it will be a friendly monster, because it will at least provide some certainty. As we know, and as anyone who has had a conversation with businesses will tell you, businesses crave certainty more than anything else. The fact that the code of practice is written as it is reflects the complexities in the Bill, the vast array of delegated powers that the Government are about to award themselves and, of course, the lack of certainty.
The noble Lord is entirely right to focus his attention on SMEs. It is worth reminding the Committee that 48% of business turnover and 60% of employment is accounted for by SMEs. In many cases, they will be the businesses without extensive HR departments to help them interpret the facts in this Bill. Therefore, the Government will have to do it for them. This is not perfect, but it deals with the main issues. We would prefer to see no need for this amendment, but, because of the other factors that I have mentioned—the delegated powers and so on—we have no choice.
We need a framework that recognises the diversity of business models, the pressures that employers face and the legitimate role that they play in building opportunity. This is not an employers versus workers situation. We are all committed to improving workers’ rights but we must do so in a way that is realistic, pragmatic and supportive of the broader economy. Without that, we risk achieving the opposite of what we intend: fewer jobs, more uncertainty, greater barriers for the people we are trying to help and, frankly, less equality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his detailed engagement with our Bill and for Amendments 1, 283 and 327. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate, which has revisited many of the debates that we had at Second Reading.
Amendment 1 seeks to insert a new clause of the beginning of the Bill to set out the overarching purpose and to provide a framework for understanding the aims of the legislation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his challenge on this issue, but it is important to reflect on why we are bringing the Bill forward and what we hope to achieve through it.
The plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for the modern economy, to empower working people and, importantly, to contribute to economic growth. Delivery of that plan was, as we have heard, a manifesto commitment and part of the mandate on which the Labour Government were elected. On 10 October, the Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill.
The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, and others have asked about the later amendments that have been tabled. I reassure noble Lords that these are technical amendments and that the Committee will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise them all properly. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others asked about an implementation plan. I reassure noble Lords that that will be shared as soon as it is available. We agree that businesses need guidance on the timescale and implementation of the measures in this Bill. We are working at pace to ensure that they have that information.
There is strong support for the measures included in the Bill. The Institute for Public Policy Research found that every constituency in the UK has a majority or plurality of people who believe that workers’ rights should be strengthened. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned the latest poll. In addition, the TUC’s polling and that of HOPE not hate of over 21,000 people across the political spectrum has found strong support for key policies in the Bill. More than seven in 10 of UK voters—72%—support a ban on zero-hours contracts. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers the right to statutory sick pay and ensuring that it is paid from the first day. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers protection from unfair dismissal from the first day in their job.
This is a comprehensive Bill which delivers on a clear mandate from the British public. Once implemented, the Bill will represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. Good employers support this package, because many of them are already delivering these standards. What they do not want is to be undercut on an uneven playing field.
I can give a few examples; I know the Opposition like to ask this question. Centrica, the Co-op, Richer Sounds, Nationwide, IVC Evidensia and IKEA UK and Ireland have all given their support to the measures in the Bill, and a lot of SMEs have done likewise, so it does have resonance with the business community.
Modernising the world of work will raise standards and tackle undercutting so that businesses are empowered to compete in a race to the top. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government, of course, recognise the concerns about the costs to business. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment is a top-end estimate of the costs, which will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the bottom end of the range close to £1 billion.
The costs, therefore, are likely to be under 0.4% of our national wage bill and could even be as low as 0.1%. Furthermore, improving workers’ well-being, increasing 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.
I can reassure noble Lords that a number of these measures, as I have already said, have strong support from businesses, and we will of course carry on consulting them as we put these plans into practice to ensure that they are as effective as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned the tech sector and will know that I am very minded of this. We will continue to engage with the tech sector on a regular basis to make sure that it contributes everything it can to the Government’s growth strategy.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others have mentioned SMEs, and we will have the chance to debate this later in the Bill. In short, we do not agree that there should be two-tier employment rights: employment rights for all is a fundamental principle.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about skills. We are absolutely committed to a new skills agenda, which is why Skills England is modernising our skills provision. It is an area where, traditionally, the unions and employers have made common cause to make sure that the upskilling of the workforce happens on a comprehensive basis.
This Bill shows the Government’s commitment to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. Our approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, our reforms remove hurdles that frustrate the voices of workers, but trade unions will still need to win a majority of workers’ votes in a ballot to be recognised by an employer. If workers do not want to be represented by a trade union, they will have the option to vote against recognition in that ballot.
On Clause 1 and the proposed list of priorities, I agree with my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Carberry that the purposes are already covered in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hendy pointed out that the Long Title already addresses the purposes within the Bill, and as my noble friend Lady Carberry pointed out, the list is not exhaustive. If we are to have a list, it would need to be a whole lot longer than it is at the moment and cover a whole range of other aspirations already covered in Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised other issues that could be included in that list. Again, I assure her and others that all these issues have been consulted on extensively in the Bill. I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is no need for such a clause to be inserted to achieve this aim. The Explanatory Notes set out the purpose of the Bill clearly and provide further detail on the aims of the legislation. These notes were updated when the Bill transferred to this House and will be updated again when it receives Royal Assent. The Government have also published a series of fact sheets, which are available on GOV.UK and aid the understanding of the Bill’s aims.
Finally, from a legal perspective, inclusion of such a clause could risk producing unintended consequences on the interpretation of specific provisions within the Bill, which have been drafted to achieve the particular purposes concerned. While I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is trying to achieve, and I appreciate the debate that he has created, I hope I have persuaded him that it is not appropriate to include this in the Bill.
Amendment 283 seeks to require the Secretary of State
“to publish a code of practice providing employers with guidance on complying with the Act”.
This has had much less attention in the debate but, nevertheless, I will attempt to address the concerns that the noble Lord raised.
We have consulted and remain committed to consulting widely on the detail of implementation. The Government have also committed to ensuring that, where appropriate, guidance is published to ensure that all stakeholders have the information they need to make necessary adjustments. However, a Bill-wide code of practice, as suggested in the amendment, would be duplicative of the policy-specific guidance and codes of practice that the Government will already produce to support workers, employers and trade unions in implementing the reforms.
There is existing provision for the issue of guidance and codes of practice across employment law. Where relevant, the Bill amends those provisions to reflect that they will need to be updated to take account of the changes made by the Bill. This includes codes of practice issued by ACAS under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Such codes are subject to consultation requirements and must be laid in draft in both Houses for approval, and we are already working closely with ACAS to plan ahead for this work.
Where new statutory guidance is required, this is also provided for, such as in Clause 30, which inserts new Section 83D into the Procurement Act to make provision for the issue of codes of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts by appropriate authorities.
By requiring a single Bill-wide code of practice, this amendment would also risk delaying the Government in offering certainty on the details of policy and regulation on individual issues as they become available. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that this would therefore result in duplication and unnecessary delay.
Amendment 327 would prevent the implementation of measures in the Bill until the point at which the Government produce a Bill-wide code of practice. Some measures in the Bill will not require any further guidance before they are implemented—for example, the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Delaying the date on which these measures can commence would unnecessarily delay the point at which workers can benefit from measures in the Bill.
Codes of practice are used to provide guidance to employers on how to comply with employment law. By nature they are detailed, building on and clarifying requirements set out in statute. There are several measures in the Bill where further consultation will be required to develop regulations setting out key details of reforms. Within six months, it would not be possible for all the outstanding policy details to be finalised to inform the content of a Bill-wide code of practice. Codes should bring clarity, but these timelines would risk patchy or unclear content if we were to go ahead on the basis of these amendments.
I agree with the need to ensure that workers, trade unions and employers are sufficiently supported for the implementation of the Bill, but this amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that the codes of practice that he envisages would not help to provide the detailed guidance that employers and workers require. I thank him for raising the issue, but I hope I have persuaded him not to press those amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister has shared with the Committee that there is an implementation plan. As we are now moving to consider each clause, the first few in particular, it would be helpful for the Committee to be made aware of the part of the implementation plan that governs each and every clause. Is she able to share it with the Committee and, if so, by when? Might we at least see a draft of the implementation plan, so that businesses across the UK know what lies ahead?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I know the noble Lord has already raised this, and he tempts me, but there has to be further consultation. He will understand that. Part of the legislation obviously requires further consultation to take place. We are still looking at the timescales for all this, and we obviously understand the need to provide guidance as soon as we can, but what I can say that will be reassuring to everybody concerned is that this will be a phased process; this is not a day-one process. We just need to make sure that the phasing of all this makes sense for employers so that it can be done on a proper basis and with the appropriate guidelines behind it. We are working on it, we will share it as soon as we can, and we understand the need for it, but it is not available at this time.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 8. I commend my noble friend Lord Wolfson on his excellent speech, bringing the reality of employing so many people into the heart of this debate, along with the constraints and the concerns being raised, while still recognising that I understand why so many people consider casual work and zero-hour contracts to be particularly poor when people are trying to have certainty of employment over some time. I also support Amendments 7, 12 and 13—in essence, any amendment that refers to specifying the reference period in the Bill.
I say that because, when thinking of 26 weeks, I think in particular of the hospitality industry in coastal areas. There are a number of employers around the country who literally shut down their businesses, or move to a much lower level of needing people, at certain times of the year, and then, in the summer, are desperately trying to find people. We need to give flexibility. The 12 weeks simply does not recognise that, as has been referred to. It is perfectly usual for people to work at different points throughout the year, potentially in on annualised-hours contract, but varying the number of hours expected to match the demand of customers requiring a particular service. I fear that the 12 weeks does not address that sort of business.
Across the country, 2 million people work in the hospitality industry. It is one of our biggest industries, and for many families it is key to how they support their household income. For the flexibility that employers want, and—thinking of how many people lose their childcare at certain times of the year—for employees to have flexibility around their hours worked, bringing in casual staff is a key element in how employers keep those businesses going.
There is another element that needs thinking through. While I appreciate that the Government seek to reduce the number of agency and bank workers in the NHS, let us not get away from the fact that, unfortunately, many NHS trusts are actually terrible employers. A lot of people leave or reduce their permanent contracts because they simply cannot get the flexibility that they need working in the NHS. That could be for caring reasons, for all sorts of people—it does not matter whether it is men or women; people provide care to their families and to their friends. I am concerned, and I intend to discuss further with NHS Professionals how this will impact on the NHS fulfilling its expectations for people right across the country. I appreciate that it is not simply NHS Professionals; many individual trusts have their own bank. That is intended to provide flexibility based on need, and recognises that simply not everybody can work the NHS shifts expected.
Thinking of the 26 weeks or the 12 weeks, I am also concerned that, at the other end of the Corridor, 650 Members of Parliament are all individual employers. They have to sign contracts, which are provided, but when people are ill or go on maternity leave, MPs can and do take people on through certain term contracts. I am concerned that there will be unintended consequences for the provision of services. As a real example, if you had to guarantee hours beyond when the employee came back, you could end up in a situation that you simply could not manage.
It is for those reasons that we need to think very carefully about the reference period when we are considering the different employment situations that small employers find themselves in, as well as the large sectors, such as hospitality and retail, which have already been discussed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 3, 6 and 17 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. Before turning to the detail, I would like to frame the debate in its proper context.
At the heart of this issue lies the question of incentives. Much of the discussion around zero-hours contracts rightly concerns the security and well-being of workers. We must not lose sight of the fact that only a relatively small proportion of the workforce is employed on such contracts, or in other forms of temporary work. Many of these individuals are young people—as my noble friend Lady Lawlor illustrated in her very detailed speech—who are starting out in their careers. Others are disabled people, who may be able to work only a limited number of hours due to their personal circumstances. If we make the regulatory environment too rigid, we inadvertently create a disincentive to hire precisely these groups. We reduce the number of vacancies, reduce opportunities and end up harming those we most wish to support. Good intentions do not alone lead to good results. It is the incentives that lead to results.
I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard, for their contributions in this group, and I will come on to others. My noble friend Lord Moynihan made a compelling argument to leave out this part of the clause altogether, because it is simply unworkable in its current form. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.
I turn to the specifics of my amendments. Job security is vital, and there can be no disagreement on that point, but we have to recognise that guaranteed-hours contracts are not always practical or appropriate across all sectors of the economy. The principle that we wish to uphold is simple: autonomy. Workers themselves are best placed to judge their own circumstances and to decide whether a guaranteed-hours contract would suit their needs.
Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, published in its report on zero-hours contracts, found that workers on such contracts often report a better work-life balance and higher well-being compared with other workers. This is an important reminder that flexibility, when genuinely chosen, can be empowering rather than exploitative.
Not every worker wants a rigid schedule. Young people, parents with caring responsibilities and disabled people may actively prefer the flexibility that variable hours allow. A one-size-fits-all approach simply does not reflect the realities of the modern labour market. Sectors such as retail, hospitality and tourism, and other seasonal industries, are heavily dependent on flexible staffing to meet seasonal demand. It is these very sectors that offer the vital entry-level opportunities to workers who might otherwise struggle to find employment.
Despite the Government’s understandable ambition to improve labour market fairness, the Bill as currently drafted risks reducing that flexibility rather than enhancing it. The automatic obligation placed upon businesses to offer guaranteed-hours contracts once certain thresholds are met would impose significant and disproportionate administrative burdens, even when the worker involved may have no desire to change their current arrangements.
The problem is particularly acute for larger employers, such as national retailers, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who delivered an expert speech. They would be forced into a continual cycle of recalculations and offers, simply because an employee’s working patterns have shifted slightly. As my noble friend Lady Verma explained, that affects small businesses as well. In practice, firms would face a daily or weekly obligation to offer a new contract based on changing patterns, resulting in huge and unnecessary administrative costs. This would not only create inefficiency but would discourage businesses offering overtime and additional work voluntarily, thereby reducing opportunities for those who value flexibility.
The amendments I propose take a different approach. Instead of an automatic right to be offered a guaranteed-hours contracts, we propose a right to request a guaranteed-hours contract. It entirely respects the spirit of the Government’s intentions. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already explained, it would impose the same the obligations on employers as the Government’s Bill. This would preserve the choice for workers, empowering them to seek greater stability when they wish, but it would avoid imposing blanket obligations on employers that may lead to perverse outcomes. The Government’s current drafting, with an automatic right to guaranteed hours, risks creating a bureaucracy that neither workers nor businesses have asked for.
On the subject of businesses, it is worth referring to the letter received from five employers’ organisations. For reference, those are Make UK, the CBI, the IoD, the Federation of Small Business and the British Chambers of Commerce. They say in that letter:
“Not every job can be made compatible with every possible need. This reform means businesses incur admin costs whenever an employee works variable hours. The result is that firms are discouraged from offering variable hours even when the flexibility is requested by workers, including voluntary overtime. The cost associated with administering and calculating contract offers on a rolling basis whenever staff work additional hours is also disproportionate and provides no clear benefit to workers”.
I could not have put it better myself.
There has been some reference on the other side, by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to the Low Pay Commission, which met seven years ago. That ignores the fact that, over the last seven years, working practices more generally through the economy—whether on flexible-hours contracts or not—have changed very dramatically, partly as a consequence of the pandemic. I note that the FSB has now signed the letter which includes the quote I have just delivered, so it has clearly changed its mind.
I recognise that there may be an even simpler and more effective alternative to the right to request, which would be an automatic offer of a guaranteed-hours contract combined with the right for the worker to opt out if they so wish, so Amendment 17 introduces a worker opt-out mechanism. A qualifying worker may opt out of receiving a guaranteed-hours contract provided that the employer has provided clear written information about the guaranteed-hours system, the worker has given written notice in a prescribed form, and the employer reminds the worker at regular intervals, at least every six months, that they can opt back in at any time. Under that model, every eligible worker would be enrolled on to a guaranteed-hours contract after the reference period by default.
However, those workers who genuinely value the flexibility of their zero-hours arrangement—and there are many, particularly, as we have already discussed, young people, carers and so on—would have the right to decline the offer by providing written notice. This approach would strike a better balance, because it would ensure that guaranteed hours are the norm unless the worker themselves chooses otherwise, thereby protecting workers who might otherwise feel pressured not to request more security. Equally, it would avoid the unnecessary administrative burden on employers of offering contracts that in many cases would be rejected. We would be sparing businesses the cost and disruption of a process that delivers little practical benefit where flexibility is mutually valued by both employer and employee. It would ensure that the choice remains a real and continuing one, recognising that workers’ needs and circumstances evolve.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling their amendments to the clauses on zero-hours contracts. I will begin with Amendments 7, 11 and 12, which seek to amend Clause 1 to set the initial reference period for the right to guaranteed hours at 26 weeks. They would also remove the power to define the length of the initial reference period in regulations, or would render it obsolete. I say to the noble Lords that the length of the initial reference period will be set out in regulations, and of course we will consult further on this issue, but it is expected to be 12 weeks—that is the figure we are currently thinking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, urged that the measures be proportionate and reasonable. We feel that our proposals as they stand are exactly that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for reminding us that 1.3 million people will never reach the reference period if it is 26 weeks, as their employment will not be that long. There is a very good reason why we should not extend the period.
We believe that 12 weeks is the appropriate length. It would be long enough to establish the hours that the workers regularly work while allowing qualifying workers to be offered guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a job, or after the right to guaranteed hours comes into effect. If the initial reference period was set at 26 weeks, workers in precarious and unpredictable work would have to wait six months to access their right to guaranteed hours. We believe this is too long in the current labour market circumstances.
Similarly, Amendment 13 would specify in the Bill that the subsequent reference period for the right to guaranteed hours is 26 weeks. The length and frequency of the subsequent reference periods will be set out in regulations. Subsequent reference periods may well be of a different length and frequency from the initial reference period. This is because, unlike the initial reference period, subsequent reference periods are not qualifying periods. Therefore, a different balance needs to be considered. It is necessary to set out both the initial reference period and subsequent period lengths in regulations to allow changes to reference periods to be made, for example in response to emerging evidence about how this novel right is working in practice or in light of evolving working practices. As I said, we intend to consult on the length and frequency of subsequent reference periods.
Amendment 9 seeks to amend Clause 1 to take workers on fixed-term contracts out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours. This could lead to avoidance behaviour, whereby employers move workers from open-ended zero-hours contracts to fixed-term zero-hours contracts. We also believe that workers on limited-term contracts lasting longer than the duration of the reference period should be entitled to a guaranteed-hours offer. This is because such workers may experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as those on permanent contracts.
I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Employers can make a guaranteed-hours offer resulting in a limited-term contract if it is reasonable for that contract to be of a limited term. For example, as has been mentioned several times, it might be reasonable to provide a worker with a limited-term contract only to cover the increase in retail demand during the Christmas period. If a limited-term contract is shorter than the initial reference period, then the worker would likely not qualify for a guaranteed-hours offer, but that would depend on the conditions as to regularity or number and whether it was reasonable for the contract to be of a limited term.
Amendment 8 seeks to amend Clause 1 to set the hours threshold in the Bill at a maximum of four hours a week. It would also remove the power to set the hours threshold in regulations. I listened carefully to the arguments, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the interests of part-time workers, but under this amendment workers who are guaranteed more than four hours per week would not be eligible for the right to guaranteed hours.
The hours threshold will be crucial to determining how many workers are included in scope of the right to guaranteed hours. It is partly intended to act as an anti-avoidance measure, preventing employers avoiding the duty to offer guaranteed hours by moving a worker on to a contract guaranteeing only a very small number of hours. Setting it to only four or fewer hours per week would mean, for example, that any worker with only five hours guaranteed per week would fall out of scope of the new provisions, even though they may experience unpredictable hours and income in the same way as other zero-hours workers. Similarly, if we were to set the threshold too high, it could have unintended consequences and impact the overtime arrangements of workers who already have sufficient predictability and security.
Additionally, given the novelty of these provisions, it is important that the Government retain the flexibility to amend the threshold in future, for example in the light of evolving work practices. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others that we intend to consult on the hours threshold, including the issues raised today, as part of the consultation. Including the threshold in the Bill at this stage would remove the opportunity to have that consultation and for unions, employers and workers to feed in their views.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
Would the Minister accept that having a maximum number in the Bill would be enormously important so that business can prepare for this? The number of hours set as the threshold will determine the number of employees who need to be dealt with. If it is 3% of our workforce, that will be one thing; if it is 50%, that will be another. While I accept that the Government need flexibility, would they at least consider setting a maximum number of hours in the Bill so that business can start to prepare now, as we will need to do if we are to have the systems in place in one year’s time to implement this Bill?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As we have said when other people have suggested fixed rates, we need to avoid unintended consequences or the gaming of those arrangements. I am inclined at the moment to resist what the noble Lord has said, but we can consider that further as the Bill progresses.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, in adult social care or care, you are at the mercy of people going into hospital or passing away and those hours suddenly becoming contracted. Where are the safeguards for the employers at that point? There is no guarantee that people will come out of hospital. You cannot wish more hours to happen; you are at the mercy of people wanting care. I do not understand how this will work in the care sector, so it would be really helpful to understand the Government’s thinking on that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The same thing would apply as for seasonal workers, in the sense of that unpredictability. The Bill allows seasonal work to continue; fixed-term contracts can be an effective way for an employer to meet temporary or seasonal demands for work—
Baroness Verma (Con)
Forgive me; I thank the Minister for her patience. Seasonal work is incredibly different from care, which is about the elements around you. We cannot predict when somebody will fall sick, go into hospital for long or short periods or pass away. It is a very different discussion point. I want us to be mindful, in thinking about the overall picture, of how certain sectors fit in.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Obviously, we want all sectors to have the right facilities for them. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is talking about home care or the care home sector. Perhaps we can have a conversation outside; I will attempt to set up a meeting with her, because I do not want to be misconstrued.
Amendments 10 and 31 seek to amend the Bill so that agency workers do not have a right to guaranteed hours. We are determined to ensure that agency workers who seek more certainty of hours and security of income are protected. Some workers choose agency work because they value flexibility, but they can also experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as other workers. Failing to include agency workers in the scope of the Bill could also see employers shift to using more agency workers to avoid the zero-hours measures altogether. As with other eligible workers, agency workers who prefer the flexibility that agency work provides would be free to turn down the guaranteed-hours offer.
After public consultation, the Government brought forward amendments to the Employment Rights Bill so that hirers, agencies and agency workers are clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. However, we recognise that some measures may need to apply in a different way to agency workers because of the tripartite relationship between the end hirer, the employment agency and the agency workers. The Government will consult further and continue to work in partnership with employers’ organisations, the recruitment sector and trade unions to develop the detail of regulations in a way that avoids unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers.
Amendment 32 seeks to remove from the Bill the power to place the duty to make a guaranteed-hours offer on the work-finding agency, or another party involved in the supply or payment of an agency worker instead of the hirer. We included this power in line with the responses to the Government’s consultation on applying zero-hours contract measures to agency workers. Responses from stakeholders were split about whether this new duty should lie between the hirer, the agency or another party in the supply chain. We are clear that, as a default, the hirer should be responsible for making the offers of guaranteed hours because they are best placed to forecast and manage the flow of future work.
However, given the unique and complex nature of agency worker relationships, which vary in different parts of the economy, the power is required to allow the Government flexibility to determine specific cases in which the responsibility to offer guaranteed hours should not sit with the hirer. For instance, this could be the case with vulnerable individual hirers who receive or procure care from agencies—I am not sure whether that is the point to which the noble Baroness referred earlier—where instead the agency might be in a better position to offer guaranteed hours. We are aware of the importance of this power and the impact these regulations could have on agency workers, hirers, agencies and others in the supply chain. For this reason, this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring both Houses of Parliament get further opportunity to debate its use.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Can the Minister talk us through the agency question a little bit more? If you need emergency care, you go to an agency and it finds you someone, then you pay a very large sum of money for agency care. Is the Minister suggesting that in future, and considering the ups and downs, the agencies will have to guarantee those who are involved in emergency care these very high salaries, which they will have to pay, even if they do not find clients? Is that how she thinks it will work out in practice? Is it enough to say it is going to go into regulations, when this is so important for the care sector and emergency care?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I was making the point that this has complications because there are some people who are individual hirers. Some people get benefits to employ people directly, so it is not always done through a third party. That is why we need to have clearer rules about this. I am happy to write to noble Lords or explain this in a little bit more detail if that helps.
Baroness Verma (Con)
The problem with direct payments is that you are making the person who receives the payment into the employer. They are usually individuals who are looking after their own care; they will not have the facilities to go through the quagmire of rules and regulations. I say this just to give some assistance.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I take that point. I was attempting to explain in my description, which I obviously need to develop a little bit more, that we understood some of those issues and are trying to find a way through it.
Amendments 3, 4 and 6 seek to change the model for the right to guaranteed hours from a right to be offered to a right to request. We have debated this at some length. These amendments would mean that a qualifying worker experiencing one-sided flexibility would need to make a request to their employer to access their right to guaranteed hours. Noble Lords underestimate the imbalance of powers that employees in this circumstance face. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned young people, which is the group that is likely to be the most intimidated by having to request guaranteed hours. Therefore, we are attempting to make sure that these rights are balanced in a proper and more effective way.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for reminding us that the Low Pay Commission also looked at a right to request and, understandably, rejected it for exactly that reason. It understood that the people in those circumstances had the least power in the labour market and would therefore, quite rightly, feel intimidated about coming forward. She also raised the issue of what happens if the request is denied. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fox, attempted to address that, but I do not know that the amendments necessarily do so. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, says that employment has changed since those days. I would say that employment has become even more unpredictable and unreliable. Nothing that the Low Pay Commission said—or indeed that I said—addresses the potential exploitation which the commission identified. There is an imbalance, and it is very difficult for people to come forward and make that request; that is why we are insistent that it is done in the way that we have suggested.
After receiving an offer, the workers would then be able decide whether to accept it, based on its specific terms. That would empower the worker to decide for themselves, having seen the offer on the table. This addresses the point that some people do want to work flexible hours, and we understand that.
Amendment 15 would allow workers on limited-term contracts of four months or less to voluntarily waive their right to guaranteed hours. We believe that workers should be able to retain the flexibility of a zero-hours contract or arrangement if they wish, which is why those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on their current contract or arrangement if they wish. This amendment would add an additional opt-out mechanism for workers that could create needless confusion for both employers and workers.
Amendment 17 would provide workers with the ability to opt out of receiving guaranteed-hours offers. We understand the importance of workers being able to retain the flexibility of zero-hours contracts or arrangements if they wish, which is why those receiving a guaranteed-hours offer will be able to turn it down. However, to ensure that all qualifying workers will benefit from the legislation, all workers should be able to receive a guaranteed-hours offer. We want to ensure that employers and workers are starting from a position of equal bargaining power. Therefore, through the Bill we have allowed for employers and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero-hours contract measure, if they agree. Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and a holistic view of what is best for the workers. We feel it is more appropriate than individual workers opting out of receiving offers. After receiving an offer, qualifying workers would then be able to decide whether to accept, based on their individual circumstances.
Finally, Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the right for qualifying workers to be offered guaranteed hours. We think that all employers should be required to offer their qualifying workers guaranteed hours, as this is the best way of addressing one-sided flexibility in the workplace and ensuring that jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability.
Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult to apply for credit or a mortgage, to rent a flat, to plan for major events, or even to manage their day-to-day life expenses. As I have previously iterated, those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on a current contract or arrangement if they wish. We believe that this is the right balance. I therefore hope that I have persuaded noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Minister is relying a great deal on the fabled consultation that we are going to have. Can we have some idea of when that consultation is likely to take place? Can I suggest that it perhaps takes place before we get to Report, because it will iron out a great many of these arguments? The Minister asserted that some businesses have supported the 12-week reference period. Can she say which ones?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The Bill sets out, in a number of ways, that there will be regulations that will be consulted upon. This goes back to the issue of when that consultation will take place, but there is a framework for that set out in the Bill which should cover that point.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I said, I read out the names of a number of businesses that are broadly supportive, but we have not gone through clause by clause asking which particular pieces of the Bill they are supporting. However, businesses that are household names are in support of the Bill.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, very quickly, large businesses may be able to be supportive. Could the Minister name any small business that she has come across that supports this?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Again, there is a list of SMEs that support the basis of the Bill. I do not think it is going to help anybody if we go back and ask them for the specifics of whether they agree with each clause. The fact is that they agree with the direction of travel and a number of businesses, big and small, are already carrying out many of these practices, so it will not be unusual to them. This is about good employment practice and I am sure a lot of businesses will support it.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. My noble friend and I worked on the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, which I am pleased has provided good use here on in. Of course, she has a most distinguished business career, not just, as we all know, in very large financial services companies but as my president at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, where she interacted with many small and medium-sized businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and I spent the turn of the year discussing the Bill and its ramifications.
I speak as someone who takes a particular interest in SMEs, for reasons I will explain. I am, of course, in full support of this small group of amendments—as are, I think, all business representative bodies. The FSB, which is the UK’s largest employer group, has said that this will
“wreak havoc on our already fragile economy”.
We have had survey after survey: 1,270 companies were surveyed. Two-thirds of them said that they will curb hiring, and one-third said that they would reduce staff as a result of this Bill. The aforementioned Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development discovered that 25% of its members will be considering lay-offs as a direct result of this Bill. The Institute of Directors called it
“a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”
As I mentioned, I am particularly close to the SME sector, not least because, in 1989, I started a small business with one partner and one assistant. I should therefore declare an interest that I still own a chunk of shares in that small business, which, when we started, was called Cavendish Corporate Finance and is now Cavendish plc. At this point I normally take a pot-shot at the Labour Front Bench as not having any business experience to talk of—certainly not in the other place—but I have to be much more deferential in this Chamber, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Leong, two years after I started Cavendish Corporate Finance, started Cavendish Publishing, except, of course, that he had much greater success than me. According to Wikipedia, in his first year made £250,000 profit, which is very impressive, because in my first year I lost money, so I have to be suitably deferential. None the less, I am sure the noble Lord will remember those formative years of starting a business, when one was focused on nothing else but that business. Clearly, we desperately need people to do the same as the noble Lord and me: to take the risk, start a business, have a go and then employ people.
The decision to employ a person is a very big one. It is the toughest decision for the first person, but it is still tough for the second, third, fourth and fifth. As it happens, we now have 220 people employed at Cavendish, but it took a long time to get there and we had to merge with a number of other companies so to do. For many years my small business would have been covered by my noble friend Lady Noakes’s exemption, and it would need it because, to take on people in a small business, you are recruiting someone not just to do a job of work but to join your culture and your aspirations, and to fit in. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not, and when it does not you have to make difficult decisions to make changes. The fact that we are now allowed to let people go relatively easily encourages people such as me to take a chance and employ someone where I would not otherwise do so.
I am very worried that this Bill will lead to a reduction in business growth and, in particular, in employment. Its main burdens will be borne by small businesses. I think the Minister cited five companies that she said were broadly supportive of the Bill. All but one were larger companies, and one was actually the Co-op—I am not sure that entirely counts. Another was IKEA, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could cite the support from IKEA, because I cannot find it. The SME sector realises that the financial burden that the Bill imposes of some £5 billion will largely fall on it, and it is very worried. So the first issue is financial.
The second issue is operational. SMEs do not have an HR department. They simply do not have the facility to wade through this enormous amount of legislation about how they are supposed to treat their staff. The only way round it is, of course, to deploy an agency at great expense to advise and consult every time there is any HR issue, and it is just another cost for businesses which are, for the most part, feeling pretty fragile, and much more fragile after the horrendous NIC increases that are being imposed on them.
The third hammer blow is that those business just will not hire. They just will not take the risk of hiring new employees, which will, of course, restrict their growth, because the only way a business can grow is to recruit new people with fresh blood, fresh ideas and fresh reach. It is impossible for a business to grow without making hires.
Fourthly, the Bill will make businesses risk averse. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has specifically said that this will make businesses risk averse in all their decisions, because of the extra risks that are imposed on those businesses by the Bill because of the costs and burdens they have to undertake.
Lastly, the fifth problem with the Bill is the lack of consultation. It has been rushed through to meet the 100-day deadline and, as a result, there has not been proper consultation and we are wading through a vast number of amendments that we are trying to get our heads round.
For all those reasons, one accepts that the Bill is in the manifesto and that it has to happen—it is in, in many ways appropriate that it does—but please can we leave out the SME businesses that will struggle with this Bill? Maybe we can bring it in later, suitably amended, but not now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I think the Government would do themselves a great deal of good if they made special arrangements for small business. They are well precedented: we have the VAT threshold, the employment allowance and the small business audit, and it would be a powerful addition to their forthcoming White Paper or Green Paper on small businesses.
Everyone knows that I often speak in favour of small business and have very good relations with the Federation of Small Businesses, so I obviously support the expert trio of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who we should listen to. To put it simply, either we need some special arrangements for small businesses, or—and it might be even better—we need changes to the Bill to remove the bureaucratic provisions that are going to get in the way of success; to look at the lack of flexibility and remedy it; and to avoid the inevitable huge increase in tribunal cases and the overuse of delegated powers. I encourage the Minister to think creatively in this important area.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I also support these amendments from my noble friend and other noble Lords. It would be really helpful if the Government took a hard look at this. I spoke to coffee shop owners over the weekend, and to a very small business that is trying to manufacture British products in this country. They are all very worried about how they are going to cope with the burdens that will be placed on them.
It may well be useful for the Government to go back and look at whether they can make an exception for small businesses up to a certain number of employees—maybe three, maybe five and at least for those that have no ability other than to reach out and pay for very expensive advice, which often they cannot afford. These small businesses are at the heart of our high streets in local communities. They add value and are familiar to customers. The very small business—the micro-business, but particularly businesses with 10 employees or less—should be exempt from this Bill.