Lords Chamber

Tuesday 29th April 2025

(began 9 hours, 43 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:39
14:40
14:42
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
Lord Vallance of Balham Portrait Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
It is encouraging that the opportunities Action Plan is proceeding. I welcome it. But in reference to, the Minister just referred to the precautions we need to take to protect the interest of various kinds, including the safety Inst, which clearly needs resources. But also he referred to regulators where it was admitted by the government that capabilities needed much enhancement. As the Minister

**** Possible New Speaker ****

anything further to say to give reassurance to those who are concerned? Yes, I think the issue of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, I think the issue of regulation is clearly important. That is why we formed the innovation That is why we formed the innovation office, looking at AI among other areas, including AI and healthcare. areas, including AI and healthcare. There are actions being taken to boost regulator capability. That is one of the things the office is one of the things the office is one of the things the office is working on. The pioneer part is also relevant to increasing and boosting the ability of regulators to undertake this.

Development of capabilities takes place through the forum I referred to. The form of digital regulators. I think there will be more of that and in the SR, regulators have been encouraged to put in bids related to boosting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

capability in AI. One of the things the creative industries are seeking, perhaps the industries are seeking, perhaps the most immediate priority, is the transparency of information held by the tech companies. Is that going to
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
None Portrait Oral questions: Assessment of the impact in Scotland of increased defence spending
-

great potential. In due course, I'm not prepared to define in due course, but what I can say to him is
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
Was a debate about the serious thread national debt poses for the UK -- the threat. The Chancellor has failed to give us headroom and the fiscal rules are flawed hence every reduction in tax receipts ought to be met by further spending cuts or by an increase in taxes elsewhere. Now we hear that tax revenue from wealthy people such as non-dom's is going down sharply, as many free the country because of the government's policies. Will the government reversed their non-dom policies, or if not, which taxes will increase to compensate for the loss of revenue?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

No is the answer. The noble Lady says taxes should rise or spending should be cut. I ask the same question, she says repeatedly that we are raising the wrong taxes but we are raising the wrong taxes but she never says which taxes we should be raising for such she says repeatedly that we should be cutting spending but she never says what we spending but she never says what we should be cutting spending on. The OBR 's March forecast shows that the OBR 's March forecast shows that the government meets our fiscal rules with the same headroom at the time with the same headroom at the time of the budget, thanks to decisive action to reduce spending and grow the economy.

Average borrowing over the next five years will be 2.6% of GDP compared to 5.6% of GDP over the previous 14 years. It is now a significant fiscal consolidation during the course of this Parliament taken borrowing as a share of GDP

**** Possible New Speaker ****

from 4.5% to 2.1% achieving the biggest budget surplus in 20 years. That concludes Oral Questions for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That concludes Oral Questions for I was going to give your Lordships I was going to give your Lordships the opportunity to rise and leave under the chamber but not while I'm
15:23
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, third reading of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bus Services (No. 2) Bill. My Lords, I will make agree state and nonlegislative consent in and nonlegislative consent in relation to this bill. -- On relation to this bill. -- On The government is considering options to ensure the constitutional requirements for consent are met. This includes either amending clauses to remove the provisions in question or by seeking consent. My expectation is that this issue will be addressed during the Bill's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

passage in the other place. I beg to move that the bill be read a time. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be read at the time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that this bill do now pass. It has been a great privilege to take this bill through privilege to take this bill through the House and I'm grateful for the scrutiny, challenge and wisdom from all sides during the debates on this all sides during the debates on this important piece of legislation. The government is clear in its ambition to reform and improve transport for passengers, better connectivity and the buses the predominant mode of transport, delivers growth jobs and housing.

Ensuring local leaders have the powers they need to have the best bus service for the local areas and communities is a critical step. As the bill has progressed food House your Lordships input means it leaves the place better bill than when it was introduced. I hope the government has shown its offering to listen and able to work with your Lordships. Moving to thanks. First I give my gratitude to my noble friend Baroness Blake of Leeds has given me her guidance and supported me on the front benches.

Thank you. I thank noble Lord Lord Moylan. I may not always agree with the noble Lord he seems to believe this will is some sort of anti-enterprise activity when it is not. I must admit I am still surprised by such a strong advocate over many years of local authority independence, having such a newfound desire for government intervention. But our engagement has been well human and more importantly has given rise to some important issues we have explored in your Lordship's House. I thank the noble Earl Lord Effingham who has provided Earl Lord Effingham who has provided his views in his customary 110, Grey-Thompson and Jones of Moulsecoomb have all campaigned effectively to improve accessibility and highlight the important of inclusive transport.

This has resulted in the government tabling a package of amendments and also supporting close brought forward by my noble friend Lord Blunkett at report. I'm grateful to my noble friend for his destructive and tick approach to the issue of floating bus stops. Thank you. There have been other contributions, noble Lords Bradshaw, Goddard. But, bones and Baroness Pinnock are provided wise words and as ever I'm grateful for their contributions. And I have enjoyed discussing the merits of bus safety with an open Lord Hampton has raised it at issues of critical importance.

To my noble friend Lord Snape, Lord Whitty and Lord Berkeley, as ever your wide words of value and I extend my thanks. I particularly want to mention the noble Baroness Randerson. I spoke at this Dispatch Box in remembrance of her at second reading and I'm sure I speak for others as well as myself how sorry I that someone who had such passion and expertise in transport and to have such passion and support for this bill was not here to lead her party and scrutiny of it.

I'm pleased that we were able to make the provision in the bill in zero emission buses even more comprehensive, and of course I extend my gratitude to the noble Baroness pigeon for stepping in for her party and for our constructive and positive discussions to the Bill's passage. Would like to extend a personal thanks to all the officials who have supported me, especially the built-in, legal colleagues that drafted, and commentary cancel. To name but a few of the excellent people involved, Nicola Kenny Jenny, Hamish and Saskia.

I look forward to following the Bill's journey in the other the Bill's journey in the other place was to expect we will reignite lively debates on its return to your Lordship's House. That said I truly believe this bill is the most believe this bill is the most substantial and positive change for the bus network, for passengers in the bus network, for passengers in the bus industry in years. This is the right way forward. I beg to move.
15:28
15:30
15:30
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
it was a pleasure to win an amendment and actually and I do hope amendment and actually and I do hope he will say to the government at the other end how important the review of village bus services is going to of village bus services is going to be and perhaps not swatted away down the other end. I have particular thanks to Lord Moylan who managed to get his party to vote for my amendment as well. I think that was amendment as well.

I think that was an amazing achievement, so thank you very much. I look forward to seeing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very much. I look forward to seeing It was a pleasure engaging with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It was a pleasure engaging with the Minister over the course of this bill. He is a transport minister who not only does no transport, but not only does no transport, but really cares about transport. Can I raise with him the opportunity for an update at this stage? We had a an update at this stage? We had a detailed debate, and report around floating bus stops and from the despatch box, he said the government despatch box, he said the government would go to a pause in all new floating bus stop scheme.

This was very encouraging, that the Minister said this from the despatch box, because the bill as currently drafted, does not provide for such a pause. When he responds, can I ask that with just a day beyond a month since he made that statement, can I ask for an update about what the
15:32
15:32
15:32
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would briefly like to add my thanks to those of other noble lords and particularly the expertise and enthusiasm of the Minister which shone through. His team, the Table shone through. His team, the Table Office, we got some truly cross party support here. It was great fun, actually. It is true to say that this bill has become, since going through here, become a much safer bill than when it began.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I start with thanks first to the Minister's private office, the build team and the other civil servants involved in the bill, who have dealt with the Official who have dealt with the Official Opposition with promptness, courtesy and responsiveness in an exemplary and responsiveness in an exemplary way. May I also thank the Minister for his openness and his engagement with the opposition during this with the opposition during this bill? I think that greatly bill? I think that greatly contributed to the swift and efficient passage through committee.

I think the Minister has set an example which many of his colleagues on the front bench could follow in relation to transparency, engagement and so forth which could in fact help with the dispatch of our business in your Lordships' House. I would also like to say a word of thanks to the opposition whips, in particular added Hussain and Henry To my whip throughout all of this, the Earl of Effingham, my noble friend. I'm trying to be positive when I say that this is not the worst bill introduced by the government so far.

But it remains nonetheless a pretty poor bill. It does damage, removes private entrepreneurialism from the bus sector. Where as we know private enterprise and the spirit of private enterprise are the only keys to economic growth. It is here primarily to gratify the unions and certain local authorities, and not to do very much for passengers at all. Most importantly, it gives powers to local authorities that they are neither equipped or funded they are neither equipped or funded to exercise.

To that extent it is as I said earlier a somewhat bogus bill. But we have improved it in your Lordships' House. We added a purpose clause so we know what the bill is meant to be about and what standard we can hold the government to. We have ventilated further the 2 pounds bus cap and what the consequences of removing it. A further amendment which past. Also brought into the building very sensitive issue of special educational needs transport and the effect the reduction in the threshold for National Insurance Contributions has on that sector and Contributions has on that sector and its survival.

So important. As I say, that is now part of the bill as it goes to the other place. We have removed unnecessary language, dangerous language about what was expected from bus drivers in dealing expected from bus drivers in dealing with crime. We have also seen amendments as the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb has said, to review services to villages which we were glad to support. The noble Lord Hampton has introduced and amendment -- and amendment to focus on improving the overall safety of buses and the way in which bus services operate.

And the amendment from Lord Woodley, sadly not in his place, as indeed he was not in his place when the amendment was moved on his behalf by my noble friend Lord Moynihan has added important protections to the bill in relation to violence against women and girls. Finally it was worth noting the flanking action by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and the noble Lord Blunkett, saw improvements made to the bill in relation to floating bus stops. On the back of which I think we would the back of which I think we would all like to see.

It leaves this House a better bill. The noble Lord the Minister said something about the Minister said something about the bill coming back. I see no reason for it to come back. All those amendments are very those amendments are very worthwhile. I hope the government would embrace them in the other place and simply move on.
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill. Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. I beg to move the House to now resolve itself into a committee upon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the bill. The question is the House to now resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause Clause 1, Clause 1, amendment Clause 1, amendment one. Clause 1, amendment one. Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fox. My Lords, I rise to move amendment one and to speak to amendment two, 283 and three 3-287. amendment two, 283 and three 3-287. In February 2023, the In February 2023, the five In February 2023, the five mission statement was launched and the first of these is to get the UK's economic growth to the highest sustained level to the G-7 by the end of Labour's first term. I need hardly remind your Lordships' House that it is with this mission and four others the Labour government went on to win the Jane role -- general election.

Since that time the government has unwisely raised employer NIC contributions and introduced this bill. It is through these lenses that business views the government's attitude towards business. Amendment one attempts to set this legislation in some context. I thank the noble Lord Sharp of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral for signing it. It was difficult to come up with the wording that would pass the eagle eyes, but I'm pretty sure the Minister will not find much of this objectionable.

The first part for example sets out the need for fairness and security. Which is something that should drive this bill and I am sure the Minister would agree. The third part is well represented in this bill as a large part of it set out new rules around part of it set out new rules around trade unions. But I would like to spend some time on part B and part D. I cannot read this bill without the feeling it envisions just two state of employment.

Happy workers represented by unions and abject employees working in non- union concerns. Of course that is not true. Even the very welcome conversations with the Minister, there seems to be little recognition that the vast majority of people in this country are in employment where the facilitation and cooperation agreements between employers and workers is not automatically dependent on union status. Let us remind ourselves that for most people those cooperative arrangements work pretty well. That proportion of UK employees who are trade union members is around 22% in this country.

Constructive workplace relations can be forged in many ways other than direct representation of employees by unions. When the Minister generously gave her time to meet us on this bill with me, she explained discussions between governments, employer organisations and unions had been constructive and amicable and I am sure that they were. But those self same organisations also raised serious alarms over this bill. The British Chamber of Commerce, CBI, IOD, FSB and make UK all sent a joint letter and I am sure all of you received it and read it.

And this group are not alone. All manner of industries, hospitality, food and drink, employment agencies, all kinds of sectors, have raised serious concerns about this bill. The telling phrase in the letter is "for us, the challenge has never been what the government wants to achieve, but the unintended consequences of how it will implement it". Unfortunately the bill locks in several irreversible policy directions that will force business to make difficult choices between jobs, investment and growth. The Minister may say that he is getting equally forceful lobbying from the unions.

Indeed I think the noble Lord Hendy is providing ample evidence of this in his later amendments. He may say the government is pitching this bill in the middle of these respective positions. And there may be a claim on that basis that the bill is in the right place. But my Lords, governments are not elected to work out the average position of policy. They are elected to make the right decisions. I ask the Minister to take on board the concerns of business and importantly, recognise there are issues in this bill which if not addressed, will impede the chances of the government of delivering on its mission of economic growth.

Small and medium- sized enterprises are the backbone of the UK economy. Accounting for a big proportion of business population and employing approximately 16.7 million people. Around 61% of private sector employment according to data from the Federation of Small businesses. In that regard the Minister should recognise the impact of many of the measures of this bill will disproportionately affect small and medium-sized businesses. Smaller businesses have neither the administrator of horsepower or the reservoir of human energy required to meet the collection of tasks this bill introduces.

Given their economic footprint and vital role in local communities, SMEs must be central to the purpose of the Employment Rights Bill. Placing SMEs at the heart of the purpose of the bill offers an opportunity to foster better employment relations, while supporting enterprise, resilience and long-term growth. It has proved a step too far to include explicit mention of SMEs in amendment one. Any effort to improve employer relations and a culture of fairness in work, will not succeed unless it meaningfully supports and engages SMEs.

This depends on clear, proportionate, practical regulation. In that regard, as this Bill Committee progresses, we will seek to make it easier for SMEs and all other businesses, and at this point I highlight these measures. There needs to be a change in the polarity of the guaranteed hours obligation offer, into a more streamlined right to request. There needs to be recognition the current arrangement does not work in the case of seasonal jobs and we will come to that.

There needs to be confirmation of the probation period will be nine months. It should not be left hanging while the act commences. The Statutory Sick Pay needs to be changed to make sure the costs are shared. There needs to be a clearer picture on the role of tribunal's and the ability to strike out cases quickly which cannot succeed and to better understand how public funding better understand how public funding
15:47
None Portrait Amendment:1 Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-

Overall your Lordship's House needs to know what the guidance will like. The need-to-know what it means in practice. In many respects the practice. In many respects the government is asking your Lordship's House to stand back and allow it to gradually formulate the details of gradually formulate the details of the bill. As more and more government amendments flood in and consultation is still progressed consultation is still progressed without outcomes -- with outcomes set while after the government hopes to finish this bill.

Some would say to finish this bill. Some would say making it up as I go along, but I won't, but either way it is not the way to formulate important legislation like this. We need to know what it actually is. The consultations should proceed the drafting of a bill, not succeeded. Government amendments should be few and trivial, not many and fundamental. The operational details of the post legislation should be clear and obvious, not opaque. My Lords, that's why I have included amendments to hundred 93 on the code of practice and 327, time commencement on the publication of the code of practice, to this group.

These allow the government to set out all issues that need to be clarified. How in practice this bill should operate, if and when it becomes an act, and it ensures that the bill does not commence until this process has happened. In other words, the details are nailed down firmly before it gets underway. My Lords, adverse side of amendment to hundred 93 it might seem like a long list but in fact it is half of how this bill will read into working life.

The amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish code
15:48
15:49
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed, insert the following new clause, the terms set

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out on the marshalled list. I rise quickly to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise quickly to thank the noble Lord Lord Fox for bringing forward this important purpose clause this important purpose clause amendment which I must tell him and I know he's always surprised when I praise him, that it's a very praise him, that it's a very cleverly worded amendment. Which my cleverly worded amendment. Which my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I were very happy to add our and I were very happy to add our support. I don't know why this bill has had to be rushed through within 100 days.

Given the significance of this legislation, surely it would have been better if the government had committed itself to ensuring thorough and proper scrutiny of this legislation. However, we have seen the introduction of 160 amendments at the report stage, in the House of Commons, amendments which in many cases receive no, or little meaningful examination. Even more concerning is the fact that 27 amendments have been tabled during committee stage in this House and we have received a letter from the noble Baroness the Minister warning us that there are more amendments in the pipeline on fire and rehire, Fair Work Agency, Employment Bill time limits, trade union reform and maritime employment.

What on earth is going on? Why wasn't this bill is going on? Why wasn't this bill properly prepared? This is meant that that letter, to which the noble Lord Lord Fox has referred to, is virtually saying to the House of Lords, please, on behalf of all the employers, and indeed all the businesses in the UK, we rely on you in the House of Lords to scrutinise this bill properly. I just don't think this is the right way to treat Parliament.

We it to the legislative process and the public we serve to ensure that our scrutiny is neither rushed nor compromised. Anyway. No doubt the noble Baroness the Minister will argue that a purpose clause is completely unnecessary. However, we respectfully disagree, not only for the points raised by the noble Lord Lord Fox, but it's vital for the ill to clearly articulate its overarching aim is, not simply to modernise employment rights in name, but to set out a clear and vision to create a Raqqa more secure labour market, to encourage genuine cooperation between employers and workers, to protect rights and well-being in the workplace, to ensure proper standards for pay and conditions across sectors and a guarantee robust enforcement of labour protections.

And I just have to say, without a purpose clause, the spilt risks being directionless and worse, risks unintended that neither workers or businesses can possibly afford. I think also, and I hope noble Lord Lord Fox would agree, but purpose clause is critically important where there are a large number of delegated to make regulations within it. In effect, the government is saying, please give us power to do whatever we would like to do whenever we would like to do it.

And the committees of this House have time and time again urged governments to turn their back on these Henry VIII clauses and to ensure that they present Parliament with clear cases to amend primary law and not do it through secondary legislation. Well, there is a growing concern about this bill. Which is why the British Chambers of Commerce, Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of directors, and in particular the Federation of Small Businesses, who between them represent thousands of businesses across the UK have published this open letter to the House of Lords asking for urgent changes of the bill.

They did so because they are deeply concerned that as currently drafted the bill will make it harder, not easier, to create fair, secure and cooperative workplaces. They warned that the bill will increase risk and uncertainty for businesses, precisely at the moment when we need businesses to invest, to hire and support those, particularly the margins of the labour market. Well, I don't think the substantive concern is of all the businesses quoted by the noble Lord Fox.

Have indeed been listened to. I just hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will be able to respond when she once at this debate, and I look forward to the speeches from all sides of the House. I won't quote in detail from the letter itself,, but they do remind me of the words of Milton Friedman, I have never found myself quoting from Milton Friedman but I suppose this is the moment. When he said, one of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programmes by their intentions rather than their results.

Well, find phrases about modernising employment rights and updating legislation, no substitute for carefully considered, properly scrutinised measures that deliver real-world improvement. So that letter, from all those businesses, is not simply a warning. It's a plea to this House. It's a recognition that we as the revising chamber, have a unique and critical responsibility to ensure that this bill works. They are not closing the door on the government. They are offering, at the end of the letter, to work with school and with ministers to help improve legislation.

And can I just say in conclusion, that if we are to get all these amendments, could we please now hear from the noble Baroness the Minister how many more amendments are we going to get? And when we going to get them? I know the government Chief Whip is constantly referring us to the companion. And I don't think of quoted from the companion before. But it does have pretty severe words for a government that chooses to table amendments at the last moment, without proper notice.

So could we please hear from the noble Baroness the Minister what further amendments are planned, when are we going to receive them, and which parts of the bill are going to be fundamentally altered? Because here we are at the start of committee stage, we still don't know what the government is proposing and can I just say, in an unguarded moment, the noble Baroness the Minister disclosed to me that she has a implementation plan, which I understood from her was in draft.

Well, all I will just say, I think this House 02C the draft implementation. -- I think we should see the draft and meditation. Why can't we see it? Perhaps we can help noble Lord the Minister to produce the final version. Could we please hear from the noble Baroness Minister when we are going to see the implementation plan? Because a lot of businesses up and down the length and breadth of this country are totally uncertain about the what the detail of this bill will be.

It is about time we heard from the noble Baroness the Minister, what is this bill seeking to do, what is its purpose and can we please see the bill in its full form before we go any further with this committee stage?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to address Amendment one and avoid the temptation to engage and avoid the temptation to engage perhaps in a mini debate across the
15:59
Lord Monks Portrait Lord Monks (Labour)
-
-
perhaps in a mini debate across the whole width, second reading debate, that we have been sitting insofar to this extent. The have given speeches in this House before which reflected similar sentiments to those in this amendment about fairness and about cooperation. These are the words used in Lord Fox's draft amendment. I gave them in the contents of the debate on Conservative antiunion laws which we have addressed in this House, sadly no one on the benches, the Conservative benches except for the noble Lord Lord Balfe who icy in his place, paid any heed, and the laws then proceeded to the statute book and the result, what is it? An imbalance in British employment law very much in favour of employers.

This bill goes some way towards correcting that. When implemented, we can look again, I hope we would, at the system of mature collective bargaining which we all can be proud of. But first we must replace the imbalance and do so speedily. Because it's glaring. And changes desperately needed. Our labour market is characterised by high inequality, only two OECD countries have a bigger gap between rich and poor, between top donors and the very low page. Wages are stagnant.

Living standards and skills are poor compared to our European neighbours. How many people have recently been shocked to find the gap with Ireland being as wide as it is at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Productivity we know has been languishing for quite a long time. languishing for quite a long time. Insecure homes and work has been growing. Negative outcomes in this country compared to others. Large- scale inequality is really bad news, scale inequality is really bad news, my lord. I say this to the Conservative party, that they need to recognise that the Thatcher experiment with deregulated labour experiment with deregulated labour markets, with unwise privatisation, think Thames water, and with an economy very dependent upon a volatile financial sector, too often resembling a giant casino with an adventure playground with equity and hedge funds, generating low rates of investment by the way outside of property, this experiment has failed.

The Thatcher experiment has failed and it has failed comprehensively. It is time for a change of approach. This bill together with a new industrial strategy, which is being worked on, strategy, which is being worked on, can help provide it. I call on the opposition in hope of probably rather than expectation to give it a fair wind.
16:02
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
Generally speaking I am somewhat nervous about purpose clauses. But I can see the argument in the case of this bill. Because there is a lot of confusion about what it is trying to achieve. Indeed for me, it does serve to highlight the incoherence of this government's approach to generating economic growth. Because this bill places far too much burden on business. It will deter them from innovating and recruiting. And investing in skills training which we know is so very important right now.

That is particularly pronounced within the tech sector. One of the government's priority sectors. Because it has the potential to drive a vast amount of growth. But it is also one where we need to do far more to encourage investment so home-grown tech firms can scale and compete around the world. We must not forget that investors have a choice as to where they invest and they will not go to countries where the costs are higher. Although it is probably not an interest to declare it is perhaps worth me reminding your Lordships' House that I was chairing the communication and digital Select Committee and as part of that role, during my time in the chair, we did quite a bit looking at the tech sector and our final enquiry was about scaling up in AI and creative tech.

I am sure the Minister, who is also a decent minister, as seen the industry trade body responsible for all elements of tech has this warning, raising genuine concerns about the bill. If I can quote briefly from their website, it says that with no economic modelling underpinning these proposals, businesses are being asked to shoulder new burdens without a clear understanding of the impact. There is a growing risk entrenched positions will lead to a worst-case outcome stifling innovation and investment in jobs.

Counter to the government's progrowth mission. We call for further discussion and refinement to ensure the bill supports businesses and protects workers. Alongside techUK, the start-up coalition, focusing specifically on start-ups, in their briefing notes on the bill, they say that we are concerned that without careful tailoring, the barriers the bill currently introduces into hiring and scaling at the early stages of business development can undermine the start-up ecosystem and the economic growth it drives. My Lords, I would suggest, and I don't know if I would have succeeded if I tried to do this from what my noble friend said about the Table Office, but I would suggest any purpose clause, and I would be interested to know what my noble friend has to say about this, might also refer to growth and competitiveness.

I would certainly welcome a response from the Minister about her explanation about how this bill supports the government growth agenda. I know from talking to a range of tech firms and businesses from all sectors and of all sizes that while they all support good employment practice and condemn firms who do not uphold high standards, as indeed do I, there is frustration that the good employers are paying the price, literally for are paying the price, literally for the poor conduct of the bad.

For them this bill does represent a desire by government to do something to them which makes it even harder for them to create the economic growth the government promised the electorate and their workers. Let's be clear that it is business, not government which generates economic growth. As I say I think that a purpose clause in the context of this bill does have some merit. But I would like to see growth and competitiveness feature within it. I think if we were to do that in the purpose clause and get some agreement from the Minister up front today, that would help I think in terms of shaping this bill as we go through committee stage.

So it actually delivers on what I think it is trying to do, to make sure there is of course good employment practice, but good practice that supports economic growth and competitiveness.
16:07
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I have to admit I was a bit perplexed by amendment one. Particularly in the light of the latest TUC commissioned polling, published last night. Not only is this bill popular with the public, including a majority of Conservative and Reform voters, but when faced with robust arguments against its key provisions, this bill becomes even more popular with voters. I am not sure my Lords or indeed the public need this amendment to know that this bill is about fairness, security and the right to an independent voice at work.

The public are already well aware and frankly appalled that under the previous government, low pay and insecurity became mainstream in British working life. They want change. Underlining this amendment, and it might be my suspicious mind, but it is also the worry that it is really about undermining the role of independent trade unions in representing work interests. The term worker organisations is used for a reason. International law upholds the right to collective bargaining and freedom of association.

Independent trade unions are the best chance for workers to get their rights enforced and built upon for better pay, safer workplaces, training opportunities and family friendly hours and provide a democratic voice at work. Without repeating the arguments from the Second Reading, I would encourage my Lords to look at the evidence about just how far Britain has fallen behind other countries in respect of employment protection, and how giving ordinary working people a stronger collective voice can help to deliver more responsible businesses and a healthier, more equal society.

I would encourage the noble Lord to cast his mind back to labour's introduction of a national minimum wage. May remember that the Conservative party and the business lobby said that a National Minimum Wage would cause massive unemployment. Businesses would collapse. What happened in reality? The National Minimum Wage is now widely respected as one of Britain's's most successful policies. It has made a difference to millions of working lives in the teeth of opposition from the business lobby at the time.

It is worth remembering that. I just end by saying that it is time to get on with and get behind this bill so Britain takes the high road to improving business productivity, by treating workers fairly, as human beings and not just commodities. beings and not just commodities.
16:10
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to address the meeting of the TUC general council. I should declare an interest at the beginning. I am the honorary president of the British airline pilot Association. That is a union that covers all of the people who fly you on holiday and back again. Its motto, or strapline for many years was every flight, a safe flight. It regarded its job as not only to deal with the members but also deal with safety and in dealing with the companies that we dealt with and still deal with, aircraft safety and looking after passengers was as much at the front of what our mission was as anything to do with pay and conditions.

Which of course we were interested in. We were after all a trade union. But we were a responsible trade union. I stand on this side of the House pretty convinced that probably a majority of the members of this union support this party. They support it because let me remind the House that most people do not join a trade union for any political purpose. They often join as I did at the age of 16 because it is there.

Nowadays most trade unions, particularly the better ones, have a free legal advice service. They will get you a discount on your car insurance. I have told this story I think once before, that at a point when we had a dispute between my family and the bursar of our local private school, I rang up the union solicitor and he drafted me a letter to send to the bursar very quickly and I dare say this is not what you are normally here for, I said.

I remember his reply. He said to me, Mr Balfe, we are not here to judge our membership. We are here to help them. At the basis of virtually every trade union official and every trade union action is the desire to help the membership. Nobody I know regards going on strike as being anything other than a defeat. Because it means the members do not get paid. They often lose pension entitlement. And you lose your wages. People go to work to get work done.

To get a reasonable wage. I always had a lot of time for the almost unmentionable the modern politics of Edward Heath because I think actually he probably came nearer to understanding the movement than probably any leader of the Conservative party. Maybe any leader overall. Indeed I do remember when I was a much younger trade union person in the 1960s, asking a group of conservatives who they thought was the best secretary of state for labour there had ever been.

The result was unanimous. Sir Walter Roberton. A Conservative minister under Churchill. He was reckoned to be the one that listened to them the most. You always have to have a runner up in these things just in case one falls down. The runner-up was Ian McLeod. We don't have to have this level of political enmity between the workers and the trade union movement and the political establishment. My view is that many of the Thatcher reforms are at the base of the problems that the movement has today.

The emergence of things like broad left. Not to mention the appallingly low turnout Many of the reforms just have not worked, if you say worked was what they were supposed to do. They were supposed to invest people in interest in the unions. Get them all fired up to vote in elections. Well, as an almost lone supporter of Sharon Graham, who is my union General Secretary, not to be confused with the 19 present and of, but the fact of the matter is, if you go to the Cambridge branch of Unite retired members, there not really interested in politics at all.

Many of them quite like Sharon because they think she looks after the members instead of looking after herself. Which I'm afraid was an image that had grown in the movement. So what I'm hoping for, and we are a bit of the point, but this is after all amendment number one, is that by the time we have finished with this bill, we will have knocked together a consensus so that trade unionism is not always at the front and the punchbag for people who want around.

The fact of the matter is that if you analyse the Labour Party's funding, most of it comes from very rich people. Doesn't come from trade unions at all. If you look at today's Times, or maybe it's the Telegraph, the headline is about the unions taking on the government because they're not going to implement the full terms of the Pay Review Body. But none of that union is concerned pay a penny to the Labour Party. They are actually completely independent.

Many people, until they ended up with me as the Conservative trade union, envoy, didn't even realise that the BMA was a trade union out of. They thought it was a collection of because he sort of sat around with stethoscopes around there and tried to bully the government. And when I explained the Conservative frontbench of our great leader, David Cameron, at the BMA was actually, we used to say, there is only one union in Britain you would need to be afraid of, that's Hamish Meldrum, and the BMA, because he was Meldrum, and the BMA, because he was the most effective union leader for getting money out of his members.

I wish this bill well, I will be keeping an outlet. But I will be keeping an ionic with a view to shaping legislation which will put to bed the silly rows that we are always having and get a genuine partnership between the state and the trade union movement. I take you back in my final sentence, 100 back in my final sentence, 100 -- which is the fundamental basis of Christian democracy and Christian Democrats trade unionism in Europe where I was for almost 50 years.

Icy John monks in his place there. He was secretary general of the ETEC. He is well aware of the way in which continental trade unions work. It's not perfect but let me say this, in many ways it's better than that bunfight that passes for dialogue in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain. Thank you. My Lords, I follow on from the very excellent points that have been made by my noble friends on this made by my noble friends on this side of the House, by addressing perhaps more specifically the letter perhaps more specifically the letter of amendment one. I might preface my remarks by saying, I might be new to this part I am a bit puzzled because I thought that the benches opposite didn't like purpose courses and in didn't like purpose courses and in the past when Labour has proposed such clauses, there has been some pushback and decided the House has been accused of poor practice, risking provoking unintended.

But anyway. To clause 1. My main problem with clause 1 is that the list that is provided is not exhaustive. And also, it's under states the government lie ambition with this bill. If we were to be putting our heads together to produce an exhaustive list of purposes perhaps we might include the purposes that this bill helps give effect to the government's manifesto promise to make work pay. We might also want to add that the ambition is to help stimulate economic growth, building on the extensive evidence that we have internationally shows that the labour market protections lead to improve economic outcomes, including higher productivity.

We might also want to mention that the bill aims to end exploitative practices and we might want to say as well that the bill aims to redress the balance between employer and worker and it seeks to modernise trade union legislation. My general point is that perhaps we don't need such an extensive list and I invite noble Lord Lord Fox, in his response, to clarify for us, in what way is a nonexhaustive list, as is provided in this amendment, any better in advancing understanding of the intentions of the bill? In what way is it any better than no list at all?
16:22
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
I, too, rise to address amendment one and it's a pleasure to follow on from my noble friend Baroness Carberry. I wasn't clear what the purpose of amendment one was. It seemed to me that the government have laid out the purpose of this bill in the long title and it's a very long title at the bill has been given, which sets out the ambit of the bill. But I am clear about, however, is the need for this bill.

There was research done last August and Cambridge University which produced a study by professors Barber Clancy and Deacon, calling falling behind on labour rights and it said this. In comparing UK and OECD labour rights. On almost every measure of employment protection, the UK is significantly behind the average for other countries in the OECD. 38 countries generally understood to be those with a high level of economic and social development globally. As they stand, labour laws in the UK are barely half as protective as those found in France and significantly low other notable European countries.

This strongly suggests that there is significant scope for improvement before British labour law is even close to matching our newest neighbours. My noble friend Lord Monks mentioned the inequality in the United Kingdom in comparison with other countries. The OECD have also considered that. It currently ranks Britain as the eighth most unequal of 40 major economies in terms of income inequality. Amongst EU member states, only Bulgaria and Lithuania are more unequal than the knotted kingdom.

-- Than the United Kingdom. Worker participation in business is making is ranked in different European countries. The UK is rated 26th out of 28th with lower participation than all countries participation than all countries except Latvia and in Stoney. -- And Estonia. There are many other metrics by which the current state of play can be judged. The status quo is simply not acceptable. I won't mention them all. But firstly, median pay in this country currently is just over £600 a week.

And medium doesn't mean average median. Median means half the working population. In other words half of workers and less than just over £600 a week. Although half earned more than that. Second metric is this. That of those on Universal Credit, 37% are actually in work. And finally, we find that 6.8 million people are in insecure work, ÷ who are in what is described as severely insecure work that is to say some 5 million workers.

This bill doesn't do all that I think it should be. I have the honour to serve as the legal adviser on the working party which throughout a new deal for working people. And it's clear that there are major differences and I, later in the debates on the committee stage will seek to move some amendments to redress some of what I consider to be the shortcomings. But overall, the need for this bill is simply unarguable. We cannot go on in the way that we are the present time, with workers denied a voice of work, working in insecure conditions, and on extremely low conditions, and on extremely low pay.

This bill will go a long way to assist putting that right. assist putting that right.
16:27
Lord Empey Portrait Lord Empey (Ulster Unionist Party)
-
-
I hope this bill doesn't turn into a Punch and Judy show between employers and one-sided organisations of trade unions on the other because obviously it has a number of meritorious proposals. However, the forensic construction of the amendment by Lord Fox illustrates, I think, that the government, this is a kind of work in progress piece of legislation. I understand why the Demons are important but I think they have to concede that a lot of it is being done on the hoof and I think that is undermining the government position.

I had the privilege of being employment Minister in Belfast for 3.5 years. And I worked very closely with business and to unions during that period. And I actually, the last piece of legislation I did had the Raisi title, and I'm sure the Minister will be happy to adopted of the employment number two bill, the sort of thing that lets logical through your veins. But I have to say that the one area where we have failed as a country for years and years and years is a skills.

We talk about it, friendship models, this, that. But yet we still have not solved the problem. Once we got rid of the old style text colleges and so on, we have just stuck in a rut, ever since. It's obvious that there have been abuses and insecurity, and there's no point in trying to deny that. And I listened very carefully to what Lord Monks had to say. But what I feel a bit concerned about is that we talk about, we live in a world where the major trade unions operate with large employers-large, whether it's the public sector of the organisations.

But the bulk of the industry and the bulk of the growth in employment and everywhere else comes from small businesses. And micro businesses. And they do not have the capacity or the risk- taking capability in terms of how and when they employ people. It just tracks me that there is a risk that there is a number of issues that are creeping in to what we're trying to do this country at the moment which could have the unintentional consequences of making it less likely for people to employ individuals.

We have to look at the international situation. We can't ignore what is going on. There's a revolution taking place which is having a negative effect. We also have the employers, the national insurance contributions. We can't insurance contributions. We can't If you come to a point where an employee on day one has every right as somebody who has been there for some considerable time, there is a large risk particularly for a small micro business to take on one individual and you get a square peg in a round hole and that does happen, let's face it! If you have half a dozen employees you are in serious trouble.

I accept in this day and age a two-year waiting place, the biggest offender in my day was the Civil Service of abusing that system. But there has to be some recognition as we go through the bill, the smaller people have to be taken into account. I understand what Lord Fox is trying to do. Whether it is we add to the purpose clause. It seems to me the noble Baroness there had some additions she was considering.

Whether it be Baroness Stowell, who had a couple of additions in her mind that we look at that. It is properly not the point. What I hope we do not do is turn this into a bunfight. There are things we can do here that would be positive. That will help people but we have to have good licence that we do not want to damage the potential of people being employed by making things so difficult for the small employer. But they are frightened away from the necessary investment of recruitment and that we so desperately need.

Yes we have to be fair. We have to be practical and I have to say to the noble Baroness, the Minister I mean I listened very carefully to what Lord Hunt and Brusset and there was some very good points. This is a patchwork quilt here that we are getting as we go along. For such an important piece of legislation I do think we have to pause and get that act together so the House can see exactly what The Big Picture is and if we do have a clause such as Lord Fox and colleagues are suggesting, at least it matches what follows in the subsequent part of the legislation.

I think there is some good stuff you. There is potential here but there is also risk. I hope as we progress through the amendments we can hopefully bring a piece of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation back to the other place that is in better shape than it is today. My Lords, I rise from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise from the backbenches to make two brief points. I apologise for not speaking points. I apologise for not speaking at Second Reading. First, if we have to have an opposed clause which is to have an opposed clause which is not an approach I particularly favour, it has to include a reference to competitiveness and reference to competitiveness and growth. And indeed perhaps as the noble Baroness, Lady carver of May noble Baroness, Lady carver of May has -- the noble Baroness has suggested to productivity, does the Minister agree? Second 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.

Legislation that is so important to all parts of business and to all employers to the public sector and of course all employees and their representatives which the noble Lord, Lord Monks rightly reference. I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness, 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 Lord starter. But like this bill it was an -- it was introduced before it was ready and it needed to have a large number of amendments.

As the responsible Minister I was very keen to listen to Christian -- listen to criticism of the detail and to respond by agreeing to amendments. Or to 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 Lady will
16:36
16:36
Lord Evans of Rainow Portrait Lord Evans of Rainow (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly on clause 1 from Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. Specifically items the made provisions about in certain sectors and I know my noble friend, the noble Baroness makes a very good points about specifically the tech sector. And those entrepreneurs and businesses and businesses -- entrepreneurs and businesses of the future. It was interesting to hear what she had to say. I stand appear for the hospitality sector. Do any of the members opposite know what it is like to run the hospitality sector and the challenge of employing people to cater and the service of those sectors? UK Hospitality recently launched the social productivity packs which shows the hospitality sector is as key driver in social growth, contributing not only to economic expansion but also mastering 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 Lords are in this chamber today at some stage in their career have 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 see destined to result in the framework of requirements that are more likely to hinder than promote growth in the hospitality sector.

In particular we now -- without further addressing the concerns of businesses considering alternative options, it is felt the bill is likely to link to lead to the reductions in staff recruitment in the rate of wage growth and indeed the level of investment. This bill looks to hinder hospitality businesses and restrict growth, it seems to consume all employers -- assume all employers are bad actors with regards to their dealings with their staff. This is blatantly not the case for the majority of businesses who 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 businesses and those models and unpredictable trading in sectors such as pubs and wider hospitality businesses that are required to adopt quickly to changes in trade patterns, determining for example by whether or other outside of their control. A reduction in businesses ability to respond quickly and proactively to changing demand will undoubtedly result in higher operating costs which will naturally need to be met by either increasing prices, reducing other staff costs or indeed reducing investment.

These impacts are compounded by the budget announcements on employer NICs and national living wage rates spiralling employment costs will be exasperated by the additional cost and administrative burdens bill will layer on top of also impacting investment and growth. The unintended consequences of this bill is slower wage growth and recruitment. I am sure the noble Lady the Minister does not intend that to be the case. Can she reassure the House that will not be the case if this bill goes ahead as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it is at the moment? I rise to speak in support of this important amendment and to this important amendment and to endorse the serious concerns just now expressed by the noble Lord Fox. And my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I declare my interest as a
16:40
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
Wirral. I declare my interest as a business owner, entrepreneur and investor. The noble Baroness O'Grady questioned the need for the state of purpose for this bill. I am not sure what the logic is there, the most likely reason for having bill of no purpose is a lack of clarity by its sponsors as to what they are trying to achieve. And the noble Baroness complains as stated in the purpose is not exhaustive. Which I agree with.

And then somehow jumps to the conclusion no list at all would be preferred. Again I am afraid the logic of that escapes me. I am far less experienced than my noble friend, the noble Baroness Neville Rolfe but I do feel there is a wizened obvious advantage to having a purpose put in the case of this bill. Purpose put. In the case of this bill I am sure the government will agree those who will face the future of determining the meaning of this bill should be given as much clarity as possible through a purpose clause as to why the bill was passed and what its purpose was.

Courts in the future will far prefer their elusive statement of what the new law sets out accomplished. Rather than being given to wide remit and freedom to interpret what the bill means. I commend the overall objective of the noble Lord Fox and hope the amendment or similar will form part of the eventual bill. This very lengthy bill would in past -- would have passed without a purpose of section my Lords. It would be more open to abuse as if so and the very extensive powers the bill contains, this amendment will put a few appropriate albeit modest restraints on the ability of the government to go too far in applying these powers.

To be clear this purpose clause from the noble Lord Fox is just a start, not from a completely satisfactory by any means. The list is indeed not exhaustive. In addition the additional amendments would burden companies and yet another compliance Code of Conduct. It will just serve to send sensible non-executive screaming from the room and possibly of the device. -- Off to Dubai. We have to let businesses focus on serving their customers and making sure it is a well-run business not having to implement new compliance code after new compliance code.

Which will only ever be observed with lipservice. My Lords, I will in addition suggest on this point of a addition suggest on this point of a nonexhaustive list the wish to add in addition to the wording my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe suggested to the list of purposes of the bill an additional purpose of supporting, improving and not reducing flexibility in employment relationships. We will move on to the issue of flexible in the next group of amendments.

So I will not expand on that point yet. But I do recommend the addition of that purpose. As well as the wording proposed by my on -- by my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe that will appear in amendment number one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. I have never been much enamoured by purpose clause as though they are by purpose clause as though they are a convenient way on having an early debate on the principle of the bill before getting stuck into the before getting stuck into the detail. We can see the opportunity and the attraction of another second reading debate is irresistible to reading debate is irresistible to noble Lords. And part of the reason is partly because when we do Second is partly because when we do Second Reading is nowadays we get the most of about four minutes allowed but of about four minutes allowed but when we get to committee we get 10 minutes.

Which I think is a wonderful way of proceeding. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fox has tried to encompass the government's aims for the bill in his wording of amendment one. In doing so he has
16:45
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
not covered the whole content of the bill and I agree with the noble bill and I agree with the noble Baroness lady Carbery on that. We probably will not agree on much else probably will not agree on much else during the course of this bill. For example clause 75 repeals the example clause 75 repeals the minimum levels of service act which we knew the party opposite hated we knew the party opposite hated when we enacted it. That act empowered employers to set minimum empowered employers to set minimum service levels in a few defined public services.

So service users like NHS patients, like commuters did not have to suffer the massive disruption we have seen inflicted by the unions which are active in the the unions which are active in the Repeal of the 2020 fee -- 23 act takes away the power for service users. And has nothing but will fit with the purposes that will fit with the noble Lord in his amendment one. Does that mean that clause 75 should not be in this bill? And if not, what is the purpose of a purpose clause? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, can answer that.

Another clear purpose of the bill, though not spelled-out in amendment one, is to allow trade unions to increase their memberships by giving them powers to push into nonunionised areas. Now, trade union membership has been declining. Only about 40% of the workforce is signed up and fed disproportionately in the public sector if trade union membership were a good thing, it would not need this bill to bring -- Give unions power to budget workplaces uninvited. The real purpose of this bill is to provide payback to the Labour Party's paymasters.

That should also be in the purpose clause, if the purpose clause is to be comprehensive. So, I have a problem with purpose clauses in general. At this one in particular. Because they do not focus on outcomes. And I believe one of the outcomes of this bill will be to reduce employment opportunities for some important groups of workers. The young, the disabled, those with patchy employment records, or history of ill health. Our already at employment risk. Giving them day one right, the increasing Statutory Sick Pay, just raise the risks of employing these people.

So, many employers will just do their best not to take them into the payroll. Similarly, the complexity of the inflexibly tea of the right to guarantee I was will reduce opportunities for those who want flexible working because employers will not expose themselves to the risk of inquiring those employees to obtain those rights. So, in general, this bill will make employing people and an attractive proposition. It will probably incentivise businesses to look to non-human resources solutions, wherever possible. Which might be great for suppliers of capital investment, but is not so great for the humans who want jobs.

So, whatever the bill's intentions, the consequences of the bill are likely to be negative for many employees. I am neither for nor against Amendment one but I'm absolutely clear it does not cover the government's full aims for this bill, nor does it capture the consequences of the bill, if it is enacted in anything like its current form. Also, I am ambivalent about the concept of a code of, which is the other part of the amendments in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

The main reason for this, it will be a complete monster. This is a 300 page bill and if the government keep tabling amendments, like the complicated amendments they did in their first match last week, it will be very much longer. I struggle to see how a single code of to scan avoid becoming so large and unwieldy that it becomes inaccessible. It will end up like the financial conduct authority rulebook. That of course also speaks to whether or not it is wise to load the business sector with so much in the way of new rules and new regulations.

Now, I am sure that will be a theme of many, in particular in relation to small businesses, micro-businesses, medium-sized businesses, a number of noble Lords have already referred

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to, and I certainly look forward to that. My Lords, I rise to support
16:50
Lord Frost Portrait Lord Frost (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment one, though possibly not for quite the same reasons as many have been expressed already. In this have been expressed already. In this chamber. And I regret, I was not able to speak a second reading of this bill. It is unavoidable I think, when dealing with a purpose grows, -- Clause, to spend a moment dwelling on the broader principles behind the bill before coming to the amendment itself. And I do think 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, it is because it is an extremely flexible and responsive economy.

Particularly so in the labour market. Indeed, most indices of these things put us in the top 10 globally, of labour market flexibility. Which I regard as a good thing, though clearly many noble Lords who have spoken do not. Now, there is a paradox here. And the paradox is that flexibility is the best way of delivering security. Maybe not in any individual job, but security of employment and of income over a period. Now, the government seems to think the only way to ensure job security is to put in place more and more intrusive and more and more detailed legislation to require such job security.

And 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. This is why it is so damaging this bill as being, as it were, made up as it goes along. To such a large extent, it multiplies the capacity and difficulty. -- Complexity and difficulty. I don't think that is the right way to look at job security, the best way to look at it is flexibility produces security.

If it is easy to change the terms and conditions of a job, if it is easier to dismiss people if they do not fit, then it is easier to re-employ, and shift resources from low productivity, high productivity sectors. It is easier to deliver growth in the economy. What this approach in the bill does is to protect insiders at the expense of entrepreneurs and those who are outside the labour market. So, it is not surprising perhaps 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. Now, I make these points because they go to the difficulty, I think, of drafting a satisfactory purpose clause for this bill and I think it is desirable to have one for something that is so complex and sprawling in the way tries to legislate. And I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has written it is cleverly and clearly as he possibly could in the circumstances.

I think it is cleverly written. But the difficulty is not so much that it is not exhaustive enough. It is that it is contradictory of the contents of the bill. It sets out a number of things which the bill simply doesn't actually do. For example in clause A, talks about fairness. Fairness for employees, on one definition, yes. But not to employers or people who are outside the formal labour market. Whose fairness be talking about? In clause B and D, it doesn't facilitate committee use the word of the bill, good labour relations.

It actually make some more bureaucratic, complicated, difficult, hard to complicated, difficult, hard to implement. In clause C, it makes provisions for paying conditions, when arguably, it shouldn't be doing when arguably, it shouldn't be doing that at all. That is not the business of the government, that is the business of employers and employees. In fact, I think the only one that is really an accurate description of what is in the bill is so close E, the simple statement that it is to make provisions about the enforcement of the labour market legislation, which it certainly doesn't do that.

-- It certainly does do that. I am not sure there is a satisfactory way of dealing with this, but nevertheless, support this purpose clause and this amendment. Because, it seems to me, if it were to pass, the logical consequence to be consistent, would be the large part of the rest of the bill, would have to fall away to be consistent with the express purpose in this purpose clause. If this bill were to be internally consistent with the things that we say are desirable, then much of this bill are simply not consistent with that.

What goes first, the purpose clause or the rest of the bill. I think we know how that is going to play out. But nevertheless, that is why it is difficult to get to a satisfactory difficult to get to a satisfactory purpose clause for this bill. I think it would be good if much of this bill did fall away, and no doubt we will come unto that next seven days, it is going to cause a lot of damage to the economy and to growth.

So, I conclude, I support the amendment, if not perhaps for exactly the same reasons others have supported it. But I think it will enhance and make clearer to some extent what is a very sprawling, very complex and very unsatisfactory bill. bill. My Lords, I do rise to speak to amendment one and the other two amendments as well. And I start by,
16:57
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I did speak on the second reading, as my noble friend pointed out, we only had 45 minutes. This gives us only had 45 minutes. This gives us an opportunity to consider what the purposes should be. Now, in any document, published by the Labour government, the debit Manesar Secretary of State for Business and Trade referred to the fact this Trade referred to the fact this would be about getting people into would be about getting people into work. And so far, unfortunately, regrettably, what we have seen under this administration is actually this administration is actually unemployment rise.

At the same time, comments have been made by noble Lords on the other side, the noble Lord referred to inequality. What he may have forgotten is that actually, in the previous Labour administration, income inequality, meanwhile, in the recent Conservative administrative, income inequality fell. This is a case of trying to make sure that as we take legislation through, that we focus on the outcome is that it will have the people right across this country. Rather than necessarily be just a place of dogma and, how can I put it? Combination factors were, frankly, flexible labour has generally improved the prosperity of people in this country.

In terms of also thinking through, I think it was the noble Lord Hendy complaining people in work or on Universal Credit, well, that is a large point of it. Finally, we have got rid of tax credits. Finally with just earlier this month. And that had been introduced by previous Labour governments, in order to increase the pay of people that employers were not doing. But also, it was done in a rather crude way, such that capital was not taken into account.

And when we were moving people from tax credits on Universal Credit, what we were discovering, particularly early on when we were doing some of our test and learn approach, there were people with capital of over £100,000. Still receiving tax credits. And deciding that although they had been entitled to one more year of such a transition payment, that they didn't think it was right to do so. It is that sort of element of trying to consider about what it is we do want to see, as an increase in prosperity and increasing productivity.

But I am concerned, given the recent increase in unemployment, given all the messages that we are receiving from businesses, small and large. But instead, what we will start to see is a significant increase on unemployment and indeed more people coming onto benefits. As I say, the whole point of Universal Credit is you will be better off working and not working. There is the approach indeed to try and support people, as they reach higher salaries. My noble friend, is right to say that if we were considering further things to add to the points made out in amendment one, sorry, the new clause, competitiveness and growth should be there.

But I would also add, the outcomes should also be about increasing the number of people in employment. I know the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has set an exceptionally jobs created, so that more people happening with this legislation, I made the point in second reading, the bill started off at 149 pages and I am conscious 100 day deadline has been set by the Deputy Prime Minister to present this bill but it had basically doubled by the time it left the Commons.

But not a huge amount of time set aside for consideration of the additional hundred and three pages that were considered a report stage. So, that leaves the bill, and as we are already hearing, we're starting to see more amendments coming in from the government, which this House needs to consider, and that is why I am very conscious that this may seem like red tape. But actually, I do understand the intent of Lord Fox's further amendment of talking about a code of.

Because I assume the government doesn't really want to see many more employment tribunals. And it leads to more complications in case law that need to be considered. But to have a situation where frankly anybody who wants to take on another person to work and my noble friend have made this point eloquently, if you are in a very small company you just simply do not have access to the wide amount of legal efforts that are required in crafting some changes to ongoing business as you start to see growth or indeed as often happens in direct album -- as often happens and I remember, a particular business were work was entirely dependent on customer demand.

That suited a number of the people in that town, in the villages around it. Who would add hours of work recognising the opportunity to get some more pay in often rural and coastal areas where the median salaries can be considerably lower than in many towns and cities around the country. But also recognise of course the employer would only be able to do that based on the quality and the demand from customers for that role. And they had no expectation they would simply be given an extra contract, recognising the contracted work they already had elsewhere.

In quite the same way I think the government seems to consider anybody on certain kinds of contracts are on certain kinds of contracts are entirely reliant. In terms of that I think thinking of the purpose of the act we should certainly be seeking to increase the number of people in employment and that is the words of the Deputy Prime Minister. In their discussions about next steps in regards to pay when describing this legislation as an intended outcome. In terms of the amendment I referred to, I say at times it does feel as though certain rules are becoming as the FCA rulebook has become as I have said and as we start to take account of the legislation and decisions or clarity as the government says like the Supreme Court recent ruling, it is going to be critical to avoid industrial conflict.

To avoid a backlog or a significant increase in Employment Tribunals Act the government in due course to be able to set out not only the implementation plan we have heard of but also to set out basically how employers can get on and do their jobs. Ultimately I am conscious the government did this in their manifesto but we need to make sure the legislation is fit for purpose. We need to make sure it does not end up creating unemployment rather than employment. I also believe the way Lord Fox has put his final amendment to this group is a sensible approach of saying, nothing else can start until this is clear for employers.

And how they are expected to undertake this massive legislation already adding to somewhat the complex employment law situation we have today.
17:04
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I too support the noble Baroness Noakes and Lord Fox in what they have said previously and I am also very worried about this bill. And its outcome. The outcome could be to kill job creation, driveaway investments and slow economy growth. It could drive unemployment, fuel inflation and trigger social unrest. It risks taking us back to the economic chaos of the 1970s. When trade unions held the country to ransom. Back then strikes paralysed the country, businesses went bust and the UK entered a period of stagnation and crisis known as the winter of discontent.

Some of us are old enough to remember inflation soared to 24% in 1975. The economy flattened. The country was formed -- forced to beg the IMF for £3.9 billion as a bailout. It is worth about 20 billion today. I remember the queues, the power cuts, the rubbish piling up in the streets. I remember that. The feeling of helplessness as Britain slid deeper into decline. But most of all I remember the humiliation of seeing our great nation ranked as one of the worst performers as an economy in Europe.

France and Germany grew richer week, while we grew poorer. Our reputation was intact and we were known as the sick man of Europe. It took bold leadership and tough decisions to turn the tide. That leadership came in the form of Margaret Thatcher. Love her or hate her she saved Britain from economic collapse. She imposed discipline which was needed to rebuild our economy and restore our standing in the world. And see where we are now. As pointed out previously, if we have consistently outperformed many European countries in recovering -- in recovery faster from financial crisis and pandemic it is because of the flexibility of our current economy.

To be really want to follow the French example where unemployment rates are 7.4% with youth unemployment at 19.2%? A result of high labour costs, rigid laws and excessive bureaucracy. Early retirement and overly strong unions. Thank you. So remove flexibility and you remove opportunity and this will especially attack young people looking for their first job. We will end up with more workers rights but fewer jobs. And this is why we need to examine this bill and take account of all the amendments or possibly just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

scrap the bill altogether. My Lords, I support...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I support... Order. I would like to remind

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order. I would like to remind noble Lords we are in Committee stage and not Second Reading. We have had a few speeches now that have strayed a little from the have strayed a little from the precise content of the amendments we are speaking to. I urge noble Lords to concentrate on those amendments
17:08
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

to concentrate on those amendments rather than a Second Reading debate so we can make progress. I support Lord Fox is amendment and I do so very briefly for reasons of transparency and clarity as we have heard today. There has been too much added to the bill. We have not had proper sight of government amendments until too late and how can anyone, any business plan for the future with a hodgepodge of a bill changing by the day? On top of that I would echo my noble friend lady Neville Rolfe and Ada competitiveness and growth clause -- add eight competitiveness and growth clause to this bill.

We had it in the Financial Services and Markets Act. It helps to focus people's minds in the law on the overall purpose of what we mean by the economy we run and what its aims are. My Lords, I cannot agree with noble Lords opposite who point out and with different conclusions our labour laws are streets behind those of European countries. Like my noble friend Lord Fox. I believe the dynamism and Britain's economy is due to being a competitive market economy, historic economy, one which is open to trade and compete and for that reason can offer job security and good wages on a competitive basis.

Part of that is a flexible labour market. I am worried this bill particularly given the purpose is economic growth, and competitiveness, will start -- stunt five growth and freeze growth and a consequence of the labour market. The people who will be suffering will be workers themselves who will not get jobs or job security. For these reasons I support Lord Fox and I would like to close by remembering a German economist who worked under Chancellor Merkel and her global economics department.

It was the time of the EU discussions when written would remain in the UK, whether she would leave it? This economist asked, implored Britain would stay. Because without Britain Europe would have frozen economy. It's labour market would lack dynamism. It's competitiveness with the wider world with the Asian and global markets would stunt five. It seems very bizarre to me that we are trying to put the clock back on labour market legislation and trying labour market legislation and trying to stop that flexibility which should be at the heart of any dynamic market economy.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments to a tree and 237 in the amendments to a tree and 237 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I note my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Wirral has meant -- has dealt with Wirral has meant -- has dealt with amendment clause 1 very efficiently. I would like to remind the opposition Frontbench it was Lord opposition Frontbench it was Lord Monks who opened the opposition attacks on Margaret Thatcher.

My noble friend is perfectly within her rights to defend the great ladies record. My Lords, there is growing troubling feeling across many of the businesses we have spoken to across sectors, regions and sizes the government actually sees not as partners in growth or employers to be supported but as by noble friends -- my noble friend is noted as bad actors to be restrained. The sentiment is this the government has concluded or businesses cannot be trusted to do the right thing. So it is pressing ahead with the centrally planned top-down approach to employment reform.

It is an approach
17:13
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
that prioritises control over Corporation, unity of a Flex billet and ideology of evidence. This and ideology of evidence. This approach does not benefit business, it burdens them, it burdens them it burdens them, it burdens them with cost, flexible, and strips away the flexibility so many sectors rely on especially those with seasonal part-time and rapidly evolving workforces and it will impede their workforces and it will impede their functionality. The noble Lord and Baroness O'Grady said this, it is Baroness O'Grady said this, it is not popular with the Federation of Small Businesses, it is not popular with the British chamber of Commerce nor the CBI, nor the Institute of Directors, not make UK, not the recruitment and employment Confederation.

And as we have learned from my noble friend, not from techUK. They have all raised serious concerns and they have called for urgent changes. So if there is a groundswell of support out there, it is an incredibly well kept secret. If there is a group of employers who believe these changes will make them more confident to hire, invest, grow we are 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 this bill is being driven by the demands of business because it is not. Moving onto the amendments, the government claims this bill is about protecting workers. It is time we recognise the protection cannot come at a cost of opportunity. For many workers the most important protection is the ability to get a foot on the ladder. To gain experience, to build skills and define stable long-term implement. -- To find stable long-term implement. I commend the noble Lord box to his amendment 283.

I agree with my noble friend Baroness Noakes in some ways this disc risk creating a monster. In this case because of the nature of this bill it will be a friendly monster. Because it will at least provide some certainty. Business as we know and as anyone who has had a conversation with business will tell you they crave certainty more than anything else. certainty more than anything else. The fact the Code of Practice is written as it is reflects the complexities in this bill, the vast array of delegated powers government is about to award it and of course the lack of certainty.

It is right, entirely right to focus on SMEs and it is worth reminding the House 48% of business turnover and 60% of employment is accounted for by SMEs. And of course in many cases they will be the people without extensive and large HR departments to help them interpret the facts in this bill. Therefore the government is going to have to be in a position where it can do it for them. I do not think this is perfect but I do think it deals with the main issues.

We would prefer to have seen no need for this, particularly amendments on the face of the bill. As a result of the other factors I have mentioned in terms of delegated powers and so on we think we have no choice. We need a framework that recognises the diversity of business models, the pressures employers face and the legitimate role they play in
17:16
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
building opportunity. This is not an employers versus workers situation, employers versus workers situation, we are all committed to improving workers rights. We must do so in a way that is realistic, pragmatic and supportive of the border economy. Without that we risk achieving the opposite of what we intend. Fewer jobs, more uncertainty, greater barriers those we are trying to help

**** Possible New Speaker ****

barriers those we are trying to help My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his detailed engagement with our bill. And for the amendments one, 283, 387. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very wide- ranging debate, which has revisited many debates that we had at second reading. But, I will now speak first to amendment one which 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 can I do thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his challenge on this issue.

But I think it is important to reflect on why we are bringing the bill forward in what we hope to achieve through it. The Plan to Make Work Pay set out an ambitious agenda to make sure work right fit for the modern economy, to empower working people, and importantly, to contribute to economic growth. Delivery of that plan, was of course a manifesto commitment, and part of the mandate on which the Labour government was elected. On 10 October, the government fulfilled its manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office.

By introducing the employment rights bill. Noble Lord, Lord Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt and others have asked about fighter amendments, which have been tabled -- The later amendments which have been tabled. The House will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise all of those amendments properly. Noble Lord, Lord Hunt and others, have asked about the implementation plan. But I can reassure noble Lords that it will be shed as soon set is available because I do agree that businesses need guidance on the timescale and the implementation of the measures in this bill and we are working at pace to ensure they have that information.

My Lords, there is strong support for the public for the measures included in the bill. The Institute for Public policy research found every constituency in the UK has a majority or plurality of people, who believe workers rights should be strengthened. And my noble friend, Baroness O'Grady, mentioned the latest poll, and in addition, the TUC's polling of HOPE Not Hate, and of 1,000 people across the political spectrum found strong support for key policies in the bill. More than seven in 10, 72% of UK voters, support a pan a ban on zero hours contracts, four quarters of voters support statutory sick pay.

Three quarters of voters support giving all workers protection for unfair dismissal on the first day in their job. My Lords, this is a comprehensive bill, which delivers on a clear mandate from the British public. Once implemented, the Bilbo represent the biggest upgrade of workers rights in a generation. And my Lords, good employers do support this package because already, many of them are already delivering these standards and what they do not want us to be undercut in an uneven playing field. I can give you a few examples.

I know the opposition like to ask this question. But for example, Centrica, the Co-op, Nationwide, IVC evidence Eo, IKEA, UK and Northern Ireland, all have given support to the measures in the bill. And SMEs have done likewise. So, it does have resonance with the community. It will raise standards in tackling the cutting, so businesses are empowered to compete in a race to the top. I can reassure noble Lords that the government of course recognises the concerns about the cost of 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, which with the -- With the bottom end of the range, and 40 to present a national rage bill, -- Weight, could be 0.1%. And furthermore, improving workers well-being, increasing productivity, reducing workplace conflict, creating a more level playing field for good employees would grant significant benefits, with billions of pounds per year.

This is why delivering the benefits of this bill would offset the costs. My Lords, I can reassure noble Lords that a number of these measures, as I've 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 they are as effective as possible. The noble Lady, Baroness Stowell, mentioned the tech sector. And of course we are, she will know I am reminded of this, but we will engage with them on a regular basis, and we will continue to engage with them to make sure we, make sure they do contribute everything they can to the government's growth strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others have mentioned SMEs. And will have the chance to debate this later in the bill. In short, we do not agree they should be two-tiered employment rights, and we think that employment rights for all is fundamental principle. The noble Lord and Baroness talked about skills, absolutely, we are absolutely committed to the new skills agenda. Which is why Skills England is modernising our skills provision. And traditionally, where the unions and employers have made common cause, to make sure the upskilling of the workforce happens on a compressive basis.

My Lords, this bill shows the government's commitment to threatening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. Our approach will foster a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions, employers, the government. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox's point, our reforms remove hurdles that frustrate the voice of workers. Trade unions will still need to win a majority of workers vote in a ballot to be recognised as an employer... 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.

So, I have to say that on clause 1 and on the proposed list of priorities, I agreed with my noble friend, Lord Hendy, and my noble friend, Baroness, 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 pointed out, the list isn't exhaustive. So, if we are going to have a list, it would need to be a whole or longer verities at the moment.

And cover a whole range of other aspirations which we have already covered in Make Work Pay. The noble Lady, Baroness Neville-Rolfe, raise other issues, which could be included in that list. But again, I would reassure her and others that all of these issues have been consulted upon extensively in the bill. I would like to reassure noble Lords there is a need for such close to be inserted, to achieve this aim. The explanatory notes of the bill sets out the purpose of the bill clearly and provide further detail on the aims of the legislation.

These notes are updated when the bill transferred to this House. I will be updated again when the bill receives Royal Assent. The bill has also published fact sheets, which will be on GO the defeat at UK, which helped the understandings of the bill for someone finally, in a legal perspective, it could risk reducing their intent is consequences of provisions within the bill, which have been drafted to achieve the particular purpose is concerned. So, whilst I understand what the noble Lord Lord Fox is trying to achieve, and I appreciate the debate he has created, I hope that I have persuaded him it is not appropriate to include this in the bill.

Turning to amendment 283, which seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish a code of, providing employers with guidance on complying with the act, in this debate, we have had much less attention, but nevertheless, I will attempt to address the concerns of the noble Lord. We have consulted and remained committed to consulting widely on the detail of implementation the government is also committed to ensuring that where appropriate, guidance is published to ensure all stakeholders have the information they need to make the necessary adjustments however, a bill wide code of, 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 already existing provision for the issue of guidance, in codes of practice, Red Cross employment law. And where relevant, the bill amends these provisions to reflect they will need to be updated to take account of the changes made by this bill. This includes codes of practice issued by ACAS by the consolidation act, such codes are subject to consolidation requirements, and must be laid in draft, in both houses, for approval, and we are already working closely and we are already working closely with ACAS, going ahead on this work.

When you statutory guidance is required, this is also provided for, such as enclose 30, which includes, inserts a new section, 80 3D coming to the Procurement Act, to make provision for the issue codes of practice relevant to outsourcing contract by appropriate authorities. By enquiring a single bill wide code of, this amendment would also risk delaying government by delaying uncertainty of the details of policy and regulation on issues as they become available. So, I hope I persuaded the noble Lord that this therefore would result in duplication, and unnecessary delay.

Amendment 327 to prevent the implementation measures in the bill, until the point at which the government produced the bill wide code of. 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. So, delaying the date at which these measures can commence, unnecessarily delays the point at which the workers can benefit from measures within the bill. My Lords, 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 the 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. Code should bring clarity code of. Code should bring clarity -- Code of. Code should bring clarity, if we go ahead with these amendments.

I agree with the need to ensure workers, trade unions and employers are sufficiently supported for the implementation of the bill. This amendment would be unnecessary and duplicate it. I therefore hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that they codes of practice as he is envisaging would not help with providing the detailed guidance that employers and workers require and I thank him for raising the issue, but I hope I have now persuaded him to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw those amendments. As the Minister sits down, she has shared with the House, there is has shared with the House, there is an implementation plan. As we are now moving to consider the each now moving to consider the each clause of the bill, in particular the first few closes, it would be the first few closes, it would be really helpful for the House to be made aware of that part of the made aware of that part of the fermentation plan which each and every section.

Is she able to -- Implementation plan which governs each and every section. Is she able to share with the House where we might at least see a draft of the implementation plan, so that businesses across the UK can at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

least know what lies ahead? I know the noble Lord already

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I know the noble Lord already raises, and I know he tempts me, but there has to be further consultation. He will understand that, and part of the legislation obviously requires further obviously requires further consultation to take place. We are still looking at the timescales for all of this. We have ESP understands all of this. We have ESP understands the need to provide guidance as soon as we can. But obviously, what I can as we can. But obviously, what I can say that is reassuring to everybody concerned, is that there will be a phased process, this is not a day one process.

We need to make sure the phasing of all of this makes sense for employers, so it can be done on a proper basis and with the appropriate guidelines behind it. We are working on it, we will share it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as soon as we can, we do understand the need for it, but it isn't available at this time. I thank all the noble Lords for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank all the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The Baroness May be relatively new The Baroness May be relatively new to this House, but she is not wrong with the purpose amendments that are with the purpose amendments that are often the source of greater probing across your lordship's house and I across your lordship's house and I am afraid I am something of a serial
17:31
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
am afraid I am something of a serial The aim of this amendment has certainly partially been achieved in that we started the process of flushing out some of the issues. My Lords, I have a great deal of respect for Baroness O'Grady and I think she gave a very spirited speech. I think she gave a spirited speech to the speeches that came after his and not mine. -- After hers and not mine. If you read the words of what I said in tomorrow's publication I think she will find at no point did I speak against this bill.

I was seeking through this process to achieve something from the two things from the benches opposite. First of all recognition there is much work to be done in order to bring employers into this process. I did not hear that empathy from the benches opposite or from the Minister. The second point I was seeking was and recognition a lot of this legislation is arriving late. The noble Baroness said she will give this House and adequate time to consider that.

It is already too late for it to be adequate time because this stuff is arriving well past due date. So we are not getting adequate time on the program we are currently getting and there needs to be a recognition of that. Because my Lords if the government wants to reach across the House, if the government wants to support all of the good things in this bill then it has to have some effort the -- has to have some empathy with the things that are wrong with it and the things which are wrong with the process of the delivery.

That was mine, my aim focus of this bill and it has not achieved that purpose today. I hope going forward we can get some recognition of what is going to work. On the subjects of amendments to 83 and 327, I think the noble Baroness who got my point. We need an operating manual for this bill. The Minister absolutely cemented the reason why we need one. Because she then went on a journey across several different bits of legislation and all sorts of codes and practices and stuff.

If I am sitting in the HR department as one person in a business of 12 people, I need a guidebook that takes me to the right guides and the right legislation. The information may already exist but I do not need to have to go on a website trawling in order to find it. I need a signed book, a signed book, a signpost that takes me to the places I need to know in order to operate this legislation when it becomes an act.

That is what 283 is seeking to achieve. If indeed this stuff already exists then it will not hold up the process. It is merely a question of ringing it together and saying this bit -- bringing it together and saying this but can go here and that it can go there. More can be done within a Code of Practice to deal with that than -- than the easier it will be for businesses to comply and the easier it will be for them to avoid a proliferation of tribunals which I am sure nobody in this House is seeking to achieve.

With that I beg leave to withdraw amendment one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is at your Lordships pleasure amendment be withdrawn. Amendment by leave withdrawn. Clause 1 amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave withdrawn. Clause 1 amendment two. Lloyd Monaghan. I rise to move amendment to. I
17:34
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment to. I should start by apologising if anything in my moving of this amendment is at fault, it is the first time I have moved an amendment let alone a group of amendments. I am I suggesting clause 20 7B removed in its entirety. The primary reason is the owner's inflexibility it then imposes on employers and creators of jobs. The Bill as it stands in theory works even for those key groups who as has been reported widely much prefer flexibly in the employment arrangements to take just a few examples -- employment arrangements.

To take just a few examples students, working mothers, casual workers of all stripes. That is because they do not have to accept the guaranteed hours the employer is acquiring -- is required to offer them. They and other groups of workers, some of whom may prefer to be offered guaranteed hours will be required, the employers will be required to offer those guarantees but once the offer is made the employees can accept them or not. This clause creates considerable additional flexibility on the demand side.

Many people looking for jobs will find those jobs more attractive. On the supply-side however flexibility is enormously reduced to be replaced by Stark uncertainty for all employers but in particular, for so many sectors. particular, for so many sectors. Such as the NHS. Such as hospitality, retail, care worker, gig economy, delivery drivers, Christmas work, warehouse work and so any more. The absolute importance of flexibility to the employer can hardly be better illustrated than in the reports on the Guillou forks website as to how both unions and the Labour Party itself have happily offered zero hour contracts in the past.

At second reading I stated this bill in general will kill businesses across the country. Serving to shrink rather than grow the economy. This unfortunate clause is just one part of that. In this bill. But an important part. In general as I have just discussed, on the demand side the removal of significant elements of flexibility creates distortions in the employment market. Leading to employers in many cases being far more reluctant to offer employment. In consequence the level of employment will fall.

Not increase. The smaller businesses just creating the required offer in the first place will involve own risk cost in time and money just to create the offer required by this clause making the employer highly reluctant to even start the process of seeking new employees. Some clauses in this clause raise the likelihood of employers in real life doing them level best to currently figure out which employees will be flexible and which will seek inflexible guaranteed arrangements. Having come to a conclusion the employer hires the wants like the one who wants flexibility and the one who doesn't -- not the one who doesn't.

That destroys the whole intent of this clause. They might delegate some business by employers but then who have ever run a business? It envisages the employer having to go to all of the lengths of creating the guaranteed hours offer and to present it to the candidate employee without having any idea whether the candidate will take the offer or not. This imposes considerable friction and inefficiency on the economy. And more unnecessary costs on the pure employer. -- Pure employer.

I have read 27 pages of this clause, quite possibly I read them in a blue but I cannot find anything that offers a hypothetical situation where an employer presents the required offer and then says to the prospective employee, will you be wanting these guaranteed hours? And then if the prospective employer says yes, the employer does not make an offer of employment to them. It seems odd I cannot find out. Maybe it is there somewhere. From my view of course if the ability of the employer to renege in that way after having been forced to make that offer is in fact there in the bill, it would be a good thing, the government may or may not agree.

Even where I am to be right in saying this loophole exists in the current drafting in the current government having now been alerted to it were to choose to close that loophole, it would just drive similar behaviour by employers underground. This bill is driven in great part by a belief in what is fair to employees and so forth. Fairness is a word so often use -- used as I have seen in my short time in this trailer, the word outcomes is not so much.

However much the governments you may be as to the crucial importance of fairness, with the best will in the world the government drafters focused on fairness will not have been able to bring to the issue anywhere near the level of seriousness as to outcomes that a business owner facing survival or disruption for their business will be viewing this matter. My Lords, this clause is just one component of an extensive and intrusive bill that will if implemented in C the U.K.'s economy further driven into the ground with more and more parts of that economy and key players in the economy either becoming economically inactive or as we are seeing on a daily basis leaving the country.

In the report stage I imagined my party will -- I imagine my party will oppose the entire bill but in the meantime I state bill can be significantly enhanced by removing this clause in its entirety. My

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 2, line 8. Leave out from
17:41
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise Portrait Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Conservative)
-
-
page 2, line 8. Leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 4.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise in support of amendment eight that stands in my amendment eight that stands in my name. I declare my interests as stated on the register. In particular my role as Chief Executive, help like a job I have Executive, help like a job I have held the multiple years and I have been the U.K.'s longer serving Chief been the U.K.'s longer serving Chief Executive. We employ over 25,000 part-time employees and I hasten to add we do not use a zero hour add we do not use a zero hour contracts.

I would like to start by assuring the noble Baroness, the assuring the noble Baroness, the Minister I have sympathy with the intentions of this section of the bill. Zero hour contracts can leave employers and employees feeling obligated to accept hours and employers who can feel no obligation to provide work. I commend the jobs like the government intention to tackle this lack of reciprocity. In her polling I would have come out as one of those people not in favour of zero hour contracts.

Amendment eight increases the effectiveness of this bill by clarifying the distinction between zero hour contracts and legitimate part-time contracts. Because there is a world of difference between tackling potentially abusive zero hour contracts and eliminating the flexible that legitimate part-time contracts provided to those who need and want them. My concern is the require to offer additional contract hours to those who voluntarily work extra hours will inadvertently prevent those additional hours being offered at all. I am not exaggerating when I say if the threshold for low hours contracts is set to high it will take a wrecking ball to the U.K.'s part-time economy.

It will deprive millions of people of a valuable source of flexible income and multiple industries of flexibility they need to offer excellent services in to offer excellent services in What What they What they have What they have in What they have in common What they have in common is What they have in common is they value the guaranteed regular income there part-time contracts provide. But also appreciate and value the ability at their discretion to add the hours of work when they have more time available.

For example during university holidays, during term time the parents of school-aged children or at times when household costs rise for example in the run-up to Christmas. These reciprocal arrangements benefit all involved. With sectors such as retail, hospitality health and travel who can maintain excellent services despite the intrinsically variable nature of demand in consumer facing businesses. It is these flexible businesses. It is these flexible My My worry My worry is My worry is that My worry is that the My worry is that the bill My worry is that the bill will My worry is that the bill will make it almost impossible for businesses to offer additional voluntary hours to workers with contracts below the hour threshold.

There are two reasons, the first of the complexity to try and comply with the law, the second is the risk it creates for businesses, that offer additional hours to part-time staff but they end up with permanent and unavoidable overstaffing. Going to start with complexity from the business will have to track you should offer extra hours for as currently drafted pretty much every day of the year. Countless correct entitlements and then entitled contract offers, without clear guidance as to what compliant offer will actually be.

I will estimate it will be at least a year of systems work several million pounds of cost, just to develop the system needed to manage the process. Small businesses will find the process overwhelming, my Lords. It is not just the capacity of the compliance that matters, there is a more important problem. Restaurants and shops simply cannot afford to have as many people working in February as they do in December. It is a fact. They cannot take the risk of extra hours to cover seasonal peaks or summer holidays.

Then component costs for the rest of the year. Faced with the choice of managing an impossibly complex system, along with the coherent risk of having to contract staff for more hours than the business will need, we will have no choice. We will simply not be able to offer additional hours to those staff on low hour contracts. Consider the consequences, retail business facing heightened demand that seasonal peaks will be unable to offer additional hours to its existing part-time staff. Skilled staff. The other alternative will be to offer the work to additional temporary workers, depriving loyal, experienced and skilled employees of the opportunity to supplement their income at a time when they most need it.

For a government that I genuinely believe are committed to economic growth and supporting working people, surely this cannot be the intended outcome. My Lords, this amendment does not seek to undermine the bills core objectives. Indeed, it provides a number that at some point mostly -- Must be determined, and provide a contract of hours per week on a single part- time shift, we create a clear boundary, that protects vulnerable zero hours workers, Bob preserving valuable pricks flexibility for those that genuinely go from it.

Changing the mask of UK employment in a way for employees and catastrophic service economy. Now, some may argue that the threshold of four hours is too low. If the government believes the different thresholds more appropriate, I would welcome that discussion, that debate, but that debate we must have. What is indefensible is the failure to include any threshold in primary legislation it is not the detail to be determined later, it is fundamental to the scope and impact of the bill and if it is the governments intention to profound change the nature and opportunities of part-time work in the UK, then the bill should be clear on the subject, to allow business and employees at the time needed for change by leaving this crucial definition to secondary legislation, Parliament is being asked to approve intentionally far-reaching changes to our labour market, without debate, without scrutiny, without consent.

I urge the noble Baroness, the minister, if not to accept this amendment, then at least commit to amendment, then at least commit to our contracts at report stage. I believe if the low hour threshold is set at the right level, the bill will indeed succeed in addressing potentially a exploitative practices. As laws on the other side of the House have rightly pointed out, employers want to be addressed as much of their Lordships on the other side of the House.

I think this bill can do so without dismantling the legitimate dismantling the legitimate employment practices at work. Work for our economy, work for our service industries, and most importantly, work for millions of working people across the UK. And it is in that spirit I commend amendment atrial Lordships house. -- Amendment eight to your lordship's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

house. It is with some capitation I follow that speech. But some pleasure. I rise to speak to amendment for in my name, and offer support to amendments seven, 15 in the name of my noble friend, Lord Goddard, although he will speak to those on his own account, but my Lord, there are a number of similar Lord, there are a number of similar amendments to amendment for and speaking in Glasgow, we believe there should be a change in polarity from the guaranteed hours to offer two or more streamlined right to request.

And I believe we have already heard in the previous two speeches, this is, in a sense, the aim to make this offer to the people who actually want it, rather than be obliged to make it to everybody when we know for a fact that a large number of those people who will get this offer will not want to take it
17:52
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
up. It was a necessary activity, up. It was a necessary activity, when I was 20 to -- When there was plenty to do in business. I genuinely do not think it subverts genuinely do not think it subverts genuinely do not think it subverts the intention of the bill. In the same way the noble Lord was speaking, I don't think he is trying to subvert, I think he is trying to to subvert, I think he is trying to help it succeed and help businesses at the same time full that reflect back on the point I made before withdrawing amendment one.

It is really asking the government have some sense of understanding as to how these things will actually be delivered on the ground, in the workplace. And I think that is why the last speech was so helpfully revealing. I do think that very much a large part of the early part of this bill is designed to deal with essentially a number of employers that the government has in the back of its mind who are not doing the right thing.

And who are not achieving what we would all like to achieve. And we understand that, unfortunately, it is dragging the whole business program, from a small micro business, right up to a huge business, into a series of practices. In order to crack back or those particular notes, my Lords. Later on, in committee, my noble friend, Lord Clement-Jones, will introduce amendment 318, which very much, I think, targets the sort of employer that the government has in their mind as being a bad, or indeed, and exploitative employer.

It creates essentially a new class of employee, the independent contractor, which is in fact, in many cases, what we are starting to look at. And it sharpens the regulatory focus, particularly on some elements of the gig economy employers. But it avoids the heavy- handed approach, which I think we are in danger of going to with this bill. So, amendment number four and I think there are some others very similar, is simply to reverse that polarity. If employees ask for it, of course, the employer is obliged to deliver it.

And I think some obligation for employers to occasionally remind their employers that they are entitled to ask for this, then that helps the process. My Lords, as for the rest of the group, I will listen with interest to Lord Sharpe's words when he comes to his amendments. I think, my Lords, much of this will also be addressed when we get to the issue of freelancers and as I say, to the amendment of my noble friend, Lord Clement-Jones, so I imagine this is not the last time we will be having some elements of this discussion.

But I think some sign from the government from the bench that they do understand very something that should and could be addressed in this area, would be a good starting point.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of amendments three, six and nine in this group, tabled by my noble friends, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and friends, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and supported by Lord Hunt of Wirral. I supported by Lord Hunt of Wirral. I would also like to support amendment
17:55
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
would also like to support amendment eight, tabled by Lord Epsom, but for different reasons, if I may, and I will speak on that. But I do like the idea of a low hours contract. I will speak about a zero hours contract though, because I do not believe they are getting a look in. These amendments being tabled, which are the right for workers to request, rather than the obligation on employers to guarantee I think very well worthwhile, and worth supporting.

In the labour market this year, there are 33.9 million people employed. Of these, 1.3 million zero hour contracts. There has been an increase of 805,000 people in this type of employment contract. This is 3.1% of employment in the UK. And most are young people in the 16-24 age group. This is a popular way of working. The figures themselves speak. It is far more significant increase in this type of contract, than in the overall type of working arrangements chosen by employees and their employers.

Much of the popularity lies within the flexibility of those sites. -- Both sides. The evidence is the majority of people in zero hours, that is 60% of them, do not want more hours. Though some, and I agree, 16% do. Amendments which allow an employee to request guaranteed hours is distinct from obliging the employer to guarantee certain hours see more in tune with people's wishes. Of those in zero hour contracts, around one million, as I said, our young people.

946,000, 16-24-year-olds, however, are not in employment, education or training. That is around 50%. Yes, people on these contracts may work fewer hours than other workers. I gather the average is around 21.8 hours a week. Compared with the 36.5, for all people in employment. But isn't it better that there are jobs which people want and can get, people want and can get, particularly young people, who may not yet be in the labour market and may have been thrown out of the labour market or left it from one of the many reasons we hear about it.

I'm afraid, my Lords, it seems from the government's approach, it does not think so. And this bill must be seen, and indeed, clause 1, in the overall context of the Labour Party approach to the labour market and reform. Not only is it the tax hike on the productive sector, taking 24 billion out in the NIC threshold increase, affecting 800 in the NIC threshold increase, affecting 800,000 businesses, and their ability to employ people, and offer opportunity, to the 16-24 age group opportunity, to the 16-24 age group as well.

But there are other costs, piled high, one on top of the other, since we have seen the party opposite come to power. Of those employed, in December 2024 figures, indicates there were 27.8 million in the private sector. And 6.14 in the public sector. But if employers are obliged to move the guaranteed hours, that will most likely serve to cut the number of people productively employed under these arrangements. The corresponding increase to output and growth. Surely, these amendments speak for themselves and the government, the priority of which was to increase them.
17:59
Baroness Verma Portrait Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to declare my interest as laid out in the register and I also want to regret I was unable to speak at second reading, but as someone who has been employer for over 40 years, for various numbers of small businesses, I spent the weekend knowing these amendments were coming up, speaking to small and medium-size businesses, particularly the small businesses in my home city of Leicester. And all of them are very concerned on the impact this may have, if it becomes law to be able to provide a set amount of guaranteed hours.

I come from the home care sector, is one of my businesses. And the home care sector really does work on contract where we do not and cannot guarantee ours, simply because of the nature of the job. We do not know when people are going to require care, for how long, how long they are going to be in hospital, whatever. The hospitality sector is exactly the same place. And I think that, whilst we all want to be great, good employers, I think enforcing things that employers are going to find incredibly hard to deliver would stop employers from taking on people.

To work. And that really does restrict the ability for those who actually only want to work a few hours a week just to be able to, sometimes just have a change, from looking after caring duties in their looking after caring duties in their I think intention is right as my noble friend has said but the outcome will be very detrimental to businesses and particularly small businesses. They are as we all know the backbone of our country. I think bad employers will be bad regardless of what you are going to bring in because they will find ways of circumventing these pieces of legislation that are being introduced here today.

I do think there needs to be greater thinking around what we want as greater flexibility. I firmly believe in flexible working and I do believe that should be a contract between the employer and the employee. And not for the government to mandate what needs to be done.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to my amendment seven in this group and another
18:02
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
seven in this group and another Amendment 15. In my name. And also I apologise for not being able to speak at the Second Reading. I am walking somewhat of a tightrope this evening because 15 years I was a senior shop steward for the GMB and I also have my own company with 20 employees and I do not think I would be able to cope with the ramifications of this legislation. And also I have some guests up in the public gallery who are small businessmen who do actually employ people and then it could get quite difficult if I say the wrong thing in the next 10 minutes.

Which I hope I do not do. My first amendment would set the initial reference period for the rights to guarantee dollars to 26 weeks, to give more flex to industries which rely on seasonal basis for operating and employing people. This would also give greater flexibility for members themselves. Where members see this amendment they see those such as fruit and veg pickers and crop harvesting. Nothing could be further from the truth. Work has changed. We are now in essentially a service led industry.

No more enormous factories employing thousands of workers every day. To export across the globe, clocking in and clocking out as I did in the '70s. Flexibility is the key and the worklife balance for many is crucial. The day of the 9- to-5 are well and truly over in my opinion. Especially for small businesses. Flexibility is not just for cultural industries but tourism and retail. Hospitality and events. Things that bind our country together. We welcome this bill, one could argue it might be 30 years too late because that was probably the time when the unions were under the most attack.

When our beloved Margaret was in charge. And perhaps that was the time people should have rosette. But we are where we are. This bill in my opinion should be proportional and reasonable. And I think those are the two things we would wish to try and persuade the government to embrace in not only some of our amendments but other partners amendments. The reasonableness and proportionality of what we are proposing to people. We will be supporting it but the architects of this bill must accept the labour market has evolved and flexibility for workers as well as protecting workers rights go hand in hand.

I now speak to my amendment for. -- Amendment 15. Amendments in this group have raised the challenges regarding the right to be guaranteed offered -- to be offered guaranteed hours. This strikes a necessary balance between protecting workers and allowing flexibility for genuine short-term employment situations. This amendment does not undermine the main principles of the government legislation, instead it makes a reasonable accommodation. A short-term contract while maintaining the safeguards through proper disclosure and requirements strictly under time-limited.

The seasonal workers these amendments are significant advantages and it increases their employability, as businesses can confidently work during peak periods without complicated our guarantees. Extend beyond the season. Many seasonal workers prefer concentrated work periods for higher hours allowing them to in money during limited timeframes. Additional disk flexibility -- additionally this flexibility helps industries such as entertainment, agricultural and entertainment, agricultural and tourism... Throughout the year. Many such as agriculture and education are connected to seasonal events and you need practical revision.

I urge the Minister to also consider to consider the amendment for the challenges faced in these seasonal sectors. This legislation is designed and sector provision which will protect workers while acknowledging the realities of our diversion. Our diverse joint markets. Finally Lord Fox and I met Amazon a couple of weeks ago. Amazon employs 75,000 people in the UK. And are not unionised. They are revolved in their undemocratic solutions. -- Have evolved their own democratic in-house solutions. It shows sometimes legislation is not the only way to protect people at work and guarantee earnings and pay reasonable rates of pay.

That sometimes is the bigger picture thinking I think this bill is missing. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the hugely amendments deals with the hugely important issue of zero and short our contracts. -- Short our our contracts. -- Short our contracts. As the noble Baroness Lawlor has said well over one million people in the UK work on million people in the UK work on zero hour contracts. And in sectors such as retail it is also common for workers to have a small number of guaranteed hours but to be working guaranteed hours but to be working at the equivalent of full-time hours.

These arrangements are not a win-win for worker and employee --
18:08
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
and employer. More than eight in 10 zero hours contracts want regular hours of work. Without guaranteed hours of work. Without guaranteed hours workers do not know if they hours workers do not know if they will be able to pay their bills or organise their caring responsibilities. The flexibility is responsibilities. The flexibility is invariably on the employer side. The research has shown more than half of research has shown more than half of zero hours contracts workers have had shifts cancelled at less than 24 had shifts cancelled at less than 24 and was noticed.

-- 24 hours notice. Many being sent home mid shift. Very few are compensated. But the vast majority of those who ask for guaranteed hours are turned down. So a right to request I fear it would not resolve that issue. There is also significant evidence employers do not use zero hours contracts just as stopgap. But often there are workers in these insecure arrangements long-term. Two thirds of zero hours contract workers have been with their employer for more than one year.

One in eight for more than a decade. As well as causing financial uncertainty and disrupting workers private lives this distortion of workplace relations where workers are fearful of challenging inappropriate conduct in case it leads to them losing their work. Reasoned accounts of pure behaviour at McDonald's branch where zero hours contracts are prevalent included a 17-year-old reporting she had been asked for sex in return for had been asked for sex in return for shifts. Employers relying on zero hours contracts, what incentive do they have to invest in skills? Little or none.

If predictable consequences for productivity. The bill before us implemented measures first developed by the Low Pay Commission with the support of both trade union and employer side representatives. An employer will have to offer a contract based on workers normal hours of work in line with their 12 week reference period. This gives a clear indication of a workers usual hours while evening out peaks and troughs. Any longer period for this such as 26 weeks would simply allow employers to park workers on zero hours contracts for a prolonged period.

The bill also contains powers for Ministers to specify the notice period for shifts that employers must give to workers and compensation for cancelled shifts. These are an essential part of the package. Currently workers on zero or variable our contracts there all of the risk of any changes -- bear all of the risk of any changes in demand and they are usually paid -- low-paid workers who can ill afford sudden changes to income. In the House of Commons the bill was amended to ensure these rights will also apply to agency workers.

And this is crucial. To close the loophole that could have led to employers hiring zero hour staff by agencies and then entirely subverting the intent of the legislation. The TUC I know would strongly oppose any amendment that would exempt agency workers or fixed to him contract workers on variable hours contracts from these provisions. Employers will still be able to put in place arrangements for coping with fluctuations in seasonal work. For instance via fixed term contracts.

What will change though is that workers will not bear a load of burden in reduced wages of sudden changes in demand. The current situation allows manifest injustice is to take place. It is time we levelled up the labour

**** Possible New Speaker ****

market. May I just ask the noble Lord,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I just ask the noble Lord, what would he do when all of those what would he do when all of those small businesses and I small -- I emphasise that small businesses start to close down because of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rigid way of flexible hours? I will say to the noble Lady I have more confidence in the have more confidence in the adaptability of British businesses to cope with intelligent progressive to cope with intelligent progressive legislation like this, to even up the leg -- to even of the labour market.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am sorry I am finding myself this afternoon for the second time disagreeing with the noble time disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Fox specifically on the proposition the right to be guaranteed regular hours hours guaranteed regular hours hours should be replaced by a right to request. My noble friend Lord Baba request. My noble friend Lord Baba
18:13
18:15
18:16
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Portrait Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Conservative)
-
-
I wasn't going to speak in this group but I think the noble Lord, LaBarbera, has created a horrific picture in terms of the impact of zero hours and some workers. And some people that I note that have been on the receiving end of zero hours contracts, some times it is even was, I know people that have been required to turn up for work at 4 o'clock in the morning for a shift be sent home again at 5 o'clock in the morning.

So I know how bad this is. However, my noble friend also makes a very strong argument as to why just removing all of the measures that would happen by virtue of this bill would also have a detrimental effect. What I haven't heard from those of the other side so far is really a response to the arguments put forward by my noble friend which is that we have to find a way forward on this matter that addresses both the employment rights issue, which is the purpose the noble Baroness, the minister, has said of this legislation, but also allows business to deliver the kind of economic growth that the government is also saying is the purpose of this bill.

So I think we have got to, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is not his place at the moment but take the point he made in the first group, that we should not be in a situation where this is a stand-off. Actually, we are hopefully, through some responsiveness, antipathy from the Minister, finding ourselves in a position where this bill is actually not going to have a chemical effect on business but also addressing on business but also addressing those work practices, which are the most worst, as has been described by the noble Lord.
18:18
18:19
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to support amendment eight and ICOMMENT FROM FLOOR:Noble friend, Lord Wolfson, in his excellent speech, bringing reality of some of the people into the heart of this debate and the constraints and concerns being raised while still recognising why some people consider casual work, zero hour contracts, to be particularly important when people are trying to have that certainty of employment over some time. I also support amendments seven, 12, and 13. In essence, any amendment which refers to specify the reference period on the face of the bill.

The reason I say that is thinking of 26 weeks, I am thinking, in particular, of hospitality in coastal areas. And in that, there are a number of employers around the country who literally shut down their businesses or go onto a much lower level of needing people at certain times of the year. And then you go to the summer, and you are desperately trying to find people. But it is by giving that flexibility, and the 12 weeks does not recognise some that has been referred to.

Whereas it is perfectly usual for people to work in a different times throughout the year, but varying the amount of hours expected to match the demand of customers providing a particular service. And I fear the 12 weeks does not address that sort of business. If we think across the country, 2 million people work in the hospitality industry. It is one of our biggest industries, and it is so key to many families right across the country, in terms of what they can do to support their household income, with both of course the flexibility wanted, but also working with employers and how they can, in particular, thinking of how many people lose their childcare at certain times of the year, having that fix ability in terms of hours worked, bringing in casual staff, is going to be a key element of actually, how they keep those facilities, businesses, going.

I think there is another element, thinking through, while I appreciate the government seeks to reduce the number of agency work and indeed bank workers in the NHS, let's not get away from the fact that unfortunately, many NHS trusts are actually terrible employers. And a lot of people leave the permanent contracts or reduce the permanent contracts because they simply cannot get the flexibility that they need working in the NHS. Whether that is about caring for all sorts of people, doesn't matter whether you are men and women, people caring for their families and friends.

And so, I am concerned, and I tend to discuss this further with NHS professionals, about how this will have an impact on the NHS, to fulfil its expectations for people right In terms of, appreciating when it comes to, not simply NHS professionals, but many individual trusts have their own back. And again, it is intended to provide the flexibility of need, but also recognising that simply not everybody can work the NHS shifts expected. I'm also concerned, thinking of the 26 weeks or 12 weeks, at the other end.

The 650 members of Parliament are all individual employers. I have to sign those contracts, the contract provided. But when people are ill, when people go on maternity leave, they can and do take people on certain term contracts. And I am concerned there will be unintended consequences thinking through about the provision of services, a real
18:23
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
example that if it is a case that you then have to guarantee hours beyond when the person came back, actually, we will end up in a situation recently could not manage situation recently could not manage and is for those reasons, I think we think through very carefully, about the reference period, when we are the reference period, when we are considering different employer situations that small employers find themselves in, as well as large sectors like hospitality and retail sectors like hospitality and retail sectors like hospitality and retail

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments three, six and 17, standing in my name and the name of my noble friend, Lord Hunt. Before turning to the detail, I would like to frame the debate in its proper to frame the debate in its proper context. But at the heart of this issue lies the question of incentives. Much of the discussion around zero contracts rightly concerns the security and the well- concerns the security and the well- being of workers. And we must not lose sight of the fact that only a relatively small proportion of the workforce is employed on such contracts or other forms of contracts or other forms of temporary work.

Many of these individuals are young people, as my noble friend, Baroness Lawlor, illustrated in her very detailed speech. They are starting out in careers. Others are disabled people that may be only two able to work limited hours due to personal circumstances. But if we make the regulatory environment to 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. It is the incentives that leave to -- Lead to results.

I would like to thank my noble friend's for their contributions in this group. And I will come unto others. But my noble friend, Lord Moynihan in particular, has a compelling argument for me to leave out the section of the clause altogether, it is simply unworkable in its current form for some so I am looking forward to hearing what the noble Baroness, the Minister, has to say in response. Returning out of the specifics of my amendments. Job security is vital that there can be no disagreement at point.

But we have to also recognise the guaranteed hours contracts are not always practical or appropriate across all sectors of the economy. The principle we wish to hold a simple and that is economy. Workers are themselves best placed to judge their own circumstances and decide whether a guaranteed hours contract would suit their needs. Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, published in their report, 10 contracts, found that workers in such contracts often report a better worklife balance and higher well-being, compared to other workers.

This is a reminder, that when genuinely chosen, it can be empowering rather than exploitative. My Lords, not every worker once a rigid schedule. Young people, parents with caring responsibility, disabled people, they actively prefer the flexibility that variable hours allow. And once it is a size fits all approach, it simply does not reflect the realities of the labour market. Sectors such as retail, hospitality, tourism and other seasonal opportunities effective staff to meet demand. It is entry level opportunities to workers, who might otherwise struggle to find employment.

So, despite the government's understandable ambition to improve labour market fairness, the bill is currently drafting risks reducing by fix ability, rather than enhancing it. The automatic purgation placed on businesses to offer guaranteed hours contracts, once certain thresholds are met, will pose significant and disproportionate administrative burdens even when the work involves may have no desire whatsoever 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.

Now, they would be forced into a continual cycle every calculations and often simply because employers, employees working patterns have shifted slightly. As my noble friend also explained, that affect small businesses as well. In practice, firms that face a daily or weekly obligation to offer a new contract based on changing patterns resulting in a huge and unnecessary administrative costs, this would not only create inefficiency, which would also discourage businesses from offering over time and additional work voluntarily. Thereby reducing opportunities for those who value fix ability.

-- Flexibility. What I propose has a different approach, rather than a guaranteed lower contracts, we impose the right to request a contract, it is the government's intentions, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox has explained, it will impose the same obligations on employers, as the government's own bill. This preserves the choice for workers, empowering them to seek greater stability when they wish. But avoid imposing blanket obligations on employers that made lead to perverse outcomes. Milos, the government's current drafting with it automatic right to guaranteed hours, risk creating a bureaucracy that neither workplaces or businesses have asked for.

On the subject of businesses, it is worth referring to the letter received by the five employers organisations, for reference Make UK, the IED, the Federation of Small business, and business, Surrey, British Chambers of commerce. They say in that letter, not every job can be made compatible whenever possible need. This reform means businesses incur admin costs, whenever an employee works variable hours. The result is firms discourage variable hours, even when flexibility is requested by workers, including voluntary overtime. The cost associated with administering and on a rolling basis, when working additional hours, is also allowing no clear benefits to workers.

Couldn't have put it better myself, my lords. There has been some reference on the other side, by the noble Lady, to the paid commission, which met seven years ago, but ignores the fact that obviously, over the last seven years, working practices more generally through the economy, whether on fixable hours contract or not, have changed very dramatically indeed forced to partly as a course of a consequence of the pandemic. And I note the FSB has now signed that letter, referencing, which included the quote I have just delivered, so they have clearly delivered, so they have clearly changed their minds.

Milos, I recognise there maybe an even simpler and more effective alternative to the right to request, that would be automatic offer a guaranteed hours contract, complied with the right for the worker to opt out, if they so wish. Amendment 17 introduces a worker opt out mechanism. A qualified worker may opt out of receiving guaranteed hours contracts, providing 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 onto a guaranteed hours contract, after the reference period, by default. However, those workers are genuinely value fix ability of their zero hours arrangement and there are many, particular layers we have already discussed young people, carers and so one they would have the right to decline the offer by declining written notice. This approach would strike a better balance, because it would ensure guaranteed hours are the norm, unless the workers themselves chooses otherwise, thereby protecting workers who might otherwise feel pressured not to request more security.

Equally, it avoids the unnecessary administrative burden of employers avoiding contracts that in many cases would be rejected. We would be sparing business the cost and disruption of a process that delivers little practical benefit were fix ability is mutually valued by both employer and employee, and this means a continuing one where needs and circumstances involved. The government has rightly said it seeks a labour market that is flexible, fair and works for everyone, these commitments deliver precisely that balance, two sided flexibility, preserving opportunity and autonomy for workers, whilst sparing businesses is proportionate costs that could otherwise lead to fewer jobs and opportunities.

Turning to amendment it, no phone, Lord Wolfson, spoke with real authority on this matter. I have to say, before I get into the meat of an intimate aid, I wonder if the noble Lord, listen to what my noble noble Lord, listen to what my noble Restaurants and shops cannot simply afford to have them employed in December and that is the motivating factor behind the extension of the reference periods, to iron out seasonal products. For all of these talks for ironing out these reforms, it is remarkable that the Bill as drafted fails to define low hours, despite introducing a raft of measures that depend on this very concept.

This omission is not a minor drafting cloak. Because the heart of the bills would ability was about as crucial for the threshold for what constitutes a low hours contract is set appropriately if the threshold is set to high, we risk severely restraining businesses ability to adjust staffing levels in response to short-term changes in demand. This would increase administrative complexity, bring more work unnecessarily into the scope of limited hours provisions and in doing so limit the flexibility that is vital in sectors like retail, hospitality, holiday parks, and any others as we have heard.

Conversely, if the threshold is set to low and particularly when combined with excessively long reference period, these businesses will face a constant churn of amending employment contracts. This administrative burden would diverge resources away from core operations, it would disrupt workforce stability, and erode the very flexibility needed to respond to same seasonal peaks to staff turnover and fluctuating consumer demand, and particularly inconvenience the service sectors. Moreover, setting the threshold poorly could have serious unintended consequences for the workers themselves. There is a real risk Low hours are unclear or unrestricted employers may be discouraged from offering those roles altogether.

And that could shut out individuals from the workforce, those who for very legitimate reason such as carer responsibilities, this ability is, studying, may only be able to work for a limited number of per week. And we should not, inadvertently, deny these workers opportunities to dissipate in the labour market. In light of these concerns we have tabled a market to define the hours clearly and appropriately in the bill. And would amend clause 1 line 30 by leaving out for to the end of line 32 and inserting the words for hours or fewer per the minimum number of hours.

We believe that for our threshold strikes the right balance, ensuring that surely minimum hours arrangements are captured without sweeping a wide- ranging of normal partition work and creating unnecessary bureaucracy. In legislation as significant as this, as we discussed at some length in the first group, clarity is not optional. Living concepts like low hours undefined creates uncertainty and for employers and workers alike, it opens the door to confusion, disputes, and ultimately undermines aims of the legislation, so I would urge the Government to reflect on this heavily and if there is to truly provide clarity than there can surely be no reason to leave this important definition to be sorted out later by regulations, or worse, by litigation.

Turning to amendment 31 and 32, I will speak briefly to these, but firmly to my amendment to schedule one, this amendment seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to make relations transferring that duty to offer a guaranteed hours contract from the higher R2 and other party involved. This power is both unnecessary and undesirable. This risks creating uncertainty about where legal responsibility lies. In any employment or engagement relationship it is vital that workers were the employers or freelancers have clarity about who was responsible for their rights and protections step and the bill is currently drafted would allow the Secretary of State your secretary legislation to move their duty away from the higher R2 some other party in the supply, perhaps an agency, perhaps an intermediary, but this raises serious practical concerns.

Firstly, the hirer, the party that exercises day-to-day control over the workers activities. They said the hours, determine the workload, and understands the nature of the work the individual is undertaking. It is therefore the hirer who is best placed to judge without that worker meets the qualifying patients for the contract and to make a meaningful offer. Passing this duty on to another party one who may have no direct operational mission ship with the worker risks. Furnished to the worker and administrative chaos for the employer.

Secondly, we must remember that many agencies obliging, particularly in sectors like logistics, Health and Social Care Committee and construction, are all ready complexity. The risk introducing additional legal uncertainty about who bears responsibility and will not improve outcomes for workers. Instead, they risk creating disputes, legal challenges, and a compliance minefield, that ultimately harms both workers and businesses. The That the regulation making power is simply a backstop or fracture ability mechanism, that such broad and loosely defined powers should not be handed over lightly, especially when we are talking about the fundamental rights and protections of working people.

If there is a clear principle here, those who control the work should be responsible for offering security where appropriate and we should put the principal on the face of the bill and not delegated as her regulations after the fact. Therefore, I urge the Government to consider this provision. Let us provide the clarity and uncertainty, both of businesses and for workers by ensuring that the duty of a guaranteed hours remains firmly with the hirer, the party best placed to discharge it fairly. And, finally, my Lord, thank the Noble Lord Goddard for his amendment 50.

This amendment addresses an important gap in the current draft of the bill, particularly for those workers in industries like hospitality, retail, and other seasonal or temporary employment areas, where fluctuating demand and short-term contracts are the norm. I believe it is vital to recognise the many workers in these sectors that actually value the fix ability that comes with nonguaranteed hours, and for some, the opportunity to accept non- tailored work to lead to their inability and lifestyle is not just desirable but absolutely essential. Students, people looking for part- time work and does balancing of the commitment, distractibility is often more desirable than the minimum number of hours, so I seems to me it is to offer a solution prose by the provisions.

Flexibility that allows employers, empowers both the employer and employee, would only enhance the working arrangements available to those contemporary or on short-term hours. on short-term hours. on short-term hours.
18:39
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I think that noble Lords shot of Ibsen, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling the amendment on zero hours contracts. And if I may begin by turning to amendment seven, 11 and 12. These amendments seek to amend clause 1 to set the initial reference period for the writer guaranteed hours at 26 weeks on the face of the bill. These amendments would also remove the power to define the length of the initial reference period in regulations and would render it obsolete.

I should say to 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 that we are currently thinking about. And the Noble Lord Gothard urged me just to be proportionate and reasonable. And we feel that our proposals at the stand at the moment are exactly that. And I grateful to my Noble Friend Lord Hendy for reminding us that 1.3 million people will never reach their reference.

If it is 26 weeks, as their employment will not that long. There is a very good that long. There is a very good reason why we should extend that period. We believe that 12 weeks is the appropriate length. It would be long enough to establish the hours of the work is regularly working, while also allowing qualifying work is to be offered guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a job, or after the writer guaranteed hours comes into effect. The initial reference period were set at 26 weeks, workers would be in the precarious and unpredictable work and would have to wait six months to access their right to guaranteed hours, and we believe in the currently backed market circumstances that is too long.

Similarly, amendment 13 would specify on the face of the bill that the subsequent reference period for the right of guaranteed hours is 26 weeks. The length and frequency of the subsequent reference periods will be set out again in regulations, subsequent reference periods may well be of a different length and frequency to the initial reference periods. 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 periods lengths in regulations to allow changes to reference periods to be made, for example in response to emerging evidence about how this right is working in practice, or in light of evolving working practices.

And, as I said, we intend to consult on the length and frequency of the reference periods as well. If I now turn to amendment nine, this amendment seeks to amend clause 1 to tabled workers on fixed term contracts out of the scope of the writer guaranteed hours. This amendment could lead to avoidance behaviour, whereby employers move workers with open ended zero hours contracts to fixed term zero hours contracts, and we also believe that workers unlimited term contracts working longer than the duration of the reference period should be entitled to a guaranteed hours offer as well.

This is because such workers may experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as those on permanent contracts. And I would also like to emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours would not prevent employers from 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 within a limited term, for example, and this is one example that has been quoted several times, it might be reasonable to provide the worker with a limited term contract cover, increase in retail demand during the Christmas period.

If a limited contract term contract is shorter than the initial reference period, then the worker would not be likely to qualify for a guaranteed hours offer, but it would depend on the conditions as the regularity for the number and whether it was reasonable for the contract to be of a limited term. If I now turn to amendment eight, this amendment seeks to amend clause 1 to set the hours threshold on the face of the bill at a maximum of four hours per week, and it would also remove the power to set the hours threshold in regulations, and I have sent obviously carefully to the arguments that a particular Lord Wolfson made, particularly in support of the interests of part- time workers.

This amendment would mean that workers who were granted more than four hours per week would not be eligible for the writer guaranteed hours. The hours threshold will be crucial to determining how many workers are included in the scope of their right to guaranteed hours. It is partly intended to act as an ant I avoidance measure, preventing employers from avoiding the duty to offer guaranteed hours by moving that work onto a contract, only guaranteeing 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 the unpredictability of hours income in the same way as other zero hours workers.

Similarly, if we were to set the threshold to high, it could have unintended consequences in impacting the overtime arrangements of over workers who already have sufficient product ability and security. Additionally, given the novelty of these provisions, it is important that the Government retain the flexibility to amend the threshold in the future. For example, in the light of evolving work practices. So, I can issue at the NOVA Lord Wolfson and others that we intend to consult on the hours threshold and, in course, include the issues that were raised today.

And that will be part of the consultation. So, including the threshold on the face of the bill at this stage, therefore would remove the opportunity for that consultation and for unions, employers and workers, to feed in their views.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Would the noble Baroness accept that having a maximum number on the face of the bill would be enormously important for business management for this? Because the number of hours that accept in the threshold would determine the number of employees that need to be dealt with. If it is going to be 3% or 1% it is one thing, if it is 50% it is another. Whilst I accept that the another. Whilst I accept that the Government needs flexibility, but it at least consider setting a maximum number of hours in the face of the bill so that the business can start to prepare now because we will need to prepare now if we do have systems in place in one years time.

To the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Well, I would say to the Noble Lord, as we have said with some others with suggesting fixed rates, that we need to avoid the unintended that we need to avoid the unintended consequences or the gaming of those arrangements. I am inclined at the arrangements. I am inclined at the comment to say we can consider that comment to say we can consider that further as the build progresses. In further as the build progresses. In adult social you are at the mercy of going into hospital.

You're at the mercy of people passing away, so those hours suddenly become contracted. Where are the safeguards for the employees at that point? Because there is no guarantee that they are going to come out of Lock Lock the Lock the doors. , , and , and we , and we cannot , and we cannot I , and we cannot I want , and we cannot I want us , and we cannot I want us to , and we cannot I want us to be mindful when we are thinking of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

overall picture. We want all the sectors, the facilities that are right for them. facilities that are right for them. I am not sure if nobody is talking I am not sure if nobody is talking about homecare or care in the care home sector, so perhaps she and I can have a conversation about it as I will attempt to city meeting up They They would They would be They would be free They would be free to They would be free to turn They would be free to turn down They would be free to turn down the guaranteed hours offer.

After public consultation, the Government would forward amendment to the employee rights bill, so that hirers, agencies and agency work are clear where responsibilities would risk in where responsibilities would risk in Because of the tripartite relationship with the employment a and agency workers. The government will continue to work with organisations, the recruitment sector, and trade unions to develop regulations in a way that avoids unintended consequences for employment a high-res. I am now turning to amendment 32.

This seeks to remove the bell the power to place the duty to make guaranteed hours offer on the work finding agency, or another party involved in the supply or payment of an agency worker instead of the high rough. 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 hierarchical of the agency, or another party in the supplied.

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. Given the unique and complex nature of agency worker relationships, the power is required to allow the government flexibility to detail specific cases with the responsibility to offer guaranteed hours which should not sit with the hirer. For example, this could be the case with individual hirers. I'm not sure if that is the point to which the noble Lady mentioned that earlier.

The agency might be in a better position to offer guaranteed hours. We are aware of the importance of that power and the impact these regulations could have on agency workers, agencies and others in the supplied. This reason, this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure ensuring Houses of Parliament get opportunities to debate its use. If I now turn to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments. Could she just talk us through this agency question little bit this agency question little bit more? If you need to have emergency care, you go to an agency. The agency finds you someone and then agency finds you someone and then you find a large sum of money for the agency care. If the Minister the agency care. If the Minister suggesting that, given the absent downs, in future, the agencies will downs, in future, the agencies will have to guarantee the people who are involved in emergency care, these involved in emergency care, these high salaries which, if they don't, then find clients for them, they will have to pay.

Is that how she thinks it will work out in practice? It will go into regulations when it will be so important for the care sector and for emergency care.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the point I was making is exactly that this does have exactly that this does have complications because there are some people who are individual hirers people who are individual hirers because some people get benefits to because some people get benefits to employ people direct, so it is not always done through a third-party. That is why we need to have more That is why we need to have more clear rules about all of this, but I am happy to write to noble Lords or explain this in more detail if that helps.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The problem with direct payments is you are making the person who is actually receiving the payment and individual who is looking after their own care. They will not have facilities to go through the facilities to go through the quagmire of rules and regulations, just to give some assistance.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just to give some assistance. I take that point, and that was something we were attempting in my something we were attempting in my description, but obviously, to develop a little bit more. I was develop a little bit more. I was trying to explain that we understood those issues and we are trying to find a way through it. I will turn now to amendments three, four, and six. These amendments seek to change the model for the right guaranteed hours which we debated at some length.

These amendments would mean that a qualifying worker experienced one side of flexibility would need to access their right to guaranteed hours. And I have to say, I think noble Lords underestimate the imbalance of power is facing employees. It is circumstance. Baroness Lawlor mentioned young people, and this is the group that is likely to be the most intimidated by having to request guaranteed hours, and I think therefore, what we are attempting to do here is to make sure that these rights are balanced in a more effective way.

I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us that the low pay commission also looked at this issue of right to request an understandably rejected it for exactly that reason because they understood people in those circumstances had the least power in the labour market and would therefore feel intimidated about coming forward. She also quite rightly raised the issue of what happens if the request is denied, and I know Lord Fox attempted to address that, but I don't know if the amendments necessarily address that.

It is said that employment has changed since that day, but I would say to him that employment has become even more unpredictable and unreliable, so nothing the low pay commission said all that I have said addresses the potential exploitation which the low paid commission identified. There is an imbalance for people to make that request, and they insist that it is done in the way that we have suggested. But of course, after receiving an offer, we decide whether or not to accept that offer based on the terms of the specific offer they have received, so that would empower the worker to decide for themselves, having seen the offer on the table, there are not they want to accept it, and that addresses the point that some people do want to work flexible hours, and we understand that.

If I turn to amendment 15, this would allow workers on limited 10 contracts of four months or less to voluntarily waive their rights to guaranteed hours. We believe that workers should be able to retain that flexibility or arrangement if they wish which means that as be able to turn it down and remain on the current contract of arrangements if they wish. This amendment would add another opt out mechanism that could create confusion for workers. If I turn to amendment 17, this would provide workers with the ability to opt out of receiving offers.

We understand the importance of workers being able to retain the flexibility of zero hour contract or arrangements if they wish which is why those receiving a guaranteed our offer will be able to turn it down. However, to ensure that all qualifying workers will benefit from legislation, all workers should be able to receive that offer. We want to ensure employers and workers are starting from a position of power. Therefore, we have allowed the bill for them to collectively agree to opt out of the zero hour contracts 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 about receiving offers. After receiving an offer, qualifying workers would then be able to decide whether to accept or not based on individual circumstances, and I think that point has been made before. Finally, I now turn to amendment to. This amendment will amend the right for workers to be guaranteed hours from the provisions of the bill.

We think that all employers should be required to offer qualifying workers guaranteed hours as this is the best way of addressing one side of flexibility in the workplace and ensuring jobs provide a baseline of security and predict ability. Without guaranteed hours, workers don't 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 things in their day-to-day expenses. I've I has previously expenses. I've I has previously iterated, those guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down, to remain in their current contract or arrangement if they wish.

We believe that this is the right balance and I therefore hope that I have persuaded noble Lords to withdraw these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She is relying a great deal on the fabled consultation that we are the fabled consultation that we are going to hear. Can we have some idea of when this will take place, and of when this will take place, and can I suggest that it takes place before we get to report stage because it will iron out these arguments? I think the lady asserted arguments? I think the lady asserted that some businesses have supported the 12 week reference period. Which ones?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

ones? In terms of the consultation, the bill sets out a number of ways there bill sets out a number of ways there will be regulations to be consulted upon, so 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 to cover that point. As I said, there are a number of things that I read out, businesses that are broadly supportive, but we haven't gone through clause by clause, asking which pieces of legislation they are supporting, but they are businesses which are household names and are in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Large businesses may be able to be supported. Can she name any small be supported. Can she name any small businesses that she has come across

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that support this? Again, there is a list of SMEs that support the basis of the bill. I do not think it is going to help I do not think it is going to help anybody if we go back and ask them for the specifics of each clause which they agree with and which they do not. The fact is that they agree with the direction of travel. A number of businesses, become small, already carrying out any of these practices, so it will not be so unusual, this is good employment practices and item sure that a lot of businesses will supported.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The debate on this has been invigorating and useful. I thank all invigorating and useful. I thank all the noble Lords, and in particular the Noble Lady the Minister Baroness the Noble Lady the Minister Baroness Jones who have contributed to it. My Noble Friend Lord Wilson commended Noble Friend Lord Wilson commended the intention of the bill to cut the affect of zero hours contracts which affect of zero hours contracts which his company does not use. I honour his intent, and indeed his extraordinary contributions to the nations employment and its economy.

I note that he tended to agree with my proposal in respect of the dysfunctionality of this clause. I would be happy if the wording of the clause if it were incorporated into the bill to be incorporated into his wording and the reverse of this clause to the bill. That Noble Lord Fox, who does not appear to be in this place, spoke to amendment for in that case of clause 27 retained in the bill switching the discussion from employer to employee.

Clearly, this is a more sound and flexible approach, though cause I cannot go along with his later statement that he meant there to be no obligation on the employers with the demand. My Noble Friend Baroness Lorna spoke on the many things this Government has already done to depress economic activity and said better than I have this cause would make things much worse. She added in the crucial point that the illness clause for reports to address is much preferred by the majority of those working flexible hours.

My Noble Friend spoke with the authority, the one that has great experience as an that has great experience as an employer. In what would be immoral acts and formal relationship between employers and employees. The Government should pay her heed. My Noble Friend Baroness Coffey spoke forensically about the wreckage this would create in the hospitality industry and also very worryingly in the NHS. Over and again we heard noble Lords speak about the need for flexibility.

This clause creates the opposite. My Noble Friend Lord Sharpe Epsom pointed particularly to the appalling outcomes this clause will create one the numbers of youth unemployment. Earlier, my Noble Friend Baroness the mentioned French youth unemployment at 19.2%. As the Government any clue how that occurred? They did not intend that to happen, obviously. They do not want one in five of their youth unemployed who are seeking work. It occurred from precisely the sort of legislation that the Government is proposing to introduce here.

Do we really want our youth unemployment to be one in five of those wanting to be employed? That is what I mean by outcomes, rather than this notion of the very generic idea of fairness. It is not fair, either. The noble Baroness the Minister confirmed that the reference period will be in the legislation, this is welcome news, but it would have been welcome in the legislation right now so that we could debated right now. The time that we are supposed to be debating it.

The noble minister showed an impressive ability to wade through the latest iteration of what is an extraordinarily complex proposed set of rules. But creating and explaining such rules misses the entire point. This Government entire point. This Government believes, "We know best. " And if we create this wonderful machine with processes, all will be well. They do not know best. The market knows best. And the market should be left to itself to sort out most of these matters.

I urge the noble minister to heed the words of the Noble Lord and the noble Baroness to provide clarity as soon as possible, and to provide flexibility in the way that they have just urged. The noble Baroness the Minister sought to provide clarity on agency workers. With respect, her words did not affect reality. Take just as one random example, the interim management sector. These individuals take jobs to fill gaps that suddenly appear in a company.

To fill the period before the permanent replacement can be found. The appointment of an interim manager may last one day, or it may last one year. Depending entirely on events that will only be happening in the future. And guaranteed hours for these individuals is quite frankly impossible. Just entirely impossible. And that is just one of many possible examples of the noble Baroness leader of and the noble Baroness burner made clear just now. I remain convinced, my Lords, that the outcome of this clause being passed into law will be significantly less, not more jobs.

Having said which, there are, of course, other ways of improving this clause, if it is not moved entirely. These ways, noble friends and the Noble Lord Fox have offered with their own amendments. The vast majority of which I have, I do agree with. Not least from listening to the experienced voices of business from these benches. To conclude, that removal of flexibility from employers cannot possibly be a good
19:08
19:09
None Portrait Amendment:5 Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-

group. I think the noble Lords lords lancer and Fox for adding their names to the amendments. And the Noble Lord was hoping that we would Noble Lord was hoping that we would be progressing rather more rapidly during committee. And, unfortunately, he has now had to leave us, but he has assured me that he remains fully committed to the principles by these amendments. Amendment five amends the new clause 20 7B in the 1996 Employment Rights Act inserted by clause 1 of this bill, so the new right to be offered guaranteed hours will not apply to small and micro- misses.

I do not believe that small or micro businesses should be dragged into any of the changes which are made in this part of the bill, which is why I table law extensive exclusion in amendment 124. Now, the bill office would not let my table amendment 124 at the beginning of part one, which is what I wanted to do. They did suggest amendment five is the mechanism that would enable us to have an early debate of the impact on micro-businesses. And it is such an important issue that it has already arisen in these pictures of several other noble Lords in the other group that have already been debated, and it was a good time to have an initial debate on small businesses.

Now, my blanket part one exclusion in 124 applies to the small or micro businesses, and I use the definitions in the 2015 small business enterprise and employment act, so that small businesses one with fewer than 50 staff, this business has fewer than 10 staff. And the 2015 act also encompasses And the 2015 act also encompasses other types of undertaking, so small charities are central to that definition. And I have some considerable sympathy with amendment 282, in that names of my Noble Friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral.

Which is also in this group. In that it is similar to mine, but instead it covers also medium-sized companies, which are those companies between 50 employees and 250 employees. Now, I believe the greatest harms will be done by this bill to those at the smaller end of the scale because they have the fewest amount of management resources in order to cope with the kinds of burdens that this bill is going to inflict on large suites of our business community.

Not opposed to my Noble Friends amendment, but we see where the biggest harm would be, it would be at that very small be, it would be at that very small step. Now, according to the latest amount of business and trades statistics, there were 5 1/2 million businesses in total employing nearly 28 million employees. Now, the micro business sector, that is up to 10 employees, has cut for 95% of the total number of businesses, 5.2 million. At 4 million of those have only, do not have any employees.

The rest, 1.2 million businesses, have over 4 million employees, so we are talking about this as with an average size of three employees. These are very small operations. The 220,000 businesses which have between 10 and 50 employees have 4.3 million employees in total, so the average for this category, the small category, is around 20 employees. Still, a very small operation. And the rest, that is large and medium- sized businesses, account for only a bit over 1% of the business population.

That is the number of businesses. They employ 53% of the workforce. So, if my amendment to take part one out of the scope for small and micro businesses is accepted, it would still apply to private sector businesses, employing around 50 million employees. Plus, of course, the 6 million who are employed in the public sector. And it would not apply to around 1.4 million businesses with around 8.3 million employees. Now, I should say that the Governments economic analysis cites a figure of 13 million employees that would be excluded for small and micro businesses.

It seems to include the 4 million businesses with no employees, which I assumed I think like soul traders who are not actually employed. And if the Minister has any better analysis, then I would be grateful if he would write to me, because I find it confusing. The Governments small and micro business assessment shows that five of the nine largest nations in terms of impact and two of the four medium-sized measures in terms of impact have a disproportionate impact on small and micro businesses.

I am genuinely astonished that the Government would even contemplate bringing forward measures which are so disproportionately skewed in terms of harm to small and micro- businesses. And these ones that have the biggest impact are largely found in part one of the bill. Now, several noble Lords have already raised the problems that this bill raised the problems that this bill We had a number of lords speak to the same issues, but I went back to the Minister's closing speech at second reading, and she did not even refer to the problems for this important sector of the economy.

She talked about business more generally, but not about the small or medium-sized businesses that will be impacted. The government see analysis as pretty superficial. It doesn't give much meat on the bone for what the impact is on small businesses. But the governments say that they don't want to create a two-tier workforce and they also believe that exempting smaller businesses from the provisions of this bill would reduce incentives for businesses to grow. I don't think either of these reasons has any substance to them.

Let's start with a two-tier workforce. The Minister will be aware that we already have all sorts of cheering on our workforce. Perhaps the biggest divide is between the public and private sector workers, where those in the public sector get pretty generous to find benefit pensions which became unaffordable for the majority of the private sector over the last 30 years. And even where the private sector to provide pensions, there is lots of variation in terms of providing automatic enrolment or more generous contributions to contribution schemes.

There are also other divides. People who work for large corporations typically get maternity and paternity rights and sick pay which are in excess of the statutory minimum. Or, employees and these larger companies may get access to benefits like private healthcare which smaller companies simply cannot afford. We should be in no doubt that it is alive and well throughout the labour market. Turning to incentives to grow businesses, I fear the government's complete lack of business knowledge shows through.

I acknowledge the cliff edges or thresholds can affect business behaviour and that can affect growth. The most egregious example is the threshold of £90,000. This includes small businesses from bothering to grow. At a much higher level, we can see the threshold effects in bank capital which positively discourages from going to be medium sized banks. But I am far from clear that there will be a threshold impact if we exempted small and micro businesses from part one of this bill with all of its bureaucracy.

The vast majority of the businesses where employers will be employed in will be operating nowhere near the threshold of 50 employees. Most of them, almost all of them, could double or treble in size without hitting the threshold. A very small number that might be drawing up plans to take them past the 50 employee Mark would factor in extra costs like complying with this employment bill. But if this bill was the factor that stops a business from growing through the 50 employee threshold, the chances are that the
19:19
19:21
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
organic material. It turns out that I had inadvertently picked the only mollusc that doesn't eat live prey, mollusc that doesn't eat live prey, so I stand corrected and I apologise to the marine life community for to the marine life community for this oversight. But as far as the bill goes, I make no apology and I bill goes, I make no apology and I will focus on part one of this bill and its impact on our all-important and its impact on our all-important and its impact on our all-important start-ups and scale ups.

We will be contributing £1.6 trillion to the UK economy annually, and that is over 50% of the value of the whole UK SME community, despite these companies making out less than 1% of the SME population. Now, they are crucial because they represent the most dynamic element of our economic growth. They create jobs at the fastest rate, promote the staff at the fastest rate and attract significant investment, and I should declare my interest in the register in that a chair, advise and invest in a range of start-ups and scale ups, and it is their lived experience that informs my comments.

Along with my own ears as a micro, small and medium-sized employer. Working for scale ups and start-ups is both demanding and rewarding. Entry-level jobs tend to pay less than average, and they have considerably less benefits than average but progress more rapidly in terms of pay, bonuses, promotion, and often becoming an equity stakeholder. Scale ups thrive on flexibility and performance culture, something that part one of this bill seems to ignore. Now, another important group sitting within the smaller micro sector are family businesses that employ less than 50 staff.

The majority having less than 10 employees. These are businesses which have only one member of staff that covers each responsibility and where HR has to be covered by the owner or senior manager put up subjecting these groups the full battery of clauses and schedules in part one of this bill is, I believe, disproportionate, costly, distracting, and growth sapping. On the subject of costs, the Bills impact assessment suggests an extra £5 billion per annum for all employers and admits that this will disproportionately fall on smaller micro businesses as Baroness Noakes has just outlined.

But this is a crude estimate and seems to be very narrowly drawn. It fails to assess the invisible costs of complicating recruitment, performance reviews, dismissals and the general administration of HR and the smaller the business, the greater the destruction from core activities tying up key leadership and management time and less productive areas. In plain language, this means lost output. Recruitment is critical for small and micro businesses, and it is set to become far more risky in an already difficult climate.

Part one of this bill threatens to complicate probation, performance reviews, and dismissal for fair cause. They won rights and dismissal complaints will deter risk-taking and reduce employment opportunities at entry and graduate level, and especially, in medical and senior management. It will encourage employers to hold on to bad highways and promote mediocre or underqualified ones. Flexible working shift changes and guaranteed hours has already been covered in a previous group, so I won't duplicate other than to say that this is a special problem for small and micro businesses, especially those that rely on part-time workers and shift patterns, hospitality being a prime patterns, hospitality being a prime example.

I would like to finish by countering the government's expected response to this group of amendments that there should be no exemptions as these new employment rights should mean that we should not create a two-tier workforce. While I understand the thrust of that argument, it does not reflect. SMEs, as we have already had, cannot compete with big businesses when it comes to trading, promotion opportunities, and a whole range of benefits including pensions. Most have no HR function, let alone department, and that reflects their size, but what they do have to offer is a friendly working environment, greater flexibility than average, stakeholder culture, whether that is reflected in equity or identity, and that every role in their organisation is a critical part of the business, leading to strong employee loyalty and identification.

To apply the very same employment rights to small and micro businesses with five or 10 staff compared to multinationals such as Amazon that employ 75,000 in this country will do serious damage to our jobs market, and that is why I wholeheartedly endorse these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to speak in support of amendments five and 124, support of amendments five and 124, so ably moved by my noble friend so ably moved by my noble friend Lady Noakes and well supported by the noble Lord. I also support amendment to a two which I expect my amendment to a two which I expect my noble friend Lord Sharpe or Lord noble friend Lord Sharpe or Lord Hunt will address, but the impact, as stated by my noble friend Lady as stated by my noble friend Lady Noakes, is far greater.

The cost to business of him preventing the bill, which according to the noble Baroness Lady Noakes could be as much as £5 billion. This could be a transfer to the lowest paid segment of the workforce. I don't think that would be the results. My noble friends amendments would mitigate the stifling effect on small businesses that the bill will have. Small and micro businesses are already struggling with the additional cost with the increases in employers National Insurance contributions introduced two weeks ago.

It is small and micro businesses which most need flexibility in the nature of the employment models which they can offer workers. To put such businesses into a straitjacket will
19:29
19:29
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
It is a great honour to follow Baroness Noakes. She and I worked on the employment Bill to which we provided good use, and of course, she has a distinguished business career, not just as we all know in very large natural services compliments, but as my president where she did interact with very small and medium-sized businesses and we spent the turn of the year discussing this bill and its ramifications. I speak as someone who takes particular interest in SMP for reasons I will explain.

And of course, in full support of this small group of amendments. As is, all business representative bodies, and I think all bodies, we've had organisations like the U.K.'s largest employer group who has said that this will wreck havoc on our We have had survey after survey, 720 companies were surveyed. Two thirds of them said that they will curb hiring and one third said they would reduce staff as a result of this bill. The aforementioned chartered Institute of personnel discovered that 25% of the members would consider layoffs as a direct result of this bill.

And in the Institute of directors they called it a sledgehammer, so as I mentioned I am particularly close to that sector, and at least because in 1989 I started a small business with one partner and one assistant, and I should therefore, of course, 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 shot at the Frontbench for not having any business experience at all, or certainly not in The Other Place, but I have to be much more differential in this House, not least because Lord Young started two years after I started.

Except, of course, no team had much greater success than my, and in his first year medical water of £1 million profit which is very, in my first year I lost money. I do particularly see the differential, but nonetheless I am sure he will remember those formative years of starting a business, where one was focused on nothing else but that is Ness. And clearly we desperately need people to do that same, to take the risk, start a business, have a go, and then employ people.

And the decision to employ a person is a very big decision. And it is the toughest one on the first person but it is still tough in the second, third, fourth, 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. My small business for many years would have been covered by the exemption, but it would need it because to take on people in a small business is not just you are not just recruiting someone to do a job at work.

You are recruiting someone to join your cultured, join your aspirations, to fit in. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. And when it does not you have to make do with the situations to make changes. And the fact that we are now allowed to let people go relatively easily encourages people like me to take a chance and employ someone that I would not otherwise do so. And I and very worried that this bill will lead to a reduction in business growth, and in particular employment.

The main burdens of this bill will be on small businesses, when she spoke the Noble Lady the Minister cited I think five companies that she said were broadly supportive of this. All but one were larger companies. And one actually was that co-op which I not sure that entirely comes and another was IKEA and I would be very grateful to the Noble Lady the Minister if she could site the report from IKEA because I cannot find it at the SME sector realises that the financial burden that the bill imposes on some 5 billion would largely fall on itself and that is very awesome, so the first issue was the financial and the second is operational SMEs do not have an HR Department.

They just simply do not have the facility to wade through this enormous amount of legislation as to how they are supposed to treat their staff. The only around it is, of course, to deploy an agency at great expense to advise, 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, of course, feeling much more fragile after the horrendous MIC increases that are being imposed upon them.

And so third, low is they just work harder. Take the risk for hiring new employees which will, of course, restrict their growth, because the only way of business can grow is to recruit new people, fresh blood, fish ideas, fresh reach. And it is impossible for businesses to grow without making hires. Fourthly, it will make businesses risk averse. The Institute has specifically said that this will make businesses risk averse, although decisions, because of the risks that actually are imposed on those businesses by this bill because of the costs and burdens they have to undertake.

And, lastly, the faith problem with the bill is the lack of consultation. It has been rushed through to meet the deadline and, as a result, there has not been either, but as a result there has been a vast amount of amendments that we are trying to get our heads round, so for all of those reasons one accepts the bill is in the manifesto but it has to happen. And in anyway it is appropriate that it does, but please can we leave out the SME businesses that will struggle with this bill? Maybe take it in at a later time, suitably

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amended, but not now. Think the Government would do themselves a great deal of good if they made some special arrangements they made some special arrangements for small businesses. They are well precedented, we have got that precedented, we have got that threshold, the employment allowance, the small business audit. I think it
19:37
19:38
19:39
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
I rice with pleasure to support my Noble Friend Baroness Noakes. And the noble Lords Landsborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden. In respect of this bill amendment five and another amendment. Small and micro businesses form a vital component to our national economy. These enterprises, while often agile and innovative, are particularly vulnerable to financial pressures. And like all businesses, and I should declare I work for a very large American insurance broker. They have had to absorb the recent increases in the National Minimum Wage and adapt to the changes of Wage and adapt to the changes of National Insurance contributions legislation.

However, unlike large businesses, they often lack the structure, resilience, and financial buffer to absorb such changes. The impact on them is, therefore, disproportionate. This amendment proposes a sensible and measured up for SMEs for an additional obligation stemming from the proposed changes to zero hours contracts. Specifically. The move towards tightly prescribed guaranteed hours as the government's own impact assessment acknowledges, these reforms are likely to have a disproportionate cost on small and micro businesses and I stress again this is not speculation, this is drawn directly from the government's impact analysis.

Small and micro businesses span a wide range of sectors, but many are embedded within the UK is well renowned creative industries. Industries that bring global acclaim and substantial economic benefit to this country. Many are driven by energy, passion, Many are driven by energy, passion, and commitment of the individual entrepreneurs and small teams. I have had the privilege of speaking with several such business owners during the course of this bill. And a recurring concern has emerged. The smaller the business, the harder it is to digest and manage such legislative change.

Some have gone so far as to tell me they are considering closing their operations altogether. That is a deeply troubling prospect. It is no exaggeration to say that such measures such as these, if applied without once, risk undermining the very entrepreneurial spirit we so often celebrate in this House. There seems to be a regrettable habit- forming on the Government benches and legislating in ways that hinder rather than help, economic aims of this country. This approach is not conducive to national growth.

It is not conducive to competitiveness. It is not conducive to job creation. And it is certainly not conducive to easing the burden on the exchequer. Quite the opposite. Driving small businesses to closure, reduced tax receipts, and increased demand for state support. We need to encourage investment, not to chase it away. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, possibly the noble Lords the Minister to explain clearly why most this legislation apply so rigidly to a critical centre of our economy.

Why must we impose further burdens on the businesses we rely on so much for our innovation, employment and growth. Is there no room for proportionality is not no scope for recognising the distinct challenges faced by the smallest enterprises? What I have said all applies to a great extent to middle -sized companies. Mentioned in the amendment to H2 in the names of my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of the Wirral. I leave you with a quote from the spirit of laws.

Commerce wonders across the earth, flees from where it is oppressed, and remains where it is left to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

breeze. I rise to support the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment in that name of my Noble Friend and other amendments in this bill. I do other amendments in this bill. I do feel as an employer might interests are declared in the register. I am a are declared in the register. I am a very small employer. And in a not very small employer. And in a not for profit area. I am one of the micro businesses to which Baroness
19:45
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
Noakes has referred that have zero to nine employees. And smaller businesses, and I echo what Lord Londesborough said, would find it Londesborough said, would find it very difficult to afford the cost very difficult to afford the cost which this bill would impose upon them. Small businesses and employers them. Small businesses and employers are not adversaries. Small businesses and the employers in them. We are not adversaries of those we take on. Many are start- ups. Many small businesses, a number in the digital sector.

Some of whom have started in that garage about whom Herman has a once full, and no doubt their teams, they develop by commitment. Each member of the team taken on is an asset. Not just an expensive potential asset, but at a cost to begin with. Cost, in terms of the time and compliance in dealing with every single member of the workforce and they do not have It is a cost in terms of the salary and trying to keep the employee by continuing to raise the salary whilst one can, and it is a cost in terms of the investment of time.

A terms of the investment of time. A great deal of time is spent, and noble Lords have spoken about the culture of the small business in training, and encouraging, in building on a new employee's talents and skill, and all of these have to be farmed. They don't grow on trees. And this is particularly so with young people entering the workplace for the first time, even the most able graduates. To induct each employee costs money. It costs a salary, is a potential investment, it costs time, and it needs to build on the relationship, and the way to build on them and keep that investment and make it productive is to move as a market economy moves, to reflect salary levels, to reflect pain conditions, to do what can be done to afford the best workforce you can to develop your product, and you can to develop your product, and to compete.

If the measures in this bill go through, many small and micro businesses will not be able to do what has been done, some of which has been grown rapidly and developed exponentially as we have had today in the debate. I think there is a very strong case for exempting small businesses, particularly micro businesses and I hope the government will listen.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also rise for amendment five, and the reason I do that is simply because without small businesses because without small businesses growing and taking on people's work, we won't achieve the outcomes that we won't achieve the outcomes that the government has already set in terms of getting more people into work, and I referred to a different work, and I referred to a different group about the target. Now, we group about the target. Now, we should bear in mind that I was conscious of what happened with the kickstart scheme where people had kickstart scheme where people had opportunity, and we encourage small businesses to participate in the kickstart scheme.

One to consider the opportunity of an extra pair of hands, but also to give them the confidence that they could grow their business and start to employ people for the first time. And that in itself was an important step in thinking about how you minimise risk in the first instance, but also a considerable proportion of people with an offered permanent jobs as a consequence of that. And it is that first step of taking people on which is the hardest step for many micro businesses, and that is why OB even happier if this was amended at report stage.

That is one of the largest. We already have thresholds. It is already being referred to with the financial thresholds, but it is that courage to take on people, and whether that is about expanding services in the care sector or elsewhere and you don't want to let clients down, but you also want to make sure you have the quality. We are discussing a wide-ranging amendments in part one of the bill, so that is something where we have been raising issues through this bill, but I think overall, we should be taking that successful approach that previous governments, they are saying let us keep small businesses out of this area.

The impact assessments talked about mitigations they plan to do, but there is no mention of what those mitigations may actually do, which is one of the things that will hold back growth which were led to believe is the mission of this government. I fear that without those exemptions coming that without those exemptions coming in our UK industry.
19:50
19:51
19:53
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
from Lord Clifford as well. When we reflect for a moment on the speeches reflect for a moment on the speeches that have been made in this debate, apart from the noble Baroness Crema, apart from the noble Baroness Crema, we have not had any contributions we have not had any contributions from the government benches but the most important contribution will be made by someone who really does understand. Lord Leong knows all about this business, and I am thrilled and delighted that he is summing up the debate because he understands what so many of my colleagues have tried to point out.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe says that things can get in the way of success, and when you look at the amount of rules and regulation and bureaucracy, and I did agree with all my noble friends, my noble friend, when he just pleaded for their to be a sensible and measured response, we all want to see good employers allow for bereavement needs, so we want to see rights established very clearly but to impose them on the small and medium-size sector in the way that Baroness Noakes set out, pointing out three, four, or five employees, suddenly to have to deal with all this legislation, let's remind ourselves of the importance of small businesses as several of my colleagues pointed out at the start of last year.

There were 5.45. There were 5.45 million small businesses with up to 49 employees. That makes with up to 49 employees. That makes up a staggering 99.2% of the business population in the UK. So, we are talking about a massive sector, and therefore, we have to worry and concern ourselves about the effect, and as the Federation of Small Businesses is has put it, this bill in its current form risks becoming nothing short of a disaster for businesses which are small and micro businesses.

I think it was the noble Baroness from the Lib Dems who spoke about a two-tier workforce system which those benches object to, but as my noble friend pointed out, we do in fact have tiering alive and well throughout the UK economy. So it is not trying to impose one size fits all. It is recognising that over 99% as this is in this country Arsenal and cannot possibly cope with the burden of this bill.

Now it just so happens that I already have a quotation from Lord Leong which I readily move to immediately. We have heard from the government on multiple occasions that they are committed to supporting SMEs and reassuring that they are not urgent with excessive costs and red tape. Lord Leong made a very important point about the metrology bill and we do not want to burden SMEs with additional regulatory or financial costs. What wise words. And we would love to hear those words from him again tonight.

But because he will realise that the reality of this girl is starkly different, what this bill does, and let me rephrase, the only thing this bill seems to do for SMEs is to burden them with additional regulatory and financial costs. It is incredibly difficult to reconcile the government's stated intentions with the impact this legislation will have on small and micro businesses across the country. I businesses across the country. I know my noble friend has amendment to a two in this group, but I don't want to press.

I was taking the old definition, and I don't need to go into all the fine bits of the Bolton commission and all those who have sought to define because I think my noble friends have done a good deal to define what is a small and medium-size enterprise, so I just need to know what the government intends to do to alleviate the burden on small and micro businesses. Their impact assessment has highlighted the significant challenges that these businesses will face in implementing these reforms.

And there is at the moment no adequate plan to support them, so I would just like to ask the noble Lord the Minister these questions. First, will he please outline what the three main expected benefits of this bill will be for small and micro businesses. Secondly, how will the government support small businesses in complying with the provisions of this legislation? What kind of guidance training and resources will be made available to ensure that these businesses can navigate the new regulations without inadvertently falling foul of the law? And finally, can the noble Lord the Minister provide an assessment of the risk of unintentional non- compliance by small businesses? What steps is the government taking to mitigate this risk and ensure that these people are not penalised as a lack of guidance in the legislation.

I do think that the government has not consulted the small and medium sector. If they have, can we please have a great deal more detail about what their conclusions are having resulted, having not consulted, could they please do so now?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let me thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this group of have contributed to this group of amendments with such passion. The noble Baroness Noakes with Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt have tabled several amendments, five, 124, 282, and seek to remove micro small and medium-sized businesses from the scope of large sections of this scope of large sections of this Now, let me turn to amendment 282. It would not be right or fair to exclude these small businesses, and the people that work for them, from some of these rights and
20:01
20:01
None Portrait Gov. Spokes Lord Leong (Labour)
-

I'm sure most noble Lords agree that this is not what they want. This amendment would, for example, supply the changes that we are making, to the changes that we are making, to strengthen the Statutory Sick Pay, such as removing the waiting period. such as removing the waiting period. Our changes to the SSP stand to benefit employers to increase productivity, all whilst ensuring employees that they should not feel false to struggle through work when false to struggle through work when they are unwell.

Similarly, amendment five and 124, together seek to take small and micro businesses, as defined in this business as enterprise employment in 2015, as mentioned by Baroness in part one of this bill. Doing so would result in employees of this business unnecessarily missing out on important protections against sexual harassment as well as their rights to aid unfair dismissal and I will mention those again in a moment. The noble Baronesses amendment would also promote employees of small and micro businesses from existing the new entitlement to bereavement leave that we are also establishing.

The Noble Lord asked what Government supporter available to SMEs. All I can say is the Government is offering massive support and is committed to supporting micro, small, and medium-sized businesses that are the backbone of the UK economy in and many noble Lords have stated that and I totally agree. The Department for Business and Trade already provides existing offers that small businesses may wish to access, for example this includes a business support service, a network of local growth hubs across England.

And a help to grow management scheme, helping owners of small businesses to improve leadership performance and management capabilities. Financial support is also available to a Government backed business which aims to improve access to finance to help this invest and grow. I now touch on implementation. We have committed to extensive consultation, the word has been used many times this evening but we will not consult as widely and broadly, we want to as possible to ensure this works for employees and employers of all shapes and sizes alike.

We anticipate this meaning that the majority of reforms would take effect no earlier than 2026. And be done in a way that means time pressed SMEs will not be overburdened. We know that the more we can say about the future implementation, timing of these measures, the better employees, trade unions, are able to play and prepare for it. The expert and detailed insights and feedback and consultations so far has been invaluable in getting this legislation right. I would like to declare my interest at this juncture, and I think the Noble Lord for sharing with colleagues here about my various publishing career.

I have an over 45 year career in business, founding and cofounding several business ventures. I learnt a lasting truth. Driving teams drive lasting success. I remembered emotionally now when I hired my first employee, and later my first hundred. And my first thousand. Each one amounts to an inner journey of people. Without these people I would be not here, I would have not run successful businesses. Before that I had the privilege of mentoring, advising and serving as non- executive director to start-ups, skill ups, and publicly listed companies.

The lesson from my late father, also a business person, guided me through. He said wanting some happy staff, healthy profits. The principal has been my compass through prosperous and very challenging times. People are the heartbeat of every single enterprise. When we value and invest in them, business and society flourish, so I really look forward to bringing this passion and experience to this bill. Business groups often falter warning about economic damage, whenever stronger for the protections are proposed.

I do not need to remind the noble Lords we saw it in the minimum wage in the late 1990s, and we shared rent relief more recently. In hindsight, many of those reforms had either neutral or positive effects on employment. May I also gently remind noble Lords, if I may, with respect, framing this bill as an economic catastrophe, business lobbies are deflecting from the more basic truth that certain business models, especially those heavily dependent on insecure low-wage labour might have to adapt for change if the law passes, which we want to avoid.

To conclude, before I conclude I just want to answer some of the questions asked by Noble Lord. Baroness Fookes asked about analysis of micro-businesses. According to the latest Department for Business and Trade, this is publishing estimates. 9 million employees which is about 40% in the whole private sector that work in small and micro businesses. For businesses with one employee, there are around 124,000 people working for a business, excluding workers or partners. While there are around 235,000 working for such businesses, including owners and partners.

The including owners and partners. The Noble Lord Lee asked about IKEA. IKEA, to make that work statement on 1 April, this year supporting this, supporting the increase to the minimum wage as part of the Government make work pay agenda. Underscoring business support for Government approach. Now, there is obviously clear evidence-based

**** Possible New Speaker ****

benefits from tackling issues. With respect, the statement that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With respect, the statement that seems to be an issue, it seems to be in support of minimum wage, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

specific clauses in the bill. I thank the Noble Lord for that, but they're pretty supportive to but they're pretty supportive to overall intention of the bill, including the National which which is obviously outside the scope of is obviously outside the scope of this bill, but what we are doing in this bill, but what we are doing in supporting the zero hours contracts, and the other short-term contracts and all that. I will write to the Noble Lord further for the various clauses that they might be supportive of this.

Various noble Lords have asked about the impact assessment. The benefits of this bill has been published by the TUC shows that even the modest gains from workers rights to benefit the UK economy by £13 billion as opposed to the assessment of the cost summary of £5 billion with something like 0.4% of employment costs. The benefit is here. And columns have actually done research on this. Lord Londesborough says that start-ups and scallops, definitely the ones, it is absolutely right, we have got to support them.

And I believe strongly that this will to support them, various lords have mentioned about what a day one right and what about the difficulty in recruiting employees will stop and I remember when you run a small business, yes, it is very competitive to employ your first employee. Sometimes you have to compete with the big companies in terms of matching salaries, or even benefits. And I believe passionately that this bill actually puts SMEs at a level playing field with large companies when they can offer the basic benefits in this bill itself.

I must benefits in this bill itself. I must say that sometimes we talk about why are we excluding SMEs? Because it is so difficult for employers to recruit. And why should employees in SMEs not get D1 rights? My answer is why shouldn't they get D1 rights? As I say, they are the pull that work for the owners to make a profit. Without them, the owners will not have a business. It is very important that they are supported.

And I believe strongly that good businesses do provide fantastic support to their employees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I might just ask the Noble Lord that Mr not sure if it is the difficulty in recruiting, I think it difficulty in recruiting, I think it is the fear of recruiting for small and micro businesses that this the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and micro businesses that this the real problem. I think that is a really different point. I thank the Noble Lord for that. They turned it around and see look, They turned it around and see look, if I am actually looking for a job, I have got a choice of the companies I have got a choice of the companies or small companies. I am taking the chance, I am taking a risk working for a very small company. Not whether that company is going to last.

That risk works to ways. I believe, and I strongly believe this, that most people work for companies not because of the company does but the owner, they look at the owner or the founders and whether they want to work with such people. I would look at it and say at the end of the day, the employees will also be taking a chance on the employer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There is a huge difference between a large business and its culture, and the ability to be able culture, and the ability to be able to respond to all of the new burdens that are going to be placed on it, to a small business with the Noble Lord the Minister himself said happy Lord the Minister himself said happy business, happy employees, and a good bottom line. The problem of good bottom line. The problem of course is an employer is so didn't because it is a small employer by so because it is a small employer by so many things to comply with, that happiness is soon going to disappear.

All I think all that noble Lords around the House are asking is that we just ease the virgins for smaller micro businesses

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by just removing not the rights but just the burdens. I thank the Noble Lady for that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Noble Lady for that. I mean there are other additional responsibilities, not just in terms responsibilities, not just in terms of H are, a company set up needs to have IT support. Needs to have have IT support. Needs to have payroll support. How many SMEs have an IT department or payroll an IT department or payroll department? Let alone an HR department. Then there will be big businesses that will be providing services to support SMEs. The whole argument about the responsibility, I mean basically when you set up a business you have more responsibilities, so this is part of those responsibilities.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I see the Minister's point, my Lord, but I think that if you were Lord, but I think that if you were to speak to the small businesses, they would really argue that these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they would really argue that these are huge implications. I think the Noble Lady. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the Noble Lady. I will not hold the household long because I think the dinner break is coming up, but I will bet with the Noble up, but I will bet with the Noble Lady to talk further on this. To conclude, the Government believes that having an entitlement affair, that having an entitlement affair, flexible and secure working, should not be something that is only reserved for those people who work for large companies. It is fundamental that we make payable reforms, including those in this bill that apply across all employees.

Any exceptions to this provision based on the size of the business and facing rights,
20:15
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
entitlements and protections. They would reduce the talent pool from which SMEs could attract employees, as I mentioned earlier. This, in turn, would lead to an uneven playing field between employers of playing field between employers of different sizes and reduce incentives for small businesses to grow, so I therefore ask the Noble Lord sharp, Baroness Noakes, and Lord sharp, Baroness Noakes, and other noble Lords to withdraw their amendments, sorry, no larger to amendments, sorry, no larger to withdraw amendment to a two and the Baroness Noakes to withdraw amendment 514.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 514. I think the Noble Lord will find the only amendment that can be withdrawn at the moment is amendment five. The others have been placed on the national list. I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. The novel Lord Londesborough, the Noble Lord Clifford from the crossbenches, all of my Noble Friend crossbenches, all of my Noble Friend They have communicated a very special issue that has arisen for smaller businesses right at the beginning of their life when those early decisions are made about taking people on as they grow and the risks and opportunities that come thereafter.

I don't think that the Minister has begun to really internalise the additional impositions that this bill will have on that group of people. A couple of small point. In the analysis, it says that there are 13 million employees in small and micro businesses. They may not have been listening carefully about the numbers, but I didn't hear him mentioning 13 million. I'm hoping I can get an analysis of whether 13 million comes from in due course.

I think that is probably the most straightforward of the questions straightforward of the questions that arise. The important thing here is that small and micro businesses are very prevalent in our communities. It is a question of understanding the additional imposition of the rights being conveyed in this bill. What it will have on businesses, small businesses as was said, know that they are about people, and their whole success depends on the people they get and the people they can develop with businesses, but they also need significant flexibilities because when you are that small, you need to be able to cope with the situations that arise in relation to those small numbers.

I don't think any small businesses are actually trying to get out of treating employees with respect and developing them as suits the particular business, but it is the feeling that you can impose across the whole of the business community, and just resting on platitudes like the direct cost being outweighed by the productivity gain. That is not peer-reviewed research. There is no evidence that there exists a positive link between employment rights and getting productivity.

That has not been examined, so it is wrong to keep exerting that this bill will result in that, but importantly, the issue is what is relevant to different categories of this nest. I am my noble friends and colleagues in the crossbenches have been trying to betray what is encountered. I rather hope that with his background, he would have understood that, the need for the smaller businesses to have some degree of understanding from the government benches, to not be told well, of course they have to have payroll and IT.

We are talking about the wealth creating segment of our economy. Not everyone is going to be growing fast, but some of them are and some of them will do this a lot. If we do this, we harm the economic potential of our country, and that is what we have been trying to argue. I'm sorry that the government are not in listening mode today. I am hopeful that they might be prepared to listen further, especially if they genuinely engage with the representative bodies that represent the smaller end of the business scale.

I do believe that this bill does need to make some accountability for the special circumstances that small and micro businesses find themselves in, but obviously, I withdraw amendment five.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment six, not move. Amendment
20:20
20:21
20:21
20:22
20:22
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
reaffirmed our commitment to advancing the two state solution is advancing the two state solution is the only pathway to achieving just and lasting paste in the Middle East. Where Israelis and Palestinians can live side-by-side in peace, dignity, and security. We are clear that the Palestinian are clear that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right of self-determination including the Independence Day code. This government is committed to strengthening our bilateral relations with the Palestinian Authority. The PA is the only legitimate governing occupancy in the territories, and it is important that Gaza and West Bank are a unified under their authority.

The UK is clear that the PA must have a central role in the next phase of Gaza. The UK is also clear that there can be no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza. We have been clear that Hamas must release the hostages and relinquish control of Gaza. Israelis must be able to live in security next to their Palestinian neighbours and 7 October must never be repeated. The Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister Mustapha signed a memorandum of understanding to enhance the bilateral partnership between our two governments.

The memorandum of understanding established a new framework to guide and enhance a strategic partnership and high-level dialogue across areas of mutual interest and benefit, including economic development and institutional reform. As part of our meetings, we discussed the gravity of the situation in Gaza and the West Bank and East Jerusalem. We condemn the appalling suffering in Gaza and agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid.

Only diplomacy not more bloodshed will achieve long-term peace. We also shared our alarm at the heightened tension in the West Bank. We reiterated our clear condemnation of Israeli settlements which are illegal under international law and harm the prospect of a future Palestinian state. We called to an end to settlement expansion and settler violence, and we are also clear that Israel must release frozen Palestinian Authority funds. I Minister Mustapha outlined the reforms being undertaken, and the UK supports the imitation of much- needed reforms, including through providing technical assistance.

These reforms will strengthen sustainability and economic development, enhance transparency and efficiency of governments and service delivery, and promote peaceful coexistence with neighbouring countries. As part of our MOU, the authority underlined its equipment to delivering its reform agenda in full as a matter of priority. As part of this visit, we also announced £101 million package of support for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This will be directed at humanitarian relief, support for Palestinian economic development and strengthening Palestinian Authority governance and reform.

As the Foreign Secretary made clear, we will not give up on a two state solution with the Palestinian state and Israel living side-by-side in peace, dignity, and side-by-side in peace, dignity, and security. This visit is a significant step in strengthening our relationship with the Palestinian Authority, the key partner for peace in the Middle East at this critical moment. at this critical moment.
20:26
Earl of Courtown Portrait The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for repeating the statement and I welcome the meeting held yesterday between the government and Prime Minister Mustapha. We on these benches are clear that an effective Palestinian Authority is vital for lasting peace and progress towards a two state solution in the region. The Palestinian people deserve dignity and stability that the statement can bring, and there should be a negotiated settlement leading to a two state solution living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state.

I welcome the efforts made by the government to continue the work of the previous government in reaching this outcome. I note the memorandum of understanding signed by the Foreign Secretary and premise to Mustapha which enshrine their commitment to advancing statehood as part of a two state solution. Building and maintaining rapport with partners and Palestinian Authority is essential but we must make sure that recognition of a Palestinian state comes at a time which is most conducive to a peace process. Recognition cannot be the start of the process.

Hamas is part of Gaza and Israeli hostages remain in captivity. Ensuring that Hamas is no longer in charge of Gaza and removing its capacity to launch attacks against Israel are unavoidable steps on the road to a lasting peace. Does the noble Baroness the Minister agree with this position and Doshi see recognition as the culmination of a process rather than its beginning? In the immediate term, we must prioritise getting the hostages out and getting more aid in.

That is crucial for making progress towards a sustainable end to the conflict. The previous government produced a clear proposal on getting aid into effective areas and put them to the government of Israel. These include the delivery of aid. Israel made a number of significant commitments on these points, as well as on approving forms, but fulfilment of those commitments is vital. Can the noble Baroness the Minister please update the house on what discussions his mad government is having with partners in Israel to ensure that these obligations are met.

We are clear that Hamas cannot ever have influence in Gaza again. It is important that the Palestinian authority commits to undertaking serious and tangible reforms of education, welfare policy and democracy to strengthen the resilience against this threat in the future. Can the noble Baroness the Minister please update the house on what work the government is doing to advance progress in these areas, and can the noble Baroness assure us that these are discussed in talks of partners with the authority.

Progress on this issue means a collaborative approach and just as the Palestinian Authority must act, so must Israel. That means releasing frozen funds, halting expansion and holding to account those responsible for settler violence. We want to see a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza. The release of the hostages have done more to humanitarian aid to innocent Palestinians civilians. We welcome the steps taken by the government to work with the Palestinian Authority and hope they will continue to reach a lasting solution and a future with which Hamas will never have a place.

Hamas will never have a place.
20:30
Baroness Janke Portrait Baroness Janke (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
We welcome the meeting of the UK government with the Palestinian prime minister and his colleagues. We also welcome the memorandum of understanding and the statement of commitment to the two state solution and the involvement of the Palestinian Authority in the future of Gaza as well as a strategic partnership based on economic development and institutional This is a forward-looking development however it raises questions of commitment. What discussions has the UK government had with the United States on the centrality of Palestinian involvement in the future of Gaza, in light of the remarks made by President Trump, it does not look like it will soon be a very deliverable proposal.

And the atrocities being delivered in Gaza on civilians, many who were women and children together with the systematic destruction of the health system continues to shock the world. There is no fully functioning hospital in Gaza despite the indiscriminate bombing and shooting of Palestinians and the devastating injuries that result. Could the noble Lady, the Minister say with the future progress on the memorandum of understanding may require the UK to stop arming Israel to carry out indiscriminate destruction in Gaza? And what did the UK government make to the Prime Minister Mostafa to do all in its power to end the blockade of humanitarian aid into Gaza where after 50 days of blockade, supplies have run out and civilians, including large numbers of children are starving to death even those -- even though supplies of crucial food and water are readily available over the border.

I hear that I am being criticised from a sedentary position, heckled from a sedentary position and I believe this is not in order in this House. We heard reports from the humanitarian agencies in Gaza there is not even enough water to make enough for Miller food for babies and babies are dying as well. The noble Lord may shake his head but if he has evidence to the contrary than I would like to see it. In the light of the deliberations of the ICJ, with the UK government commit to abiding by the Court's judgement.

- -?. It will be worth little if further action of the Israeli government is to be in the annex of the illegally occupied West Bank. In light of statements made by Israeli Ministers and increasing violence committed by the IDF, what is the UK government -- what is the UK government doing to ensure this does not happen. In light of the accelerating violence, will the UK sanctioned further violence settlers? The manifesto contained a commitment to recognise the Palestinian state that is deaf but has so far failed to do so.

In 2014 the House of Commons voted to recognise the Palestinian state and the state of Palestine is recognised as a sovereign state by 148 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. Or just over 75% of all UN members. The government has said it will recognise Palestine when this is most conducive to a peace process but if not now, can the noble Lady the Minister say what particular factors must change for this to happen? We read France's planning recognition at the G reconstruction conference.

And international momentum is now growing. The UK risks missing a crucial moment to support resolution and recognising its own responsibility in the history of the current context. The meeting and its outcome is to be welcomed. It is a very certificate sign of good faith and it would be for the UK to recognise the rights of the Palestinians to have their own internationally recognised state and homeland. I hope the Minister will reinstate the government's will reinstate the government's commitment and funding on principle and we will see action on it in the near future.
20:34
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
We welcome the support we have had from both benches for a two- state solution. And for the support for the meeting that was held. I have to say we agree with the Frontbench opposite on the issue of recognition and our position has been consistent in that we do, we will recognise Palestine as part of a process and at a moment when we judge it as the most conducive to peace I do not think that is now.

It may be as I was asked the culmination of a process, it may at some point within a process -- come within a process. It will be as noble Lords have said a significant step and it is not something, you can only do this once and it is important you pick the moment to do that at a time when it will have the greatest impact. On the blocking of eight -- blocking of aid, the denial of humanitarian essential assistance to the civilian population is to the civilian population is appalling.

Access to aid is an area where our international humanitarian law assessments continue to raise concerns about possible breaches. Blocking goods and supplies entering Gaza risks breaching international humanitarian law and it should not be happening. We are doing everything we can to alleviate the situation. The Foreign Secretary continues to raise these issues with his counterparts. Including most recently at a meeting with the Foreign Minister on 15 April. We have continued to call publicly and privately on the government of Israel to abide by its international obligations when it comes to humanitarian assistance to the population in Gaza.

I was asked about our engagement, ministerial engagement with the US since the hostilities resumed. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to them amongst them being the Israeli Foreign Minister, the Israeli Minister for foreign affairs, the High Representative and the UN emergency brief coordinator, we are using every piece of influence we can to try and get aid reinstated. We think the humanitarian situation is dire the humanitarian situation is dire and getting more serious by the day. And we will continue to do that.

We are working on technical assistance with the Palestinian Authority. I met with the finance Minister last met with the finance Minister last week myself. These are serious people trying to do the right thing in incredibly difficult circumstances. I think it is important we continue to support people who want to see peaceful resolution and a two-state solution. I'm glad that we are able to do what we can there. We have also secured just over £100 million in aid to support but as of today I think the main concern we all have is getting the remaining hostages released, reinstating the ceasefire and ensuring access for aid back into Gaza.
20:38
20:39
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
done nothing to call for the release of the 59 hostages which is a war crime, nor the laying down of crime, nor the laying down of weapons by Hamas. So when will the Minister provide the House with the Minister provide the House with the Minister provide the House with the information I asked earlier twice for at request? And how can this government justify donating a further £101 million to this terrorist supporting organisation? terrorist supporting organisation? And finally where exactly with the proposed Palestinian state be located?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I honestly, genuinely do not think the tone of that is at all think the tone of that is at all helpful to what we are trying to achieve here which is the piece under two-state solution. Perhaps the noble Lady is not seeking a two-state solution. We do not recognise her characterisation of the Palestinian Authority. We met with them and I met with them myself last week. I would encourage her to do that which you wish to educate herself about this.

The reason that herself about this. The reason that we are... I am answering the question she asked. The reason we are donating aid is because children are starving. People are being displaced, around 90% of the population has been displaced. Aid is needed and we encourage Israel to is needed and we encourage Israel to enable that aid to reach the people that need it and to do that immediately. immediately.
20:40
Baroness Curran Portrait Baroness Curran (Labour)
-
-
Can I welcome the statement from the Minister and welcomed the act of the government. Particularly in signing the Memorandum of Understanding which I think advances the issues we face every night in our television. -- On our television. Can I associate myself with the comments made by the honourable lady across the chamber about the humanitarian issues that are happening as we speak. There is immense human suffering taking place and I welcome the emphasis the government has now placed on actually getting to tackle that.

My honourable friend, the Minister has pre-empted a number of questions I wanted to ask. About what we are doing, to work internationally to try and lift what is in effect a blockade of help and assistance going to the Palestinian pool. Therefore can I move forward and ask the Minister if she could give us more information about the £101 million that has been shared with the Palestinian Authority's witching quite stark contrast to the previous contribution -- which in quite stark contrast to the previous contribution...

As recognition of the suffering we are witnessing and investigating -- investing in the Palestinian people which they properly do so. Will she share with the House in future the progress of that spend? And communicate to the Palestinian authority and the Prime Minister the support they have in this chamber and that we recognise the plight of the Palestinian people and recognise the best way as the Minister said to solve these immense problems is shared understanding.
20:42
20:43
20:44
20:45
20:46
20:47
20:47
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
competent government we want them to be is the best option we have at be is the best option we have at Of Of considerable Of considerable domestic Of considerable domestic tension over events in the Middle East, sometimes though not invariably or even mostly between British Jews and British Muslims. Can she tell us what discussions she has had with her colleagues in the communities her colleagues in the communities Department about means of easing those tensions, if I may as a reminder, what discussions she has also had with them about tensions between our Indian origin communities and Pakistan origin communities over that very serious situation relating to Kashmir?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think that's a really important

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think that's a really important question and I do speak regularly to our communities and local faith Minister Lord Khan about this issue. It is a sad fact that we do see It is a sad fact that we do see international events played out on our streets, in our schools and in our streets, in our schools and in communities in this country. Whereas debate and free speech is completely legitimate some of the more abusive behaviour and the victimisation that has taken place, the rise in Islamophobia and anti-Semitism is something that we are concerned about, we work very closely across departments to make sure that we are departments to make sure that we are doing what we need to do.

It's not something that we used to see quite as much as we do today, we see it as much as we do today, we see it played out in our politics for reasons we can all try our best to understand, but I think it's very understand, but I think it's very important that he raised that and remind us about that. May I thank the Minister for repeating the statement. I notice in the statement the following sentence, Prime Minister staffer outlined the central reforms that the Palestinian Authority are currently undertaking.

I wonder whether the noble Lady could help us by identifying what essential reforms he referred to?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There are many reforms as noble Lords can imagine that the Palestinian Authority knows it needs to make. The conversations that I to make. The conversations that I have had have centred on their need to develop their ability to manage money responsibly and to look at how money responsibly and to look at how they raise money and how they access funds to be able to deliver the funds to be able to deliver the services that they are going to have to deliver in the future.

That may feel like high ambition work from
20:50
20:51
20:51
20:51
20:51
20:52
20:52
20:53
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
peace process that we all want to see and the two state solution government and the opposition are committed to has been Palestinian terrorism and its attacks on Israel and Israel's concerns about its security, what confidence, can the Minister tell us what discussions has I understand section 4 of the security cooperation between the UK and Palestinian Authority, so can the Minister tell us more about... The confidence the government has in the Palestinian Authority's capacity to address the growing threat posed by Palestinian extremist groups and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

terrorists in the West Bank? I think it is fair to say that,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think it is fair to say that, my noble friend asked about the capacity and capability of the Palestinian Authority and I think it Palestinian Authority and I think it is fair to say that it does not have the capability that he describes the capability that he describes today and I don't think it would claim to either. Which is why we claim to either. Which is why we have set about this work which is about long-term security in the region and the understanding that the Palestinian Authority needs reform, so our support is designed to help it address the very real challenges I think we would all recognise through concrete reforms which would include democratic renewal, widening civic space, improving accountability and transparency and fighting corruption.

He is right to make that point and I think that is why we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

undertaking the work that we are. In our mutual aspiration for a two state solution at some time, and it will be a long time in the it will be a long time in the future, clearly a big key to that of future, clearly a big key to that of education. One of the things that really vexes and troubles the Jewish community in the IT kingdom is evidence of Palestinian textbooks evidence of Palestinian textbooks that incite violence and encourage anti-Semitism. There are schools in Jerusalem which are the reverse of Jerusalem which are the reverse of the hand-in-hand school finance by the hand-in-hand school finance by British financiers were half Arab and half Jewish work together in the meeting with the Prime Minister was the issue of these textbooks discussed and if not, can they be raised because it's so important.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am familiar with this issue, I don't know if that specific issue don't know if that specific issue was mentioned at this specific meeting but I do know that this issue is raised regularly by ministers because we do recognise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerned there is. As we were not due to return to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As we were not due to return to the bill until 9 o'clock I beg to move that the House to adjourn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

during pleasure until that point. House adjourned during pleasure,
21:01
21:02
21:02
None Portrait Amendment:g14
-

functionality and resolve uncertainties to ensure the measures uncertainties to ensure the measures are compounds and will accurately deliver the policy intent set out in the plan Make Work Pay. Delivery of which was a clear manifesto commitment of this government. They do not introduce new policy, they simply ensure the bill works to achieve its intended aims effectively. Making technical amendments to the bill this way is an entirely appropriate and ordinary part of making good legislation. Turning first to amendment 14, as the bill as currently drafted workers on annualised contracts or other contract where the hours are guaranteed for a period longer than the reference period will have a total number of guaranteed hours of work but little detail as to the allocation may fall out of the scope of the right to guaranteed hours.

This is because a worker would be on neither a zero contract, nor a contract guarantee a certain number of hours guaranteeing a certain number of hours over a reference period. It would otherwise be illegible. Workers would therefore fall out of the scope even if they are only guaranteed a very small number of hours over a year. On the other hand workers on annualised hours contracts who do have a sense of when the hours were being worked may fall into scope of the right to a guaranteed hours.

If we have a certain number of hours guaranteed even the reference period. This is not a policy intention. Workers on annualised contracts may experience one-sided flexible in the same way as those on a weekly or monthly contract. There is drafted there is also a perverse incentive for employers to place workers onto annualised contracts guaranteeing a very small number of hours with no indication as to when they should be working to avoid being in the scope of the right to guaranteed hours.

Amendment 14 will ensure the policy works as intended and expected. And will act as an anti-avoidance measure. It makes provision to determine what the minimum guaranteed hours are in the relevant reference period by providing a calculation method to find the appropriate number of any unassigned hours under the contract for that reference period. Amendments 40 9057 add additional grasp on which a dismissal would be automatically unfair. A dismissal would be automatically unfair where an employee is dismissed for bringing a complaint to employment where they were wrongly issued a notice by their employer.

Stating the guaranteed hours offer had been withdrawn or for leading the system of any circumstance which would constitute the grounds for bringing such proceedings. In these grounds aligns with the approach taken where a worker is unfairly dismissed for taking a claim to an employment Tribune or on other grounds relating to the right to guaranteed hours. All employees deserve protection from unfair dismissal. These amendments will ensure the employees will make it clear -- make a claim in the Employment Tribunals Act any of the grounds and the right to guaranteed hours will be protected from being dismissed as a result of making such a claim.

As a result of this amendment consequential amendments have been tabled to amend the rights not to suffer a detriment for workers and agency workers. To ensure consistency when referring to the proceedings that can be brought or referred to. Which could lead to that detriment. Amendments 25, 26, 34 and 35 relate to the movement of shifts for the purposes of payment for workers the shift movement at short notice. These amendments make technical changes to the destination like the definition of movement of the shift.

This is to provide for situations where a shift is split in two or more parts or were part of a shift is moved with the result the shift ends later than it otherwise would have the start and remains the same. For example a worker could have a 9 AM to 5 PM shift and change at short notice to 9 AM to 12 PM. And 4 PM to 9 PM. In this case it is the right payment for a short notice shift is rented.

Given that the worker may have already incurred costs for plans associated with the shift such as care or other childcare arrangements. Amendments 30 and 40 make technical changes relating to payments the shifts that have been cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice where an exemption applies. Where an exemption applies meaning the employer is not required to make the payment for the change or cancel shift. The employer must provide the worker with a notice so they are aware they will not receive a short notice payment and why.

The notice must be given to the worker within a certain amount of time. This will be specified in regulations. This period may be shorter than the deadline for making payment, which will also be specified in regulations. Under the current drafting even if they make the payment despite an exception -- exception applying, the employer must still provide an exception notice if they make the payment after the deadline for giving a notice. The amendments we are making today change this so that employers do not need to provide a notice if they paid a worker within the deadline of making payment.

The same applies in respect of work finding agencies and agencies workers. Amendment 23 aligns with the wording used in clauses 2 and three of the bill. To be illegible for the right to short notice payments, workers must be on the contract of a specified description. If they are not on zero hour contracts or arrangements. This is referred to in clause 2, as the contract that hires -- requires their employer to make some work available to the worker. We are adding the same description into clause 3 to make sure this is included in the provision.

Amendment 39 is a minor technical amendment which corrects the cross-reference to align23, five schedule A1 of the employment rights 1996 with new section 27 BR three of the same act both inserted by the bill. These concerns the duty to give notice where an exception applies which means no payment is due for a shift that has been moved, cancelled or curtailed at short notice. The amendment ensures that for both directly engaged workers and agency workers, only the requirement to give explanation in the notice of exception does not require the disclosure of information where that would contravene data protection legislation.

Or breach of duty of confidentiality or whether the information is commercially sensitive. -- Where the information is commercially sensitive. Amendment 45 signposts clause 6, the definition of work finding agency within clause 4. This minor technical amendment adds the definition of a work finding agency to the inter-protection -- the interpretation section in 27 BZ to with other definitions being used for that part. It does not -- it does this by referring to its meaning in new section 27 B B5 all part two Eight of the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Amendments 45, 58 and 61 would amend schedule eight of the Insolvency Act 1986, schedule three of the bankruptcy and Scotland three of the bankruptcy and Scotland Act 2016 and section 1 for the employment act 1996 of the employees can receive short notice payments in the same circumstances as they receive other wages on the insolvency of the employer. When the employer goes insolvent the outstanding wages duty employees are treated as preferential deaths or preferred deaths in Scotland. Amendments 58 and 61 ensure outstanding short notice payments are also treated as preferential or preferred deaths.

Amendments 46 enables employees to obtain payment of unpaid short notice payments from the same circumstances as they receive other wages under the same created like the scheme created by part of the implement rights act 1996. Amendment 59 would amend section 2 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure information does not have to be provided and will not be disclosed to a tribunal or Court under the zero hours provisions where a Minister is of the opinion such disclosure would be contrary to the interests of national security.

Amendment 60 would amend section 206 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to ensure that in the event of a worker or the employer's death or the death of another respondent in the case of agency workers, tribunal proceedings on the zero hours provision can still be instituted, continued or defended as appropriate by the personnel representative of the deceased. Amendments 41 and 47 would amend section 12 a of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 and the provisions on short notice payments for agency workers to enable employment tribunal is to impose financial penalties on all-time the respondents in claims for under the zero hours provision where they are aggravating circumstances.

Amendments 48 with amendment section 16 of the employer tribunal's act 1996 to include payments the cancelled moved or curtailed shift in scope. This ensures Regulations 2023 made to enable benefits to be recouped, where a worker has not received such payment... And a tribunal has then ordered the employment or work finding agency to make the payment. It also is regular and can be made so benefits can be recovered from all types of respondents in claims brought under the zero hours provision.

For example in respect of payments which are compensation for lost wages. These amendments seek to prevent workers from receiving double awards where their rights have been breached and ensure employers and other responders do not benefit from breaching this rights. I therefore beg to move these amendments stand part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 1, page

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed clause 1, page 4, line 2, at end insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the Marshalled list. I do rise to speak to this group of government's and I think -- this of government's and I think -- this group of government amendments and I group of government amendments and I am surprised the noble Lord the Minister makes the assertion they are all technical. If I just look at amendment 53, it extends the types amendment 53, it extends the types of dismissal that are going to be regarded as automatically unfair. That is not a technical amendment.

That is an extension of already what has been considered potentially controversial. To be added to the bill in this way. There are other aspects of these groups of amendments that really concern me. In their drafting. There are multiple amendments which leave out several lines of the previous bill presented to the House and presented to the other house. And then left, leave the employment tribunal and
21:15
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
the employer to get into the for the employer to get into the for example amendment 52. It is immaterial whether or not the proceedings were or would have been proceedings were or would have been well found providing the agency workers in good faith in bringing proceedings or in existence of the proceedings or in existence of the circumstance. So I guess one of my concerns is to ask the Minister, concerns is to ask the Minister, what has changed? Why is it we are in this almost, we now have an employment who -- employment right group who have to act on whether they did it in good faith or not? They will not necessarily know what the commitment has been before.

It will be very healthy to understand why significant parts of the bill in the operation of the employment tribunal are being changed at this stage? I would say to the House I appreciate there are fewer people here now at this point and we have already discussed important matters today. But in my government career one of the most informative roles I had was as the deputy Leader of the House of commons. Being on the Cabinet committee. That looks into legislation and parliamentary business on the legislation committee.

The government Chief Whip in the House of Lords is on that committee. The whole purpose of that committee is to go through legislation, particularly the people, the Leader of the House of Lords and the other end, The Lord Privy Seal. It is designed because those offices of state and they are there not only to represent the government and Parliament but to I've order made the point that we have moved from a initial situation of 149 pieces of legislation to now 299 pages of legislation, never mind all the amendments coming in.

Not lots of scrutiny at the other end, I'm not criticising the Commons because unfortunately it has evolved over quite a few decades now that a lot of the work gets left of this chamber, but even then we see that sort of process and how it's evolved is flawed in a very strong way, because having doubled the size of the spill from -- this bill from when it was presented, all the statements made about whether it contravenes human rights not, the impact assessment they are all from October.

Very minor changes made in March. Nothing else has had an impact assessment. Even then the impact assessments are almost irrelevant because it more or less says we don't really know how to do this, we will get into that when we get to regulations we consult. This is really bad. I cannot believe a cabinet committee has allowed this From the message given by the Deputy Prime Minister that by the way an office I have help myself, admittedly for a lot shorter time than the current Deputy Prime Minister, but nevertheless it should matter to the Deputy Prime Minister, it should matter to the Cabinet committee on how legislation they are drafting for a start we are already deleting stuff that has been put in various stages along the way in order to put in even more nebulous words I would suggest.

That really concerns me about this approach, there is a lot in this bill that is genuinely novel, ministers referred to that so I understand her point. When she has been answering about some of this is novel so we can't put it on the face novel so we can't put it on the face of the bill. That's why there is anxiety. There is already anxiety from outside never mind inside the sales. -- Inside this House. Forces worth I appreciate that is not being directed personally at the ministers in this chamber.

I know I have been in their shoes before so I appreciate that. I do think the government needs to think carefully, I understand there are even more amendments coming which is bound to be because the bill has been written that haste and I can imagine OPC has been working, as indeed policy officials and others have been working assiduously to try and address some of the challenges we address some of the challenges we face. I do want, I wanted to put on record actually how frustrated I am having been a servant, not of this House yet but trying to be an active participant.

I am frustrated on the House as behalf of how it feels it is being perhaps treated at the moment. Having said my concerns about that, I really think it would help restore the trust, candidly the government does need to restore the trust with members of my party but to restore the trust with business. And put in place updated impact assessments. So they really know what we are facing into. I think it is absolutely critical to their mission of growth that having spent an election doing XYZ and they kept a number of their promises, if they really want to see this country prosper that they need to keep business engaged, involved, not just the token consultations they have.

I've seen them on some of the amendments we have done perhaps not the ones we are specifically talking to now, where they say we've heard the consultation but we don't agree stuff it, even though 2,000 businesses are saying we think this is really bad. -- Two thirds of is really bad. -- Two thirds of businesses will stop I appreciate when you get an understanding of a man 53 on why these particular measures are deemed to be added to the unfair dismissal. -- Amendment 53.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As everyone knows I am very new to this piece of legislation but frankly, I don't know if shambles as a Parliamentary term at 27
21:21
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
a Parliamentary term at 27 amendments at this point after going through the other house and now coming into this House frankly just completely unacceptable, bill needs to be developed virtually to its finished point before it starts entering the legislative process. Not continuously revived as it travels on three. That is not the way these houses are meant to operate. I think the Minister as he described, I was struggling absolutely to follow big not because he is unclear but because he is tackling sucks -- such complexity within these regulations that I'm going to go back and say to the team you are going to have to reread Hansard double times that make a number of times and doublecheck to have appeal what is actually going on here.

These aren't just technical is reasonably obvious they aren't, can I ask the Minister we at the very least get a detailed Code of Conduct because people outside this House are going to have to apply all of this and they going to need some real clarity to be up to work with. real clarity to be up to work with. I work somewhat with employment tribunal is on whistleblowing issues but I'm incredibly conscious that this is the kind of thing that leads to them being flooded by even more cases talk about or part of the court system that doesn't have that capacity that certainly is the Employment Tribunal's.

I just would ask the government rethink. If there are elements that the bill is in inappropriate undeveloped that isn't somehow it find a way to bring all of those issues very rapidly to the attention of parliamentarians because this just is no way to carry out legislation and ask us to apply sensible scrutiny so and it's really impossible to get to the bottom and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the root of what is being presented to us I must find myself in agreement
21:23
21:25
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
sure they were necessarily in the right order. As Baroness Coffey, Baroness Kramer and Lord Murray have pointed out the government only tabled these 27 amendments a few days ago. Perhaps they are simply technical amendments but I'm afraid I'm inclined to agree with the other speakers that they don't appear to be so. Just to pick a few items at random from the speech, if amendments are involving national security, insolvency and the death of a claimant is Employment Tribunal's these are matters of substance they are not technical at all.

This is not the way to do business in this House and the last-minute approach is symptomatic of a much teacher -- deeper issue of a much teacher -- deeper issue which the lack of care and due diligence when it comes to this bill, is rushed, poorly thought through, it's been inadequately consulted upon and it's one that we on these benches will scrutinise to on these benches will scrutinise to the fullest possible extent. Also we have to ask why is the government still not tabling any amendment to address the concerns of businesses regarding the change to zero hour contracts in these bills, these are not niche or minor concerns they go to the heart of how business and especially as we have been discussing all evening, small and seasonal employers operate.

We've had a release some of the germs of the future scrutiny that these moments can expect to receive in- depth and we won't oppose them today but we reserve the right to revisit at a later stage when we had planted I just them and read the Minister's comments much more detail. On a personal note I read amendment 14 with mounting horror induced a minor heart flutter because it reawakened memories of a particularly unsuccessful algebra exam I took when I was about 16 so I would be very grateful if we could have a minor health warning on any future

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments of that type. I thank all noble Lords their contribution. Some of you raise concerns about the number amendments made by the government I would like made by the government I would like to reassure the House these are really technical amendments brought about as a result of welcome about as a result of welcome scrutiny of the bill and are entirely appropriate and part of entirely appropriate and part of making good legislation. May I just remind noble Lords, we had tons of government amendments when we were government amendments when we were debating the Procurement Bill just
21:28
21:28
None Portrait Gov Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

raised by noble Lords, Baroness Coffey asks about amendment 53, all Coffey asks about amendment 53, all I can say is firstly this technical I can say is firstly this technical amendments designed to make sure the bill operates as it was intended to operate. For example on how operate. For example on how technical we are amending section 104 BA amendment 53, because we realised that it was not clear that section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already insured that dismissal in such cases was automatically unfair.

Lord Murray asks or mentioned about scrutiny, there will be technical amendments, regulations tabled at later stage during the course of this legislation itself, the house will have every opportunity to scrutinise these through the affirmative procedure, so there will be times for noble Lords to scrutinise delegated powers and also this bill. I refer to Lord Sharpe...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Appears to be saying the House is definite -- deficit in scrutiny is made up by the fact we can scrutinise secondary legislation. As the Minister will be aware the last time this House negative at a time this House negative at a Statutory Instrument was I think in Statutory Instrument was I think in the 1970s. It's an all or nothing, either we agreed to a Statutory Instrument or we don't, we can't amend them. Realistically this is not an avenue for scrutiny, the Minister will surely agree?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister will surely agree? I think -- take the nought Lords point but I'm sure he will appreciate when he was Minister at the number of Statutory Instruments Pl before the House and we had every chance to scrutinise it. It's a question of whether noble Lords want to table whatever options open to them but the whole objective as the House will be able to scrutinise regulations as well I refer to Lord Sharpe's point about algebra and all that, I actually saw, had to read three times what it actually means.

I will try to explain in plain English what we are trying to English what we are trying to achieve here with each terms D1 over DT. To qualify for guaranteed hours workers existing guaranteed hours need to be lower than the threshold and the working needs to work more than the guaranteed hours in their reference period. That condition does not work for someone who is guaranteed hours may or may not fall entirely in the reference period. Such as someone on an annualised contract with no clarity on when those hours for.

These amendment takes the work guaranteed hours and calculates pro Rafter through the length of the reference period, that number of proportionate hours is used as a notional number of guaranteed hours during the reference period. In that way, they can be treated on a fair basis with workers whose guaranteed hours do for clearly within a reference period. So it is therefore clear whether the worker works in excess of their reference period hours and whether they fall within the scope of the right to guaranteed hours.

I I will get my officials to write it up. These amendments incorporate technical clarity and adjustments are zero hour contract measures in the bill are comprehensive and will accurately deliver the policy intent set out in the plan to Make Work Pay. Delivery of which was a clear manifesto commitment of discovered -- of this government. I beg to move these amendments.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He did not answer my question on whether or not there would be a Code of Practice. I could just see many a business struggling their way
21:32
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees.
-

business struggling their way through all of this stuff. And I think his attempt to clarify complex algorithm probably illustrates the need for such a code. Very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powerfully. I thank the noble Baroness for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I have written it down. My noble friend the Minister earlier in response to earlier grouping says that the government would publish in that the government would publish in detail guidance on the government website so hopefully that will give website so hopefully that will give some clarity to that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is amendment 14 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment 15, Lord Goddard of Stockport, not moved. Amendment 16, Lord Parkinson of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitley Bay. I rise to move amendment 16 which stands in my name. In doing so I offer my apologies for not having offer my apologies for not having been able to be present at Second Reading. Although I followed the debate that your Lordships had then as I have the debate we have had as I have the debate we have had during the course of today. Particularly the group on zero hours contracts. I also in rising offer my thanks to the Society of London Theatre and UK theatre who represent Theatre and UK theatre who represent some 500 of the U.K.'s leading theatre producers, venue owners, managers and performing arts centres and with whom I had the honour of working closely with and I was arts Minister.

The raising the issue which underlies my amendment and for discussing it with me in some detail. I shared stress -- I should stress those organisations welcome many of the measures in this bill and share the government ambition to get rid of exploitative practices. They have flagged concerns with the provisions relating to zero hours
21:33
None Portrait Amendment:16 Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-

contracts which are integral to operations in theatre and other live performing arts. In which they are presently operating in a way that offers inclusive to VAT -- inclusivity and exclusion for the sector full pension by the end of the bill the noble Baroness, the Minister will have tired -- tired... But theatres really do operate under a unique set of pressures. Including stark new pressures which I saw them in my time in government during COVID-19 to the rising cost of energy and interiors following the inflationary effects of the pandemic and of the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The effects of that turbulence, rising costs and falling real terms income means theatre must work even harder than ever before to balance the necessity of making a profit with making a long-term investment and their very sincere commitment to delivering social good. The arts hold a mirror up to our society and help us to understand the human condition. A value which can simply not be measured in ticket sales and bottom lines, important though those are. In particular as major employers of the casual workforce, theatres have to manage highly irregular and unpredictable staffing needs well supporting and valuing their workers without whom theatre simply could not happen.

As one of the organisations which sprang up during the pandemic put it in there very well chosen name, freelancers make theatre work. The proposals in this bill as it is currently drafted regarding the right to guaranteed hours for casual workers risks upsetting the delicate equilibria by which the theatre sector operates. Balancing commercial operational viability and social value, long- term investment with short-term realities and the demands of an irregular calendar with a commitment to fairness for its workforce. I am pleased to see the government has amended the bill in ways which we have just abated in the previous group and will look to further government amendments which follow and particularly in this instance to allow collective agreements to override the new statutory right.

The mechanism that is set out a new clause 27 BW does not fully solve the problem and is unlikely in practice to provide the safeguards this cherished sector need. The theatres operating model is inherently shaped by regular programming, seasonal variation, period of closure, those aspects are baked into the way theatre works and part of what makes it so dynamic and diverse, notwithstanding the well- known mantra the show must go on. Theatres do not operate continuously even long-running productions experienced periods of closure, known as dark weeks were no performances can be staged and no box office income is generated.

The opening of a major new production might require up to 12 weeks to load insets and equipment and to undergo technical rehearsals. These productions dazzle us with ever more ambitious technical wizardry and are rightly the stuff of separate categories for lighting, sound, set design and more. Short planned closures for at least typically a closures for at least typically a fortnight each year are also needed to carry out essential inspections and ensure buildings remain safe and compliant for those who enjoy visiting them.

It is particularly important in heritage venues. Which receive heavy footfall and only modest and irregular investment. I am paying tribute to the week of the -- the work of the Theatres trust and others who champion the value and plight of historic theatres, concert halls and other cultural buildings across the country. And acknowledge the pressing capital needs of our cultural estate, particularly at a time when many of the boilers, roofs and windows, that were funded by the first wave of National Lottery funding some quarter of a century ago are all reaching or indeed long passing the natural time for an upgrade.

Sometimes of course these periods of closure are needed without much warning at all. As I saw during my time as Minister when I had occasion to learn along with most of the rest of the country what Reinforced Autoclaved Aerated Concrete was, the noble Baroness Lady Thornton from the benches opposite and I were both at a very enjoyable performance of the witches at the National Theatre which had to be halted midway because of a breakdown of the Oliviers revolving stage. I am pleased the last Conservative budget helped the theatre to fix that before its 60th birthday year was over.

The sad fact is performances can be cancelled at short notice for a variety of reasons. Most of which are yonder the control of the theatre operator and staff. I mentioned to egregious examples already, the pandemic and the need for health and in the need for things like RAC but many external challenges have challenges from time to time, leaks and damages which might require repairs, instances like power cuts or industrial grievances from other sectors having a knock-on effect. I'm not sure it is betraying -- betraying any state secrets by saying one of the Cobra meetings I had to attend as arts Minister was to discuss the effect of the train strikes another theatres and other parts of our night-time economy which lost audiences and vital income as a result.

And of course there are those unforeseen incidents which come, like the theatrical dataset macular, with the touring production of Chitty Chitty Bang Bang was brought to a halt when the vehicle, was damaged during the get out of one of the venues. The repairs to the vehicle took several weeks leading to the cancellation of all performances during that period. -- that other venues who had it booked received no income and were unable to program another show as such short notice. During times such as these there is quite simply and unavoidably no front of house work available.

Guaranteeing hours during periods like that as the bill requires would mean paying staff when the work exists. Placing enormous pressure on theatres and other arts venues already very tight operating budgets. And that is the reason for my amendment 16. The proposed right guaranteed hours assumes organisations operate with consistent demand and regular staffing patterns. That is not the case for theatres or as we had in previous debates in many other businesses or organisations. Theatres scheduling requirements and therefore their staffing needs shift weekly, sometimes daily.

Guaranteeing fixed and was based on short-term patterns of work. This would impose A-level of rigidity that threatens their entire staffing model. The aim of my amendment 16 is to urge the government to acknowledge the unique dynamics of theatre and the arts sector more broadly. And to adopt a more realistic framework, something which would be beneficial to many sectors beyond theatre and the performing arts. UK theatre have suggested the concept of available arbours which I have reflected in my amendment 16. Referring to the actual hours an employer can be collectively offer workers in a given period.

This approach could allow for the equitable allocation of work remaining responsive to the volatile nature of theatre operations. It would also reflect the desires of the staff who value the flexibility the theatre work currently affords them. Many front of house workers do so to support other careers and responsibilities. As noble Lords noted in our debates in relation to other sectors, people have many family all caring burdens. The theatres particularly attract staff who are often creative freelancers balancing work with auditions because they are students, still earning their trade not learning their trade or because they are seeking fulfilling part-time work or seeking sociable evening but not tying night-time work, rather unlike your Lordships' House.

The theatre sectors since your understanding of its workforce is rooted in over a century of constructive and collaboratively industrial relations with the trade unions in the sector whose names are almost as well-known as those of some of their famous members. Equity, decisions union and the Writers Guild of Great Britain. Their symbiotic relationships have produced agreements which are highly tailored to this unique sector. These strong union relationships have robust collective agreements which already guarantee protection from calls, notice periods and compensation for cancelled shifts.

The recent amendments to the bill include provision under clause 27 BW which allows certain rights such as the proposed right guaranteed hours to be excluded. Through a relevant to be excluded. Through a relevant collective agreement. Such an agreement must explicitly exclude the statutory right and include clear replacement provisions. Retaining this flexibility would now depend on being able to negotiate its exclusion. Without that flexibility the bill before us risks creating own -- creating structural unfairness and creating a disadvantage for a small number of workers at the expense of wider opportunity, undermining long- standing and vitally cherished industrial relations and damaging the ability of theatres to take creative risks.

To maintain their heritage buildings and deserve -- to serve the community. It is intended as a protection could in practice become a barrier to access and become a barrier to access and inclusion. I am sure that is not the government wants to see. I do hope the noble Baroness, the Minister would agree to look at this carefully and to discuss it with me, with UK theatre, the Society of London Theatre and many others from the world of the arts to make sure this bill delivers for those cherished sectors.

I beg to move.
21:43
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 4, line 9, intended to insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words printed on the Marshalled list. This amendment points out the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment points out the need for a nuanced approach tailored to industry requirements and it is the first particular instance we have in this bill of its potential have in this bill of its potential effect on the creative industries which will crop up again I assure the Minister of the bill progresses. I congratulate Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay on introducing this amendment. I hope the Minister will amendment. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the UK theatre briefing which is highly informative briefing which is highly informative and measured and does demonstrate well the wide degree of flexibility required for the employment of for instance front of house staff in theatres.

We often take front of house staff in theatres and cinema workers for granted. They are the backbone of these organisations, they could not run without them. In my experience they are polite and helpful and often highly knowledgeable. A fair number as Lord Parkinson has said have jobs in other areas of the creative industries. It highlights the complexities of working relationships in this sector. The briefing from Sol UK theatre is of course from the employers and has to have the solution of all stakeholders including the workers themselves.

According to the stage, actor Nicola Hurst was also a duty manager at Suffolk Playhouse and has said she has turned down the permanent contracts multiple times as they could never offer her the flexibility needed to pursue her creative work. She speaks for many in this sector when she says and I quote, I have colleagues and friends working at all levels in the theatre. Theatre industry from the fringe to the West End and for all of them zero hour contracts are essential to support themselves between creative jobs and often to bolster fees from a tragically underfunded sector.

However in the same breath and another view, mention needs to be made of the upset caused by to front of house staff by the cancellation of the Royal exchange Theatre in Manchester's production of a Midsummer night's dream last autumn. This may have been an unusual and fraught event, nevertheless one worker said front of house workers who were not paid for that period were disproportionately, that's the were disproportionately, that's the The number of hours that are expected to be worked at the very least needs to form some kind of benchmark, if it is not to be addressed by compensation.

Bacteria in their briefing on the bill said I quote, the complex nature of employment and engagement relationships across the creative industry means that impacts of the bill will have on creative work is going to differ widely. While many will benefit that the nominal status of some workers could see them inadvertently pushed out of rights and they specifically cite front of house theatre workers and cinema workers as potentially being pushed into self-employment, losing of course rights they previously had.

There is also the danger that jobs are lost because the workforce is rationalised or in certain cases it becomes another factor in an organisation's collapse. With a loss of those job opportunities. Much of this seems to be an unknown which begs the need for a detailed impact assessment of the creative industry. Lord Freyberg has put down an amendment to that effect which we will hear later on in this bill, but assessment, such an assessment should be a deep dive into the differing kinds of jobs and work status in the sector.

The amendment was introduced only on Friday, belying its importance and considerable importance to the creative industry. I hope Lord Parkinson will bring -- bring this amendment back at report stage amendment back at report stage because we need time to hear the differing views from the full range of stakeholders on this issue.
21:47
21:50
21:50
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
activities that experience those same irregular patterns has got to be incorporated into this bill. This be incorporated into this bill. This

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with Baroness Kramer that we need to be brief because we have debated this area already, but we do have a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment. I just think, well he was of course in distinguished Minister for the arts, but I don't think people have yet recognised the dangers of this one size as it applies to a whole range of diverse, we are very grateful to my noble friend old Glenn Carty, I join with him in wanting a detailed impact assessment, particularly for the instance he gave at front of house workers.

The effect on creative industries I don't think has been properly assessed so far as this particular bill is concerned. As Lord Berkeley says there is a need for flexibility. I just think that the theatre industry has only just now recovered, or perhaps it hasn't yet recovered from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The last thing they need just now is to be hit by this crude instrument of a bill which makes no allowance for the unique nature of the work that they do and the flexibility that is inherent necessarily in how they deliver for audiences.

I really do want to hear from the Minister the extent to which theatres, both large groups such as ATG and Delfont Mackintosh, but also smaller independent theatres have been consulted, what extent have they been consulted about the effects of this bill? I just finish off with this bill? I just finish off with five questions for the Minister. Does the Minister accept that the right to guaranteed hours as drafted risks reducing work opportunities for the very people it claims to support, students, carers, disabled workers et cetera? That's the right to guaranteed hours.

Can the Minister secondly explain how theatres and other seasonal project-based employers are meant to reconcile guaranteed hours with programming closures, touring breaks or production gaps? Thirdly, what modelling has the government done to assess the potential job losses reduced shift allocation that could result from this policy and will she please publish that modelling? Fourthly, why has the government ignored the clear expert evidence submitted by the Society of London Theatre and UK theatre to the public bill committee? And finally, does the Minister seriously believe that this legislation embraces inclusion and opportunity for the creative sector when the sector itself is warning that it will do precisely the opposite? the opposite?
21:53
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I thank Lord Parkinson for tabling this amendment 16 which would require Secretary of State to have regard to sector specific work patterns and making regulations relating to right to guaranteed hours. I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for highlighting the sometimes unique employment practices that occur in the creative sector and in particular the theatre sector, and in response to Lord Hunt I would say that we have engaged extensively with the society of London theatres and are happy to carry on doing so.

Because we do appreciate that some sectors including the theatre sector which was highlighted in the noble Lords amendment do have fluctuating demand across the year. And of course this is a sector that I know course this is a sector that I know all noble Lords agree in that we recognise that we need to support them for all the reasons that Lord Parkinson said, particularly for their social value reasons and therefore obviously we want to take note make it right in the sector for them.

But I must reassure noble Lords that there is already flexibility built into the bill to address issues of seasonal demand, there are several ways under the bill that an employer could approach this issue while upholding the new rights to guaranteed hours depending on the circumstances, in particular using limited term contracts where this is reasonable. Those who offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn those down and remain Or arrangement if we wish. Furthermore we have also allowed through the bill for employees and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero hour contract measures, unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistically one what is best for its workers.

So we will of course ensure that the needs of different sectors are considered will become to design the regulations. We will continue to work in partnership with employers across the different sectors, representatives, the recruitment sector and the trade unions to develop those detailed regulations. We will provide clear guidance for both employers and workers in advance of implementing these measures. Lord Parkinson's amendment had a new concept of available hours had a new concept of available hours had a new concept of available hours And I have to say that we would push back on the issue, this could risk creating a two-tier guaranteed hours framework for workers in sectors with more less seasonal fluctuation.

We believe that the reference period provided for in the bill will ensure that qualifying workers are often guaranteed hours which reflect the hours they previously worked. I hope that I have a natural contribution been able to persuade the noble Lord that we are aware of the issues, we are on the case, and we do feel there is considerable flexibility in the bill as it stands at the moment, of course we are happy to have further discussions as we have heard from noble Lords there are a range of issues, range options here so there isn't just one way of solving this problem.

Let's get round the table and talk some more, happy to do that, but we do feel that as the bill as currently designed it answers the concerns that are being raised but happy to talk further and I therefore hope, and on that basis

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord will be prepared to draw his amendment. Before the Minister sits down she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Before the Minister sits down she talked about the reference period and so would like to see a longer and so would like to see a longer reference period because years much more of a real-time length than 12 more of a real-time length than 12 weeks. Is that something that the government would consider it all?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government would consider it all? We had a previous debate on the nature of reference. And that is nature of reference. And that is something again we are going to be consulted further upon, we don't have a discussion let's have that discussion on that as well and I will see if I can reassure noble Lords on that matter as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very grateful to the Minister particularly for the willingness she has indicated to continue discussions, consulting the UK discussions, consulting the UK theatre and updated their briefing on the amendments but they retain some concerns about the amendments in this area so I'm sure that they in this area so I'm sure that they and others across the arts sector will be glad to continue to discuss it with the government as it continues to raise this bill as it continues to raise this bill as it is before us.

I'm particularly grateful to the noble Lords who are spoken in particular Lord Glenn spoken in particular Lord Glenn Carty and Lord Barton at this late hour they are championing of the arts knows no temporal limits but I'm very grateful to them for staying to express support for this amendment, I should say I am much attracted to many of the amendments that Lord Clancarty and Lord Freyberg table later in the spell -- the bill on the need for the differential impact of this bill on certain sectors and look forward to the debates we will have on those.

I'm grateful to the noble Lord for his generous remarks, happy to say that the U.K.'s theatres have indeed bounced back very well from the pandemic, in fact last year more than 17 million theatregoers attended a show in the West End alone, an 11% increase on pre- pandemic levels, the West End in fact outperformed the Premier League attracting 2.5 million more attendees and as we just finished a long bill on football perhaps we ought to spend a bit more time on the things that people go to in greater numbers.

The sector remains precarious and as Lord Clancarty said the people who are that smiling welcome in the front of house are often taken for granted, during the pandemic we saw how challenging that was for them, especially enforcing some of the COVID restrictions, the deal with exuberance sometimes well , they had to explain to people what they had to sit two metres apart or where facemasks or why the show had been cancelled and much delayed, they really do perform a vital role in welcoming people to theatrical productions to orchestral recitals and much more.

As Lord Clancarty said this relates just as much a
22:01
22:02
22:08
22:08
22:08
22:08
22:08
22:08
22:09
22:10
22:10
22:11
22:11
22:11
22:11
22:13
22:14
22:15
22:15
22:16
22:16
22:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Loss of tax revenue from wealthy individuals leaving the country following recent tax changes Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-

22:18
22:18
22:19
22:20
22:20
22:21
22:21
22:21
22:22
22:22
22:23
22:23
22:24
22:24
22:24
22:24
22:25
22:26
22:27
22:30
None Portrait Legislation: Bus Services (No.2) Bill - third reading
-

22:30
22:35
22:36
22:37
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page