Lords Chamber

Wednesday 16th July 2025

(began 1 month ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
None Portrait Oral questions: Number of female genital mutilation cases reported in the past 10 years, and number of prosecutions
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Dubs. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
15:18
15:20
15:21
15:21
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:34
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:41
15:42
15:43
15:43
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:47
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:50
15:50
Baroness Goldie Portrait Baroness Goldie (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to the Minister for speaking to be extensively and thank him for the tone which they have adopted. I would also like to join the Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the Shadow Secretary of State and the apology on behalf of the British government to all those impacted by the data leak. It was a wholly unacceptable breach of data, protection protocols and should have never have happened. It is a story of human error, and error of magnitude with profoundly grave and potentially tragic consequences.

It was perpetrated by an MoD official and only came to light some 18 months or so after the error occurred. At that point, in August 2023, although as a defence minister, I had no involvement in the issue, the priority was to take necessary steps to mitigate risk to life, hence the court involvement, culminating in a super injunction. It was a political judgement of the last government, to seek the court's intervention. The decision of the court to grant the super injunction clearly reflected the importance of this.

It is neither cover-up or political suppression of information, it is a court order. No one should be under any misunderstanding about the potential consequence of this leak. If the government had not stop the injunction, that data to media could have been disseminated globally. This could have put the lives of countless -- lives of countless Afghans at risk. People who saved the lives of British troops, who were incredibly brave, selfless and committed individuals who put everything at risk, including their families to help us.

And if the government had not sought to prevent the information from being disseminated, those Afghans who gave so much could have been captured, tortured and murdered. The previous government would have abdicated its responsibilities if we had let the Afghans suffer the consequences. That's why it was right to seek the injunction. I might observe that regardless of what government was in power at the time, these measures and the circumstances existing at the time were the correct ones to take.

Indeed, the current government in taking office do not seek to have the super injunction lifted. Although this was human error, not a political mistake, the political responsibility is to keep the situation under review. So it was right that this government should seeks -- seek expert advice to lift the super injunction and if so advise the necessary application to court. And that, the government has the full support of these benches. I understand the noble Lord the Minister will be limited in what he can say but I have a few questions for him.

Is set in a position to give the house any more details on how the leak actually happened? I thought there would have been digital safeguards, especially when it comes to emails being sent to a random person outside the Department. Why was this not effective quarter can he tell us what repercussions they were for the official who inadvertently sent the data outside of formal channels? Finally, what systems has the government put in place to learn from this regrettable episode and to ensure that everything has been done to prevent recurrence? As ever, I look forward to the response from the noble Lord the Minister and once again, I thank him for the manner in which he has approached this matter to date.
15:54
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Lord the Minister and the Minister for the Armed Forces for everything yesterday. It did mean that temporarily I was under a super injunction. I was a little surprised when I was summoned into the MoD on Monday afternoon. I received a message saying, " Can you come in for a confidential briefing? Was good I had no idea what to expect or the magnitude of what we would here. And the statement which the Secretary of State made yesterday.

It is a matter of extreme seriousness for a variety of reasons. For the risk into which an official at the MoD placed Afghans who were already vulnerable. But also for the fact that Parliament was entirely unable to scrutinise His Majesty's Government on this issue for almost 2 years. The media were reporting immediately after the super injunction was raised yesterday at midday because they have spent the last 22 months gathering evidence, which of course, they can publish.

And there are a whole set of questions which are probably beyond the remit of the Minister today. He is responding on behalf of the MoD. There are questions about the role of Parliament, what we are able to do in terms of scrutiny, and what the Government feels is appropriate in terms of the media. Was the media being suppressed? Lest anyone think I am being cavalier about the lives of Afghans, I would like to say that it was absolutely clear that the United Kingdom had a duty to those Afghans who worked alongside his Majesty's Armed Forces, including the interpreters, including those who worked for the British Council.

And in light of that, the scheme And in light of that, the scheme which we knew about and the ACRS, which we knew about, were the right approach. And yet we knew from open source material and indeed cases that were brought to this house and the other place that there were breaches of data, that there were some issues and those breaches of data had caused finds to be paid. At the time of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August of of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, it was very clear that many people were left behind.

And the helplines were not necessarily fit for purpose. There was a hotline for parliamentarians and their staff that it did not necessarily act as a hotline at all. I certainly heard of cases and got no follow-up. Although I was not aware of this data breach, some parliamentarians were. We have -- we had a situation where we began to acknowledge our debt to some of the Afghans, but not all. But we then have a data breach about which we knew nothing that happened over three years ago.

That in itself is shocking. And so, one question is has anybody in his Majesty government taken responsibility for the breach? We understand from the Secretary of State's statement yesterday that it was reported to the Metropolitan police who believed there was no criminal activity, there is nothing to be reported in that sense, but has anybody taken responsibility for this catastrophic data breach that potentially put so many tens of thousands of lives at many tens of thousands of lives at risk in Afghanistan? And also caused considerable concern for Afghans who are already in the UK who had come over as part of the scheme? The former Secretary of State, Mr Ben Wallace, said this was not a cover- up, having a super injunction that covered what was going on.

The noble Lady Baroness Goldie has said a super injunction is not a cover-up. And yet, Mr Justice Chamberlain who finally lifted the super injunction finally lifted the super injunction yesterday said in November 2023 that a super injunction is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court's processes are being used for the purposes of censorship. This is corrosive of the public's trust in government. Does the noble Lord the Minister agree? Can he confirm that this government would not seek to use super injunction, or in the event that it was felt that a super injunction was an appropriate course of action, that it would not last for over 600 days but could indeed be for a very limited amount of time while a particular, specific policy needed to be undertaken.

The substantive policy change that was brought in, the Afghan Response Route, seems to have been a very sensible. Had it been brought to Your Lordships' House and the other place, parliamentarians may well have thought it was the right policy and been happy to endorse it. But we were never asked because of the super injunction. We knew nothing about it. So could the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether in future the international -- intelligence and Security committee might be briefed on camera for example.

And what role Parliament and the media would be allowed to play in future because if the courts and Parliament and the media are not deployed appropriately, then that raises questions about our own democracy, which need to be
16:01
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank Baroness Goldie Baroness Smith comments about the Baroness Smith comments about the way in which the government tried to way in which the government tried to inform his Majesty's opposition, and indeed, the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. Can I also the Liberal Democrats. Can I also say we did try to ensure as many appropriate members of your Lordships health, as well as other people in the other place, were informed as appropriate as well. And informed as appropriate as well.

And I apologise if that did not happen with everybody, who may have expected to have been. But we did expected to have been. But we did try to ensure that everybody was consulted and spoken to. Can I also join Baroness Goldie, and indeed, join Baroness Goldie, and indeed, join Baroness Goldie, and indeed, Baroness Smith, for the apologies that His Majesty's government, through me, again makes today about what happened, which was totally what happened, which was totally unacceptable. Before I answer specific questions, can I make a couple of opening remarks.

Can I couple of opening remarks. Can I start by saying the whole house will agree the UK owes a huge debt of gratitude to all those Afghans who gratitude to all those Afghans who fought alongside us and supported our efforts in Afghanistan. While I appreciate there is significant parliamentary and immediate concern around these issues, and rightly so, let us not also forget that we are talking about human lives. As noble Lords will know, a major data loss occurred in February 2022, involving the dissemination of a spreadsheet, containing names of applicants, to the Arab scheme.

The previous government responded by setting up a new assessment route, the Afghanistan response route, to protect the most at-risk individuals, whose data was disseminated. The data at the lives which sit behind them, were protected by the unprecedented super injunction which was granted by the high courts. Based on the threat posed to those individuals appoint the noble Baroness four eight point the noble Baroness Goldie made. The government asked for junction, was granted super injunction. It is my view the government acted in good faith to protect lives, when this government took office, ministers however felt deeply uncomfortable, going to some of the points the noble Baroness Smith made felt deeply uncomfortable with the limits this place made on the freedom of press and parliamentary scrutiny.

As a result of that, we therefore commissioned a reassessment, with deputy defence intelligence. He found, following a comprehensive review, that it is unlikely that merely being on dataset would be grounds for being targeted by the Taliban. He also found there was no evidence pointing to Taliban position of the dataset. He therefore decided the risks are reduced at the existence of the scheme and associated costs should be brought into public, into the public and parliamentary realms for the appropriate scrutiny.

We both, therefore, expect and indeed, I say to your Lordships, invite parliamentary scrutiny for these decisions. Let me just deal the couple of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness Goldie asked me how it happened. I don't normally do this, as noble Lords no, but I will read a couple, to make sure I factually get some of this right. In February 2022, you ask about what happened, in 2022, in previous government, the spreadsheet for individual applicants of the reassessment scheme for Afghans who worked or for the UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan was emailed outside of official government systems.

This was mistakenly thought to contain the names of a small number of applicants, but in fact, the email contained personal information linked to 18,700 applicants of this scheme and the predecessor schemes. The data related to applications made on or before 7 January on or before 7 January 2022. A small section of the spreadsheet appeared online, 14 August, 2023. Which is when the then government first became aware that the MOD's casework spreadsheet had been mistakenly included with the original email.

We investigate, or the previous government, investigated that. And a report was sent to the Information Commissioner's office. Can I repeat DO Lordships -- Can I repeat DO Lordships house, the government reported this to the Metropolitan police, who found there was no malicious or malign intent, for the particular individual. Let me just say that the Information Commissioner, in a statement yesterday, because the noble Baroness asked me about, do we believe that the systems has now been adequately changed.

The Information Commissioner's office, in a statement just yesterday, said this, " We are reassured that the MOD's investigation has resulted in taking necessary steps and minimised the risk of this happening again." Direct quote from the Information Commissioner's Office. I hope that starts to reassure the noble Baroness's point, with respect to how the leak unfortunately happened. The measures being taken, the way it has been investigated and looked at by the Information Commissioner's Office who have now reported in a statement yesterday that they believe, as far as they possibly can, the MoD have taken necessary action to prevent such a terrible and unfortunate incident happening again.

One of the noble Baroness, Baroness Smith's point. Of course it is of great concern that parliamentary scrutiny, media parliamentary scrutiny, media scrutiny, has been, has had to be stopped, essentially. Parliament and the press has not been able to scrutinise this parliamentary activity these decisions in the way they should have done. When we came into office, we were uncomfortable with that. And for a period of time look at what the facts were, look at the situation, and in January of this year, as the noble Baroness this year, as the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State asked the former defence intelligence senior officer to investigate.

And noble Lords will have seen the report he had brought before us. As a consequence of the reports brought before us, where if we look at key conclusions, there are a number of important facts he brings before those, including no evidence points clearly to the Taliban possession of the dataset, in fact the policy appears to have no significant risks to His Majesty's government or the UK, with net additional risk. It likely presents, in other words, that where we are now, after the passage of time and have various assessments of the risk in Afghanistan, that he now believes that is appropriate for the government to apply to the courts, to lift the injunction.

Therefore, with the evidence provided and with the government presentation, it was lifted at 12 o'clock yesterday. I think in that sense, the government, with that evidence, has now said it is time, the time is right to bring forward and make a statement about what has happened, to put as much of that evidence in the public domain and to invite public scrutiny of that, to invite media scrutiny of that and also parliamentary scrutiny. And I think that is the right thing to do.

At the end, there is always a balance between decisions the government make, about what you do to protect lives, what you do to try to deal with a particular situation you are confronted with, whilst at the same time, recognising that because you should have parliamentary scrutiny, of course you should have media scrutiny. The previous government acted in good faith. We have now looked at that again and believe it is the right time for us to come forward and to actually say that now we can actually publicise what happened, and invite comments from everyone.

And with that, I hope noble Lords will accept that information.
16:11
16:12
16:13
16:14
16:15
16:15
16:16
16:17
16:18
16:19
16:20
16:21
16:22
16:23
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
I understand very much the point my noble friend is making. With some I don't want to get into a legal discussion with her. Her legal knowledge is far greater than mine. My understanding was that the previous government went for an injunction and they asked for that. It was the court, on the basis of what they were told, decided it was necessary for there to be a super injunction, and that was granted by the court because of the threat that they face.

Of course, that was then renewed over a period of time. In the summer of 2024, the High Court then suspended the injunction and gave 21 days for the government, the last government, to appeal. It appealed and the appeal court allowed the reimposition of the super injunction. Again, I can only presume on the basis that the court was persuaded that the thread still existed to those people whose data had been inadvertently put into the public domain. And for a period of time, well the accumulated knowledge, we accumulated knowledge and on the basis of that it decided then to undertake the Rimmer review which gave us the evidence to then go back to the court and say that on the basis of what the Rimmer report saying, we no longer believe that the injunction was necessary for the protection of individuals.

And the courts accepted the government's new evidence from that report that the super injunction was not necessary. super injunction was not necessary. And as soon as we went back, the injunction was lifted and a tapas 12 my honourable friend was making a my honourable friend was making a statement to Parliament -- half past statement to Parliament -- half past As the Minister I'm sure is aware, there are a number of Afghans who there are a number of Afghans who are on the run from the Taliban, some of them in Pakistan, terrified about being sent back.

And any women about being sent back. And any women who had laid a public row, the who had laid a public row, the Taliban threatened to halt -- hunt down. Can the Minister tell me if there were any women on this list there were any women on this list that leaked? Anybody who is on the list, whether they are in Afghanistan or in Pakistan, if they have been designated as eligible for the Scheme, we are trying to contact them to ensure that they understand that we will honour the commitment that we have made to them, whether they are in Pakistan or any other country.

We will honour the commitment made to them and try to ensure they get passage to hear. The noble Baroness will understand why I cannot say any more than that, because it will compromise people's safety.
16:26
16:27
16:28
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:31
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
My noble friend makes a good point. Let's be clear about that, these are people who stood with us, and in many cases died with us, I think the British public welcome that, by the end of the scheme, there will be some 56,000 people of applicants, plus their family members, who will be relocated, in this country. I think there is some difficulty in terms of transition when they initially arrive, where they are placed at the same related they are placed at the same related to society.

But my understanding is the British public understand that under very supportive, generally, of both of those people. They are not asylum seekers. There are people that have come to our country because the date stood with us, I think that is an important distinction to make. For those of us who exploit that, to say you are not the people spoken for, you understand what you are doing and why we are doing it in respect of Afghanistan and so on and so forth.

As I said to the noble Lord, to actually cause allegations aspersions about the whole of those aspersions about the whole of those who had been resettled under it, all of this, all of that, total nonsense and not true, that is what the majority of people in this country thing. Let me say this, if there is an individual who has ripped or stolen or worse from anybody, that person, Afghan or not, should be prosecuted in the courts, and sent to jail.

If a person has evidence of it, go to the police and get them prosecuted because that is what the British public want as well. British public want as well.
16:33
16:34
16:34
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Epsom. My Lords, the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the government's intention to protect workers is commendable. We all agree that fairness is pillar of a just society, but the measures taken for the introduction of a statutory probation period is both confused and counter-productive. What the government has failed to grasp is when businesses are given effects ability to manage their work pragmatically, that is considered more likely to them taking on new staff. It is a risk by highlighting that risk and making it more difficult to manage, this bill creates disincentives to hire.

Particularly at the margins of the labour market when stakes are highest. My Lords, this is fundamentally a question of incentives. Reduce the employer's ability to assess suitability, cultural fit, or even basic liability, without the spectre of legal sanction. And he will see fewer jobs created. That cost is very real but nowhere is it considered in the government's impact assessment. That acknowledges a likely 15% rise in employment tribunal claims, but makes no attempt to tackle the knock-on effect of behaviour.

It is already overstretched with cases often taking more than two years to resolve. So, a 50% increase without corresponding investment will only deepen the backlog. Employers will know they are walking into a system that is both clogged and uncertain. And then, my Lords, there is a statutory probationary period which the government poses with no real clarity. The bill fails to explain how this period interacts with the obligation to act reasonably, or whether there will be a different standard for dismissal during this window.

Will there be a list of fair reasons? Will an employer be able to extend the period, if performance takes longer to assess? None of it is addressed. And as any employer will tell you, uncertainty in employment law doesn't lead to innovation, it needs to caution and legal advice. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the government's approaches its likely effect on social. Because when you raise the legal risks of hiring, it is not a well-connected polished graduate who lose out, it is the individual on the edge of the labour market.

It is the person returning to work after illness or parenting. The school lever with no contact, the ex- offender with a spent conviction. The refugee trying to prove themselves. The government's own impact assessment recognises this risk, because it says, " Making unfair dismissal a day one right could damage the employment prospects of people trying to re- enter the labour market." Especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire. Those are not my words, The same is true for a so-called cultural fit, which the noble Lady, the Minister, in committee, dismissed as an illegitimate reason for this metal.

Hansard volume 846, Parliament 334, 21 May, 25, recalls the noble Lady, the minister, saying the government do not believe an employee, not being fit within an organisation, should be a dismissal. But cultural fit is not fit for prejudice, it is complement to go away 18 works, the style of communication or pace and rhythm for a convenient work rate. This is acute. Businesses. Higher mistakes are costly, even a highly skilled worker takes time to reach full productivity, and be cost of advertising, onboarding, training and then managing at dismissal is not trivial.

If employers cannot be confident they will have a window in which to assess a new hire, including on soft factors, such as initiative or client manner, then they will become more conservative. They will play it safe. And who loses them, my Lords, again, is the person who just needed someone to give them a chance. My amendment offers a path, for unfair dismissal from two years, to six months, meaningful extension for protection of workers, but also creates an initial period of employment following that six months, in which a simplified process at lower consultation would apply.

That strikes a fair balance, giving employers space to assess employers space to assess Bad faith dismissal still carry consequences. Crucially, it also removes the sweeping power given to the Secretary of State and the governments clause to amend section 98, brackets four, of the Employment Rights Act, power that could drastically shift the fairness test without parliamentary oversight. Employees already have a day one protection, against discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal. As they should. But general unfair dismissal should be subject to a short and defined qualifying period.

One that employers understand and workers can plan around. My amendment delivers that clarity, and also avoid the situation where employers are left wondering whether a dismissal based on fit unreliability will land them in court. We have to be clear, jobs are not abstract concepts, they are costs. And in the early stages, even the most promising employees and investment takes time to repay, employers need space to make those judgements, this bill, as it stands, puts a thumb on the scale, in favour of caution, against second chances, that is not fair or just as not how

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we grow a dynamic inclusive labour market I beg to move. Amendment proposed) 83, insert a new clause at printed on a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. I have two amendments in this group, 50 and 57, which like the
16:40
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
group, 50 and 57, which like the noble Lord has spoken. I also added my name to, relates to day one so dismissal rights. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong, Lord Katz, for the time to discuss this issue with me. For which I am very grateful. They want dismissal might arrange of consequences, in particular, additional costs to business, which the impact assessment says this will run to, " Hundreds of millions a year." Which the government says will run to small businesses, and a number of tribunal cases on an already overloaded tribunal system, but I think the most important is the impact on people who are looking for work.

Especially those with riskier profiles, young people trying to get that first step onto the employment ladder. People trying to get off benefits, people with health issues, people with changing careers, ex-offenders, and so on. The government rightly wants to get all of those into work. This bill, my Lords, will make that more difficult, not easier. The current law, with the two-year qualifying period, allows for any employer to take a risk on someone, to give them the benefit of the doubt. Without facing the risk of an employment tribunal if it doesn't work out.

This bill ends at. An employee would be able to claim for unfair dismissal from day one, and the only valid grounds for fair dismissal will be capability of qualifications do the job, conduct by the employee, or some other undefined substantial reason relating to the employee. These routers are essentially the same as the current reason for fair dismissal after the qualifying period, in today's law, and they cannot be changed by the regulations the government intends to use to create a new, again, undefined type of provision..

Employers will no longer let someone go during operation. Because it is not working, without risking an unfair dismissal claim. What will be the result of this? Simply because employers will have to think twice before hiring everybody with a less than perfect employment record. The bill will make it harder for an employer to take a chance on such people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. To post the Federation of Small Businesses, all it's going to do is make small employers more reluctant to recruit and fearful of being open to claims.

It is those further from the jobs market that will suffer, because the less risk small employers can afford to take. The fewer second chances, fresh starts, the first jobs they will be able to offer. If anyone is in any doubt, the government itself states the same effects on the impact assessment. I will not repeat the quote the noble Lord shop has done, but this is what the government also notes and thinks. We already have a million young people lost in employment and educational training.

If we want to solve that, we need employers who wants to take them on. Who will take a chance and give them that first all-important opportunity, so why on earth would we want to make it riskier for employers to take that chance? You would think, therefore, there must be good evidence and reason by this government, to decide, knowingly, to make it more difficult for young people to get their first opportunity to work. I have asked several times during this process for evidence, that the existing law is in fact causing any problem.

There is no evidence of it, given the impact assessment. And I have had no real answer to that question. I committee, the noble Lady, the minute the's answer was " We have worked with academics who are looking at the subject, I reassure the noble Lord we have looked into this and we are confident that the benefit in this particular case will outweigh the risks." That is really not good in to take action, that the government itself acknowledges will damage the life chances of the most vulnerable, or those just starting out.

Employers do not dismiss people even during a probationary period, hiring and training are expensive and time-consuming, so employers are strongly incentivised to try to get it right. But it is a fact of life that sometimes, with no fault on any side, things just do not work out. As the noble Lady, the minister, notes, the noble Lady, Baroness Finlay, wanted to speak in this debate but unfortunately cannot be here today. She asked me to point out the impact this change could have on GPs.

Not been able to let someone go if the culture is wrong is extremely serious for a small business, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has described. But in the GP practice, it could put lives at risk. GP practices tend to be small teams who must work together well and has great understanding and support. An employee who doesn't fit with the rest of the team could lead to miscommunication, appointment issues, and so on. And in healthcare, some areas could compromise patient welfare, it can have fatal consequences.

It is essential that people can be easily let go, if it is not working out, in the early stages of employment. But we have to recognise this is in the manifesto. We need to try and find a compromise, and my amendments tried to do that. As do, I think, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We can all agree, the current two-year qualifying period is longer than it needs to be. Six months, I think, should be sufficient for an employer to know if it is working, in the vast majority of cases.

My amendments that possibly shorten the qualifying period to six months. But most importantly, they retain the ability to dismiss without reason, during that short period. So, retaining the critically important ability, to take a risk on someone. The amendments aim for simpler city, they retain the existing law, but dramatically shorten the period, which I think goes a long way towards the spirit of the manifesto, if not the letter. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe is back amendments are a little more complex, with the two- stage process he describes at the end result will be similar, I am happy to support it.

The government intends to consult on the probation period. They say they have nine months in mind and talk about a process during that period. But the bill expressly limits the reasons for dismissal, that can be used during the initial period, to the reasons I have outline. Capability of qualification, conduct, or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. That three judges the consultation process, and is noway a light touch process, a probationary period that doesn't allow employment to be terminated simply because it is not working out or not is not really a probationary period.

I mentioned the manifesto. And I'm sure lady, the Minister will remind us of that. I will turn her attention to commitment in same paragraph, " We will consult fully with businesses, workers and civil society, and how to put our plans into practice. Before legislation is into practice. Before legislation is Seems OK to ignore that manifesto undertaking. The consultation for this undertaking will take place under the bill has passed. The government might argue that the legislation includes the regulations, but the problem is that the bill prejudge is the consultation.

These amendments may not be the only way to encourage employers to take a risk and be. The key is to remove the risk during a probation period. There might be other reasons -- ways to do that. I'm ready to find a constructive answer to that if the Minister is willing to continue discussions. But the government knows what the impact will be. It says so in the impact assessment. It has provided no evidence at all that there is in fact a problem to solve.

There is no other way to put it. With this bill, the government is knowingly and deliberately damaging the life chances of the most vulnerable, in particular young people trying to make their first step on the employment ladder and for now apparent tangible benefit. I urge them to think again. In the absence them to think again. In the absence

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of constructive comments, I will support Lord Sharpe if he decides to move his amendments. I rise to support amendments 49
16:49
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendments 49 and 50, and Amendment 51 to which I have added my name. I agree with the have added my name. I agree with the case Lord Sharpe of Epsom has made and the arguments put forward by the noble Lord Lord Fox. I point out that the detail of the arrangements for improving protection against unfair dismissal are one of the areas that provoke the widest debate during the committee stage of the bill. 21 noble Lords spoke and nearly all concerned about the perverse effects of completely removing the two-year qualifying period.

When we discussed my concerns at Committee, the noble Lady the Minister said that when I saw the government's implementation plan, I would be reassured. However, whilst it is generally helpful, all it says on this matter is that in the summer /autumn of 2025, they will consult on, and I quote, " Giving employee protection from unfair dismissal from day one, including on the dismissal process in the statutory probation period." So we still do not know what the rules will be.

I believe that the approach the government is taking of making up the vital final detail of legislation after bills have passed, so well exemplified here, as Lord Fox said, is profoundly undemocratic. This is giving too much power to the executive. The Minister should be able to tell us categorically today that employers will be able to dismiss unsatisfactory staff without risking a tribunal during a probation period. I will not repeat what I said in Committee. From a historic perspective of a good employer like Tesco, we even had a unique partnership with the trade union, seemingly different from the public sector unions dominating this bill.

My main current concern, as the Minister knows, is that day one right will make employers extremely nervous, nervous about taking on new employees, especially the young or those with a risky track record like the unemployed or disabled. This will kill growth. My noble friend Archer talked about the disincentive Archer talked about the disincentive Section 19 unintended consequences states that there is some evidence that some reforms make employers less willing to hire workers, including evidence specific to strengthening dismissal protections.

For example, the OECD noted that more stringent dismissal procedures involved an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who Roman from adaptability. In other words, lower growth. Provisions will require significant extra internal resource to ensure compliance. It will be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures cumbersome administrative procedures for all employees from day one. It will make the introduction of Make Tax Digital seem easy. Above, it will increase costs and jobs tax in the last budget, and that is the time that the Chancellor is promising to reduce red tape.

Another certainty is that the changes will increase the traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I know someone whose case has been listed in 2027. Because it is important, I am extremely keen to help the government find a way out of this unfortunate sensitive -- set of circumstances. The fact is that sometimes appointments don't work out and it is no one's fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within six or nine months, which I believe the government is contemplating for the probation period.

But we need certainty on this before the bill becomes an act. And probably a government amendment. For me, the uncertainty in this area, which is why I've chosen to speak from the backbenches, could prove to be the worst aspect of this bill. I hope that even at this late again.
16:53
16:54
16:54
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and to the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. That danger exists particularly in this clause. As you know, close 23 and linked schedule number three repeal section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period, they make further amendments period, they make further amendments to the act in respect of the repeat. The protection under section 94 of the act, that which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed subject to certain conditions does not apply to dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years.

But now, this two-year period and But now, this two-year period and extended three year period, it is an extended training period when you induct your employee with the knowledge that if they don't work out, and there are clear headings under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims. Now, that is to be removed by section 23 and schedule 3. This means that we are repealing under this act one of the basic building blocks of employment in this country.

Section 108 of the 1996 act. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As Lord Sharpe has said, they help to offer protection to both parties. They make for a fluid leak at market They make for a fluid leak at market -- labour market and prevent zombie economy. I won't go through each of the amendments here because noble Lords have heard about them already. But they will facilitate good working practices for both parties.

Those looking for a job are more likely, as we've heard, to be appointed and the employer... There will be more job vacancies which have continued to fall over the last year, sadly. Those looking for a job are more likely to find one and by likely to be... Start their first job as we have heard today. The business, the employer, will be able to take a risk and take a chance on a new employee. Now, taking on a new employee involves a great commitment.

Involves not only a commitment to salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost. It involves time, training, patients, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation so they can contribute as a happy and contended and productive member of the team. With this clause, we won't have the protections of that, and I can't think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person. As a result, we will have very bad effects on the economy and the growth.

We know there are legal grounds already in respect of the unfair dismissal. Noble Lords have spoken about these today. But there are cast irony reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You can't be dismissed as a whistleblower, for discrimination, and automatically unfair. They don't require the two- year qualifying period. And the law takes care of this. Now, with the two-year period to be removed and with it goes the protection for the employer, and the opportunities for new employees particularly.

But for many employees who want to change a job and start a new walk of life. They might find they were not so good at what they were doing and they might want to try their hand at the New York. They need time to settle in. -- Try their hand at a new job. I'm not at all convinced that this initial period, which ministers have told us will have a lighter touch of dismissal arrangements, unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful.

Some law firms fear it will impose the same structures on an employer and we really do need to know from the Minister when exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during the period will be, because I can't see how we could have a bill setting all this out when we don't know what is intended. So, I would know what is intended. So, I would value's statement, and I don't need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment, which estimates hundreds of billions of pounds, the additional complexity in the recruitment process but added to the other measures in this bill, close 23 and schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.

If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, we need to grow to raise productivity as the government wants, to hire new employees needed to raise that productivity to that end. The government should welcome amendment 49 and all the lands in this group because they accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and they go some way in helping the government to get out of the mess
17:01
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak briefly in support of this group of amendments under the Noble Lord shop and Lord Hunt. I will also speak briefly to my Noble Friends more straightforward amendment 50 and that length of qualifying to it minimum of six months, during which an employee may not claim unfair dismissal, but first I am happy to agree with the Government that the current two-year period for effective probation is from my experience as an employer, excessively long and does merit revision.

And, like others, I understand that the Government is consulting on the length of the initial period and that nine months is being suggested. However, given that most employees have a formal annual review at 12 months, during which there are enumeration as well as performance is reviewed, I think that it is fair and transparent that the 12 month review also represents the end of the probation rate or qualifying period. That provides clarity to both sides, and I believe sufficient time for the employer to assess the employee's performance, competence, and cultural fate.

I accept that in the majority of cases performance issues during probation service within the first six months and proactive employers should then step in to either articulate the performance improvement plan for the next six months with clay as and markers and milestones or come to an early conclusion that this is not going to work out and move on to dismissal, but if we overly squeeze the probationary period we will deter employers, particularly entrepreneurs, from the creation of new jobs by reducing the appetite for them to take a risk on new recruits, as we have heard, which is surely not what the Government intends.

Close 23 threatens to be a real menace for two groups of employers particularly. Firstly, as we have heard before, those sectors with naturally high staff attrition rates, given the nature of their business, such as retail and hospitality. Secondly, and perhaps less obviously, those businesses that rely on particular job functions that carry higher risk and performance requirements, in particular sales, marketing and business developer jobs that run across so many of our economies key centres, everything from sales on the floor in the park to telesales and eventually, yes, we will try to avoid, to those involved in the B2B business development and client account management and I know from personal experience that advising start-ups and skill ups that these roles are critical for revenue generation with strong personal performance criteria where much of the renumeration comes in the form, quite correctly, of performance - related pay.

We will do real damage to productivity and economic growth if we do not allow for fair and proper time for assessment of these types of roles without the threat of unfair dismissal hanging over employers heads prematurely. That said, I will support amendment 49 if it is put to a vote.
17:05
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments tabled by my Noble Friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom as well as those proposed by the noble Lords. Throughout our debates on this bill, one thing has become clear, it this is one of the more troubling areas for the business. And therefore potential employees and that concerns are reflected not just in what we have heard from this chamber but also the government's own impact assessment. When a company hires someone that takes a risk, no matter how impressive someone's CV may be or how well they come across in an interview, things do not always work out, as we have heard.

That's why probation periods exist. They give both the employer and the employee the chance to assess whether it is the right fit. I have seen this first hand in my work, small businesses in particular, hiring someone new, especially during a. Of growth would be a major financial and operational issue and when things do not work out the company should not be left to carry all of the Durden is a mishmash that is no ones. Introducing the day one British claim unfair dismissal outside of the previously established conceptions places a heavyweight on employers.

It could discourage them from hiring together and it may also lead to pressure being placed on existing staff who are asked to do more because their employers are hesitant to take them on. In the financial Times the Chancellor said an excessive safety first approach must not seem amongst any global competitors, adding that it is bad for the business, bad for growth, and that for working people, a description of this bill and close 23 in particular. These amendments offer insensible workaround, they reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal to six months, that strikes me as fair and proportionate and it matches the length of the probation period used in many companies and certainly when I work for them six months should be enough time to determine what the someone is right for the role.

These amendments make it better for business, better for growth, and better for working people. This is why I support amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the amendment, it seems
17:07
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support the amendment, it seems to me to be a reasonable change but I do think that six months is a more reasonable representation. My question really though is how this question really though is how this will impact them, not refugees, terms and conditions govern press secretary legislation and it is already quite difficult to remove the ones that should be removed, in part, and I say this with some respect to the lawyers in the room but they are represented by lawyers in the misconduct process and it never makes it quicker.

And it always makes it more expensive, but it does not make it any quicker. Secondly, when the assessment is made and the proof is there, to remove them, to sack them, basically, to scale the test and move from the probability to young reasonable doubt, quite the same standard for a criminal, so it gets to be quite a high standard represented by a high responder and the two-year probationary. Has been a good way to remove them that are unsuited to the role, so to remove that two-year period, one of the measures by which we get rid of the worst officers would be lost and I do worry about that and what we do know from research is that often the officers that Tim did later should have been removed in a probationary period and everyone had the courage to take that decision, so I am not saying that it is wrong or right or that the regulation should change but I would like to understand what the government's reaction is because we have a group of people that are not classed as employees that we still have a two year period and in fact with this game they might not have one at all and this new group should pay particular attention to perhaps giving us a view to how they intend to deal with that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a reasonable explanation and last time in committee when I
17:09
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
and last time in committee when I was supporting the noble Lords and his amendment and the concern that there was a risk assessment which actually said that if there is obligation. This is going to be quite difficult to take on, the same question posed by the noble and learned Lord Phillips, would you employ an ex-offender if they are on probation and that is requiring probation last time I began with apprenticeships, particularly a young man called Oskar, taking on a think one of our best in Berwick, he has taken it on and saying that he qualifies I was about to move on to the next amendment that when he finishes his apprenticeship, his employer, at the moment, will have an interview, there will be some other people on the committee, and if he passes that interview he is expected to serve a period of probation, and this wonderful court is not likely to retain him if there is no probationary period at all in his work, and I just feel, really, that if you remove, I mean what is right to remove, I think that is too long, is it five months? I am not sure, in the Church of England, not all our employees because they are self-employed and I remember there was a wonderful case that someone made about the Bishop asking his particular clergy after a series of reviews showed that actually he was not competent, so he went to tribunal and was told at the end of the hearing he was suing the Bishop, the employer is not your Bishop, the employer is God, so if you can't bring God into this you can sue him because you are self-employed and you answer to God, now we have leave to do that and the more I have worked with a lot of people and become kind of a trainer for some, if we remove the period of probation I think we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult stage and the people who are more likely to miss out our young people who need some mentoring, some support, who can be directed differently and what I am not so sure about in where this is coming from because there are some employers that like to dismiss people at short notice but I think that if you go for 12 months or six months I think most employers would say let's have a good word to employers and not think about them and we simply want you to get out, so I would support 49, 50, 51, and if all of them are put to the vote I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be the first in the lobby. My Lords, I rise in support of this group of amendments at the
17:13
Lord de Clifford Portrait Lord de Clifford (Crossbench)
-
-
this group of amendments at the initial period is so important to both employers and employees. I would like you to note might register as a partner of a small SME and we have practice employing 400 employees because I and one of those people that would suffer from clause 23 and it is changing our views because of uncertainty. Your lordships have made very many important points that I will try not Have no details for when the consultation with regards to the probation period would be launched and how it works, again, creating uncertainty.

Probation periods are so important to both employees and employers, the start of a new job is very important for both parties and is hopefully the start of a long and productive relationship. Employers do value employees who stay for many years as the cost of employment for individuals is so expensive and employers have flexibility at the start of a job, generally a weeks notice and all we ask is for flexibility for employers as well. That is what the probation periods grant, and that is potentially what is being removed by the bill.

It is, therefore, why is it so important for employers? It is time to assess the build that as you have employed to have the capacity to do the job, do they have the skills they said they have? Do they have the skills that meets the standards that you set for your business. Is there attendance of a reasonable standard to be part of the team? Do they fit the culture of the whole similar values. If the employer, for whatever reason, does not fit, for the employer to go through a long and time-consuming and unfair dismissal process where someone has been for the business for two or three weeks or even a couple of months the process uses a valuable months the process uses a valuable management time, and in some cases it is plainly clear that this relation between the employer and the employee is not going to work.

As spoken by Lord Sharpe of Epsom we need guidance on the initial period of employment and it is so important for employers to take employees who may be disadvantaged in the job market and employers want to give them a chance but with no clear guidance or a short probation. Employers will not take this risk and this could not benefit, I am sorry, it could benefit these types of potential possible employees and the employers and the long-term who making a really valuable employee time, therefore this group of amendments to seek to bring the important part of the employment rates into the bill, rather than waiting for a long and detailed consultation with no details.

Also, it would help the Government plan to make the white paper to encourage all into work. That is why I support this group of amendments and if Lord this group of amendments and if Lord
17:16
17:17
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
This government was elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protections from day one of employment. Not two years, not six months, but day one. And to deliver this commitment we will remove the qualifying period for these rights. But of course the government recognises that from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect most employers already fairly dismiss employees and the process need not be too arduous.

Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the government believed it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards... Employees to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects.

This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee's performance, unsuitability, will apply. Baroness Lawlor asked what that length of probationary period would be and as we have said previously, the Government's preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. And we intend to consult on both the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. I should also say to the noble Lady that the current two-year qualifying period is not designed as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal.

If the amendments tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux amendments were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat of being fired arbitrarily looming over them. Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction from any qualifying period, I think that point was also made by the noble Lord Phillips. So I'm pleased that noble Lords agree with the government's policy at least to that extent. However, can I say to the noble Lord Vaux, the government does not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances.

Instead it believes in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord Vaux spoke about the need for young people looking for work and of course we identify with that. And the Government is committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out in the get Britain White Paper, in November, in November 2024, our country's greatest asset is its people. And as I explained during the committee stage debate, we are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, aligning with our industrial strategy.

This will include shorter duration and foundation friendships in key sectors, helping more people learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in business across the country and providing high quality entry pathways for young people. -- Foundation apprenticeships. We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled until at least the National Minimum Wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.

Beyond are hunting learning on the job and ensuring FA -- enhancing learning on the job... We believe all should have protections on the job... It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that followed. However, the government recognises that employees use probationary periods to assess new his performance and suitability for their role. And we will ensure UK businesses can hire with confidence. The noble Lord Sharpe talked about social mobility and we recognise good employers do take a chance on what we might call rough diamonds up and down the country.

It is not recognised often enough the valuable time employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job. The statutory probationary period will enable this with light-touch standards for fair dismissal. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and their suitability for the role. And of course this will equally apply to healthcare employees.

The noble Lord Sharpe talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunal's. Provided the employer can show the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the out come as nothing really is new from the current situation. The noble Lord Hogan-Howe asked about police officers and I understand they are excluded from the existing legislation as they would be in the proposed bill before us, so in that sense, there is no change. Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which of course can mean many different things.

Often not a good fit is used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employers work ethic or level of commitment to the job or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the such standards will imply -- apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a the cultural fit is linked to a corrected characteristic, dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims and the Bill does not affect that.

Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability As -- category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of substantial reason dismissal should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a standards. The Bill contains a powerful the Government to define what some other substantial reason for dismissal relating to the employee should mean. And as I just noted, the intent is to define which relate to an employee's performance and suitability for their role.

And we will welcome employers and trade unions input on that important issue. However, these are amendments as proposed would remove the Government's statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment. Noble Lords asked about consultation and we have already consulted on the proposals and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to public consulting later this year. The Secretary of State their business and trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26th of June.

The letter outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the government's development and implementation of day one right stamper dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the details of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House library. I shall also say to the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe that the roadmap shows that these day one right, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027. In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government's manifesto commitment to introduce a day one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections and I therefore ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.

Finally I turned to amendment 52 in my name, which is simply a minor technical amendment which corrects a cross-reference in schedule three. And with that, I asked noble Lords to withdraw amendment 49 and beg to move an amendment 52.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I ask the noble Lady the Minister, before she sits down, is that nine months now the that nine months now the Government's official position on the initial period? And if it is, the initial period? And if it is, the initial period? And if it is, can they confirm what degree of... What will the light-touch... Is it minded to put into its light-touch minded to put into its light-touch of their dismissal arrangements?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of their dismissal arrangements? As we have said before, we will continue to consult on this but this is our preferred option at this is our preferred option at this stage. We think that is a reasonable balance between what the balance between what the arrangements are now and some of the proposals that clearly we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before us today. Enormously grateful to the Minister for her response. And it
17:27
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Minister for her response. And it was remiss of me earlier to not thank Lord Vaux of Harrigan and my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe signing various amendments. I am also very grateful for the noble box for his very comprehensive and powerful speech, if I may say. In particular grateful for reminding us of Baroness Finlay's comments as regards GP surgeries. As the noble Lord Goddard has pointed out, we have heard from the police, doctors, businesspeople, lawyers, vets and from the clergy. There was no argument in favour of the status quo.

But there were powerful arguments for common sense and I rather wonder if the silence from the government pensions indicates a degree of unease in what we are debating. -- Government benches. The change that will fundamentally alter the balance of risk in hiring and at a time when unemployment has risen every month this Government has been in power. This clause will do nothing to promote fairness in the workplace. It will erode flexibility, it will choke opportunity and it will harden the barriers that those on the market already face.

The noble Lady the Minister argued that employers have nothing to fear from tribunal's but the government's own impact assessment says that the number of cases they expect will rise by 15%. So I do not follow the logic of the noble Ladies argument, I'm afraid. Also the government's own impact assessment admits that introducing day one right to claim unfair dismissal, I will repeat this even though the noble Lord box did not, would damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially as they are observed to be riskier to hire.

As the noble Lord box said, the government already knows and things this and why are they doing this? -- Lord Vaux. Noble Lord asked to the point question and the right reverend Prelate made an argument on his expense, both were making the point this is the compassionate thing to do. I do not believe this clause is ready, I do not believe it is safe, I do not believe it is wise, I think we need to advert what my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe said is a looming travel -- tragedy so I wish to test the opinion of the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that
17:29
None Portrait Division
-

opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". I think then not-contents habit... Question will be decided by a division, I will inform the House when the voting is open. -- I think the not- voting is open. -- I think the not-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The My Lords. The question My Lords. The question is My Lords. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the left throne, the not contents to the left Mike Mike my Mike my Lords, Mike my Lords, the Mike my Lords, the question Mike my Lords, the question is Mike my Lords, the question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted They have voted contents They have voted contents 299, They have voted contents 299, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted contents 299, not contents 165, so the contents contents 165, so the contents 50, not moved. 50, not moved. In 50, not moved. In schedule 50, not moved. In schedule three amendment 51, may I make it clear that if this were agreed I cannot call 52 by reason of breach. Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe. Sorry, I need to hear it clearly. I beg to. Thank you. Amendment proposed schedule three line 24 leave out paragraph 1 and two and insert the words on the Marshall list. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Within moved to 53. Red, amendment proposed schedule three 920 net after employment insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. I believe there are a number of the same as consequential, if the House is agreeable I suggest we take 54 to 66 en bloc. The question is that the amendments be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not Amendment 6067, Lord Faulks, not moved, in clause 26 amendment 68 Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
17:44
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to move the Government amendments tabled in my Noble Friends name Baroness Jones of Whitchurch was about the moments target the application of the clause to a set restricted variations to better focus the measures on unscrupulous fire and rehire tactics. We have had many representations from trade unions and the effect of the measure and have listened to the well argued points in this House and, indeed, in The Other Place and we have greatly valued the groups across industry on this issue British roads members as well as the TUC, Unite, Usdaw, the RMT, many other businesses and trade unions.

It is of intention to ban the instability use of fire and rehire and we were elected on a manifesto to do so, but we want to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the ability of employers to make essential operational decisions. Amendment six, six to nine, 70 operational decisions. Amendment six, six to nine, 72, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92, either fire and rehire would be an unfair dismissal in relation to the variations unless the employer is in a severe financial difficulty and has no reasonable alternative.

These are pay, number of hours, leave entitlement, this changes to the shift patterns that will be specified in regulations. In relation to other contractual changes such as the location of job role subject to ordinary unfair dismissal rules with enhanced protections to ensure employers meaningfully consult and negotiate with employees in doing so. This should include consultation carried out by trade union representatives where there is a recognised trade union. These changes have been made to strike the right balance between protecting employees between unquestionable firing practices and give employers the fix ability they We will take time to make sure the measure is effectively applied...

Aware able to take hold of steak on reviews, of which expenses and benefits in kind are restricted from the variation of pay and which changes to ship patterns will be a restricted variation, so the clause strikes the right balance. Turning next to amendment 78. We want to make sure that fire and rehire will not be used for reducing employees rights. For those employed in the private sector and the public sector alike. This amendment will clarify that when public and private sector employees can use fire and rehire for restricted variation under the exemption in the clause.

Mike employers. This will mean that both the private and public sectors, fire and rehire for restricted variation can only be used if the employer is facing severe financial difficulties, so this practice is only available in the rarest of circumstances., 80, 81, 83, 84, 85 and 89 provide that local authorities can only use fire and rehire to make restricted variations when they are experiencing financial difficulties and are under statutory intervention as a result of those difficulties. They must also show they had no reasonable alternative.

Local authorities are more complex compared with other public sector employers by nature of their funding and finances and therefore require a bespoke financial difficulties and exemption, which take account of that. These amendments will make it clear to local authorities and their employees when they would meet the exemptions under clause 26. This will mean that for all employers, restricted variations can only be used if the employer is facing severe financial difficulties, so this practice is only available again in the narrowest of circumstances.

Turning now to amendment 68, 87, 90 and 93, these amendments will specifically stop unscrupulously employers being able to fire their employees and replace them with non-employees, such as agency workers, to do essentially the same role while undercutting wages and other protections. It is important though that businesses retain flexibility to carry out legitimate business practices involved in restructuring and outsourcing. Employers will still be able to restructure their businesses and where necessary, replace employees with non-employees where employees with non-employees where there is a reduced business need for a particular type of work.

For example, if an employer will move into a seasonal business model, they will still be able to make employees redundant if necessary and to engage nonemployees to carry out reduced amount of work. This will prevent unscrupulously employers from undermining the protection in these clauses by firing and replaces staff to do substantially the same work. I believe that this amendment will ensure the Bill is comprehensive in addressing unscrupulous fire and rehire and rehire in place practices. I look forward to hearing noble Lord's debate on the amendment they have tabled to this clause, I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 26, page 46, line 14, leave out and
17:49
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert to. The amendments in this group

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendments in this group relate to the bill's position fire and rehire and there is a consensus right across the House that the most right across the House that the most outrageous cases of fire and rehire should be outlawed. The particular case an example is P&O Ferries, which was not so much fire and rehire just fire when staff were dismissed without consultation or notice, nevertheless it serves to highlight the urgent need for stronger protection for workers and clear restrictions on the use of fire and rehire.

The series of Government's amendment in this group clarifies the restriction through the introduction restricted variations, which will permit contract negotiators to proceed on limited circumstances. Amendment 72 sets up the definition of restricted sets up the definition of restricted variation,... Or weakening of terms and conditions. This approach reflects the intentions between my amendment 75, which would allow contract variations were they not detrimental to employees terms and conditions and not the same pay and hours, so I'm glad the Government has considered these provisions and we are happy to support this amendment to the Bill.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with Lord Goddard of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I agree with Lord Goddard of Stockport, that as we warned when we discussed clause 26 in committee, as discussed clause 26 in committee, as originally drafted, it was quite simply unworkable. As we reminded simply unworkable. As we reminded the House throughout the committee stage, the clause was just far too broad. It would have captured broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases.

That approach was not only impractical, it was was not only impractical, it was potentially damaging to both employers and employees alike. So we
17:51
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
employers and employees alike. So we therefore now welcome the government's decision to bring forward amendments which define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation and while I would not go so far as to say the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible. But the noble Lord the Minister quoted Unite. Can I just quote Unite back at him? They have just issued a statement saying they condemn the Government's amendments.

Which do in its own way suggest that progress is being made. I think he would really be well placed to consider a rather detailed brief that Unite have delivered condemning the way in which the Government is now reworking clause 26. And I think it suggests that progress is being made, all our warnings are coming to fruition. I suppose one now has to wonder whether the legislation dawn, the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government's own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.

Of course these amendments, while helpful, have also added layers of complexity. And when you look now at what clause 26 represents, it is a recipe for going to peers like the noble Lord Hendy and saying, what does this mean? Because there is so much here that is very difficult to understand. And they have added layers of complexity... I think probably, and I do say slightly optimistically, that perhaps the fire and rehire provisions are now slightly more workable.

My goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government is preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn. That consultation will be crucial. And I just quote another major figure, the general secretary of Prospect, Mike Clancy. Who warned the government must be careful, it does not inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change. Because that surely is the risk. Amongst the restricted variations now listed are, " Reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times and reductions in leave entitlements." These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make, not recklessly but in order to adapt, restructure or just survive during the periods of financial strain.

So, we urge the government to conduct we urge the government to conduct this consultation with care, with views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-size businesses must be fully understood. And yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. And if we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst, we must support the best. This clause, as amended, is better. But we look forward to hearing from the noble Lord the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.

have been made.
17:55
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I thought for a minute concord might break out across the House, may be partially, but not quite. The short debate we had today and also in committee has shown, and indeed as identified by the noble Lord Goddard of Stockport, there is wide agreement across your Lordships' House that the unconscionable tactics we saw used by P&O Ferries should never be allowed again. We have also heard clear arguments that employers will need to make reasonable operational changes and that this should be permitted.

Let me begin with amendment 74 and 88, tabled by the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seems to make it clear... Seeks to make it clear that where an employer makes reductions... Makes redundancies because they had a change location, it should not be an automatic unfair it should not be an automatic unfair dismissal. We agree. If there is no longer a job for the employee and to work location because that location has had the closedown, this is unfortunate but it is still a redundancy situation.

This is why new section 104I will only apply when the principal reason for the dismissal is one that falls within that section. And employer these place workers close, the principal reason for their dismissal is likely to be redundancy. We will set out further detail on this matter in our planned Code of Practice. Furthermore, the changes the government is making do these amendments mean a change to the location in which an employer works is a nonrestrictive variation. That means that even in cases where there is no redundancy situation, a dismissal for failing to agree with the new work location will not be automatically unfair.

An employer must still follow a fair process when making such dismissals. Turning now to amendment 73, the noble Lord Sharpe seat to limit the protections in the Bill to cases where fire and rehire was used to reduce pay and benefits. The Government's amendments 69, 72, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 will focus the clauses rejection of variation to certain terms, specific pay, lead, total hours worked and specified shift patterns. Those times were identified because of variations to them would have a significant impact on employees and should not be imposed under the threat of fire and rehire.

This we believe is in line with the intention of the noble Lords Amendment. The noble Lord Epsom in his speech just now raised both the comments from Unite and indeed Prospect. I think I'm right in saying they were... She shows there are a variety of views within the trade union movement as well as across industry. We understand Unite would like stricter conditions on fire and rehire. We think we have struck the balance, having consulted with a wide range of trade unions including the TUC and a number of business organisations, businesses themselves and representatives of business organisations, including the CBI and the PRC and we feel we have the right balance in the way we have constructed the clause.

Finally, to amendment 75, the noble Lord Goddard of Stockport proposes to limit the clause to variations to contract that are not under the list of protected terms and which are otherwise minor and not detrimental. The government's amendments which limit the clauses that Anton were tick unfair dismissal to limited situations, achieve the noble Lord outcome, which I think is racially knowledge. It also has the benefit of being specific. The government's amendment would not require Employment Tribunal to come to a decision about whether a variation is considered to be minor on the facts of each case.

The Government's amendment also gives employers flexibility to make reasonable location changes which employers have told us is an important operational consideration and which would not be possible under the noble Lords Amendment. I therefore beg to move the amendment in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch I would ask the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment 73. The question is that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We then come to contents have it. We then come to amendment 69, it may be for the convenience of the House amendment convenience of the House amendment 69 and 72 are removed and block -- en bloc. The question is the en bloc. The question is the amendments he agreed to en bloc.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We turn then to amendment 73,... Not turn then to amendment 73,... Not move. 74, not moved. 75... Lord move. 74, not moved. 75... Lord goddard. Not moved. In that case we goddard. Not moved. In that case we move to amendment 76, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, again it may be for of Whitchurch, again it may be for the convenience of the House that the convenience of the House that 76-87 are moved en bloc.

The question is that these amendments be agreed to en bloc. As many as are of agreed to en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The We have got now to We have got now to 87. We have got now to 87. This We have got now to 87. This is We have got now to 87. This is in the name of Lord Sharpe, not moved, the name of Lord Sharpe, not moved, and then amendment 89, Baroness Jones, then 8090, then 80 9081, the question is that the amendment be agreed to en bloc.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In that case, we moved to 92. I wonder if that this point we might allow us to move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 91, Baroness Jones Whitchurch, moved formally. Whitchurch, moved formally. Amendment proposed close 47 line 37 after the words inserted, last inserted, insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. The printed on the Marshall list. The question is that amendment 91, 92, question is that amendment 91, 92, be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Amendment 93, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, moved formally.

Amendment proposed page 47 formally. Amendment proposed page 47 line 37 after the words last inserted insert the words as printed on the Marshall list. The question on the Marshall list. The question is that amendment 93 be agreed into part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. After clause 26,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 94, Baroness Noakes. My Lords, I rise to move amendment 94 which gives the Secretary of State power to introduce exemptions from part one of this bill and I think the Noble
18:04
None Portrait AMDT: 94 Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-

Lord Londesborough for adding his name to the amendment. Both in name to the amendment. Both in committee and in our report stages to date the noble Lords have warned of the impact the bill could have on businesses. The right to guaranteed hours, the statutory sick pay hours, the statutory sick pay changes, and the day at one rights which we mentioned earlier or create which we mentioned earlier or create problems for businesses, especially for small and micro businesses and the Government are basically ignoring these concerns.

These ignoring these concerns. These provisions directly affect this but provisions directly affect this but noble Lords opposite should share our concerns of the real effect of these new rights to be fewer job these new rights to be fewer job opportunities. As we have heard from employees with risk factors from the employer's perspective would find it employer's perspective would find it harder to get work because of day one rights and indeed the Statutory one rights and indeed the Statutory Sick Pay changes and these are young people even with incomplete job people even with incomplete job histories or people with a history of illness and ex-offenders.

And people that value part-time flexible people that value part-time flexible work and students might find fewer opportunities because employers fear triggering the guaranteed hours requirements. The Government are introducing these changes at a time of great economic uncertainty. While the employment numbers continue to edge upwards, there are warning signs in the rising unemployment rate, falling job vacancies, and falling average hours worked. The business surveys are consistently a reluctance to hire among businesses and increased expectations on workforce reductions.

And even the Bank of England not a man to be careless with Woods has flagged a slowdown in the job seeker market. Growth is virtually non-existent and our inflation rate is now the highest in the G7. No, this economic background increases the likelihood that this bill will create real pain for some businesses and that pain will, inevitably, end the felt in the workforce. And at committee I argued for exemptions to part one been hardwired into this bill for small and micro businesses at my Noble Friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom is amendment 159 in this group is similar.

And I think his amendment 107 would exempt businesses of all sizes from some of the provisions. These are both great amendments and my guess is that the Government are not yet psychologically ready to admit that some sorts of businesses would be so hard-hit by the bill that they should be exempt from the scope. The Government have rejected the exemptions, citing the two tier workforce, despite the fact that in an open economy like ours workforce during occurs naturally and is certainly a feature of the current workplace.

And my amendment is a simple one. It does not require the Government to do anything. It is a reserve power that the Government can use to assist the UK economy, if things turn out as bad as we fear. It gives the Government power to create exceptions from any part of the provisions of categories of employer as defined by the Secretary of State. Thus it allows very targeted interventions if the Government believe that it is necessary. Now, some of the potential payment rates in this bill can be dealt with in the way that detailed regulations are framed and amendment 105 in this group Lee requires the Secretary of State to consider seasonal but.

Regulations, however, cannot deal with removing burdens from, for example, small and micro businesses which are the focus of several amendments in this group, nor can they avoid, nor can they address whole sector such as hospitality or agriculture, nor can they hone in on subsectors of those sectors, like the pub sector that would be massively impacted by particular types of farmers. Now, it would do no harm to the government's position if they accepted amendment 94.

They can press ahead with the plan and see what happens. If, however, they discover real problems of the kinds that many noble Lords from across this House have described, if they, and they alone, feel it is necessary. On this basis, I commend amendment 94 to the Government and I begged him.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 26, insert following new clause, the
18:08
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
26, insert following new clause, the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I wish to speak to amendments 94 tabled by the noble Baroness Noakes and to amendment 159 tabled by the noble Lords shop and Lord Hunt, both of which I have Lord Hunt, both of which I have signed up to, and I would briefly like to give my support to the Noble Lord lease amendment in this group calling for some science and calling for some science and statistical significance in pulling a representative group of SMEs on the impacts of provisions in the the impacts of provisions in the bill.

This government's consultation bill. This government's consultation is, to put it politely, curious and opaque, lacking, so far, any sort of opaque, lacking, so far, any sort of meaningful numbers, or quantified response, and barely any sort of names. Consultation carries little weight if it lacks statistical weight if it lacks statistical credibility. But let me move to Baroness Noakes entirely sensible Baroness Noakes entirely sensible and pragmatic amendment. Handing the Secretary of State regulatory tools to bring in exemptions to part one to bring in exemptions to part one of this bill to increase perceptions of this bill to increase perceptions for specified periods of time should in sign these are appropriate.

You may remember the Government, in fact, was offered similar powers of exemption in the bill earlier this year and voted through enthusiastically by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, and the majority of crossbenchers. Only to receive the custard pie treatment in The Other Place under the cloak of Financial Privilege which was a great pity. The noble Baroness has very generously, in my view, made the same offer again, and I hope it gets a more constructive response this time, for there is a broad consensus across the business that part one of this bill will have significant impact on the jobs market, especially for SMEs, and, let's be frank, that a green or little impact is highly unpredictable.

If we see the sort of outcomes suggested by membership surveys from such bodies as the ICA and the FSB, then the Secretary of State would be well advised to grab the option of these exemption tools with both hands, rather than doggedly sticking to its one size fits all mantra. Turning briefly to amendment 159 seeking the diss application of certain provisions for small and micro businesses with fewer than 50 employees, this gets my wholehearted support, and I will spare the House from repeating my arguments at committee, but for the Government to argue, as I am sure it will come against the amendment, because it does not want to create a two tier workforce, simply does not reflect economic reality, or, indeed, the jobs market, or the structure of businesses.

SMEs cannot compete with large businesses when it comes to pay scales, training, promotion opportunities, pensions, and a whole range of other benefits. And that is a reflection of their size, their stage of development. They do succeed in delivering strong employee royalty and identification. This is true of family businesses and start-ups, and scale ups. To apply all the sections of the bill, and specifically those listed in the amendment for the application to a micro business employing five staff as it does to a multinational employing 10,000, is wilfully indiscriminate, and, I suggest, economically illiterate.

And that is why I put my name to this amendment.
18:12
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
It is a pleasure to follow Lord Londesborough of course, as I speak to my amendments one of six, 153, 155 and 104. The main thrust of the first amendments are to force the Government to listen to the real concerns of the community who, frankly, even at this late stage are unaware of the effect of the bill and they are too busy trying to keep afloat the difficult economic environment with the pain costs of NIC and other tax rises keeping it. I declare an interest as an adviser to many businesses in my career and to the extent of relevant and union matters we have not heard from any Labour backbenchers today, not yet, but I'm sure that if we do they will declare their interests in union membership, so turning first to one of six specifically which relates to part one of the bill, we are constantly told by the Labour frontbench that they want to consult with business and, indeed, today they repeated that they want to consult with business but they failed to disclose who, exactly, they are consulting with, let alone what they are actually being told by those businesses and their representative bodies.

I suspect that is because they are embarrassed by the backlash against the severity of the bill from the SME and micro employers who will make it clear to the Government that this bill will mean they are less likely to employ more people and much more likely to more people and much more likely to let people go as the burden of employment is ratcheted up and I'm grateful to the Noble Lord for amending us up at the Labour Party manifesto to commit to consultation.

As the Governments are so confident of the benefits of the bill for all businesses, why not agree to engage with them? This proposal is really very modest, just 500 companies out of some 5 1/2 million in the UK. So, it is not unreasonable to ask the Government to be honest with us and tell us what is the reaction of the community? What are their concerns? Particularly, as we know, there has been a shocking lack of impact assessments for this bill. We know that the recent CRPD survey revealed that 79% of organisations expect these legislative changes to increase the employment costs.

If it is to be helpful, I have done my own consultation and recently asked HR director of a company employing 200 people for his views and he says extending employment rights from day one may appear to promote equity, but it will, almost certainly, increase the volume and complexity of employee disputes. Businesses will be compelled to strengthen their legal frameworks and invest more heavily in compliance which comes at a cost and in real terms this will mean a reduction in hiring, particularly when the decision has already been scrutinised.

Granting trade unions a statutory right of access to workplaces to promote their membership risks introducing unnecessary friction in the employer unnecessary friction in the employer ... It will escalate tensions and to rise in Employment Tribunal, either rise in Employment Tribunal, either way, in England there is current 18 month wait for Employment Tribunal as is. I cannot emphasise enough how significant and game changing are these proposals in part one of this Bill for SME and micro-businesses. Whether it is the new rules on Parental Leave or flexible working or zero hours or dismissal rules, they will all have a dramatic effect on small businesses and most, in fact I would say nearly all have no idea of what is about to hit them.

When we had the pleasure of meeting the Minister for which we are very grateful, including the civil servants working on the Bill, we asked civil servants how many SMEs had they consulted. They could not answer. They referred to how many stakeholders they consulted. That does not mean SMEs. All we have today from the government in their fact sheet is experts claiming to fact sheet is experts claiming to support this Bill is a Don from Cambridge University, a professor who on closer examination is not an economist at all.

He is a lawyer. He is a professor of law, not economic. I'm sure he's a top man in law but it is telling that HMG did not seem to be able to find one economic who could support their plans... Made since this time they have briefed though noble Lady the Minister on how many SMEs have been physically consulted on this Bill and if so I would be very grateful if she could give us that number later on. Why would they not want to consult wider? Indeed, I'm not sure how many times the noble Lady the Minister has said in debate on this Bill that the government will consult widely before various implementations.

So if she wants to be true to her word, can she agree these amendments? The later amendments, 153 and following a very time sensitive. These relate to part four and part six of the Bill. The reason these are so important is that this relates to changes to measures which will come into effect on Royal assent or immediately thereafter and include the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act of 2016, many of the chamber will remember. The noble Lady the Minister will recall the debate we had at committee on section 77, when confusion existed on what was actually meant by this clause.

I'm great ball fur letter of 25th of July clarifies what I said was absolutely right. -- For her letter. I stand by my claim that while the total amount of income and expenditure are still disclosed, the detail of what is in the expenditure will no longer be available. Why will no longer be available. Why Your political... Goes to the Labour Party or Labour MPs? Well, it doesn't. I have tried to look at union accounts and I started with obvious one, Unite. Unfortunately, we cannot see any reason accounts from Unite has over the last three years Unite has only provided partial accounts to the Certification Officer, as the auditor refused to sign off the accounts because of the ongoing investigation into corruption of the £112 million hotel deal.

So, I have been full to go back to the most recent disclosed, the 2019 accounts. Have a look inside Unite's return to the certification officer for 2013 to see whether political fund payments go to. It turns out that it is payments to the Palestinian solidarity campaign and other organisations. Can that really be what members of Unite want to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their hard earned wages go to? Apologies to interrupt the flow of the noble Lord but I feel his of the noble Lord but I feel his comment on political funds go a comment on political funds go a little... A fair way out of the scope of the amendments we are talking to this afternoon. There will be plenty of time to discuss

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be plenty of time to discuss political funds I believe next week at report stage. ... It is exactly the point. It is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... It is exactly the point. It is exactly the point that before these amendments are... Before this Bill amendments are... Before this Bill gets put into place, this should be consultation and there is no opportunity for consultation because they are incremented at Royal they are incremented at Royal assent. The government keeps telling us there will be a consultation, how can there possibly consultation if the measures come in at Royal assent? -- Implemented at Royal assent? -- Implemented at Royal assent.

I'm grateful to the noble of the Minister for that interaction because it proves the point. And it because it proves the point. And it allows me to explain to him and other payments in Unite's political fund he may not be aware of. It is a fund he may not be aware of. It is a payment made to them Marx Memorial library. I kid you not, you could library. I kid you not, you could not make it up. I'm sure members of Unite are thrilled to know their hard and wages are going to support the Marx Memorial library.

Well, when this Bill becomes an act, in a matter of months, they were no longer have the right to see that longer have the right to see that displacement. If that is what they want to do as far as Unite is concerned, that is up to them, but surely it should not be covered up and all I'm asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of part four and part six should take place before it is ramrod it through the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion, as the government likes to call them, relevant stakeholders.

It is on 106 which I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House this afternoon, I beg to move. move.
18:21
18:23
18:23
Lord Howard of Lympne Portrait Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative)
-
-
which undoubtably qualify as small enterprises. I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the noble observation made by the noble Baroness the Minister, when she replied to the last debate. She said replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would about because the tribunal would find in the employer's favour.

My find in the employer's favour. My Lords, very long ago I practised in the field of employment law. And I the field of employment law. And I saw at first hand the consequences, often very damaging, sometimes disastrous, for a small-business, of having to spend the time and trouble having to spend the time and trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if case at the tribunal, even if ultimately they were successful. And of course, in the real world, faced with that predicament, what employers often find themselves obliged to do is to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and withstand scant chance of success were it ever to come before the tribunal.

That is a fact which it seems to me ought to be taken into account. And so my question to the noble Lord the Minister, when he comes to reply to this debate, is this, the impact assessment to which attention has been drawn earlier today, in particular by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who drew attention to the increase in the number of tribunal cases which would be a consequence of this Bill, my question is this, to what extent did the impact assessment take into account those disputes which were not actually taken to the tribunal, were settled by the employer who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case in tribunal, but would nevertheless involve very substantial damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employer? ... Whether the noble Lord Howard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

... Whether the noble Lord Howard would agree with me that there are, since he and I practice the since he and I practice the Employment Tribunal is, now strong procedures by which employment
18:24
18:26
Lord Roborough Portrait Lord Roborough (Conservative)
-
-
Sharpe of Epsom, and to which I have added my own name. I again refer the House my registered interest, in particular as a dairy and livestock, and as a forester. The farming community does need help after the run of negative actions taken by this government. The slashing of payments followed swiftly by the cut-off in sustainable farming incentives, with no notice, contrary to previous promises. That leaves a large number of farmers with negligible environmental payments, incentivising the intensification of their farming operations, undermining their businesses and undermining nature restoration.

To this is added the more general burden placed on all businesses of increased employer National Insurance contributions. Adam Thomas long-term planning has been thrown into chaos by the reduction in inheritance tax reliefs on agricultural business property. -- Farmers. It is a burden farming businesses city cannot afford and will into the sale and breakup of many of these of family... And families also losing their homes and businesses as a result. In the run- up to the reduction, the financial incentive for elderly or terminally ill farmers and business owners to take their own lives increases.

At Committee stage I was most grateful to the noble Lord the Minister, who was again in his place today, but his promise to speak his ministerial colleagues at DEFRA and the ONS keeping accurate and timely data on farmer and business owners suicides. I asked the noble Lord the Minister again today what has been the result of those discussions, how can the Government assess the impact of that measure on suicide rates if it simply relies on out-of-date and insufficiently granular ONS data? Turning briefly to amendment 107.

The argument in favour of granting farming and exemption from these provisions in this Bill have been well-made at committee and will only hit the headlines. Farming is almost uniquely exposed to seasonality in its harvesting operations but also the weather variability of the timing of those operations. Livestock farmers also have to look after the animals every day and rely on casual labour to fill in gaps due to illness or scheduling issues. That requires flexibility of its engagement with seasonal and part- time or casual staff.

There are penalties enough on whether unpredictability without introducing more for compensating staff are changing hours at short notice or having to compensate for sickness from day one. These obligations are simply unaffordable for farmers and unworkable in practice. Farming also operates on cycles that are unknown in other businesses. It is easy enough to assess the quality of work and the suitability of staff in retail, offices, manufacturing, even after the first day also also however, most farming workloads are solitary with little oversight, we only know where then a new employee has drilled a field greatly, look after animal hygiene effectively, checked weed growth around trees without damaging the trees or ensure that livestock is back in calf for the necessary window months after those operations are performed.

Reducing probationary period and leaving farmers exposed to human resource and litigation risks potentially from day one is simply not acceptable or workable. As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted in committee, this is not a Government that has a background or experience in the farming or rural economy. That lack of experience is so often evident and I are so house and the Government to listen to those of us do have that experience and support this critical amendment. I hope to encourage in the noble Lord the Minister that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government is listening. My Lords, these amendments in this group relate to the disapplication of sections of the Bill in certain sections and Bill in certain sections and employment types. Amendment 94 would allow the Secretary of State the ability to regulation to exempt sectors and the provision of the sectors and the provision of the act. We are not supportive of this amendment, as we are generally not supportive of facilitating two tier supportive of facilitating two tier employment systems.

With certain businesses statutory obligations which they must adhere to and others which they must adhere to and others that do not. Instead, we have focused on ensuring that as part of the government's consultation process, ahead of implementation, process, ahead of implementation, sector is likely to be disproportionately affected are wobbly engaged and supported to operate under the act with minimal operate under the act with minimal disruption. -- Properly engaged. The amendment in Lord Sharpe same which amendment in Lord Sharpe same which we have signed will create a definition of seasonal work and require legislation later the Secretary of State regard to work at Secretary of State regard to work at this nature.

During Committee stage replace that on record held that impact of the act on seasonal workers and the difficulty those businesses have in adhering to the act. We actually believe the amendment does not create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses but ensures those businesses are considered properly with secondary legislation is created for the act and we will support any action on and we will support any action on Amendment 176 to exempt individuals from farming businesses amendment 2321 of the act and despite a strong opinion on behalf of the farming communities we cannot support the amendment because to the package of the bill we involve the creation of two tier employment systems that include sectors and corporate action and, additionally, we believe that some of the conditions that they proposed exempt apply to farmworkers and those relating to the right to request which the Noble Lord was in favour yesterday of Statutory Sick Pay and possibly if there are other struggling sectors such as adult care, earliest providers, you're not care, earliest providers, you're not receiving subspecialty arrangements we cannot support amendment one seven.
18:32
18:33
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
bill will have a detrimental effect on seasonal work and seasonal industries carpeted has failed to provide any clear definition of what seasonal work actually is. We think it is therefore essential that the it is therefore essential that the bill provides a precise definition to take this artist to ensure that the law reflects the unique unchanging nature. We are discussing the lives and livelihoods of thousands of who not rigidly around roles but in the beating heart of seasonal industries such as agriculture, hospitality, tourism agriculture, hospitality, tourism and performing arts.

There were seasons with festivals, not seasons with festivals, not seasons with festivals, not according to the recording periods. And yet under the present draft a 12 week reference. As been proposed as a basis for determining what constitutes an established part of constitutes an established part of work. Let's pause on that. 12 weeks, work. Let's pause on that. 12 weeks, barely 3 months, or one might observe the precise duration of just one of the four seasons is being one of the four seasons is being treated as a sufficient measure to see those whose nature is predicted by predictability and periodic intensity.

But is not only an intensity. But is not only an inadequate metric, it is, in many ways, in many cases, a misleading ways, in many cases, a misleading metric. Effort from my employer hundreds and none by August. A technician might work flat out during festival season and then have no engagement for months. Or be working elsewhere. A seaside hotel may be bustling in July, but deserted in November. To take a short-term temporary rise and draw from it, long-term legal assumptions about continuity of work is not merely a flawed approach, it is deeply unfair to both employers and workers.

Businesses cannot predict with such precision and cannot bind themselves to everything that the market does not keep, and if they are forced to do so, they will understandably become more cautious and they will hire fewer people, they will reduce opportunity, they will retreat from flexibility Is not bad for an economy and in many cases it is the only practical means by which people, students, carers, parents and artists, can participate in the labour market and we must not make the mistake of irregularity for eligibility or seasonal or for insecure work, so this amendment does something both elegant and essential, define seasonal working in clear and practical terms and captures the recurring temporary character, grounded in the real operational rhythms of key sectors.

And, crucially, instructs the Secretary of State to have regards to the definition when drafting regulations. That is not an escape close, it is a safeguard. We are not asking for a policy, were asking for recognition that not all labour is uniform and not all employment plans can or should be squeezed into the same regulatory old. And if would pass this bill without such a safeguard we risk chilling seasonal hiring altogether, not protecting workers, but just denying them opportunities. Turning to amendment 107, I am grateful to the Noble Lord for signing this amendment and I look forward to the questions that he asked particularly on the state suicide statistics and I hope the Noble Lord is able to address those before turning to the matter at hand I must begin with an unequivocal condemnation of the government's recent family farms tax policy.

And this disastrous measure has placed an unbearable strain on family farms, which are the very foundation of our rural communities and the heart of our national security. Instead of supporting these hard- working families, the Government has chosen to punish the policies that threaten their very existence, so I would ask the Government to commit to traversing the tax immediately for the sake of our farmers, for our countryside, and for our country. But, having said that, I turn with equal consent of the implemented rights bill.

While the bill is to enhance commanders comment well, tragically fails to take into account the unique realities of farm businesses and seasonal work. As we have heard, farming is unlike any other industry, it is defined by seasonal peaks and troughs by work that is dictated by the weather and nature and bite labour demands that can change from one week to the next. To impose the fixable employment rights design. Round jobs in the seasonal industries is to misunderstand the fundamentals. For example, the proposal to extend employment rights that we have just discussed and that restrictions on zero hours contracts that further exacerbate some of these issues.

The zero hours contracts by agriculture and not at all exploitation are a necessary mechanism for managing seasonal labour. Moreover, the proposal to require compensation for cancelled shifts fails to consider farming's intrinsic unpredictability. Decisions about working in weather conditions that change with little notice, to expend farmers to pay for cancelled hours when fields are unworkable simply unrealistic and unfair. Even the bill's provisions on the right to request flexible working as an undue burden on farmers, agricultural workers highly seasonal, as the Explained that next fixable booking requests difficult to accommodate in practice, raising the threshold for employers to refuse these rights will hamper the ability to plan and respond to fluctuating labour needs.

That is where the amendment for us today is not merely desirable but we think essential. Into two uses a clear baseline and the bill can then be tailored to reflect the cyclical, temporary, and whether dependent nature of agricultural labour. This amendment recognises the reality of these industries and allows for the necessary flux ability. Without this amendment, the Government risks imposing a one size fits all regime that will force many pubs to cease hiring, increased cost, or close altogether, yet again, devastating rural communities and, of course, endangering our food security.

I would urge people around this House to support the amendment and sent the clear message that we are not against the realities. We have to protect workers and yes, protect the farms who feed the destination. Amendment 159, I would be very grateful, indeed, to the Noble Lord Londesborough for supporting it. If you years ago, in a remarkable TV interview, a one-time Labour shadow chancellor could only suggest build somebody when asked the Labour leader that supported Labour's policies. Sadly, the government's Employment Rights Bill risks the same fate.

Ministers cannot name a single small business that supports all the measures contained within it of any existing tool and this bill is being rushed through with little regard to the businesses that from the backbone of our economy and the government's own assessment hints at looming disaster but fails to fully capture its devastating effects. And the bill is weighing heavily on the minds of small business owners, already forcing them in precisely the moment when they are most needed. And that ICA W, the Institute of directors, at 72% of business belief the bill will hamper growth and nearly half say they intend to hire fewer staff as a direct result, yet the Government insists businesses will simply absorb the costs and a statement that is not only unrealistic but dismissive of the precarious financial position many small enterprises face and many firms may without the storm but small businesses survive on razorthin margins and they will come with reduced opportunities or reluctance to hire new staff.

And the office for responsibility has warned of the sweeping new regulations that will likely have, and I quote, material and probably negative impacts on productivity and process. That, I fear, is an understatement. Crucially, the Government has missed one vital fact, and that is that there is competition between employers, not simply regulation, that best protects workers rights first employers that want the most productive rights must offer better pay and conditions to attract and then keep them first of this natural market dynamic encourages fairness and opportunity for more effectively than heavy-handed mandates.

This bill would distort competition by imposing complex rules that distract businesses from focusing on growth and innovation instead, they will devote precious resources into and tree compliance and legal risk into the barriers rather than enabling opportunity and, ironically, this will lead to fewer businesses competing for talent, and therefore fewer jobs grated. The Government cleans that these will improve job security and working conditions, but the reality is that it will force many small-business to rethink their hiring plans altogether.

The FSB says so and they will either hold back on creating new jobs or they will cut existing ones, and some will reduce wages or cut hours to survive and the intended provisions risk firing and making work less secure and less rewarding and, ultimately, the costs imposed by the bill amount to a stealth tax which fall directly on the workers themselves and opportunity tax. Employers faced with higher compliance costs at the risk of higher tribunals, the restrictions and fix ability will have little choice but to pass the expenses down the chain.

This means lower wages, fewer hours, fewer job opportunities, paradoxically, that work does not pay. A quick word on my Noble Friends amendment one also, now this Government likes a consultation, but the Government has been unable to name any business it has consulted in relation to part one. My Noble Friends amendment is therefore elegant in its simplicity and channels the government's enthusiasm and corrects their admission. I would support him if he chooses to divide. And, finally, can I remind the Noble Lord who I think is answering that noble Howard asked a very important question, unless he has forgotten it, I would like to re-ask it.

I beg to move.
18:42
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords that have spoken in this debate. Starting with amendment 94, the noble Baroness knobs amendment would exempt specific groups from all or some of the provisions within part one. Since the 1980s, UK reforms have stringed back workers right and turned the country into an outlier amongst advanced economies. The U.K.'s productivity has shown more sharply than in other companies with others and millions trapped in low-paid, insecure, and poor quality knobs.

There was a result and less money lining people's pockets. Are now paying the price. Millions of working people can't afford basic living costs and in one of the world's wealthiest nations, workers are still turning to food banks. Many cannot afford rent, let alone a mortgage. Morale is at rock bottom, motivation is vanishing. Average salaries have barely increased from where they were 14 years ago, an average worker would be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading to the 2008 financial crisis.

Yet, executive pay keeps climbing, in 2023 the average CEO and 118 times more than the median UK worker. From 50 times in the late 1990s. This is unsustainable and not fair. This is no way to a healthy and productive economy. The UK must stop treating workers predictions as an attack on growth. They are the foundations of it. Over 2 million people could benefit from guaranteed hours and rise to paper and zero hours contracts.

Over 9 million people would benefit from protections against unfair dismissal from day one. To 1.3 million employees will get the new entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay. And that new rights entitlements and protections provide the baseline minimum standard for security and dignity network. They should not be something that the Government of the day can freely take away. Furthermore, exempting categories for any category that the Secretary of State deems fit will, ultimately, create a two-tier system of employment rights based on the politics of the day.

Whilst I understand that noble Baronesses protections I reiterate that these provisions were the work of Manifesto commissions and business confidence is at a nine-year high, according to the barometer. The opposite noble Lords my love, but this is the Lord's business barometer which I ensure many noble Lords across the aisle would know who they are, with a second consecutive, with a second consecutive rising workforce projections for the coming year. And Deloitte recently read that UK as joint top destination for This government had to take difficult decisions to restore stability to public finances.

This has resulted in four interest rates cuts, wage is growing faster than inflation, inward investment and living standards growing across the country. Economic activity is also at a record high. We have created 384,000 more people in employment since last summer. This has resulted or and rather we are shielding 250,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties from paying full business rates. I turn now to amendment 159. Every region, sector and international market, we are committed to supporting SMEs and the 12.7 million people who work for them.

But the idea that SMEs cannot afford day one rights does not reflect the full picture. Fundamental rights from day one, such as protection from unfair dismissal, sick pay and flexible working creates a more stable and motivated work force. Their treatment is not just good policy. -- Fair treatment. It is good business. Stress, depression and anxiety led to 17.1 million lost days in 22-23. The equivalent of something like £5.2 billion of lost economic output. High staff turnover, poor morale and burnout are far more costly than simply doing the right thing and upholding the fair treatment of workers.

SMEs already rely on loyal adaptable staff, offering day one rights will help retain them and support productivity. This is not about burdening small businesses, it is about raising the floor, so that decent work is the norm and not a privilege. Many SMEs already treat their workers fairly without being force to do so. The law should be the standard, not to allow bad actors to cut corners. Dennis should not appear on company size. -- Fairness. If a business relies on denying business rates, it is not a sustainable business, it is exploitation.

There are already huge amount of government support that was outlined at committee. And looking forward, we will also publish a small business strategy paper later this year. This will set out our intentions to support small businesses across key areas, including driving high streets, making it easier to secure finance, accessing overseas and domestic markets, entrepreneurship and building business capabilities. Turning to these reforms we have now published the bill's implementation roadmap, which I recommend all noble Lords across the aisle to read it.

It provides clarity for all employers on how and when we will engage and consult on the implementation of measures post Royal Assent. As well as when measures will take effect. We are taking a measured and phased approach to implementation, to make sure reforms are practical, workable and sustainable. This will give employers time and space to adapt systems, train staff and update policies where necessary. Employers, workers and other stakeholders will be further supported by guidance that we will produce.

We are committed to exploring how this guidance can best meet the needs of SMEs. Boosting productivity, improving workers well-being and creating a more level playing field for good employers will grant significant benefits worth billions of pounds a year. It would not be appropriate to exclude small businesses from these benefits or create a two-tier workforce. I turn now to amendment 105 and 106, table by the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Firstly, we are steadfast in our commitment to Britain's farming industry.

Government is investing industry. Government is investing over £5 billion over the next two years, the largest ever allocation to support sustainable food production in the UK's history. In regards to a member 105, consideration around seasonal work is built into part one of the Bill. I refer now to the noble Lords question on the issue on the review, that I will have to write to the noble Lord and ask my colleagues from DEFRA to ensure he gets a reply to his question.

And as far as suicide is concerned, it is sad, it is unfortunate and it is troubling and we need to get to the bottom of this and I will ensure the noble Lords gets an answer from the Department concerned. In relation to the right of guaranteed workers specifically, the provisions allow guaranteed hours offers to take the form of an offer to enter into a limited term contract where it is reasonable to do so. The provisions details that is reasonable into enter into a limited time contract where, for instance, the qualified worker will only be needed until an event has occurred or until a specific task has been completed.

This will allow for the use of a limited term contract for seasonal work in such circumstances. By way of just one example, which is also pertinent to amendment 107, if a fruit picker qualifies for a guaranteed hours offer, that offer could be an offer to enter into a limited time contract... Term contract. Which could expire either once a task is a fruit picker has completed or once the picking season has ended. As set out in the recent roadmap publication, we will begin consulting on the implementation of many of the bills key measures this autumn, including regulations on guaranteed hours.

We will welcome responses from all stakeholders, including those with an interest in seasonal workers from all sectors like farming, hospitality and retail. All relevant factors, including... Of workers will be taken into account when making secondary legislation. So this amendment is unnecessary. Regarding amendment 107, whilst I understand the principle, it is fundamental that our main work pay reforms apply across all employers. These rights, entitlements and projections provide baseline minimum standard for security and dignity at work.

I now turn to amendment 106, 105, 155 and 18 and 184, considering consultation on this Bill. We regularly meet with business representatives organisations, whether the CBI, the FSB or the British Chamber of Commerce. And they themselves will represent thousands of individual companies of all sizes, types and kind. In fact, my noble friend the Minister and myself will be meeting the British Chamber of Commerce tomorrow. And I will not even go into the political funds, because that is for another day.

I will not labour the point further, small businesses remain at the forefront of our mines as we move closer to the implementation phase of the Bill. -- Our mines. We publish that implementation roadmap and committed to full consultation, including with SMEs. Before I conclude, in answer to the noble Lord Howard's point about the tribunal, we are creating a Fair Work Agency, that will take the load off, to a certain extent, any of the tribunal hearing. And ACAS will also help out before any cases are heard before the tribunal.

Lord Sharpe asked about business... As I said earlier, we have consulted with business extensively, throughout the passage of this Bill itself, and many have come out in support of the Bill. Let me give you an example of one, he asked for one example and I will give it to him. This includes, for example,... A well renowned high quality textile manufacture. And an SME best -- based in West Yorkshire. And they say they welcome the bill's ambition to level the playing field, ensuring responsible employers like us, then, are not undercut by those lower standards.

It is a step forward for fairness, for business and for people. In conclusion, I asked the noble Lord, the noble Baroness Noakes, to withdraw amendment 94.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has put up a heroic defence based on a variety of statistics. But is he aware of the latest ICAEW survey, he aware of the latest ICAEW survey, the chartered accountants, I think they survey over a thousand companies of various sizes. Which shows the fourth quarterly decline in business confidence. And which shows that the expectations for shows that the expectations for employment are at their lowest level

**** Possible New Speaker ****

since the third quarter 2020. If he starts throwing statistic, I can throw statistics at him as I can throw statistics at him as well. As I said earlier, the delights survey shows the UK's top destination for businesses. In fact, destination for businesses. In fact, the Chancellor's speech at Mansion House yesterday was very welcomed by House yesterday was very welcomed by the city of London and the financial services say that London will be the destination for Fintech investment. destination for Fintech investment.

And furthermore, KPMG's recent consumer index says that people are feeling more... They are feeling feeling more... They are feeling more money in their pocket and are starting to plan the holidays for summer and good for them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm sure the Minister will want to be very clear on this. I think to be very clear on this. I think the Deloitte survey he referred to was in respect of inward investment only. Probably because the UK is regarded as a cheap place, given what has happened to us in the last month. Whereas the chartered accountant survey is specifically on business confidence and it has fallen every quarter for the last four quarters. One wonders what happened four quarters ago to prompt that.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I can say, we got into government one year ago. After 14 years. And we go back, business confidence also very low then. And plus the same time, unemployment also on the rise. At the end of the day, we are making At the end of the day, we are making progress. And yes, the figures will take time to change and I'm confident that confidence will grow. And because the inward investment is And because the inward investment is coming in, which means investing in more business and furthermore, the more business and furthermore, the FTSE index reached 9,000 mark FTSE index reached 9,000 mark yesterday.

And what does it say? People have confidence to invest in British companies. So let's not talk down the economy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

down the economy. I can't let that pass. He will know the FTSE represents mostly foreign earnings, it is not a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

domestic index. I thank all noble Lord who have taken part in this debate, which has taken part in this debate, which has covered quite a lot of ground. I cannot pretend to be anything but disappointed in the Minister's
18:58
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
disappointed in the Minister's response, in fact, the first chunk of his response seemed to be some kind of lesson in a socialist view of life. And had nothing whatsoever to do with any of the amendments. I have to say, while I respect the noble Lord's own business expertise, he does seem to demonstrate that this Government does not understand business. And does not understand the key to successful economic management. I was pleased to hear that my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley intends to test the opinion of the House.

And I hope that my noble friend is on the Frontbench will be seeking to do the same thing when we reach there amendment in their place in the Marshalled List. I was of course disappointed but not surprised that the noble Lord the Minister was not prepared to accept my generous offer of a reserve power to create exemptions to get the government out of trouble in due course. And I hope they do not come to regret their decision. My Lords, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

I have taken the government horse to water

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but it has refused to drink. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn. By leave withdrawn withdrawn. I am leave withdrawn withdrawn. I am informed there was an error in the results announced in the first division today. The correct results division today. The correct results were content, 304 stop not-contents, were content, 304 stop not-contents, were content, 304 stop not-contents, 160. -- Content, 304. Not content, 160. Members 95 and 96 taken
18:59
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
160. Members 95 and 96 taken together, already debated. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not I am looking to move a member 100 by but I take it position on by but I take it position on amendment 106. On Tuesday, the Government published its long- awaited review of the whistleblower awaited review of the whistleblower framework. Despite its narrow remit, the review is frankly jawdropping. the review is frankly jawdropping. And the Government really has no choice now but to set in train choice now but to set in train fundamental reforms for the whole of the whistleblowing framework.

In knowledge and of the significance of knowledge and of the significance of that publication, I will not move that publication, I will not move amendment 95. But while we wait for amendment 95. But while we wait for fundamental reform, we need some immediate improvement to some of the worst features of the current system of supposedly whistleblowing protection. Amendment 96 would enable the Secretary of State to deal with spurious excuses to fire whistleblowers and would enable the Secretary of State to require Secretary of State to require investigation by employers where reasonable.

The amendment was reasonable. The amendment was drafted by Lord Wills who cannot be here today, it is also signed by me and by Baroness Morgan of Cotes, it was spoken to warmly by Lord Cromwell on Monday, who is in his place and I thank him. This is very much a cross-party amendment. And on this amendment, I wish to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion of the House. May we first dispose of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May we first dispose of amendments 95? Amendment 95, not amendments 95? Amendment 95, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments 95? Amendment 95, not MM at 96. The question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 96. I wish to test the opinion of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House on that. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary,
19:01
19:14
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
RIs to speak to amendment 97 which is in my name. Firstly I would like to thank the ministers for taking the time to meet to discuss this important matter and specifically the noble Lord AND his team for meeting over the weekend. This is a simple amendment. It's about protecting families of sick children. It has been called Hughes law. You died at the age of six from cancer. His name is etched into this amendment not as a symbol, but as a legacy.

I thank his parents for being here today. They are sitting in the gallery, as they were at committee. Since his death his parents have dedicated their lives to ensuring that no other family has to ensuring that no other family has to endure what they had to endure. They have been doing so without job security or peace of mind. I cannot imagine anything worse than watching your child die and having to make the choice of ink with them or potentially losing your home.

This is not just an important time for is not just an important time for parents, but for siblings. I know my noble friend would have wanted to be here, but she is attending a funeral. In the time it will take us to complete this stage of the bill or than 1,000 parents across the UK will be told that their child has a life-threatening illness. Some will be in hospital for weeks. Others tragically will never leave. But unlike most of us here today Hugh's parents do not have to imagine that moment.

They have lived it. They know the unbearable fear, the crushing helplessness and the impossible choice between work and being at their child's bedside. They are campaigning for this because they know the current system fails these families. It leaves the families exposed, unsupported and forgotten by a framework that recognises the needs of newborns, but not of children like you who are older than 29 days when they for ill. The amendment is reasonable and humane and offers 12 weeks of paid leave for parents of a critically leave for parents of a critically ill child over 29 days old.

At present no parent is entitled to financial support in the first 90 days of their child's illness. After 90 days they can apply for disability living allowance. But even then successful DLA applications can take up to 20 weeks Of the families surveyed 90% Government support was made a critical difference to the hardships they faced following their child's diagnosis and treatment. This amendment seeks to build on important progress made through the 2023 neonatal care pay act which was only meant to be a starting point.

Under this act parents of babies admitted to neonatal care within the first 28 days of life and he require a hospital stay of seven continuous days or more are now entitled to up to 12 weeks of statutory leave with pay as eligible. This is also in addition to additional -- existing paternity and maternity entitlements. Baroness Merron previously stated that and I quote, no parent should have to choose between being with their vulnerable newborn returning to work. We are giving parents peace of mind so they can focus on the family.

This amendment aims to be just that. It prevents parents from having to make those impossible choices between the child's health and employment. Instead it provides the financial support necessary to those vulnerable parents and devastating

**** Possible New Speaker ****

situations. I beg to move. Amendment proposed of the clause 26 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the marshalled List. I rise very briefly to offer the strongest possible green support and I know many other people in here
19:18
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
I know many other people in here today support this amendment. Baroness Thompson has essentially outlined the reason for this very clearly, I'm just going to add a couple of additional points to that. One being that if we think about care that a child receives the parent being able to be at the bedside, we've seen many cases where parents as advocates are crucial to ensuring the child gets the best possible metal -- medical treatment. There is a proud -- profound inequality here if financial circumstances prevent parents from being at the bedside by advising telling doctors and other carers information about child's health the child themselves.

If the parents not able to be there that is of profound inequality. Also this would enable parents to maintain contact with the workplace. Something that rather than just having to give up the job, walk away and deal with the mess later it would mean there was a continuing relationship which hopefully works at best -- out for the best and the child comes home and you get back doesn't like normal. Just one other issue and I want to join Baroness Thompson in paying huge credit to carry on Frances and the campaign they have run for this Hughes law and this is very much a legacy here.

I have to say am very surprised because I know the government this week responded to a final plea to say will you back this and I hope the Minister may be about to stand up and offer something different, but the email suggested that is not what we are going to hear today. I also want to raise, I understand if the noble Lord wants to raise with me later, the briefing from the Hughes law charities point out that the situation with to fund me which is this is people were left in a situation where they have to appeal to the public to be able to fund their support for their sick child, because that means people having to expose their own suffering and pain.

This is something that unless it is strictly designated to pay for medical treatment than the parents actually are not eligible for any later government assistance that they might eventually be eligible for, Universal Credit or other assistance if they got money from the public to support them, that cuts off the government support. That is something I think the government should be looking at, it's not covered in this amendment but it's something that really is worth looking at in the future to make sure that if people receive donations to help the family in deep distress that should not stop getting other support.

With those comments I would strongly support Baroness Thompson, Baroness Grey- Thompson sorrow -- sorry, it's been a long session I strongly support this and I know many other peers well so I hope we might hear something very positive from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government. I intervene briefly, first of all to thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for to thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for introducing this amendment. Anyone who heard the interview on radio who heard the interview on radio four this morning couldn't help but be moved by the circumstances that be moved by the circumstances that are the background to this amendment I speak as one who had the
19:21
Lord Wigley Portrait Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
-
I speak as one who had the experience of losing two young children. At the age of two and three are children were diagnosed with life terminating condition. It was the week in which the 1974 election had been called and I had the decision, and my wife with me making the decision, whether to remain working in an industry or to stand. The question was how on earth will be going to face the circumstances where both are boys would live perhaps for five years, perhaps the 10 years, perhaps for 15 years, but one thing was certain, both my wife and I could not continue to work and careful to boys with learning difficulties, learning disabilities and who were gradually able to walk less and less until they couldn't walk at all.

It was a challenge, an emotional challenge as well as a physical challenge, and potentially a financial challenge which is where this amendment comes forward. We were in being unlucky and the unlikeliness was double as I have described, my wife was also expecting our third child at that time and we didn't know whether the third child would be affected by this condition or not. In standing for election and being elected for connivance to the House of Commons -- a 30% reduction in the salary I had coming in and the reality that my wife was a professional musician, a harpist, would not be under the -- able to undertake a career thereafter and would lose her earnings altogether.

Had it not been for the availability of the then mobility allowance and the other allowance both of which it was able to get for both children at the highest level, we would not have been able to employ someone to help us in order to give my wife some relief while I was down in London with my work here. That was the situation that continued, we had two other children, our daughter was born in June following that born in June following that February, she was alright, not affected by it.

Our son was born two years later was not affected by it, so we were blessed by having two children were not affected. But we saw what reality could be of the financial pressures that come from that sort of disability, a double disability. If it hadn't been for the fact that I also had my parents the fact that I also had my parents living next door my father had just retired and on a good pension, we just could not have survived. We were subsidised by my parents who were retired in their 60s in order to be able to put that together with the attendance allowance and mobility allowance to eat the money out and make things practical.

I give the House this by way of ground it's not something I taught very often about in this House but it is directly relevant to the amendment we have before us today. There are countless families face these sort of circumstances without having sort of support that we were lucky enough to get. We want to build I'm sure across this House and people of all parties want to build a system whereby no parents are put in a position where they just cannot look after their child and keep enough money coming in to make ends meet.

I thank the Baroness Grey-Thompson for bringing this forward and I wish family has been the motivation for this and every strength of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

challenges they've got. What's already been said
19:25
19:26
19:28
Lord Gascoigne Portrait Lord Gascoigne (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follow my good friend the noble Lord and obviously pay tribute to the Baroness Grey-Thompson who is moving this amendment which I proudly support, I would like to say if I may I'm sure I speak to everyone in the chamber to thank the noble Lord for what I would thought was an unbelievably emotional and incredibly powerful, and I pay tribute to him sharing that experience. During the passage of the bill we had already today that there has been much debate of late about the size and the scale of the welfare state, there does need to be reform and I think everyone accepts that, to me I state it should be tough, it should also be tougher but it certainly must also be compassionate and therefore those that do need it.

I personally cannot come, haven't had direct experience I cannot comprehend the pain and the agony of people who have just been told that their children are seriously ill and require palliative care. And you combine that with the impossible choice which is the noble Baroness said you then have to decide about what to do about work and my noble friend talked about the work that she did, that we all did, the amazing advances in neonatal care. This to me is the next logical step, it builds on what we did before.

The campaign group it's never you has done research highlighting the impact of parents and children were almost 90% of parents had to reduce their working hours, and almost 80% noted the understandable effects on their mental health stop there are many studies that do link pro family environment not only benefits families, but also business contributing to higher employee satisfaction, reduce turnover and increase productivity. I know that there are those who do have concerns about the growing size of the state whilst this is noble in itself this amendment is noble in itself, I do think there are also some other things to consider before, for those who may perceive it to be yet another endless cost amongst many, One, it is time-limited to cover a specific period in a poor family's life.

Two, it is tightly defined to only cover up to a certain age limit and for specific care. Three, which I think is crucial to me, and has all ready been said, it is for those who cannot afford not to work crucially, and him will be working and contributing again when the time is right. As Baroness said this stems from the case, the tragic case of a young boy called Hugh who died sadly at the age of six from a rare form of cancer. It is thanks to his remarkable heroic in many ways parents and their family who have campaigned against support across the country, and it's been noted since the Committee stage of this bill hundreds of families will have been informed of their own agony and pain and the choices and ghastly I do hope, and I say respectfully to the Minister and I think his words at the previous stage very warm, I hope tonight collectively we can with the government come to some conclusion and find a way forward so that every family that faces this unthinkable choice finds that finally the state is on their side.
19:31
19:32
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise on these benches and speak for these benches in support of Baroness Grey-Thompson's amendment 97. Lordships will remember this was regrouped and I do refer to this in an earlier debate because so many of these issues are interlinked. It quite rightly introduces a right for parents to take paid leave to care for a child aged between 29 days and for a child aged between 29 days and 16 years who is receiving specified types of medical or palliative care.

I support the amendment as a valuable addition recognising the significant demands placed on families caring for seriously ill children. I was amazed when I discovered that our laws only provide for parents of babies under 28 days via the neonatal care act. I found Lord Wigley's speech very moving and I thank him for sharing the sad history with us. This is a sad history and we are just trying to put right in some way the problems.

It has been referred to as Hugh's Law after the child he was diagnosed with cancer. I think that these are many of us will remember it. Amendment 97, which would close the gap, it will create a stand- alone entitlement, modelled on neonatal leave to ensure that no parent is forced to choose between their child and their livelihood. The proposal would cost according to the figures I have just between six and 7 million. Not billion, million per year. The difference it would make to families in crisis is immeasurable.

It is targeted, it is reasonable, it is a compassionate step forward to protecting some of the most vulnerable working families in the UK. Is a positive and complimentary amendment. I commend it to the House.
19:34
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness Lady Grey-Thompson to have raised what is an important issue and one that deserves careful consideration by your Lordships House. As my noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us, serious childhood illness places unimaginable strain on families. It is not just a case of emotional turmoil, but there are so many practical challenges as well.

Hospital visits, overnight stays, unexpected emergencies and the need for sustained focused care that no working parent can possibly schedule around. Many good employers I am pleased to say already recognise this in the most extreme circumstances and they show compassion and flexibility, ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between caring for a seriously ill child and retaining their job. At the heart of this is not only compassion, but continuity. A child battling serious illness, often requires a parent at their side, not occasionally, but consistently.

Without job protection and some form of financial support the very people we would expect to be there, parents, may find themselves unable to be there. And, of course, any new entitlement must be, as Lord Hogan-Howe reminded us, has to be designed carefully, with due attention to costs, clarity and implementation. Whereas in these benches we do not take a fit 's position on the amendment itself, I welcome the fact that it prompts us to engage seriously with a difficult, but crucial area of employment and social policy.

And I do thank all those who contributed to this important debate. I hope that the government will take from this debate not only a recognition of the challenge, but also a willingness to explore how it might willingness to explore how it might willingness to explore how it might My Lords, this has been a powerful debate on amendment 97
19:38
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
which 60 introduce financial support and leave for the parents of seriously all children. I thank all noble Lord who participated in this debate, but I particularly and specially want to pay tribute to Lord Wigley for sharing his full and Lord Wigley for sharing his full and personal story. It is very clear that even after a fair number of not that even after a fair number of not just years, but decades, the indelible mark of the pain that he and his partner and the rest of his and his partner and the rest of his family went through through this family went through through this situation is still with him.

I thank him for sharing this story. I thank Baroness Grey-Thompson for bringing Baroness Grey-Thompson for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. I pay attention of the House. I pay tribute to the excellent work that tribute to the excellent work that has been done. Every Lord who has spoken in the debate has paid spoken in the debate has paid tribute to the charity. Hugh's parent set up the charity after he died from a reform of cancer.

I know died from a reform of cancer. I know they have campaigned on this proposal to honour the memory of their son and to provide support to parents who face the same tragic circumstances that they did. It is of course vital that parents are able to spend time at the bedside of a sick child without the fear of the loss of employment of financial difficulties adding to a situation that can already be mentally overwhelming, isolating and physically draining, as Baroness Grey-Thompson set out so well.

One can only imagine the trauma of being in such a terrible situation. I say one can imagine, but one can never fully understand unless one is in that situation. I know this has been raised previously in your Lordships House and the previous place. The government is keen to continue the work with the noble Baroness Grey- Thompson. I have personally met Kerry and Frances several times already and I have been struck by their selfless determination and resolve to provide for other parents what they did not have.

We intend to continue this engagement. I want to ensure that the parents of sick children are not ignored or left behind. However, we do not believe that incorporating this amendment into the bill would achieve this end, despite the very best of intentions with which it has been repaired. I'd like to highlight three reasons for this. First, we are concerned about the approach of amending the neonatal care leave and pay act, which was taken to your Lordships House by Baroness Wyld as she set out a moment ago.

Whilst the amendment seeks to provide care to older children, it risks undermining fundamental intervals of neonatal leave and pay which was designed for the specific situation of newborns. Much of the criteria for the leave and pay our collective to maternity. Similarly the specific definition of neonatal care in the current act has been carefully constructed through extensive consultation and again this amendment will require this to be overhauled, risking creating a gap in existing support.

Second, more detailed analysis is required to fully understand the total cost implications of this proposal. We need to understand how many parents will be eligible across England, Wales and Scotland and the estimated take-up and familiarisation and business costs. Estimates suggest the cost could be in the low millions. Noble Lord have reflected this, but this is based on data from England only. These figures are likely to represent a small proportion of parents eligible for help. The actual costs could be higher depending on how serious illness and eligibility is defined.

That will depend on the definitions used to confirm eligibility. This is a challenging situation and other issues have been brought forward. Parents taking a career break, as highlighted by the Conservative MP Mark Francois in the other place and his constituent Christina Harris. It is right the government explores all proposals before legislating to ensure good law and a workable law and the best outcome for parents which I think we all agree across which I think we all agree across the House is needed.

The government appreciates that there is a significant challenge being addressed here, but more work needs to be done to understand the best approach and cost of tackling it. Baroness Bennett raised the issue of GoFundMe's and the way successful fundraising campaigns interact with the benefit system. This is undoubtedly an area that we need to undoubtedly an area that we need to And Lord Hunt said, we need to understand cost, clarity and have full consideration. More work needs to be done to understand the best approach and cost of tackling this issue and addressing it properly, however I want to be clear that we are listening and I have been moved, as have we all, to hear of the distress caused by childhood illness and the financial strain that comes with caring for a sick child.

Lord Gascoigne asked for a way forward. I hope noble Lords will take what I'm about to say in good spirit. I want to make a commitment to Baroness Grey-Thompson and to Kerry and Frances and their charity. We will consult and support on this to gain views from all interested parties on the specifics. We are doing it at pace, consultation will run next year in 2026. We do should continue working with the charity and the noble Baroness Grey-Thompson. From here on the strength of opinion in the House noble Lords are interested in this issue.

It's an important matter and we will further explore the proposal. It's important to have a range of views to ensure that we arrange at the most appropriate policy outcome. We want to do something that is right and make sure we have a solution that sticks, is workable and provide support that is workable and provide support that so many parents do need. That Kerry and Frances needed but didn't have, and it is important that we don't rush into it and that we have a considered approach.

I therefore ask that whilst we undertake this consultation, in the meantime the noble Baroness will draw amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

97. I thank all those who have
19:45
19:46
19:57
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to move the amendment to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move the amendment to my name, amendment 98. Currently only a fully certified trade union representative or a colleague has a statutory right to accompany an statutory right to accompany an employee to a hearing. In practice this leaves the vast majority of the this leaves the vast majority of the workers in the UK, 77.7%, to navigate proceedings alone or worse, to be accompanied by an to be accompanied by an inappropriate companion who may frustrate the process or cause frustrate the process or cause inadvertent detriment to the workers case.

If I needed any confirmation case. If I needed any confirmation of my words today we all receive briefings which contribute to our debate from numerous organisations, the last one I received today I the last one I received today I thought oh its this particular thing and I read it to see how I could incorporate it in my speech. It was incorporate it in my speech. It was from the TUC which said the only people who could possibly represent people was the trade unions, which I people was the trade unions, which I think adds weight to the amendment which I have in my name.

An amendment to the bill is separately needed to guarantee that all workers, regardless of their membership of a trade union, enjoy the right to be accompanied by a dedicated and trained companion during workplace disputes. This would ensure transparency, fairness and due process. As trained companions ensure that both employees and employers have a robust safeguard against unfair treatment and misunderstanding. This is a sensible amendment which gives rights to people who are very often not in a trade union recognised organisation.

The trade unions can still represent, but they don't have to be the only people to represent in this amendment I feel fills that in this amendment I feel fills that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 26 insert the following new clause, right to be accompanied by a right to be accompanied by a certified professional companion, the words of which are on the marshalled List.
20:00
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 99 which seeks to remove the restriction that only trade union rep resented or a work colleague may accompany an employee to a disciplinary or employee to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. I would like to thank Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Londesborough for supporting what is I think a modest and practical but important change to employment law. It will give workers the right to be accompanied to a hearing by someone they trust, somebody of their choosing perhaps a family friend, a carer, a person from the relevant industry.

It's about fair play and equal treatment and ends A1 size effective union monopoly and is simply empowering My amendment is similar to that proposed by Lord Palmer which will include trained and certified companions. I further certification regime though is complicated and could result in delays and inconsistencies and create bureaucratic barriers for young cohorts unfamiliar with the Euro credit processes. Amendment 99 takes a simpler, fairer public lets the worker decide who accompanies them.

It creates a clear, new workers right. But whether noble Lord, and I agree is on the fundamentals and I think particularly on the need to update the law. The original part of the employment law that we are talking about was enacted in the 1990s when trade union membership was significantly higher than it currently is. But this one size approaches wholly out of step with the modern world we are living in. Significant reference has already been made to today's reality, that not every employee is represented by a trade union and of the 20% or so who are the majority are in the public sector.

So nearly 80% of workers are not trade union members, that includes care workers, teaching assistants, agency staff, cleaners, those in jobs that are low paid and lacking representation. Widening the scope will empower those workers. So why aren't people in unions? Sometimes during committee debates the inference has been that the only reason that workers are not in the union is because of wicked anti- trade union laws, or perhaps evil Tory government policies. But I would say it is rather more complicated.

In just the last week the Labour peer the noble Lord Lord Winston, a lifelong member of the British Medical Association, resigned from the BMA over its handling of strike action. Meanwhile the Cabinet minister championing this very bill, the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, has reportedly been suspended from her own union Unite in dispute over her membership and the Birmingham beam strike. One of the merits of either case, they demonstrate that even the most senior, well-connected, prounion individuals can find themselves without the support of the union.

Then there is the thorny issue of what happens when trade union's increasingly eight the activism and of student unions often to the consternation of their members. Last week a founder member of UCU said, I am resigning today. UCU has become by far the most toxics, pulling, antisemitic pace I have ever been in and the final straw from Professor Hirsch was UCU statement standing up for Palestine Action. And what do you do when your own union acts in lockstep with H Care nurse of 30 years experience was suspended from her role because she objected to getting undressed in front of a male resident doctor who identifies as a woman.

Nurse Peggy is now suing her own union for failing to defend her because it supported the NHS Trust's trans- inclusive policies. As an aside, nurse Peggy at last won her Employment Tribunal with the NHS Trust dropped the charges of gross misconduct allegations, having wasted a huge amount of taxpayers resources. That happened last night, congratulations to her. In another case that was highlighted a teaching assistant was called into a disciplinary hearing lasting 6.5 hours.

Brought a lawyer, the employee faced a possible end to her employment. She asked to bring her father for support but it was refused. The law did not permit it. The employee was found to have unfairly dismissed Mrs Hicks. Because she was not in a union she was left alone and unsupported. She was told she could bring a colleague, but as others have noted surely any colleague walking with her might be fearful knowing that Mrs Higgs was being disciplined for expressing her opinion about set education at her child's school.

If a colleague accompanied her, it might be fair that the leadership team shared the opinions and you would be disciplined too. In one final example a judge calls Parliament to act. The case of Lee's dental team versus Rose were a worker asked to bring a solicitor to a disciplinary hearing. The employee refused and the law that them. Had she been a union member, she could have brought the union solicitor. She faced the hearing alone. The judge commented on this, calling the situation harsh making it clear that she was disadvantaged, but he's hands were tied by the wording of the law and he concluded that change would need to come from Parliament.

While amendment 99 or 98 answers his call. Whilst the government constantly clicks challenges to this bill down the road that will not work here. The restrictions in the Employment Relations Act 1999 means this issue requires primary legislation to empower workers to exercise their rights. To conclude, want to take the noble Baroness the Minister at her word when she stated on Monday that this bill would raise the minimum floor of employment rights. If that is true, we must ensure that the workers stand on that floor, not just that not just those who have chosen to join a trade union.

How can it be just offer that to workers facing tentacle disciplinary proceedings have different right simply because one is the member of the union and the other is not for a multitude of reasons I hope I have demonstrated. This is the very two-tiered attitude to workers, the very approach the Minister has been keen to counter. I therefore hope that on this sensible government...
20:08
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
Currently the law recognises the importance of having a companion at a hearing. Unless it's a supportive colleague or a union member, they face these daunting situations alone. How can it be right that to workers in the same workplace facing the same process are given different statutory rights based solely on the union membership? This is not the hypothetical issue. In reality 78% of UK workers are not in a trade union. That means most cannot count on the support of a trained companion in these hearings.

I have no objection to trade unions, and not a trade unionists myself, but I reject the idea that statutory rights should be tied to union membership. I have yet to hear a convincing argument in defence of the current system. This is why I support these amendments, both aim to fix the imbalance in different and practical ways. The amendment 98 in the name of Lord Palmer would widen the scope of acceptable companions who would empowered the companions who would empowered the Secretary of State to oppose...

This approach ensures fairness. Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lady Lady Fox goes further, removing restrictions altogether and allowing the employee to choose their own companion. This gives power back to workers who are best placed to decide who can support them. So we return to the core issues of fairness, and this seems to be something that has cropped up many times through this bill. Not just fairness of -- for the workers navigating difficult circumstances, but fairness for employers who can navigate through smoother situations.

These are not radical proposals. These amendments are sensible adjustments that reflect the modern workplace the real choices workers are making. As the government owned document states, all workers should be able to enjoy fair rights and benefits. My Lords, I hope the House agrees.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have added my name to
20:11
20:13
20:15
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
have wanted to bring family members, particularly parents, and women in particular have wanted to bring parents in. I don't know if this will allow this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak strongly in favour of these amendments which address are crucial In the rights currently crucial In the rights currently afforded to workers. Its core is about fairness, autonomy and about fairness, autonomy and dignity, giving working people choice and a voice when it matters choice and a voice when it matters the most. Under the current law a worker facing a disciplinary or grievance hearing has the right to be accompanied, but only by a fellow worker or trade union worker or trade union representative.

What of the workers not in the union, as Lord Palmer and not in the union, as Lord Palmer and Lord Ashcombe have pointed out this most of them. What of those who work most of them. What of those who work in small businesses where asking a colleague to attend is uncomfortable or counter-productive. What if or counter-productive. What if Pearce support isn't realistic? We mustn't confine workers into an mustn't confine workers into an outdated list of who they can bring outdated list of who they can bring into a room at the time of maximum stress and uncertainty.

As Lady Fox powerfully illustrated with her powerfully illustrated with her examples, that causes problems. This amendment would bring common sense amendment would bring common sense into the law. If we are truly to modernise employment rights, this amendment should be accepted. Either
20:16
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
This has been a useful debate on amendments 98 and 99 tabled by Lord Starting with amendment 98, the law already provides that when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary grievance hearing they're entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, and official employed by the trade union, or a workplace representative that a union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a workers companion at a disciplinary or grievance hearing. As we have heard, perhaps in response to Lord Ashcombe's critique, employers can allow workers to be accompanied by someone who does not fall within the above categories.

Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed. For instance a professional sport body, partner or spouse or legal representative. As Baroness O'Grady helpfully reminded us, the existing legislative provisions seek to keep disciplinary grievance procedures internal to workplaces, to best ensure that the heat is taken out of the situation and they use a conciliatory opportunity to resolve tensions and maintain a good employee worker relationship. As my noble friend said this could involve a workmate who knows the context of the situation, understand the employment, indeed probably both parties to the grievance, and can provide real insight to the situation and really focused support.

The inclusion of the professional bodies which may include legal representation may jeopardise the involved parties ability to engage in amicable conversation. The discussion may be significantly constrained as a result. With neither party willing to accept fault. The government is rightly concerned this will result in increasing likelihood of a failure which will reach a suitable outcome for both the worker and employer as Baroness O'Grady said, we want systems in place that are quicker, cheaper and more effective at reaching resolutions.

This in turn however as the proposal would increase the cost of hearings for both parties as the processes and meetings themselves become more protracted and reduce the chances of a mutually beneficial outcome. The involvement of legal representatives may be costly for smaller businesses who may not have legal resources readily available and we've had much ready today if not in previous stages of the report and committee on the bill about that issue. Additionally the introduction of legal expertise may limit the ability of ACAS to mediate an ongoing dispute is legal arguments may have been her during an internal hearing.

It's worth noting that an animal amicable solution between parties is the fastest way to deliver justice and the tabled amendment may have the inadvertent effect of increasing the likelihood of tribunal claims being made though of course that isn't its intention. Because I understand that certain organisations including those that provide legal services would benefit, however as noted when discussing similar amendments, and employer already has the existing ability to nominate an organisation to accompany workers if they set this out in the workers terms and conditions.

This is a solution in search of a problem. ACAS estimates there are 1.7 million disciplinary cases in the UK and organisations each year. It's rare that I have a say this at the Dispatch Box but I agree with Baroness Fox of Buckley in that the approach taken by Lord Palmer in his amendment would be unduly cumbersome. The amendment complicates the law this been in place for over 20 years, if accepted it will require employer checks legislation fabricates to see who is responsible body and whether the individual has been certified as having been trained.

These are additional burdens that the covenant is keen to avoid and indeed the opposition frontbench has been keen to point out when they see vaulting our proposals in other places. Erroneously I should add. Moving to amendment 99 tabled by Baroness Fox of Buckley. The government believes that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and indeed, low pay. If amendment 98 was the solution to a problem I think that amendment 99 is opportunity for Baroness Fox to bash the problem in her view, namely trade union.

I'm a former trade union official, I've also worked in a number of private sector roles as a manager, unions are a good part of our industrial landscape as I think we've heard across the House from debates on this committee and I join with others across the House and saying that actually it would be better if more people were members of trade unions. They are far from of trade unions. They are far from perfect. The case is the noble Baroness Baroness Fox raises, whilst undeniably raised issues about the trade unions she talks about, those cases do not undermine the day-to- day work of many trade unions particularly trade union wraps in the workplace day in day out across the country, working with employees and indeed with businesses to make workplaces safer, to ensure that employees are properly educated and skilled, and indeed to help those employees access their rights at work as we deem a fair and necessary.

Trade unions have an important role to play in supporting workers during the process of disciplinary and grievance hearing. Union officials has prescribed an existing framework must be certified as having received training and acting as a worker companion at hearings. By opening this rollup to anyone the worker chooses this amendment risked introducing individuals to disciplinary and grievance hearings process you are not familiar with the workplace in question or with the employment rights framework. As I noted when speaking to the previous amendment this is likely again to lead to reduced likelihood in successful mediation of these disputes.

The role of the recognising representative allows the relationship between the employer and representative to be developed over time, thus increasing the likelihood of an amicable solution that doesn't go to a full legal process. This amendment could lead to the involvement of a family member or friends in proceedings which may in practice cause more problems than solutions given the sensitivity and nature of such a personal relationship. In closing, I would like to add that it's really unclear to the government where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces specifically would benefit, in the consultation that we have undertaken in government and indeed, prior to being elected, both businesses and trade unions the need to acquire this work right and expand this right really hasn't featured in any consultation from either party.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord minister may have answered his own question there because if the consultation there because if the consultation with trade unionists about whether there was any need for non-trade unionists they give you one answer. unionists they give you one answer. unionists they give you one answer. I wanted to clarify one thing, clarify one thing which is it's true I've never been a trade union official but I've been a rank-and- official but I've been a rank-and- file trade union member for decades and am not anti-trade union.

I do and am not anti-trade union. I do not think the wheel stops and starts at trade unions. I wanted to ask the at trade unions. I wanted to ask the noble Lord, we understood at the moment the statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official is not in-house. The way official is not in-house. The way the law is phrased as any trade union official, even one from the union official, even one from the union you have never joined, from a completely unrelated sector, that's completely unrelated sector, that's the way the law is.

So I wanted to know whether that is fair, whether that wording can change, and what is wrong with somebody like a citizens advice caseworker oil what have you, advice caseworker oil what have you, because the numbers of people who are in the trade union just don't tally for people to be accompanied fairly at the moment. Unless there fairly at the moment. Unless there is an 80% increase in trade union membership it's obviously to tear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and discriminatory at present. To respond to the first point the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To respond to the first point the noble Lady made, perhaps I didn't noble Lady made, perhaps I didn't enunciated clearly enough but I said in the consultation the demand for change didn't come from either trade unions or indeed employers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is the final word this is not a trade union rights Bill, this not a trade union rights Bill, this is an Employment Rights Bill. It is casually known as the workers rights Bill. There are millions and Bill. There are millions and millions of workers who aren't in trade unions for a variety of reasons including your own minister Angela Rayner as I just noted. All I Angela Rayner as I just noted. All I am suggesting is I am simply suggesting that therefore when you suggesting that therefore when you ask employers or trade unionists if ask employers or trade unionists if there are demand for this, then rank-and-file workers are being ignored.

I am suggesting you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

acknowledge them and empower them. I just want to put the record

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to put the record straight because we have heard much about the Deputy Prime Minister not being in the union, actually she is in the union. She is in union called Unison and has been for a number of years will stop I didn't want you to go home tonight thinking that no one would represent the Deputy Prime Minister.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my noble friend Baroness Nichols for that helpful clarification, I thought that was clarification, I thought that was the case but I'm glad she made it she is in a far better position than I am to talk about Unison and its membership. In response to Baroness Fox I want to be clear, in all the consultation that we have undertaken consultation that we have undertaken with a wide variety of stakeholders, this issue has not come up. So it is this issue has not come up.

So it is not that I'm saying we talk to some trade unions and guess what they are quite happy with the status quo, quite happy with the status quo, genuinely this issue has not come genuinely this issue has not come up. That is simply... The fact that this is not an issue for workplaces,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this is not an issue for workplaces, that's why described it... The Minister understand that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister understand that there is a two-tiered system here. If you are a trade unionist you can If you are a trade unionist you can have somewhat more professional attendance than somebody was not a trade unionist, that's what's important. important. important. Trade union member they can take trade union rep and said but you also have the right to be accompanied by workmate and you don't need to take if you are a member of the trade union you don't need to take that representative along, you could indeed, you could indeed have a workmate come along.

Indeed, employers responsible employers as they want to have more flexibility around this area they can write this in to their terms and conditions, there is nothing to stop people doing that that's why suggested again to use the phrase, we think it's a solution in search of a problem, not something we really need to respond to because it might create unintended consequences and in terms of Lord Palmer's amendment unfair administrative burdens on employers. I therefore ask Lord Palmer to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 98. We've had some very interesting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We've had some very interesting comments here from various people,
20:29
20:30
20:41
20:41
Baroness Penn Portrait Baroness Penn (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move MM at 100 in my name and I am grateful to the noble name and I am grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Lister and Lord Hampton and Lord Palmer for their support as well as all those noble Lord who have spoken in this chamber or outside of it in favour of improving leave for new fathers. I also have amendments 101 and 102 in this group, the arguments in favour of which have not changed since committee, but for reasons of time I will focus on amendment 100.

Since committee the government has launched their review into parental leave. At the launch the Business Secretary acknowledged that the arguments I am making today, saying that about one in three new fathers take Paternity Leave mainly for financial reasons and committed that this review is our chance to reset the system and build something that works for modern families and businesses. The government says it once to fix the system and also that part of what is broken is the low level of paternity pay available.

It is logical therefore that any solution would address this and that is all that my amendment seeks to do. First, it ensures there are no further delays to this work, given it was meant to be completed within the government's first year it is reasonable for the amendment to commit the government to its new timeline of completing the work in no longer than 30 -- in no longer than 18 months from now. This amendment commits the government to improving Paternity Leave reaching six weeks at 90% of play in line with the key recommendation of the Labour Ched women any committee which has considered this carefully If the purpose of the review is to improve the system we have this is the number one way in which it needs to change.

It leaves open the question of how to do this whether through increasing Paternity Leave or changing share parental leave so it actually works for families. But there is no point to a review if it does not lead to change. The reason I am pressing the government so hard for action, not just warm words, is that each year we delay over half a million fathers and second parents welcoming a new baby into their family without the ability to properly bond with their child or support their partner. Working on this amendment I have spoken to too many fathers who have been heartbroken at having to return to work when they see their partners struggling physically after a C- section or mentally when dealing with postnatal depression.

The first year of a child's life is one of the highest risks of relationship breakdown and yet we give families just two weeks to adjust to the arrival of a new baby. The social policy reasons for improving Paternity Leave go on and on. More engage fathers in early years in weeks lead to more engage parenting of this bill about its impact on employers and growth. I have spent the week since committee engaging with businesses and organisations and I am not going to pretend all businesses welcomed this proposal without any reservations.

They have to think about the impact it will have when covering productivity and other staff that will be impacted. However it will help parents to make the transition to parenthood more the transition to parenthood more smoothly. That is why those who can afford to offer enhanced leave to fathers. There are over 180 organisations who already offer at least six weeks at 100% of pay, but particularly for the smaller businesses reliant on the government rebate to cover the costs they cannot expand the offer without that support.

I also recognise that means the cost of any expansion to Paternity Leave must be covered by the government and therefore the taxpayer and particularly in the current fiscal context it is not something I take lightly. But we have overwhelming evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Improving and increasing currently to just six weeks changes parenting dynamics and that shift enables more women to make the choice to return Of Of course Of course astound Of course astound every Of course astound every family Of course astound every family how they choose to balance work with childcare, but the evidence is our current system is constraining those choices.

We see that in countries that have six or more weeks properly paid paternity leave, women's labour market participation is four percentage points higher, not only will that make a significant contribution to economic growth but the increased tax revenue has the potential to offset up to 4/5 of the cost of the government rebates business was the wider economic benefits of an estimated to be worth up to £2.68 billion per year. I know the Treasury can be sceptical about such calculations, but when Jeremy Hunt expanded childcare provision down to children nine months or older the benefits of increased labour market participation, namely from women, led the OBR to estimate it would increase GDP by up to 0.2% PF the bigger symbols -- single upward estimate of growth based on a government policy decision that the OBR had made in its history.

Of course the government know this already and I hope it means they can commit today that review will lead commit today that review will lead to action. That is all I'm asking on behalf of the 600,000 fathers and second parents welcoming a new baby you cheer. If it cannot commit to reaching six weeks and 90% of pay by the end of this Parliament, to support families and businesses,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

then I intend to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after clause 26 insert the new clause on statutory parental leave lengths and statutory parental leave lengths and pay full stop amendment 100.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

pay full stop amendment 100. I'm grateful to Baroness Penn for building on the amendments that she
20:48
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
building on the amendments that she and I tabled in committee. I will speak to amendment 100 to which I added my name, I will not repeat the case I made in committee. No doubt the Minister will say the amendment is unnecessary now that the government had published a review and that we should not pre-empt that review. I understand that and preface my remarks by saying how much I welcome that review which I think will meet the warning of the Women and Equalities Committee and is it must not lead only to tinkering around the edges.

We were promised a comprehensive review and comprehensive and fundamental it needs to be if it is to live up to the Prime Minister's claim that it represents a landmark moment. This amendment serves a purpose in holding the government's feet to the fire by putting their own timeline into legislation and really six weeks of paid leave for fathers the same rate of Statutory Maternity Pay is the minimum we should expect. A recent policy briefing from the Institute of policy research at the University of Bath concluded this change would represent important first step in delivering change and would be crucial to improving It suggested that based on evidence from other countries the labour market benefits are judged to be most likely to materialise in case of the sequential rather than the simultaneous take-up of some of the leave by fathers, in other words allowing the mother to return-to- work period if she wishes while giving the father the chance to take sole responsibility for the care of their child while she is at work.

The amendment leaves open whether the additional four weeks would be part of paternity or parental leave. Personally I prefer the latter as it is more likely to encourage sequential take up by separating out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave. One of the very encouraging aspect of our debating committee was the dad's army from around the House supporting a better deal for fathers. While the prospectus for the government review is very positive, I did think it could have gone further to include greater gender equality as one of its objectives are reflecting the clear messages from your Lordships house that a better deal for fathers would And improve mothers labour market position.

I was pleased to read the Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds told the Times I would like it to be culturally very much accepted that as a new dad you would be wanting to spend some proper time at home. I think that would be really positive for society as well. His reference to culture was important, indeed in the debate on the statement the Minister talked about the cultural shift we need to see. It's important I would argue that the review looks at how the government and others can encourage such a cultural shift.

One of the lessons from the Nordic experience is that for changes in parental leave to have their full effect there needs to be cultural change in the workplace and among employers in particular. In conclusion I welcome the fact that the call for evidence states that the government would like to test whether the objectives set for the review are the right ones. This suggests an admirable open- mindedness and I hope therefore the government will be open to addressing, to adding the objective of greater gender equality to the benefit of both women and men.

A practical question about the review is we have heard it will take 18 months followed by publication of a set of findings and a roadmap including the next steps for taking forward any potential reforms to implementation. What isn't clear to me is whether or not there will be further consultation on the actual proposals at this stage. Could my noble friend clarify that please, if there is to be a further round of consultation, when do they envisage any reforms finally ring implemented? Finally I hope it will be possible for the government to make practical commitment so that it won't be necessary for the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness to call a vote. My noble friend Lord Hampton who
20:53
Lord Aberdare Portrait Lord Aberdare (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friend Lord Hampton who has added his name to this amendment but is unable to be here, I will speak in support of amendment 100. I speak in support of amendment 100. I will be very brief as Baroness Penn and Baroness Lister have already set out the case for the amendment so comprehensively and so powerfully. I am more than likely to get parental and paternal confused at some point in my speech but I will try to avoid that.

Sadly I am well beyond the age when increased paternal leave might be relevant to me, even brand paternal leave would be unlikely. This amendment does address an important issue, not least when the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. Many men currently lack either the optional financial resources to take an adequate period of leave to learn parenting skills, support their partners and bond with their new children. There is no point at all in making leave available if many families can't Into parental leave and this desire to improve the system are very welcome, but as Baroness Penn has said, the review must lead to action.

We also heard evidence of the financial benefits for businesses as well as the economy as businesses as well as the economy as a whole. I won't repeat those. In addition to their arsenic and social benefits including better mental health outcomes, better relationships between family members and more engaged and loyal workers. All of these benefits, at a relatively modest net cost. The amendment starts from the government's own aims and sets out the action needed to achieve them through regulations to deliver a new paternal leave regime in terms of And rate of pay for statutory paternal leave.

In line with recommendations of the women and equalities Select Committee and within clear timescale consistent with state government goals. As we have heard this doesn't pre-empt the findings of the very welcome review. So the amendment seems to me to represent a win for the government, wins the economy, a win for society and above all, a win for individual families and mothers as much as fathers and their children. I very much hope to hear a positive

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response from the Minister. Rice in support of Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rice in support of Baroness Penn's amendment 100, 101, 102 and in so doing declare my interest as the father of a six-month-old son.
20:55
Lord Harlech Portrait Lord Harlech (Conservative)
-
-
the father of a six-month-old son. This package of amendments has the potential to transform the lives of families, children and fathers. families, children and fathers. Polling this year by charities that shift and Movember found the 45% of new fathers experience multiple symptoms of depression in their child's first year. Yet we do not speak of this is a national mental health emergency, but it is. Fathers are not just H -- facing financial pressure, they are being denied time to bond with their children to adjust to fatherhood and to share care equally with their partners.

It can be deeply isolating. I think of my own experiences as a new father. Mother and child should rightly be the priority for healthcare professionals, and I'm not saying that fathers should be the priority, but they shouldn't be seen as the enemy either. Not once on any visits to or from midwives or community caregivers did anyone ask how I was coping. What do fathers say would make the biggest difference? Not counselling, not hotlines but time. 82% of surveyed fathers say the single most effective thing the government could do to improve their mental health is to increase paid and protected paternity leave.

Longer paternity leave is associated with better mental health in fathers. Studies show that farmers track fathers who are present from the earliest days develop deeper emotional bond that children become more engaged parents over the long- term. As we have heard this disparity doesn't just hurt fathers, it hurts mothers too. Evidence confirms that countries with higher levels of paternity leave experience lower levels of maternal postnatal depression. In fathers share the load, mothers recover more fully, return to more easily and experience fewer long-term penalties to their careers.

The current disparity hurts children. The 2025 study in American Journal of preventative medicine found that children of fathers with mental health are more likely to develop Hegel problems at school. This is a childhood developmental issue, school issue and ultimately a public spending issue. We've heard the arguments this is pro-business, so I won't repeat them now in the interest of time. But the mental health crisis among men is real. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 50 in the UK.

The leading cause. Don't know how many of those male deaths by suicide from fathers, because the ONS does not collect that data. My question for the Minister is will this data be collected as part of the review? If we are serious about tackling the male suicide academic, not just treating it but preventing it, this is one of the most direct and evidence-based tools at our disposal. Fatherhood should not begin in burnout and guilt. It should begin with time, presence and love.

I urge noble Lords to support

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these amendments. I rise to speak in relation to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in relation to amendment 100. I was born in 1967, my mother received less than my mother received less than generous 12 weeks maternity pay. I was born with a condition that required me to have physiotherapy
20:59
Lord Jones of Penybont Portrait Lord Jones of Penybont (Labour)
-
-
required me to have physiotherapy twice a day every day for the first two years of my life. In order to save me having to go to the hospital every day my father volunteered to be trained in that the theatre, and he wasn't entitled to time off to do that. He did it anyway. He is the reason why am able to stand straight in this chamber today. Paternity leave would have been thought of some type of dangerous idea in those days no doubt.

When our children arrived at the beginning of this century my wife got extended leave, paid leave of course. I was a young and ambitious minister at the time Keane to please my then boss the First Minister I took like no leave at all. Even then there was no talk of paternity leave, you were expected to get on with it. I missed out on the early months of my children's time and life in our family. Something they as teenagers often reminded me of, usually asking for money at the same time.

I can't support the amendment exist too prescriptive in my view but there are important issues this amendment seeks to address. This I would like to ask the Minister to consider these three questions in her response. I very much welcome the review government has announced, we know it's timescale will be 18 months, could I ask when the review is due to start? Could I ask whether any documentation will be published beforehand so we are able to see the remit in terms of reference of that review.

And if those documents would review. And if those documents would My Lords, we are a long way behind the European norm when it comes to paternity leave. We await to so many families up and down the length and breadth of the land to continue to address this issue and I look forward to my Noble Friend the Ministers response. Ministers response.
21:01
21:02
21:02
Lord Bailey of Paddington Portrait Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
of this. I come from a community that has some of the poorest social outcomes in the whole of Europe. And one of the features of my community is the lack of the father in the home. I watched them struggle for multiple generations with the reality that poor educational outcomes, lots of prison attendance by fathers and by children who are unattended. This has an opportunity here to reverse many of the social challenges that we face in one fell challenges that we face in one fell swoop.

If the Government is serious about the communities, levelling up paternal leave would be such a profound thing to do. I have been a youth worker for over 13 is in one of the things that I ran was a single parent group of over 200 members. And when we spoke to the young men involved the all talked about the lack of connection to their family. And we can start getting into why they spend so much time in prison, why the behaviour is so challenging, come in with a real opportunity to do this here.

The economic impact of not doing this is significantly more than the tiny little difference it will make to do it economically. This is a real opportunity for the Government to make a real impact for the poorest

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communities in this country. Thank you. I also rise to support my noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also rise to support my noble friend's amendments group. In my friend's amendments group. In my view, these proposals are long overdue, and my children were born in the 1990s, maternity leave was not even part of the conversation. I have just checked that the current have just checked that the current provision for paternity leave to be still reflect a significant demand in quality. Unfortunate to work for in quality. Unfortunate to work for the same employer, the insurance broker, as of that time.

But now broker, as of that time. But now offers 16 weeks maternity leave to be taken within the first year of be taken within the first year of childbirth. We have heard that the UK ranking in the international standards is low, for many fathers, standards is low, for many fathers, especially at household cost rises, taking time off is simply not taking time off is simply not financially viable. Better paternity pay or leave, benefits everyone, fathers, mothers, the child, the fathers, mothers, the child, the other children if there are any, and, indeed, economy, as we have heard.

I recognise the four months offered by my company may not be realistic for particularly SMEs we must aim for a fair balance between the villains reality and family needs. Research shows that three weeks is the point at which the broadest benefits are achieved and proposed in amendment 100. I believe this is a reasonable balance mixed with paternity leave and making it viable for most fathers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to support this
21:06
21:07
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to my Noble Friend Baroness Penn for bringing forward this amendment which raises matters of genuine importance to families and working parents and, frankly, to society as a whole. The arguments that my Noble Friend has made for extending nonpaid leave for fathers and second pairs is a serious and well-intentioned one and what a balanced system can play in increasing participation in the labour market and supporting children in their earliest years, and, as my Noble Friend explained, this is good for mothers and children, so I wholeheartedly agree that we should continue to refine our parental leave system so that it remains fit for the realities of modern working life.

The commitment in subsection 1 to a comprehensive review is, in itself, a sensible and comprehensive step, but I would not it was a manifesto commitment that should have been completed by now, get the are only just starting it. Given the government's enthusiasm on consultation it seems curious to say We must also recognise and acknowledge the broader context in which we find ourselves, Employment Rights Bill, as it stands, already promises to impose significant new obligations to all businesses at a time when many are still struggling with the increase to employer National Insurance contributions, the Government constant U-turns, inflation and ongoing global economic uncertainty.

Frankly, the Government has asked a great deal of British businesses in the last year to much, and the effect of these massage has been entirely negative, undermining growth, reducing our competitiveness and rapidly stifling job creation, especially in the market. Now, if the Government were to think again and accept some of our perfectly reasonable amendment on the right to request unfair dismissal, for example, it would be easier to argue in favour of amendments such as this which could be implemented after careful consultation.

While the intentions behind this are commendable and while there is certainly room for discussion about long-term evolution of shared parental leave, without wider changes from the Government, the most damning plans, I do not believe this is the time, nor the bill, in which to make these commitments. And I do hope the Government will continue to engage seriously with the Cumbrians of arguments moved by my Noble Friend and that we will revisit them and allow for a Cumbrians of comic, and perhaps demographic if elevation along with meaningful consultation with businesses of all sizes and shapes.

And indeed wider society as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a whole. My Lords, this has been an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been an important debate on the issue of
21:10
21:10
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
has moved, the Noble Lady Baroness spoke eloquently and with conviction on these matters and I sure her to stay conviction that I am the Government share. We need to reform our confusing patchwork of parental leave and pay, so that they are fit for the economy and they deliver the wider societal benefits that noble Lords have raised in this debate. And the Government is committed to making life better for families and we know that the current system needs improvement.

This is why, through this bill, were making paternity leave and rental leave day one writes, meaning that employers will be legible to give notice of their intent to take leave from the first year of their employment. This brings these entitlements in line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are also removing restrictions preventing maternity leave and pay from being taken after shared parental leave pay to further support working parents in accessing these entitlements. But, crucially, the changes in this bill are not without the outer limit of our ambitions.

Moving specifically onto the amendments in this bill, firstly, amendment 100 tabled by the Noble Lady. While I appreciate what that Noble Lady is attempting in her amendment, our revocable Government cannot be accepted. But let me reassure her that the work is already under way to deliver on that spirit of her amendment. Since Committee stage, the Government has delivered on its manifesto commitment to launch its parental leave review. And, in doing so, it has listened carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords and stakeholders, as to the details and scope.

And to answer the questions from a number of noble Lords, the published terms of reference therefore make it clear that all current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in the scope of the review. The review gives us a chance to consider what we want the system to achieve, whilst giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits, businesses and the Exchequer. And, as stated in the published terms of reference, we expect the review to run for 18 months. This will conclude with the Government producing a set of findings and a roadmap, including next steps as we take the reforms forward to implementation.

And in response to my Noble Friend Baroness Lister we will want to, of course, engage and consult with stakeholders throughout the process to inform the conclusions of our work. In response to my Noble Friend the call for evidence is already live, it began on the first of the call for on 1 July. And, my Lords, I would stress the fact that the review is a manifesto commitment, I think underlining the seriousness with which we are taking this review. And our obligation to act on the conclusions of the review.

However, we cannot predetermine the outcome of the review. Nor can we justify the proposed cost increase without a thorough evidence based assessment. This is why we cannot accept an amendment that would place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations that almost quadrupled the rate and tripled the length of paternity pay from current levels. Turning to amendment 102, this system makes that paternity pay day one right for all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements.

I want to reassure all noble Lords that we do understand the importance of fathers and partners having time away from work to support their partner and to be with their developing family. As we have heard, I think the Department of business and trade Secretary of State recently met with others at the launch of the review to hear more about first hand about their campaign. And we are determined to do everything that we can to encourage proper shared parenting to improve the well-being of both the parents and the children involved.

Whilst we are removing the qualifying period for paternity leave to make it a day one right, statutory pay remains conditional on an average earnings test and a requirement to work for 26 continuous weeks for the same employer. This is standard across all statutory parental pay work entitlements, including paternity pay. The only exception is maternity allowance which is a benefit and not a work entitlements. Maternity Allowance is determined to allow the health and recovery for following childbirth for those that do not qualify for maternity pay.

All of these entitlements will be in the scope of the parental leave review. This gives us the chance to consider what we want the system to achieve whilst giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to families, businesses, and Exchequer. We therefore hope that the Noble Lady and all noble Lords understand the need to look at these issues in the round, rather than a piecemeal basis as has been the case in the Turning to amendment 101, table by Baroness Penn, and supported by Lord Palmer, this would commit the government to introducing regulations for organisations that employ more than 250 people, to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies.

It is true that parental leave and pay policies are essential policies and not extras. They allow people to manage their professional and personal responsibilities, and they play a huge role in addressing wider societal and economic issues. We think that by encouraging businesses to be transparent about their parental leave policies is the right approach at this time. Rather than introducing further legislation. We want businesses to feel empowered to publish information as soon as possible. And for this to become the norm. The benefit both current employees and those looking for work.

Meanwhile, through the bell, is committed in the Plan to Make is committed in the Plan to Make Work Pay, we are taking the first steps towards requiring large employers to publish action plans, detailing the steps they are taking to narrow their gender pay gap alongside their gender pay gap figures. Beyond a simple reporting requirement, this presents a real opportunity to encourage organisations to give more consideration to the impact of their policies in and on the workforce, and be more transparent about the parental leave and pay policies.

The workplace flexibility, and broader pay practices. In doing so, this policy will bring benefits deep fathers, you stand to benefit from the family friendly policies. Our hope is this will help to make it the norm, to provide this type of information. Benefiting, as I said, both current employees and those looking for work. My Lords, as I said, we are taking a huge step forward, with the parental leave review. And I hope noble Lords have understood the seriousness with which we take those issues.

On that basis, I ask that the noble Lady withdraws her amendments.
21:18
21:19
21:30
None Portrait Amendment 103
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a pleasure to
21:30
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
rise to move amendment 103 in my name, as it is the first time I have spoken on report in this bill I declare my relevant interest as set out in the register as a member of the advisory, a member of the science and to advisory committee and I am speaking on engagement for the FCF a. Amendment 103 is incredibly simple and extraordinarily important for all those young people who have some of the worst, most appalling start to their career through finding themselves on the wrong end of an unpaid internship.

It has been going on for decades and it goes on in some of our smartest industries in the 21st-century. Amendment 103 is a reincarnation of the private members bill that I brought in 2017 and I am delighted to say that when I brought that private spill, which is now amendment 103 to this bill, it received full throated support from the Labour opposition. Thank you. It received full throated support from the TUC and Frances O'Grady, what this amendment does is simply seek to give the rights to young people to have a positive experience, often their first experience of entering the labour market.

Unpaid internships are already illegal under the National minimum wage regulations, but what this amendment does is further clarify and specify what work experience is and, crucially, what it is not. It stops working experience being used as a cover for unpaid internships. While I was drafting this my first inclination was to have work experience. From day one, but on wide consultation businesses, trade unions, and across civil society it was clear that four weeks was the right point to test that young people, and indeed any person could do work experience when it was genuine work experience, overseeing, learning, replicating tasks, if that person is brought on board and is doing work from day one then they are protected by the national minimum wage regulations and are entitled to pay that, but work experience has a vital role to play in society and I believe as a result of my consultation underpinning this four weeks is the right point to set that at.

When this was debated in committee I was sad I could not be present and a number of users brought forward their difficulties with this amendment because, unscrupulously employers could simply have numerous rounds or parts of four-week periods but that is not actually accurate. The drafting, as set out, already understand that point, and, as the wording is described, it is not a full period, it is a period of continuous or not continuous periods of work, so it already caters on the drafting that we sought by having continuous periods of unpaid work experience.

As one young person pointed out to me, you can't pay the rent or pay for food with that CV. Ultimately, for food with that CV. Ultimately, it is just a question of talent. Why would we want businesses or why would we want organisations to not be able to take from the widest, broadest, the most diverse talent pool to go into these roles? Some of the roles that I say that at that end of the labour market, but it goes through all strata of labour markets, surely these position should be open to all on a fair and equitable basis, that is what this amendment would allow for.

And I would like to ask the Minister, we have the ideal opportunity with this bill to put this right. It seems more than extraordinary with so many of the other issues that are covered in this not on sizeable bill, there is nothing on unpaid internships, nothing to protect those people who find themselves being exploited at the beginning of their career. I asked the Minister if not this, water bill? If not this amendment, will the Government not bring forward their wording to close this loophole? This pernicious practice which still prevails in 21st-century Britain.

A desperate, dispiriting, Dickensian practice that still goes on across our labour market. Why the Government, alongside all of its other measures, would not take this opportunity to close this loophole. Young people for any person seeking to get their first foothold in the labour market to have a positive, supportive work experience in two paid employment. I very much look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward to the Minister's response. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 36 and said the new clause as printed on the Marshall list.
21:37
21:38
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate around amendment one of three tabled by the Noble Lord that seeks to prohibit work experience for a parent exceeding four weeks. He said the Noble Lord was unable to join us to previously debate this amendment as committee which was removed very ably by the Viscount,. In his place at the moment. The Government is clear and has always been clear a fair days work deserves a fair days pay and you only need to look at the government's track record on the National Minimum Wage and the provisions in the bill to see how the Government is delivering on this commitment and I will reiterate what I have said on this issue previously because it is worth emphasising the existing legislation is clear, aside from a very small number of exceptions, workers who are entitled to the National Minimum Wage should be paid accordingly, no ifs or buts.

These roles that are enforced that we accept businesses to abide by but the majority do and those that do not undercut the business and we should all agree this is not heavier that we should tolerate. This means that an employer cannot call a worker to avoid paying them and I want to repeat this very important point not only for your Lordships house to those that are listening also to the debate outside an employer cannot call a worker in turn to avoid paying them.

If workers that are entitled to the National Minimum Wage are not being paid what they are due then there are protections in place or they can receive what they are owed and the Government and his majesties revenue and Customs have and continue to raise when some workers rights, so no one is left out of pocket. I have previously stated that the Government would be consulting on this issue soon, and, in fact, and in response to the Noble Lord homes I am now pleased that I am now able to tell your not shipped house that this consultation will, indeed, begin tomorrow.

And I do not believe that I have understated the case when I said that all of us in this House care about this issue and, in particular, ensuring that young people have access to opportunities, regardless of that fact of whether they can afford to work for free or wherever they are based in the country and the Noble Lord spoke powerfully on that basic right on this issue and I think that we are all in agreement with that principle also this amendment, however, was well-intentioned, does risk creating loopholes for existing workers that are exploiting the minimum wage from day one could find themselves from three to four weeks and I sure that we would all agree that this is not right and what any of us want to see.

Adopting this amendment could see the influx of four weekly roles applying and what does that work for free could be able to access them we do not want to lock away any valuable opportunities and create unintended consequences by rushing through this amendment. These issues are complex which is why I want to reiterate the important point that Government consults on this issue first and to make clear we are standing by the words we said that committee, starting the consultation soon, in this case, means tomorrow and as I stated on this issue the issue that the Noble Lord wishes to address can be dealt with, so I therefore ask the Noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

withdraw his amendment.
21:42
21:43
21:45
21:55
21:55
22:05
22:05
22:15
22:16
22:27
None Portrait Amendment 108
-

Chelsea.
22:27
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I apologise, I was trying to get you all home as quickly as possible. I rise to move amendments 108 and 109, in my name. By declaration of interest, I work in my career with hundreds of companies, many of which had to create redundancies at one time or another. Many have to go into another. Many have to go into liquidation. The first of these amendments, 108, is a small but very important proposal. First, a disclaimer, I am not seeking to alter the vast majority of what is proposed under clause 27.

Only that small minority of redundancy cases that occur when a company goes into insolvency. Also, I am not proposing any override of legislation, in particular, in so-called free packs, but what I am proposing is on a non-partisan basis, we take advantage of the passing of this bill, to rectify a long-standing conflict, between two separate laws, a conflict that often places insolvency practitioners in an impossible position. What is that conflict, my Lords? It is between The 1968 Insolvency Act, versus the 1992 Trade Union and Labour Relations Act, which latter act, as your budget today's -- As your Lordships no, today's bill seeks to amend.

The conflict has long existed, it is not a function primarily of this bill we are discussing today. Let me explain briefly what it is. Insolvency practitioners are required to act quickly, so the value cannot erode. The 1992 act, however, requires consultation between 30-45 days, which would utterly frustrate the imperative to move swiftly. So, the liquidator is basically required to break one or the other laws, and always chooses to break the 1992 law. And will choose to break it as amended by this bill.

Because the liquidator has to act speedily. But liquidator has to act speedily. But along consultation, where the 30-45 days would be impossible, it's impossible, it's always found to be impossible. As a result, ambulance chasers, offering " Free money" To all employees, because the law has been broken, and therefore, the provision comes in, that penalty money should be paid, to these workers. This does not happen in all cases, only when trade unions are involved, or the insolvency is large enough, for the no-win, no fee crowd to meaningful -- To move in.

Most of the bankruptcy ends up in the hands of lawyers, rather than any other creditors. Note that in most non- liquidation of situations, the Make such penalty awards. An employer would be foolish to further the requirements only in liquidation where the liquidator is essentially forced to choose to float one law or another. Allow me to offer briefly the relevant background to that important institution, the insolvency service. In the UK, there are around 15 insolvency practitioners and only some 800 of these actively take appointments at this time.

It is one of the most highly regulated professions in the country. It has one of the most difficult exams to pass. So, to take the most recent example in November 2024, 172 advocates sitting for both exams, only 10 of them passed and partly because of this more retiring each year this time than our qualified. No, insolvency professionals have to be tough- minded and a resilient crowd because, of course, it is always difficult to deal with the harsh realities of insolvency.

And then there are many bad actors in this space that go to lengths to look at the petitioner and they take personal suits against the IP and they make multiple complaints to the professional body to try to devote the attention of the ID. The long drawnout laws from those trying to resist bankruptcy. IP is have very few funds with which to pursue the bankruptcy, let alone defend themselves against these degradations, so we need to ensure that we protect this important national institution which would seek to make their lives easier and more sensible when such as this are discovered.

We need to understand that the collapse of this institution could create chaos in the corporate landscape with a free for all of lawyers, creditors, and bailiffs running riot. That well- known book, why Nations fail, points precisely to the collapse of institutions as the cause of national decline. So then, let me give the recent property as nearly straightened the precise reality of what happens in real life rather than the imagined situation that Governments have been persuaded will be the case, Glasgow company went bankrupt, owing some £5 million to employees, to hear HMRC, to train creditors and others.

£600,000 was owed to employees in redundancy sick pay and so forth, £637,000 were available, so the employees received more than they were due. But in doing this there was no consultation, so immediately they wrote to the employees saying we have got free money for you here, if you take, actually, the Government, to the employment tribunal, which they did. And the Employment Tribunals Act ordered the 90 days penalty money which is the maximum then that could be awarded, another £600,000 for these employees.

Governments have told that there will be mitigation by Lords but there never is mitigation. No one came to argue for mitigation, not the redundancy payment service which had to pay the money and certainly not the insolvency practitioner that was not very concerned. HMRC via the redundancy payment service was therefore out about £600,000 and that meant that in the end the taxpayer was out £600,000. With clause 27 of this new bill, the taxpayer funded amount would rise to 1.2 million.

Note that this is on top of the £600,000 that the employees received in redundancy money, and it is really the only occasion when this would happen because no employer would be so stupid as to incur these fines. Only in a redundancy where it is necessary to go against the law, as I explained. Now, I have no personal interest in this matter but looking to get a bipartisan solution I wrote to get a bipartisan solution I wrote to Noble Lady Jones reviewing this dilemma and as she has done through the whole period offered to meet With me along with the Noble Lord young and others and subsequently sent a written response to my letter which made it clear that she recognised the problem but felt no change was needed.

In particular, her response stated consultation could still, she felt, take place. Secondly, in the law, employers are allowed flexibility and the courts will take that into account to make smaller rewards. And what she called the redundancy protection service is actually the redundancy payment service and will Payment at 8%, so it was a kind and thoughtful response, but it seemed in several places to conflate insolvency practitioners with employers will stop the two are very different things. A liquidator, for example, has no prior knowledge whatsoever of the company there dealing with.

Some half of the letter talked about employer obligations, but the employer is no longer involved once the liquidation is called in. In any event, this response, as I discussed on the case, did not reflect the reality of what happens in a liquidation. Insolvency practitioners have no reason to spend money attending employment costs. Much the same is true for the redundancy payment service, so at the employment Court it is a free for all between the activists and the ambulance changes and part of this or not I am told by insolvency practitioners that none of them have ever seen less than the full 90 days, soon to be 180 days pay, awarded on top of redundancy money.

I cannot quite believe that this is just a mistake. The situation is complicated by the creation, of a new Fair Work Agency and I believe it is poignant that we are discussing the creation of a new regulator the day after the Chancellor of the Exchequer described regulators as a boot on the net of business. Does the Government at this end of the House talk to the Government at the other end of the House? Always. Will the new regulatory make the situation even worse between insolvency practitioners? I ask the noble Baroness the Minister to give assurances that this will not be the case.

So, to summarise, my amendment merely seeks to carve out insolvency situations in clause 27. The situations in clause 27. The liquidator will then activate the law which will come as a result, reflect reality and a large majority of redundancies will not be affected. Finally, I also need to move amendment one, I also need to move amendment 109. In doing this, very briefly find myself reacting on behalf of the Government Chancellor of the Exchequer who, as I mentioned, said yesterday that regulation is a boot on the neck of business, so instead of having clause 27 worsen the burden of business, increase the pressure of that route with its 30 to 45 day delay before dismissals can take effect, I propose that the delay be reduced to 21 days.

My Lords, I like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move amendments 108 and one nine. Amendment proposed by clause 27, page 48, 913, at end insert the words as mentioned on the Marshall
22:40
22:40
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, are all very grateful to my Noble Friend for his to my Noble Friend for his amendments in this group. And I would like to thank the noble Baroness the Minister and her team for the way in which they have retained and thought through some of the key points made by my Noble Friend. As he rightly pointed out, collective redundancies are sadly not uncommon in cases of employer insolvency and in such circumstances the practitioner that he has outlined so clearly is both time critical and highly constrained and the legal duties pleased upon them can come into direct tension with the competition to not consult employees, tension that is not merely theoretical but is borne out time and time again in practice.

And I would just say to the Noble Lord product of Stockport that the amendment does not see gratuitously the rights of employees auto Noble Friend has done is to bring the Government attention to what is a genuine gap in the law, one that has become more acute in light of the changes that are introduced. As it stands, this can place insolvency practitioners in that possible position bound by law to take urgent decisions to preserve value and manage the collapse while also facing legal jeopardy for failing to come comply with those obligations that were not and never were designed with insolvency in mind.

We have to be realistic in this situation and where a company is collapsing, consultation, however desirable, cannot always be carried out in the prescribed way. It is in nobody's interest, least of all the employees, to put an insolvency practitioner in the position where they are forced to choose between compliance and their fiduciary responsibilities. So, I do believe the Government should take my noble friend's argument seriously. This is not a theoretical concern, it is a matter of practical urgency.

I therefore urge the Noble Lord the Minister to reflect carefully on the input occasions of this clause and to engage with my noble friend's proposal in the constructive spirit in which it offered.
22:43
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to 20 Noble Lord that have spoken and amendments one OH and one end table by the Noble Lord Monaghan of Chelsea in amendment 27 I want to thank the Noble Lord as well as the Noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom and a lot of rural for their engagement in this matter when we met previously and turning first to image with one or eight as the clause as drafted does not alter how collective redundancy obligations apply to employers.

It is right that where employers know their business is in trouble and the redundancies will be necessary they should be required to do so as much as possible to collectively consult on those redundancies. There was a case before and it will be the case after this legislation comes into force, so nothing has changed. Employers should consult when they propose to make the qualifying number of redundancies and they will face penalties if the do not. However, crucially, as officials and I previously discussed with noble Lords those penalties are set by a tribunal and will take into consideration the seriousness of the employers at fault as well as any mitigating factors.

The amount set out in legislation is a maximum reward, but the tribunal's may award less when an employee or the employer or insolvency practitioner has taken all steps to consult for has taken all steps to consult for as long as possible in the circumstance. Such 1887 on the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act sold 1992 already affords folks ability for employers who cannot fulfil their collective consultation obligations and allows the tribunal is to assess on a case-by-case basis where there are special circumstances which may be not reasonably practical for an employer to comply with their collective This amendment would leave employees whose employer has become insolvent without the protections already in place.

And that have been in place since the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 into force. This would also lead to a two tier system of rights, where, if an employer was becoming insolvent, affected employees would not be afforded any collective consultation. Meaning they would have fewer rights than any other employee. This could be in situations where collective consultation is most important and impactful. It is right that employees made redundant, often in precarious circumstances, are prioritised, and have access to sufficient remedies.

Employees should not suffer to improve business value, or in order to benefit other creditors. My Lords, that afternoon, I looked at the website, and concerned with this particular amendment, is that it will devalue the business, when it was valued as an ongoing basis for potential purchaser. And why should employees actually suffer because of that evaluation? Turning now to amendment 109, I would like to inform the noble Lord...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise, to the noble Lord, did he say they state themselves against this amendment?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

against this amendment? The website said they are pretty much, they are concerned about this amendment, because it may devalue a company's valuation as an ongoing basis because of all the day one right, according to employees. That

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is what they said on the website. I am in ongoing discussion, they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am in ongoing discussion, they have never said this. Not quite sure if they are saying about the clause rather than the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I may be wrong, but it is just on the website. It is either a clause the website. It is either a clause or an amendment, sorry, I think it is the clause sorry, not your amendment, it is the clause. I apologise for that. Still, it is the same thing, if they are against the same thing, if they are against the clause. They are fiercely concerned because of the valuation of the because of the valuation of the business. So, my point here is why should the employees suffer? If they are going to take into account all are going to take into account all the data one rights.

Turning now to amendment one at nine, would like to inform the noble Lord of the notification period, currently aligning with the consultation period, this means, in practice, whenever an employer begins a collective consultation, they must also notify the Secretary of State at that point. Doing it at different times could cause confusion for employers and increase the risk of non-compliance. The objective of the notification provision it so that such notifications may be distributed to appropriate government departments and agencies who are best placed to support effective employees.

This amendment would mean those agencies would be less prepared, to support large volumes of individuals who had been made redundant. We have had extensive engagement with employers, throughout the passage of this bill, and the time of notification has not been raised as a concern. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary. My Lords, may I also take this opportunity to say to the noble Lord that will engage with the Insolvency Practitioners Association, engage with them, doggedly raising and discussing these issues that noble Lords have raised with them as well, and actually listen to what they have to say.

With that in mind, I asked the noble Lord to withdraw amendment 108.
22:50
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
I thank noble Lords for their patience in ensuring that this late hour, this somewhat arcane discussion. The noble Lord Goddard emphasise the importance of consultation, indeed, the essential nature of it. And said how vulnerable employees are. They are not vulnerable, my Lords, in this particular circumstance. They have priority as creditors, above all other creditors. If there is money, they will get it. If there is not money, they will get it from a redundancy payment service. But why, having got their full amount of redundancy money, should they then scooped the pot and get three times as much because of a flaw in the law? Which will leave, for example, small trade creditors not receiving anything, possibly facing bankruptcy, not to mention the fact a lot of this money will usually come from the taxpayer.

And ultimately, the source of those funds for these penalty payments. , with whom the redundancy payment service is, thus increasing the deficit. Many black hole, if I could be so foolish as to mention that. My noble friend, Lord Hunt, ably, in my view, reinforced the need for this amendment. The noble Lord Leong emphasises the importance of consultation. I understand that but I believe Hansard will show that I have already dealt with most items of his response, so I am not going to delay noble Lords longer by going over that ground again, except to say that once again, he asks why should employees suffer? They will not suffer.

I hoped I had explained that. I am chagrined to understand not. They have total priority over all other creditors in receiving their redundancy payments. All I ask is why should they, as a result of a glitch in the law, receive in total three times that much? A so-called penalty payment. That will not be paid by the employer, because the employer is long gone. They won't be paid by the insolvency practitioner, if that is who you feel, in facing the impossible task, a bay on both floors at the same time, won't be paid by them, it will be paid by us, mostly, my Lords.

First, HMRC, and through the taxpayer. My Lords, the hour is late. And so, if only on compassionate grounds, I beg leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.
22:53
22:53
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to amendment 110 in my name, and I will be blessedly brief. My Lords, at committee stage, I bought a similar amendment on this issue to ask the government through the bill, to introduce regulations, to designate a body, to bring clarity, consistency, fairness, and effectively, to level the playing field in this area of umbrella businesses. Umbrella businesses, my Lords, on which the bill is curiously silent. It differs dramatically from other sectors of the employment market, if you will, the recruiter market.

And indeed, for many other sects of the economy, for not having the consistency and clarity of approach, as to how these entities are treated. My committee stage amendment suggested the designation of the body to address this issue was taken by the government at that stage. And others around the House, that I was suggesting the creation of an additional body. Not a bit. It was about the designation of an existing, rather than creation of a newcomer body. What I have done with this report stage amendment is to move that on and seek the government introduced relations to ensure good standing codes of practice, ways of operating, that all, if you will, bona fides businesses in the sector of the market, already adhering to imply to all of Bella businesses, -- All umbrella businesses.

Clarity, consistency, levelling of the playing field, extraordinary amendment, I hope the government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will accept it, I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 34,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 34, page 61, 19, at end insert the words
22:55
22:56
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for amendment 110 which covers the regulation of umbrella companies. The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to utilise pre-existing codes and accreditations, a basis for the regulation of umbrella companies. We recognise the important role accreditation and trade bodies play in sharing information and trade practices with their members, the work of these bodies in the umbrella industry has had some success in driving up standards.

However, the success has been fairly limited and we would not want to assume an organisation that is a member of an accreditation and trade body is necessarily compliant with necessarily compliant with everything. We therefore believe now is the right time for the government to step in and protect businesses that already do the right thing and also to protect workers. Many in the umbrella company industry and those who use umbrella companies welcome regulation, especially as it will help to level the playing field.

This includes public positions taken by the Contract Services Association, and the Recruitment and Employment Association, several other bodies response to a consultation run under the previous government we have been clear, since the clause 34 introduced the bill, that the conduct of employment agencies in regulation 2003 will be amended to apply to Bella companies. The government recognises the recreations in their current form and not appropriate to regulate activities of companies. This is because they predominate focus on entities providing work services, or compliance, which was generally, umbrella companies do not do for a while umbrella companies provide some services, they will indeed be covered under the regulations.

The government has a statutory requirement to consult before any changes are made to these regulations, and as referenced in the recent roadmap publication, the consultation on private companies regulation will be published this autumn. As part of the consultation process, the government is keen to use from trade union, workers, and industry bodies in the umbrella company sector, this will enable the government to better shape policy development. Further consultation and appropriate and proportionate umbrella company regime will be introduced in 2027 and once the drug relations come into force, they will be enforced by the Fair Work Agency, which will take a risk and intelligence led approach to its compliance regime.

I hope this provides some of the reassurance that both Lord Holmes and Lord Sharpe of Epsom were seeking, and I asked Lord Holmes to withdraw his

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 110. Can I thank the Minister for his
22:59
23:00
23:01
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Amendment proposed. I just want to thank the Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to thank the Noble Lord Lord Goddard of Stockport for his important words when he talks his important words when he talks about the impact of this bill on small and medium-sized enterprises. The fact is that whilst the government recognises the impact, it hasn't really taken enough time and trouble to identify the extent of that impact. Now the government argue that they cannot predict the future, and of course we are not asking them to.

What we are asking for is greater effort in understanding the likely incentives their policies will create, and for a thorough and transparent review of the impact on small businesses. Only then can this House exercise proper scrutiny and ensure accountability. So I am then dealing proudly now with the amendment 166 in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and also my Noble Friend Lord Londesborough. The regulatory policy committee has given the government's existing impact assessment a red rating.

We referred to this before. The government never denied that rating, and what it means is that the government has failed to provide an adequate analysis of most of the Bill's provisions. The government talks about the bill as representing the biggest upgrade to workers rights in decades and one that is long overdue. If that is indeed the case, we should expect a comprehensive evidence-based analysis of its effect in particular on small businesses which make up 99% of all businesses in the UK.

And so far as amendment 194 is concerned, it's not a wrecking amendments. It's just the fact that the government has provided no evidence of any tangible benefit from its proposed trade union reforms, and will be dealing with those in much more detail in the next day we have at this report stage. But the government optimistically suggest that the changes might improve industrial relations. But no one seriously believes that. And I doubt whether even the trade unions do. We've seen the chaos these types of measures have caused in the public sector.

Our worry is that the government now wants to import that chaos into the private sector. Even if strike days are reduced, it will come at a high price. Unaffordable pay rises and extreme regulatory burdens designed to placate union demands. That's going ultimately to harm hiring, we can competitiveness, and make the UK a far less attractive place to invest. And as for part five of the bill, the government is proposing to hand sweeping powers to the new Fair Work Agency without any meaningful safeguards.

Will a minor accounting error mean the family run businesses face raids from civil servants and property seizures? Well everyday employees with small workplace grievances who want to resolve them informally find themselves sidelined as the Secretary of State pushes the case to a tribunal without their knowledge or consent? So let us be absolutely clear, when the Conservative Party wins the next general election, we will repeal these sections, and we will restore prosperity. prosperity.
23:06
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to Noble Lord for his contribution and speaking to his amendment as well. Tony first Amendment 194 which seeks to repeal parts four and five of this bill as well as section 114 and 150 at the end of this Parliament committee we've debated at length parts four and five of the bill as I'm sure we will do so again next week as Noble Lord Hunt mentioned ethic on Monday. Parts four and five poor deliver the biggest workers rights change in a generation.

Turning to manhood 166 also tabled by the Noble Lord shop of Epsom which proposes a process that effectively duplicates what we are already doing. The government already has robust monitoring and evaluation plans in place. The government's impact assessment sets out how we will review the bill and any secondary legislation that follows, including effects on small businesses, who we know are vital to the economy. The recent published roadmap shows that implementing this bill would take several years. And its full effects will not be realised until long after Royal assent.

Significantly advancing post-implantation review not allow for an effective assessment of its impact, including on small businesses. Turning finally to amendment 111 tabled by the Noble Lord Gothard of Stockport, this government knows the importance of making sure that employers of all sizes are supported in preparing for employment rights reforms. As set out in our roadmap, this government is committed to ensuring there is sufficient support and guidance for employers of all sizes. As set out in paragraph 24 on page 8 of the roadmap, we will be working closely with ACAS and others to develop codes of practice and guidance on measures where these are needed.

We have committed to ensuring time is built into our implementation plans to allow stakeholders, including many small businesses to familiarise themselves with changes in law, codes of practice and guidance. Many of the measures in the bill built on existing legislative provisions where there is already guidance and codes of practice. When we make changes to regulations, we will also work to update relevant guidance and codes of practice as a result. We know one of the main places people turn for reliable accurate information on legal requirements is Gov.UK.

Work is currently under way to ensure that our digital content is usable, easy to navigate, and accessible to all stakeholders. In addition, we have and will continue to engage with stakeholders of all sizes to understand what support will be useful for them in implementing these changes. The Noble Lords amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. An additional code of practice on top of the guidance and support government already has planned risks causing confusion among stakeholders as to where they should turn for clarity.

And certainty. I therefore respectfully ask the Noble Lord Lord Goddard to withdraw amendment 111.
23:09
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I thank the Minister thus -- for speaking in this group. Although it's minor amendments and it's 11 o'clock at night, I think for us, and for the Conservatives, small businesses are at the heart be of this economy. And it's more businesses that we will keep nagging on about and we want clarity and certainty, and yes codes of practice are great, and I've read the roadmap, and it's very interesting. And I understand the direction of travel with the roadmap.

And it requires patience and trust at a little bit of honesty about what is deliverable in time periods. The roadmap is a good thing, and I recommend people to read that roadmap, but the small businesses, they need to know now the impact of this proposed legislation, and asking for reviews into that after a period of time doesn't seem a reasonable -- and reasonable to this group. And codes of practice, I just want you to understand that we are not being awkward for the sake of being awkward.

We are just trying to protect small businesses, small companies who were quite frankly bewildered. They don't have a political view on employment. The upper world how someone can come in and affect how they can make a small profit and a small living. So we will continue to probe, not forcing votes for the sake of votes, but, did you speak to ministers regularly, probably more with these ministers than any other bill apart from the football bill perhaps as the Minister is sat next to you, and you've been really helpful and supportive, and I appreciate that.

And I think you understand where we're coming from on this. Not to be obstructive but just try to tease out a little bit more detail and a bit more promise of certainty for people because in life at the moment, it's difficult, and to put more uncertainty in front of people who are trying to do the things that you want them to do, grow the business, employ more people, create GBA, those things have to be compatible with the things you are trying to do for the employees.

So

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that basis, I will stop wittering on and withdraw my amendment. Is at your pleasure the amount would be withdrawn? Amendment by would be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the further consideration on report be adjourned. Further consideration on the report be adjourned. As many as are report be adjourned. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. Questions on the statement made in the House of Commons on Thursday 10th July on Commons on Thursday 10th July on
23:12
Lord Kamall Portrait Lord Kamall (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will just give the moment. And I begin by paying tribute to those conscientious resident doctors who have decided not to take industrial action so that they can industrial action so that they can continue their vital work in care of patients? From these benches we find it deeply regrettable that a minority of -- have decided to take this unjustifiable action of launching another round of launching another round of industrial action. This will undoubtedly lead to greater waiting list, more cancellations of ointments and the worst outcome for ointments and the worst outcome for patients.

Even the pro-government Independent newspaper has predicted Independent newspaper has predicted that tens of thousands of patients face cancellations. So can the noble Lady the Minister to the House what remedial action the government will remedial action the government will take to protect patients and offset as far as possible the negative impacts of these strikes and the impact on patients? I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister will recognise that I do try as much as possible to be constructive in these possible to be constructive in these debates but unfortunately when the government last year offered government last year offered resident doctors a 29.8% pay rise without attaching to that pay rise any conditions or productivity for any conditions or productivity for future promises of no industrial action, many of those who have action, many of those who have studied or maybe not even studied, behavioural economic scummy game three or negotiation strategy predicted that the BMA would call further more strikes to extract more money from taxpayers without improvements to patient care.

It reminds me of a conversation have the 60 It reminds me of a conversation have the 64 health when he was in government. He had what he thought was a constructive discussion with the BMA committee where the agreed sum of the working practices need to be modernised. Still working in 1945 models, and when he asked the BMA representative on advice to implement the agreed changes, the response was how much more are you going to pay us? The then Health Secretary then asked but I thought you agreed that these practices needed to be changed? Yes, the BMA representative replied, but how much money are you going to pay as? So I have huge respect for trade unions and their wonderful history in civil society.

Thanks to my father's mentorship of the transporter workers general union, told the Noble Lord would be about the silly run, my mother was able to get an appointment at the Independent Manor House Hospital and trade unions had a wonderful history of civil society and helping working people, but in this case it's clear that those who were on strike are more interested in producing interest and patient care. It reminds me of the doctor who tweeted that the NHS is about doctors and nurses but was then asked what about patients? So the current Secretary of State was warned about the risk of incentivising the BMA to call more strikes when he agreed to pay rise last year.

Right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State was very clear in saying simply caving into the BMA was a wrong course of action. Especially given there were no conditions attached to that last pay rise. Unfortunately, that prediction came true. So for the current dispute let me say that from these benches we welcome the government's indication that it will stand firm but it's surely the right course of action. Since 2022 the BMA has spearheaded more than 11 strikes. On the current industrial action one of the BMA's leaders even went so far as to say the resident doctors are excited to go.

But we should not are all BMA members with same brush and recognise that less than 50% who were eligible to vote did so and realise that most doctors realise the further industrial action does not help taxpayers or patients as was indicated in the brain Institute by Lord Winston resigning from the BMA, said so could the noble Lady administer Tellers of the House been any impact study on the forthcoming planning rights Bill that will lower the strike threshold? Does the government recognise that this might make even more strikes by the BMA make even more strikes by the BMA My Lords, after being offered My Lords, after being offered a parasite year, this was the largest pay rate in the health.

These are not the conditions for industrial action. I applaud the Secretary of State for reaffirming this action. We support in that endeavour. I hope he does indeed stick to this tough stance and not allow the BMA to get the better of the government. The Secretary of State is considering asking to and action now with a promise of more pay rises in the future. If this does turn out to be the case, it would be unfair of me to ask for the noble lady to comment on report and the press, but if this does turn out to be the case, can we implore the government to avoid the sensation of unconditional pay rises and ensure that any future pay rises are timed to modernise the way the doctors work so all patients can get a better service.

I welcome any assurances the noble minister can assurances the noble minister can give it this stage.
23:18
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Portrait Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Walmsley images of the husband's care has not been able to stay at this late hour and apologises to the House. I'm speaking on behalf of these benches. We are disappointed that the BMA is planning to call a five-day strike on the votes on a minority of its members and welcome the constructive approach of the Secretary of State. We believe more attention should be paid to the BMA to be back on patient and other NHS staff, some of whom are well less paid than the resident staff doctors.

They will have to do their best to minimise the damage. Resident doctors have had a 29% increase last year and another increase of that size if it were granted would be extremely damaging to the national economy. Many other public service workers that are much less well-paid than resident doctors have not received such pay rises. Under these circumstances, we believe the BMA is demand to be unreasonable, unfair to patients and other workers, and potentially hugely damaging to the important work of the gum won government to restore the NHS.

Public sympathy is not with the resident doctor this time nor do they have the support of consultants who will of course do their duty and step up to the mark to protect patients, even though they are not in support of this strike. Like all public sector workers, doctors need and normally deserve the support and trust of the public. It is unwise for them to jeopardise that support and trust by taking unnecessary action. A strike is unnecessary because the secretary is state has made it absolutely clear that he accepts that there is a good deal more to be done to improve the lives and working conditions of resident doctors, and he is many times shown that he is eager to meet them to work out how to make those improvements.

I urge the BMA leadership to take him up on that offer. We on these benches accept that many NHS staff have worked under M bearable strain for too long and there are issues about placements, rotation, lack of support and team, the physical state of the hospitals and the stresses of not being able to live -- deliver good care. In that context, I have a particular question for the Minister. In response to a question in another place from my honourable friend Alison Bennett MP about the reality of working conditions whilst this issue of corridor care.

We know this is a result of the effect of patients through the hospital on delayed discharge that are fit to go home but appropriate physical adaptations are not available. While we wait impatiently for the review on social care, will she say what the government is doing about delayed discharges? Will she sure that local authorities have the resources to fund necessary adaptations to help people live safely at home? If I was a doctor or nurse in the AME who is committed to delivering good quality care, I would find having to deliver poor quality care extremely distressing.

This is surely critical to the morale of the NHS, affecting recruitment and retention of even more than the pay issue. I can ensure the Minister of our support if something effectively to be done about it.
23:21
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I start by thanking those noble lords who have stayed for this very important debate at this late hour. Can I thank the noble Lord to mile and noble Lord Stoneham for their comments. Actually I think for their support in the approach that our Secretary of State has taken. Just by way of introduction, can I just emphasise since taking office, this government has prioritised improving industrial relations with resident doctors, the Secretary of State met with them in the first week of taking office, agreed deferred pay deals, which sought to reset the relationship tween government and the profession.

While the majority of resident doctors did not vote for strikes, it's disappointing that the British medical associations resident doctor committee has rushed already to announce strike action that will significantly impact patients and said back the process and progress we are making with the NHS. Resident doctors will receive the highest pay award of the entire public sector this year and will receive an average 28.9% pay rise competitor three years ago. Increasing this further would be unfair. Not least to other public servants.

The Secretary of State met with the BMA on 8 July, wrote to them on 9 July, and expects to meet with them this week to discuss how strike action can be avoided. He has made clear to the BMA while we cannot go further on headline pay than we already have this year, he remains committed to his office to work with them, including meeting their entire committee to resolve the legitimate issues resident doctors face around their working conditions. I have not heard the rumours that Lord, I'll mentioned at all.

It certainly hasn't come up that I had any conversations that I've been involved in. Significant progress has been made to start to rebuild the NHS. Waiting list of rebuild the NHS. Waiting list of been cut by 260,000, we promise to deliver an extra 2 million appointment in our first year and more than double that figure, delivering 4.6 million more appointments. For the first time in 17 years, waiting lists fell in the month of May and they now stand at their lowest level for more than two years.

This is what can happen when NHS staff and a Labor government work together. We have put the NHS on the road to recovery but we have to be honest, the BMA is threatening this regress. Strike action can of course have serious consequences for patients, and should only ever be a last resort. The Secretary of State spoke in the other place of the case of Phoebe who suffers from a genetic condition. Her operation was cancelled twice at first due to strikes and then because there was no capacity to treat her.

Strikes are unfair on patients and other NHS staff, and unfair to the future of the NHS, which we know of course is in jeopardy. Following a 28.9% pay rise thanks to the action of this government, the BMA's threatened industrial action is entirely unreasonable and I want to put that on record here tonight. So long with the other noble lords, we are of course urging the British Medical Association residents doctors' committee to abandon this rush to strike and instead work constructively with this government to improve their working conditions and rebuild the NHS.

We believe there is a lot of scope, as lords said, their working conditions have been appalling over the last decade. There has been enormous sympathy for the condition that they've been in. The noble Lord mentioned and raise issue quite rightly of how patients will be protected and how negative impacts will be offset. Of course we want to work constructively with all of the unions to avoid disrupting the service for patients. Of course unions have the right to go on strike and we do acknowledge this.

But there will be robust contingency plans in place to minimise disruption. Employers will seek, across the board, to mitigate impact and look at ways of rearranging elective care and maintaining urgent action. I have every confidence the Secretary of State will stay firm and will work towards establishing relationships and better conditions. I can't possibly comment, as the noble Lord suggested on rumours and speculation. It would just not be the right thing to do at this point in time.

Turning to the comments from the noble Lord lords to, can I thank him for his support and is recognition of the work that has been undertaken. With reference to corridor care, I think of every single member in this chamber that I've heard speak on this issue recognises that the diet situation we have got with social care at this moment in time. To fix the NHS would be impossible without fixing social care. It is imperative that we move forward and we do have confidence in Baroness and her review and her ability to reach out and were cross party with all of the different agencies, pulling them together.

We need to take action immediately. The noble Lord is absolutely right. The next three years, we will focus on the neighbourhood approach, which is one of the three pillars of the 10 year plan. We will target particularly those who have been most let down by the current system. That of course includes older people with frailties and those in care homes. Social care professionals will work alongside NHS staff in local teams supporting recovery, rehabilitation and independence absolutely critical to their ability to move out of the acute sector.

We will enable professionals to take on more health-related responsibilities. Example, taking blood pressure checks and around rehabilitation. Again, working on prevention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions. We are looking, importantly, to improve pay, terms and conditions through the Fair Pay Agreement. In the longer term, the creation of a national care service, creation of a national care service, guided as I said by the Baroness review will reintegrate health and care and build on the whole theme of moving services out of hospital and into the community.

Importantly, those closer links and even integration of health and social care working with local authorities and importantly, the voluntary community sector. I think all of us actually no examples of excellent practice in this space. The problem we've got is there is not the consistency. That is where we see the problems. Those areas that have built supportive networks in their communities have done a tremendous job in actually making sure that patients don't end up in a hospital where it is not necessary.

But also by introducing step up and step down facilities that will make a difference. There are so many aspects of this to consider but I hope the strength of our feeling from the government that we are dismayed by the decision to strike has come across loud and clear. And I know we will all be looking to the Secretary of State in his very calm and clear exposition of his intention to meet with the union and work out a way of getting through the situation to protect patients, to protect the future of the NHS, and to make sure we can get on with the reforms that we have promised through the 10 year plan, which offer a very exciting future for health in this country when we are There can be no way that doctors abandoning patients is compatible with the Hippocratic oath that they have taken.

The 17 years as Chancellor of the University, I have listened to doctors on qualification saying, taking their Hippocratic oath, saying they will give priority to patients and do no harm. Taking five days industrial action does a great deal of harm to the patients, and also of course to those others in the profession who have two pick up the load, the nurses, consultants
23:33
23:33
23:33
23:33
23:35
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I gave prior notice to the noble Lady the Minister, I want to ask a couple of questions about the review into physician and anaesthetist associates which was anaesthetist associates which was published today. Dealing with issues of high relevance to the concerns and the levels of dissatisfaction among resident doctors. Indeed the review directly addresses some of the training issues resident doctors which are set out in the statement that the government says it seeking to tackle, particularly vocational training and the lack of training places.

So I have two questions, one, when and by what mechanism will Parliament and particularly your Lordship's House have the chance to discuss the languor report, given the high level of engagement when the Statutory Instrument that created the GMC registration of PAs and AAs in February 2024 and the level of expertise in your Lordship's House, and secondly, this reflects many questions with which I'm being bombarded by those concerned with these issues, some of the main recommendations of Professor Laing include the renaming of physician associates and anaesthetist associates as a systems.

Its Professor Laing says they should not be seeing undifferentiated patients except within the defined national protocols. She get at least two years experience when newly qualified in secondary care before taking roles in primary care or mental health trusts. And says they should be a named Doctor as a line manager, which really puts into question, questions of people operating in so-called locum physician associates. Now presumably at least the first of these, the naming question would require a new naming question would require a new statutory instrument.

Others may or may not. Can the nobility the Minister give me and all the other interested people some idea of how the government is planning to take this forward? this forward?
23:37
23:39
23:39
23:47
None Portrait Lord Speaker
-

23:47
23:47
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page