Lords Chamber

Tuesday 28th October 2025

(began 3 hours, 37 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Portrait Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

attack now on net zero is quite extraordinary, given the vibrancy of the net zero economy? Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. I thank my noble Lord for that question. I think he's absolutely right. I think what we we need to right. I think what we we need to remember about this is that the previous government's record on this, what we're seeing now because we're heading for net zero is massive investment in, in in clean energy industry, creating millions of jobs in the long term and investments of billions of pounds. It's the way forward for the for the country.

It's the way forward for the world. And we should

**** Possible New Speaker ****

continue doing it. My Lord Lords Bishop Minister. The noble Lord. The minister has already mentioned the ageing infrastructure that we have. We have become a global outlier here in terms of leak detection and in terms of leak detection and repair to stop methane leakages. Norway has monthly checks, the US Norway has monthly checks, the US has quarterly checks. Canada's bringing in monthly checks. Can I ask the noble Lord, the minister, ask the noble Lord, the minister, what our policy is and if it will mandate these leak detection and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

repair testing regimes? Thank you. I think the noble Lord for for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord for for his question. And just to point out that there is regular assessments in all of this. These are, as I've in all of this. These are, as I've said, published data publicly on our website, on their website, highlighting flaring and venting and methane performance of and methane performance of different assets. So we're well aware of the issues and we're keeping on top of it. And also of keeping on top of it. And also of these any issues around this that on venting for especially that on venting for especially that fines of over half £1 million can be can be what can be set against the
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Value of the built environment sector and its role in the national economy, following the New London Architecture report: 'The Built Environment Sector', published on 16 September
-

with it and we've signed up to the World Bank's zero routine flaring by 2030. And we intend to meet that target.
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
rich menu for schools? And how will the new standard be funded,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

monitored and enforced? Well. I'm sure I could fill up the whole of question time trying to address all those. What I would say as the noble Baroness I thank you for obviously for her interest in for obviously for her interest in the work that that she undertook with the committee. So many of the recommendations from that, from that report are being taken forward that report are being taken forward through the government's ten year health plan, and the plan set out action to tackle the obesity crisis with a broad policy package aimed at improving food environment and ensuring better access to everyone.

In terms of school food standards, In terms of school food standards, she indeed did. We are we are working on this, and we are coming up with standards that define food up with standards that define food and drinks that must be provided to school, what must be restricted. And those are particularly looking And those are particularly looking at foods that are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar, and including, of course, sugary foods. In terms, I think it's important to respond I think it's important to respond to noble Baronesses point on the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.

Members have a duty. Members of that committee have a duty to act in the public interest in accordance with the Code of in accordance with the Code of Conduct for Scientific Advisory Committees, to be independent and impartial. The committee's code of impartial. The committee's code of Conduct. Code of Practice, rather, my Lords has been updated recently. Individuals are now only eligible Individuals are now only eligible to be members if they do not hold significant interests in relation to the food, drink, diet or supplement industry. So I think we can be assured that they're acting on impartial and independent grounds when they provide the government with with the device.

government with with the device.
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring employers are encouraged to support people with disabilities into employment
-

Lord Hall question Baroness Monckton of Dallington Forest.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the order book and I declare my interest as
15:09
15:11
15:11
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
this cohort, whose lives would be transformed by being included in the workplace and in their the workplace and in their communities? My Lords I share the noble Ladies desire to find more opportunities for people with opportunities for people with learning disabilities and indeed, severe autism and other conditions to be able to get the benefits of work of which money is but one. And I pay tribute to the work she's done in creating Team Domenica and the work it has done in supporting the work it has done in supporting learning disabled people into work.

And I'm sure the whole House would want to share in that Lords having want to share in that Lords having said all of that, I think that successive governments have taken a view that that the best way to view that that the best way to support disabled people into work is not necessarily by changing the rules around National Insurance or rules around National Insurance or indeed minimum wage. But she is absolutely right that the level of employment for people, disabled people, is only around 50%.

For those with autism, it's around 30. And as you say, it's vanishingly small for those with learning disabilities. We believe passionately that people, disabled people, are vital to the UK's workforce. The way we've approached it is our priority is to provide opportunities and support for disabled people to thrive in work. That's why we commissioned the independent Keep Britain Working Review, which will be published shortly, to look at, understand how we can create and maintain the kind of workplaces that we want to support disabled people and be able to enable them to thrive.

It's also why we're reforming employment, health and skills support to tackle rising economic inactivity and get people into good jobs. We want the same thing. We're doing it in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

different ways, but we are determined to make things better. My Lords my Lords my Lords.
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to the noble. That's a really good question. We we have something called the support with Employee Health and Disability Service. Actually, I'm not great at names and DWP, but it does what it says on the tin and that was developed directly with input from smaller businesses and disability organisations. And the idea is it gives employers step by step guidance on how they can support employees in common workplace scenarios involving health and disability. So, for example, employers may they can simply use the resource.

It may ask them, have you got somebody you're working with now. Yes OK. What's the challenge. It can support them in understanding what the law says, understanding how to have difficult conversations. Because actually most people who are working or want to work, who want to move into a job, who have a health or disability, we're very happy to have conversations, to help the employer, to know how to go about it. In the Connect to Work programme I mentioned, one of the reasons it works so well is that the specialist advisers will work with the employer to help answer all those questions.

They'll work with the person who's trying to move into work, and they can help bring the two together. And the person I was talking to recently, who was a lead in one of these programmes said, especially with small businesses, they just don't have the resources. They haven't got a huge HR department. They don't know how to do that, but they're really up for it. Hiring people in local community, they just want to be supported in doing it. So I'm really looking forward it. So I'm really looking forward to seeing how that works out.
15:18
15:19
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

disabled persons and ethnic minority females with disabilities? Well, my Lords, I mean, if

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my Lords, I mean, if anyone is not paying the legal minimum, then then they're breaking the law, whatever the circumstances. And absolutely there should be And absolutely there should be taken to task for that. However, my noble friends making a broader point, which is that there are clear gaps in terms of employment for female employment, for the disability employment gap and for pay for certainly for pay rates for, for a number of different ethnic minorities, although the pattern is more varied there.

One of the challenges we've got in trying to move to a the whole strategy of trying to move to a more inclusive Labour market is not about trying to do something for its own sake, it's about recognising if we don't use the talents of all of our people, businesses are not getting the best people that they want to do the jobs, and we won't get the kind of growth we need and we won't get the kind of development in companies. So we're setting out one of the reasons we've had such a focus on working with combined rural authorities and local authorities is to try to make sure they have local Get Britain working plans, which reflect their local populations and can make sure that they therefore, as they develop them, everybody in the local area

**** Possible New Speaker ****

has a good chance to get into work. So that's our approach. My Lords that concludes our questions for today. Clerk.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

questions for today. Clerk. This is from the Commons that they have passed the Victims and Courts Bill to which they they
15:20
None Portrait Business of the House
-

Courts Bill to which they they desire the agreement of your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships. My Lords. Victim and. Courts Bill, I beg to move this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Courts Bill, I beg to move this bill be now read a first time. Read a first time. As many as are of that opinion say, content Of are of that opinion say, content Of the contrary, not content the The contents have it. Can any members who wish to leave the chamber now my my Lords my Lords my my Lords my Lords.

my Lords my Lords. We my Lords my Lords. We now my Lords my Lords. We now come my Lords my Lords. We now come to some instruments previously debated in Grand Committee Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. Mutual Recognition Agreement Switzerland Regulations 2025.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Wilson of Sedgefield Lords. I beg to move that. The motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Paper. Is that this motion be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' the country not content. 'content' the country not content. The contents have it. Private international law. Implementation international law. Implementation of agreements act 2020. Extension of Operative Period Regulations of Operative Period Regulations 2025. Baroness Levitt. My Lords, I'd like to move the motion standing in my name on the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. Is that this motion be agreed to? As many as of that opinion will say content and the
15:23
15:23
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - consideration of Commons amendments
-

content. The contents have it consideration of Commons reasons and amendments on the Employment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rights Bill. Baroness Lloyd of Effra. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. The question is that the Commons

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. As many as of that opinion will say content as the opinion will say content as the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion a Lord Collins of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion a Lord Collins of Highbury. My Lords, I beg to move motion a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment one to which the Commons have disagreed for their Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 1AI will also speak to reasons. 1AI will also speak to motions b, e, e1, h and h1. And can motions b, e, e1, h and h1. And can I start by thanking your Lordships House for the constructive House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage? The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration it received during consideration it received during earlier stages, and at this point I place on record my thanks to my Noble friend Baroness Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.

My Lords, I believe the employment Bill, the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons, strikes the right balance between
15:26
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers whilst providing the flexibility good employers need to flexibility good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success. By now, after the extensive debates we've had at each stage of the bill, we've had at each stage of the bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards improving protections and standards for workers.

These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them again today. However, repeating them again today. However, I will speak to motions A, B, E, and H, which address amendments and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the bill. For each of these, I will set bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the government cannot accept these amendments. In this group. We will amendments.

In this group. We will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero hour contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously, and we have had the pleasure to meet noble Lords Lord Fox Lord Sharpe of Epsom Lord Hunt of Wirral to discuss their amendments, and I will take these in turn, outlining why the government believes these amendments are unnecessary or disrupt the balance of the bill. Thank you. Right to request model for the the right to guaranteed hours.

And I will speak to motion A relating to amendment one and motion A1 relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining the workers right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. And I am grateful for the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The government fully shares the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.

Having discussed with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guarantees hours contract, as the bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should be then be a right to request or opt in to guaranteed offers after each reference period. Now, I do share the Noble Lords desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers, while seeking to carefully manage burdens place on business.

The government shares this intention and is committing to delivering the promises set out in make work pay and supporting businesses to drive the country's economic growth. I was certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters, but, my Lords, I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the bill's core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the government is committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.

Now I move on to motion B relating to amendments seven and eight on the right to payment and short notice definition, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for tabling these amendments originally for consideration, and I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leading the leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the bill in itself would pre-empt the government's planned consultation and limit our discretion.

Discretion to consider a range of options the government has chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation, whilst enabling the government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary regulation, there will be a familiarisation period so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations.

I hope this reassures noble lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled, with more than the period of the short notice to be set in regulations. Therefore, amendment seven is not necessary. Now I will speak to motion H relating to amendment 48 as well as motion H1 relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Exxon.

The amendment in lieu seeks to insert a new legal definition of seasonal work into the bill to which the Secretary of State would have the power to add certain sectors. It also inserts a new obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to the characteristics of seasonal work as newly defined when making regulations under part one of the Bill. And again, I do thank the noble Lord for raising this important issue of seasonal work. The government appreciates that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally.

That's why consideration of issues relating to seasonal work is built in to the provisions contained in part one. The bill allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of an offer to enter into a limited term contract if it is reasonable to do so. For example, a fruit picker could be engaged on a limited term contract to perform a specific task tied to the end of the picking season. Following the end of the initial reference period, the fruit pickers employer would only need to guarantee their hours for the duration of the limited term contract, not permanently.

The bill also provides the necessary powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve, and we will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making any regulations. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that the government's approach will provide clarity and certainty, while maintaining the flexibility needed to support both workers and businesses. I now turn to motions e which address the amendments 23 and 106 120 on unfair dismissal tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of and motion E one, which insists on those amendments.

The amendments took to reduce the qualifying period for bringing an unfair dismissal claim from the current two years to six months. They also create a new initial period of employment, during which regulations can provide for a different test for unfair dismissal and set a lower compensation cap. My Lords, we remain committed to make work pay manifesto, pledge to introduce unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment. This will ensure the approximately 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are able to challenge the fairness of a decision to dismiss them.

Our intention is to ensure that employment can provide security and predictability, and we intend to deliver this from day one on the job. The government's approach provides for a statutory probationary period, during which we will set light touch standards to allow for fair dismissal for reasons relating to capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason which relates to employee to the employee. This approach recognises the importance of employers being able to continue to hire with confidence.

The government has been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. Contractual probationary periods are typically 3 to 6 months long, and nine months. Enables an employer to extend probation, to give a new hire a chance to improve their performance. We will ensure the framework is fair, workable and responses responsive to the needs of businesses and employees. I hope the noble Lords will feel reassured that the government's approach upholds fairness, whilst ensuring a balanced, evidence based framework that supports both employees rights and employer confidence.

My Lords, in conclusion, I beg to move the friend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Lloyd question is that motion A be agreed to? Motion A1
15:36
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Fox. My Lords, I beg to move motion A1 as an amendment to motion A at end insert quote and do propose amendment one B in lieu and quote. My Lords, I think I'm right to welcome the noble Lord Collins to this Bill. I myself missed all of the report stage and I thank very much my noble friends, Lord Goddard Lord Farmer and Baroness Kramer for picking up the pieces. But both of us find ourselves at this bill at an interesting point in its progression, essentially the sharp end where we've really come down to a small number of key issues, but they're crucial, key issues.

My Lords, the government has not been short of advice since the last time this bill was being discussed in your Lordships House. 13 major business organisations wrote to the the the Minister, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development set out issues in a report and just a couple of days ago, the Resolution Foundation, an organisation not unfamiliar with the Treasury, set out serious concerns for my Lords. These and other warnings come at a time when unemployment is rising and job vacancies are falling, where inflation continues to be worse than our international rivals or most of them, and where growth is stagnant at best.

None of these warnings came from organisations that are antipathetic to the lot of workers. But actually we should leave it to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade who put it best when he said that Britain faces a, quote, growth emergency, unquote. Now, I'm sure that the noble Lord Sharpe will go into more details on some of these reports, so I will not attempt to undercut him. But but the unifying theme from all these commentaries is that the bill is likely to, or will have, in most of their cases, a chilling effect on our economy.

My Lords, this is a bill that contains 173 statutory instruments. It's a bill that still awaits the outcome of dozens of consultations. For example, the consultation that the minister set out on notice periods. We still await the conclusion of that. So even when this bill gains Royal Assent, assuming that it does, no one will actually know the details of what it will do. This creates an environment of deep uncertainty. My Lords, uncertainty is the enemy of investment.

Uncertainty leads to expansions being delayed and new hires being put on hold. So, my Lords, at a time when things way beyond the control of national governments are running amok, the this government is wilfully adding something else to the uncertainty that business faces. Something it could control, but is actually adding more uncertainty. So that, my Lords, is at the heart of the concerns we have. My Lords, the noble Lord Sharpe, as we've heard, will introduce his motions E1 and H1 in this group.

And I will, of course, leave it to him to explain their intention. But I will say that the need to place a qualifying period, an initial period of employment on the face of the bill, is an important concern on these benches. The bill, as it stands, would remove this provision entirely. The noble, the noble Lord can expect our support should he move to a vote. When it comes to motion H1, we believe that the noble Lord Sharpe is right to focus on the need to properly understand and delineate how work that is organised seasonally should and could affect certain rights.

This is largely absent from the primary legislation of the bill. Once again, we're going to rely on statutory instruments. So we're not I'm not necessarily 100% convinced by the noble Lords wording for this amendment, but the intention is correct, which is why we will support the noble Lord. But perhaps the Minister could take on board this uncertainty and demonstrate how certain key regulations will operate on this bill in order to manage the the the irregular irregularity of seasonal work.

While it's still, of course, making sure that that work pays for the employees. But turning to my the detail to my motion A1, our motion A1. A feature of the Bill is that laudable aims have sometimes been delivered clumsily, and I think our view is that this is an example of that. When trying to tackle the important issue of zero hours, and we share the minister's aims on making sure that every employee has the right to guaranteed hours moving from zero hours to guaranteed hours, and nothing we have ever said or proposed in this House has undermined that from the start.

My Lords, we support the aim that after a reference period, zero hours should be entitled to those on zero hours should be entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours from their employer. Our original amendment, the one which the Commons rejected, sought to avoid the necessity of employers being compelled to calculate, to calculate and make that offer from the outset. And we understand and heard some of the issues that were raised that it is difficult, hard for some certain employees working with certain employers to get past that first stage and actually initiate the contact and make the comment and make the ask.

So rather than reassert and, and the bill that the amendment that we tabled before, we have amended that amendment amendment. And I have to say that the no. Noble Lord Collins did a better job of explaining it than I'm probably going to do now, which is essentially start off stays the same as the government requires. In other words, once an employee passes the reference period, the employer will be required to offer guaranteed hours. After that, if the employee indicates that they are not interested in that because they want to remain in zero hours, then the employer will not be compelled to have to keep Re offering.

Guaranteed hours. Time after time, as each reference period is passed, that process of calculating what those hours are has to be redone each time. And that may seem trivial. And certainly for large employers it probably is trivial. But for the smaller and medium sized employer it is an added burden that doesn't need to be there. If the employee does not wish to leave zero hours, the the the. The aim of this amendment is to to make sure that both sides are managed well and both sides have the opportunity to change the.

The employee can opt back in to being made those offers if and when he or she requires, and a letter from the employer will remind them of that opportunity. I'm happy that the the, the the Minister wants to continue to talk about that this. And I'm very happy to continue to talk. In order to continue to talk, we will need to have this this motion passed. So I beg to move a one.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion A be agreed to? Since when motion A1 has been moved as an motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A to insert and do propose amendment one B in lieu. do propose amendment one B in lieu. The question, therefore, is motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A1 be agreed to? My Lords. Firstly, can I start by saying I'm also very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister and his his new colleagues for the time for their time over the course of the their time over the course of the past couple of weeks. And I'd also like to thank the noble Lord Lord Fox for his amendment, and if he Fox for his amendment, and if he wishes to test the opinion of the House, then we will be supporting him.

My Lords turning to motion E1 him. My Lords turning to motion E1 on day one. Unfair dismissal rights I am sorry that we find ourselves here again, given the overwhelming cross-party support this amendment received last time around. But I think it is right that we remind think it is right that we remind ourselves of the background making unfair dismissal a day one right will inhibit hiring, and this concern is heightened in the current Labour market context of falling jobs. The number of falling jobs.

The number of Payrolled employee jobs has fallen by 127,000 over the past year, and by 127,000 over the past year, and slowing hiring. The number of vacancies employers are posting has been falling for two years and is
15:46
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
now below pre-pandemic levels. The number of young people aged 16 to number of young people aged 16 to 24 not working or studying has risen post pandemic and is at the highest level in a decade, and young people's employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers because they are more likely to be because they are more likely to be looking for work, making dismissals as hard as the employment rights as hard as the employment rights bill does might also be for little obvious gain to workers.

Workers today are about half as likely to today are about half as likely to lose their job as they were 30 years ago. And unsurprisingly, workers are less worried about workers are less worried about losing their jobs. There is also a practical argument against day one unfair dismissal protection. The unfair dismissal protection. The employment tribunal system isn't in a fit state to deal with more claims. The claims backlog has been claims. The claims backlog has been growing and some claims are taking as long as two years to be resolved, long enough that some companies go long enough that some companies go out of business before workers receive their awards.

The government has suggested they will propose a new nine month legal propose a new nine month legal probation period. Indeed, the noble Lord minister has just repeated that there and where dismissals that there and where dismissals have to be fair. But where the bar that employers have to clear to demonstrate they have acted fairly demonstrate they have acted fairly is set lower, that my Lords is a messy compromise, and there is risk that is likely to be poorly understood by many employers, meaning that it may not fully mitigate any adverse effects on employers willingness to hire my Lords.

The government should change tack and opt for the much more straightforward approach of keeping the qualifying periods, but massively reducing them, and this needs to happen now. The government has pencilled in this change, this change in for implementation in 2027, and although many of the employment rights Bills reforms won't effectively be finalised until the secondary legislation is passed, scrapping qualifying periods is happening in the primary legislation itself, reducing rather than scrapping qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the government's manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers.

Reducing the qualifying period to six months would give protection from unfair dismissal to an additional 6 million employees. But it would do so in a way that doesn't needlessly put employers off hiring my Lords. That entire preamble was a direct quote from the government's favourite think tank, the Resolution Foundation, who topically entitled their paper on this subject day one frights. As noble Lords will know, the Resolution Foundation's previous Chief Executive was Torsten Bell, currently Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury.

So are we to infer that this report signals a split on this issue between the Treasury and the Department? Meanwhile, as noble Earl Lord Fox mentioned, noble Lords will have received a letter from 13 business organisations and I will read them into the record. The Federation of Small Business, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, make UK, the aerospace and Defence and Security Group, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Food and Drink Federation, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UK Hospitality my Lords.

It's difficult to be precise, but we believe that they represent more than half a million businesses. Yeah, certainly they represent the employers of many, many millions of workers. And the arguments that they make echo those of the Resolution Foundation almost to the word unamended. This bill would, as the Resolution Foundation has warned us, take us from being an outlier in one direction to the other extreme. My Lords, our amendment proposes a sensible compromise in line with the economies such as those of New Zealand and Korea and more importantly, a compromise which all sides, including both business businesses and left of centre think tanks, can live with.

The Lord. The minister talked about consultations and reviews and assured us that we can deal with all the detail in the secondary legislation. But in answer to that, I would repeat the Resolution Foundation's argument. Scrapping qualifying periods is happening in the primary legislation itself. Quite so. And as Politico mentioned yesterday, and I quote, one industry figure suspects some people are making noise about climb down now to get the bill through the Lords, only to close ranks again at a later date.

My Lord, that my Lords, that unnamed industry figure speaks for many of us. This motion offers to the new ministers an easy and elegant solution to a problem of the government's own making, which has zero support among the creators of wealth, including, we may infer, from the government's own Treasury team, they should accept it. My Lords, turning to motion H1 in my name. On these benches, we have repeatedly made the point that the government should not pursue a one size fits all approach to the Labour market.

For farmers in particular, the Labour force rises and falls with the season harvesting, planting, noble Lords own example of fruit picking and livestock management all depend on the rhythms of nature, not on the administrative convenience of Whitehall or indeed limited scope contracts. The reality is that a farm cannot simply hold on to a staff year round, when the work itself exists for only a defined and limited period. The same can be said for many other seasonal industries in and is in my amendment as defined in my amendment, and that is why 26 weeks has long been recognised across seasonal industries as the appropriate reference period.

My Lords, I would urge the government to protect our seasonal sectors by agreeing to this motion and I beg to move motions E1 and H1.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yay! Yay! OK. I think that motion E1 is the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think that motion E1 is the most important amendment that we will be debating today. The introduction of day one. Unfair
15:51
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
dismissal rates is the most damaging element in this bill in my opinion. Whilst I do think there are problems with much of the bill, there will be a lot of unintended consequences for most of the proposed changes to employment rights. The government is trying to solve genuine problems. Zero hours contracts can be abused, and the abuse of fire and rehire is well known. To give a couple of examples. But despite asking many times, no minister has yet provided any evidence that the current qualifying period is being abused or causing actual harm to employees and the noble Lord.

The minister has added nothing to that today. The impact assessment that accompanies the bill likewise provides no actual evidence of cost or harm, and we've already heard from the Resolution Foundation that agrees when it says making dismissals as hard as in the IRB might also be for little obvious gain to workers. So, uniquely among the employment rate changes in the bill, there is little or no evidence that there's really a problem to solve or harm to be prevented here. But, my Lords, there are very real harms that will arise as a result of this policy.

The ability to claim unfair dismissal from day one will make it more difficult for employers to take a risk on new employees. The government's own impact assessment makes this clear, and it points out that the greatest impact will be on more risky hires. Young people trying to get that first, all important break, people trying to get off benefits, ex-offenders and so on. All people that the government keeps telling us it is trying to help to repeat. Don't take my word for that.

The government's own impact assessment confirms this. We've just heard about the business organisations. All that I've seen also point to these unintended consequences. But even if you think they would say that, wouldn't they? Then listen to the Resolution Foundation, not an organisation that's ever been accused of being in hock to employer organisations. They say, as we've heard, the government's plan of getting rid of qualifying periods entirely by making this a day one right, has the potential to inhibit hiring.

And it goes on to say, importantly, one group of particular concern at the moment are younger adults. The number of young people aged 16 to 24 not working or studying has risen post-pandemic and is at its highest level in a decade, and young people's employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers. End quote. Now, I think we can all agree that the current two year qualifying period is unnecessarily long, and that is why the amendments passed at the report reduced that to six months, which should be long enough for most employers to decide if the hire is working or not.

That would bring us into line with countries Foundation. Again, I think they're going to get quoted a lot today. Reducing rather than scrapping the qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the government's manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers. But it would do so in a way that doesn't needlessly put employees off hiring. But the government simply rejected this compromise, while providing no reason and no evidence whatsoever of a problem. What is needed for a probation period to allow an employer to give a potential new hire? The benefit of the doubt is for there to be no risk of being taken to an employment tribunal during that period, other than for the standard statutory reasons such as discrimination that already exist and before anyone suggests, as they have in the past, that there won't be an increase in tribunal claims, I remind noble Lords that the government's own impact assessment actually states that a benefit of the policy is that there will be an increase in tribunal awards actually in the impact assessment.

My Lords, we've heard that the government intends to consult on the matter and to create a nine month light touch probation period. Sounds good, but the bill prejudges that consultation new Subclause three of clause 98 sets out very clearly that certain fair reasons must be given to dismiss someone during a probation period, and unfortunately, those reasons are materially the same as the reasons that must be given after the qualifying period. Which means that as the bill is drafted, the risk of being taken to an employment tribunal will always remain.

It won't, in fact, be possible to create a genuinely light touch probation period after the bill is passed. Whatever the results of the consultation. So the government's suggestion that it will be OK because of the future consultation and regulations just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Now, we've often heard this as a manifesto commitment, but the government never mentions the other explicit manifesto commitment that it would consult fully with businesses, workers and civil society before legislation is passed. It's in the same paragraph, my Lords, it seems to be OK to breach that manifesto commitment.

My Lords, as I say, the government's own impact assessment clearly acknowledges the harm this policy will cause. If you know that your actions will cause harm and you go ahead anyway, that is a deliberate act. So if the government is not prepared to listen, including to the Resolution Foundation, the only conclusion that I think we can make is that the government intends, knowingly and deliberately, to damage the life chances of young and vulnerable people. Does it really want to do that? Please, Minister,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

take this seriously. , very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

, very good. My Lords, I rise to oppose amendment E-1, which is unnecessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment E-1, which is unnecessary. Under the Employment Rights Bill, employers can still dismiss workers
15:57
Baroness Grey-Thompson Portrait Baroness Grey-Thompson (Crossbench)
-
-
employers can still dismiss workers fairly, for example, if they're as they can now, if they're incompetent or there's misconduct or a redundancy situation, but without the day one protection proposed by this government, when workers move to a new job. Workers would continue to bear the risk that they can be sacked at whim. Now, I encourage my Lords to put themselves in the shoes of a worker who, in good faith leads, leaves a secure job where they have completed the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal, to take up a new post, and who then finds themselves sacked out on their ear, stripped of a livelihood for no good reason.

I would also remind my Lords that many groups of workers are already protected against unfair dismissal from day one, as their dismissal would be deemed automatically unfair, for example, if they are pregnant or they're on family leave, or they're a trade union rep, or indeed, if they're a whistleblower. This government simply intends to extend that protection to all workers. In addition, if someone who thinks they've been unfairly dismissed because of race or sex or another protected characteristic, this could be discrimination.

They could make a claim to an employment tribunal for both discrimination and unfair dismissal, and for that discrimination claim, workers do not have to meet that qualifying period of two years. Finally, so far, I've heard little mention of the thorny issue of job mobility in this country, which economists agree is a significant barrier to economic growth and productivity in the UK. Reports show that job mobility has fallen badly, according to one report, dropping by 25% over a period of barely two decades.

Poor job mobility is bad for workers. They have less chance of improving their wages if they stick in the same job, and it's bad for the economy because we are failing to move workers fast enough into areas of growth. Now, under the previous government, we saw insecure contracts at work soar. And in 2012, of course, the Conservative led government shamefully doubled the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal to two years, stripping those workers with less service of protection at the stroke of a pen I have.

I'm certainly very conscious of the employer lobby that has mobilised in support of this amendment. But frankly, when I look back on employers opposition to the national minimum wage, to equal pay for women and to stronger health and safety rights, it is clear that business lobbies do not always know what is best for Britain. Labour's manifesto commitment is clear to deliver day one rights in full. I hope noble Earl Lords will join me in opposing this amendment here.
16:01
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, can I just start by sort of referring to a point both noble Lords have mentioned? And that is the lack of detail on the face of the Bill. And as somebody that's been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I'm very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give that time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law on the face of a bill.

That's the practice that has, you know, from my experience, from the mid 80s. And can I also say, I mean, my noble friend just made the point noble friend just made the point about the. Business and trade discussions and can I just assure you know, particularly business groups have written to many noble lords urging them to support amending the bill, particularly in terms of the qualifying period. And can I can I say the Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives, organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal, and we will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees, civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect.

Adopting that very sensible approach in terms of proper consultation, any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer's favour, and I think my noble friend made this point. Repealing the two year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is, of course, most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair and certainly reducing the two year qualifying period. And by the way, I really welcome the noble Lord Lord Sharpe current journey because, as my noble friend pointed out originally when this protection was introduced, there was a six month qualifying period.

Then the Conservative government increased it to one year. Then they increased it to two years. So I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord Sharpe is now going on. I think if he goes from two years down to six months, it won't be very hard for him to accept day one rights. So we're on the right pathway, and I think we can very much welcome that. And I certainly, you know, I have of course heard the Resolution Foundation.

I welcome their contribution heard on the radio, read their contribution. I think it's important that employers can enforce their rights, employees can enforce their rights. We're certainly contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But our reforms to the Labour market and again, I come back to my noble friends point often, what constrains our economic growth strategy is the fact that many, many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they're currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades, new occupations.

That's what's happening to our economy at the moment. So actually, the sort of flexibility that we really want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day one, day one rise. And I think, you know, just coming back to and the other amendments, I do think that as the noble Lord Fox and the noble Lord Sharpe have made, we undetermined to address the issue of a one sided flexibility, and I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally.

But, you know which I mean, the current one sided flexibility can leave people unclear where they will be next paid get next paid paid work, and unclear how much time they need to keep available for work. And under the bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights depending on the circumstances, such as using limited term contracts or guaranteed hours in the various ways. So I think the bill absolutely covers that.

And I come back to the noble Lord noble Lord Lord Fox amendment. And I think, you know, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. And I think it's, you know, what we are trying to do in this bill. We want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, to create an economy that works for all. And we think employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. And this is best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that.

Right. And the provisions in the bill will apply to all employers, which will allow good employers to benefit from a level playing field. And I think that's the important point about this. And we do need to recognise most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. What this legislation is underpinning those good employers so that the Cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. So I think, you know, what we are trying to do is ensure that there is fairness at all levels.

And I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recognise that the order. Lord of the Minister for giving way. I was hoping to hear an answer to a question posed by the noble and learned Lord Phillips without a and learned Lord Phillips without a qualifying period, would employers take on people with a criminal take on people with a criminal record? And that question has not been answered. So I was hoping it would be answered. Secondly, would be answered. Secondly, section 23, as amended, it talks about right not to be unfairly about right not to be unfairly dismissed.

So this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying qualifying period is not quite wrong. So would the noble Lord the wrong. So would the noble Lord the Minister answer that really quite difficult question. Would you difficult question. Would you employ somebody without qualifying period who has a criminal record? period who has a criminal record?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

period who has a criminal record? Yes, I. Can see that. It's important for the member beat me to it. He hasn't addressed this point it. He hasn't addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against day one. The day one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders who were trying to get rehabilitated, and also many young people, young boys, young girls, 20 year olds who never had a job before. And the government's own impact statement seems to bear this out.

The minister hasn't even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly hasn't addressed it in his reply. And I think it's the best argument that's made against the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government's proposals. Yes. Yeah. Well, I mean, sadly, I haven't got through my contribution in got through my contribution in response to all the questions. So please do give me a bit of time and I certainly will address that specific question when I get to it. specific question when I get to it. But I do think, I mean, the general point we're trying to make on day one rights, and my noble friend one rights, and my noble friend made it very adequately.

Day one, day one rights do currently apply day one rights do currently apply in certain circumstances. So it's not a novel, innovative thing. And not a novel, innovative thing. And it has been a demand for some time. And actually, in terms of probation, most good employers do have probationary periods, and they do use those probationary periods for a purpose. The purpose they have is to ensure they can retain that employee, so that they actually can employee, so that they actually can offer opportunities to improve, address, you know, where there is address, you know, where there is an issue of competency or capacity for them to address.

So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss. They're an opportunity to dismiss. They're an opportunity to continue employment. And I think that's important to say that. And I do think that chilling effect is not correct, because all employers, good employers, have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within that probationary period. And that's what this legislation is trying to promote and ensure exist. I was looking for a particular page, which I've now found. I think there was a particular issue in relation to offenders.

Young people, ex-offenders. Yeah. Ex offenders. And I certainly did see a page on that. And we'll certainly get to it hopefully soon. But I think what the important point that I will repeat the point I'm making is that that probationary period is that opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job, although there we go.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Inspiration lies. I knew I had the page somewhere,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I knew I had the page somewhere, but it didn't didn't and I had read but it didn't didn't and I had read it, but currently having a spent conviction is not a proper ground conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Well, I had two Offenders Act. Well, I had two questions that were posed proposed to me.

One was the issue about the to me. One was the issue about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

answering the right question? I think I think we seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that if this day one point is that if this day one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person won't be employed in the first place. It's not that they first place. It's not that they will be fired afterwards, it's because the employer won't feel able to take the risk to take the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to take the risk to take the chance on them in the first place. Well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well. You know, I you know, I mean, if you have a spent conviction, you don't have to disclose it. So I don't understand what the noble Lord point is making. I mean, I think it really is important. I think it really is important that we do see, I mean, you know, I challenge noble Lords that, you know, their experience. And the noble Lady sitting opposite me. Baroness Neville-Rolfe sorry to name her in person, but she and I worked together in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country.

They have very positive employment policies. They have very positive policies for flexible working and also proper disciplinary and proper grievance procedures. The simple fact is that what probationary periods provide for, and it needs to be understood, is when an employer spends a lot of money recruiting someone, they have the opportunity to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think, a we need to consider the position of SMEs as well as big the position of SMEs as well as big employers like Tesco. But I suspect I can't speak for Tesco anymore. They will, they will. Part of the They will, they will. Part of the letter that was sent to us all and everybody is concerned on this point that unless you can write point that unless you can write some of this probationary stuff into the bill, or at least publish it before the bill is passed.

When it before the bill is passed. When I was a civil servant, you did the CIS at the same time as the bill, and we really got to have clarity here before we can pass the bill, because we cannot then you can't go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because we cannot then you can't go into reverse once the bill is passed. Yes. Yeah. Well, I wish I had the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I wish I had the noble Lady of Minister say that when many of the bills that were pushed through in recent years, and through in recent years, and certainly we did not have statutory instruments and a classic case, of course, and the noble Lords are course, and the noble Lords are here was the minimum service level bill that they pushed through this bill that they pushed through this Parliament, and there were no indication of statutory instruments indication of statutory instruments that came into and I repeat, I mean, the important thing to make here.

the important thing to make here. Is the opportunity to properly consult and properly actually agree a proper process for introducing the necessary secondary legislation. And so I think it's really important. And I you know, I come back to the point that noble Lord Lord Vaux made in relation to young people. I mean, we do want to ensure, I mean, this government is already providing support for young people, transforming the apprenticeship levy into new growth and skills levy. We're unlocking greater flexibility for learners and employers and aligning training with our new industrial strategy.

So I think what we can do is focus on the opportunities. Does this bill present an opportunity for creating stability, security, innovation in our Labour market? Well, I would argue very strongly it does. As I come back to the point, I come back to the point and I make this strongly. The noble Lord Lord Sharpe and his party increased that process of qualifying period. You know, it started at six months, then went to one year, then to two years.

Now he's saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one right at the beginning. That's what we we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

need. My Lords Lord. Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Foundation. Could I ask the noble Lord the minister what his answer to that is? Well, I thought I had raised the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thought I had raised the response. I think actually what we're trying to do, where there are specific concerns, we can address specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that probationary We have said that probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses that those companies and businesses have three months or six months can actually extend them to ensure that issues of capability and competency issues of capability and competency are addressed.

We are also ensuring are addressed. We are also ensuring that we actually look at all other opportunities. I mean, I think the point my noble friend made every change that we've made in terms of the Labour market to improve the the Labour market to improve the conditions and opportunities for workers and employees, has been workers and employees, has been resisted and resisted strongly, particularly from the party particularly from the party opposite. But we now have the situation under.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maybe the noble Lord could respond to this. There are more opponents to this, these parts of the bill than from the party opposite as you describe them. All opposite as you describe them. All of the opponent, all of the concerns that have been raised across the House, but outside of this House come from a wide range of organisations and interests who of organisations and interests who are actually interested in workers are actually interested in workers rights.

They're concerned that a lack of forethought about what day one rights mean will actually one rights mean will actually impact on some people who won't ever get the chance to have workers rights because they won't be rights because they won't be employed. It will lead to a risk averse employer. I think it is averse employer. I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers rights a Conservative, anti-workers rights view that is actually misinformation, not even reflected in the discussion we've had here in the discussion we've had here today.

So could the Minister actually answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation, but by a wide range of employers and by a wide range of organisations who are worried that even though you say this is for workers, that just because it says that on the tin is not actually in the tin, and that actually your consultation afterwards is going to not help a bill that is cemented into law, this government says it agrees with it constantly tells us about the rule of law.

We're worried that you're about to make a law that is unbreakable without any consultation afterwards, and that that will be bad for workers. That's the driving factor of our

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concerns. Well, I would argue very strongly that this is actually the focus of our efforts is about what's good for this country. And what's good for this country. And what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth. Now, stimulate that growth. Now, creating a a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I do admire the noble Ladies ability to sort of suggest she supports sort of suggest she supports workers rights, whilst then siding with people who oppose workers with people who oppose workers rights.

I mean, the reality is the reality is, and I'll repeat it, reality is, and I'll repeat it, where we have made progress in terms of employment rights, you terms of employment rights, you know, over the last 45 years, it has been resisted many times, has been resisted many times, resisted because people were fearful where it may lead. But the reality, the proof of the pudding has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to rights have enabled people to prosper.

They've enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges. They've enabled women to not suffer discrimination. They've enabled women to demand equal pay. I am determined that we actually stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive and forward looking economy that protects workers rights. I beg to move here.
16:21
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Pick the bones out of that if you wish. There's quite a lot to respond, which I will not completely respond to, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping pong. Usually most of it is cut and dried, and it's down to the tiny neurones. This is not the case in this particular bill. There is a lot of detail that has to be litigated in this bill, and part of the problem we come back to is virtually none of the bill is there.

This is paving legislation back in the committee stage, when the noble Lord didn't even dream that he'd be sitting, taking these these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with Baroness Coffey, and she and I were putting forward the proposal for a proper code of practice that was proposed prior to the the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that the noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not be there.

They would have been sketched out, put out into a code of practice. That didn't happen. Milk has been spilled and there's no point crying over it. But I would point out that in future there is stuff that can be done when you have bills that are packed full of of of of statutory instruments. And that was one thing we could have done which, which, which the government decided not to. The noble Lord talked, talked rightly about the majority of good employers.

He's right. The majority of good employers want to treat their workers well and do so. He described this legislation as underpinning good employers. I'm not sure how it underpins if the good employers are already doing what it can do and in some cases does do, which comes back to my point. It makes unnecessary work for employers to do when they when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic, but I want you to come back to the final point about the the the day one rights my Lords.

There are millions of people who are not working at the moment. The government is very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the government wants these people to work, they will require jobs and they will require jobs from businesses who have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives and certainly haven't worked for years and years. That is a risk with full day one rights that makes the risk even higher, because the employer has to take a punt.

They have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes it will win, sometimes it won't. And this whether the, the, the, the noble Baronesses opposite shake their heads or not, it will make employers reticent about making that move. And that is why the noble, the noble Lord is correct in his in his motion, however, returning back to motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. And on that basis I would like to test the will of the House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and put it to be decided. Yes. Question. Is that motion A1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question. Is that motion A1 be agreed to as many as are of that opinion say, content. Content to. The contrary, not. Content.
16:25
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content. Not content. The question will be decided by division I will alert.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be decided by division I will alert. Lord Barber. Did I miss something? My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Did I miss something? My Lords, I think not. I will alert the House I think not. I will alert the House when voting is open. Voting is now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords. My My Lords. My Lords, My Lords. My Lords, the My Lords. My Lords, the question

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My Lords, the question is that motion A1 be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' to the contrary. Not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not the right by the throne, the not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords My Lords.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords. My lords. The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Stevens

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, there My Lords, there have My Lords, there have voted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, there have voted contents 302, not contents 159. So the contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My lords. My lords. Motion My lords. Motion B My lords. Motion B Lord My lords. Motion B Lord Collins

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My lords. Motion B Lord Collins of Highbury moved formally. The question is that motion be agreed question is that motion be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' as many as for that opinion will say content to the contrary, not content. The contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have it motion C Lord Leong. My Lords, I beg to move motion C that this House do not insist on its amendment 21 and do agree with the comments in the amendments 21 A the comments in the amendments 21 A and 21 B in lieu. I will also speak
16:39
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
to motion k, k, I, n, and n one. In this group. We will be debating amendments made in the House relating to Special constables, relating to Special constables, heritage railway volunteers and the school Support Staff negotiating body. The government have listened body. The government have listened carefully and openly to the concerns raised by Noble Lords and concerns raised by Noble Lords and members of the House of Commons who have engaged extensively on these have engaged extensively on these issues.

I will speak to Special constables first. I will speak first to amendment to motion C relating to amendment 21, tabled by the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would give employees, who are special constables the who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. I carry out their police duties. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Parekh and Sir Ashley Fox MP for their championing and advocacy on this important issue. I am pleased to say the issue.

I am pleased to say the government has tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place to address this matter. This government recognises and values the role of Special Constables. Play an important play in keeping our communities safe, a role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. The amendment makes a statutory commitment to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, and publish a summary of the findings of the review within 12 months of Royal Assent, with specific reference to Special Constables.

The government has existing powers to be able to deliver any updates to the list as a result of the review by secondary legislation. As my officials have discussed with the noble Lord, the review is already underway and will consider whether the current list of eligible roles remains fit for purpose, and whether any changes should be made, including the case of Noble Lords have put forward to add special constables to the list. The review will consider whether changes to this list would deliver the intended support for public services and excesses, and assesses the potential impact on businesses.

I hope this provides reassurance to noble Lords about our commitment to review this legislation fully, including in relation to special constables who we all want to see support to perform their important duties. I will thank I would like to thank the noble Lord for championing this matter in early debates, and I ask for support in this amendment. In lieu, my Lords, I now turn to motion K relating to amendment 50 to 60, sorry, and motion K1 relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

I would like I would like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson and my noble friend, Lord Falkner Worcester, for the continued engagement on this important subject. Whilst we recognise the important contribution these volunteers make, Noble Lords will know the government could not accept the original amendment as it risks creating inconsistencies within the broader legislative framework governing young people and volunteer work. I'm grateful that noble Lord Parkinson for tabling his amendment in lieu and seeking to find common ground.

Whilst we have concerns with the current drafting, the government consider that targeted guidance for Heritage Railway can address his practical concerns without the need for legislative exemption and support. The intent of his amendment. This is why the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered to work with Heritage Rail Association to produce written guidance for heritage railways, which will support them in actively encouraging 14 to 16 year olds to take up volunteer opportunities on their railways.

We are grateful to the HRA for their prompt response in relation to this offer, and look forward to working with them on the guidance. This guidance will have an equivalent status to that of other similar material published by both Or and HSC. It will provide an authoritative benchmark for heritage railways of what we consider to be reasonable activities for children to undertake. Importantly, this will also provide a benchmark for regulatory inspectors when making enforcement decisions. We would make it clear in the published document that following the guidance would not be compulsory and railways could would be free to take other action, but if they follow the guidance, they would normally be doing enough to satisfy the law.

The government is committed to this guidance. Both O, R, R and HSC agree that this work is a priority and our officials are ready to begin work with the RA on preparing the guidance, with the intention to publish it by 31st March 2026. As I mentioned, the Noble Lords Amendment does have some drafting deficiencies. For example, it requires an instruction to be given to the author, and on the day of Royal Assent, which would actually slow down the timeline agreed with the HRA.

So, my Lords, at this stage there is little that divides us. We are keen to continue our discussions with relevant parties ahead of the Bill being further considered in the other place in order to resolve the matter. The government will therefore not oppose the amendment today. My Lords, I now turn to motion N, which addresses amendment 121 on school support staff, negotiating bodies, or triple S and A and motion N1 relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness Lady Baron.

The proposed amendment in lieu would allow employers to employ support staff on pay and other terms and conditions that are below statutory minimums agreed by the SSSNB, provided that the overall package of terms and conditions of employment meets or exceeds collective statutory minimums on an aggregate basis. I understand this was a point the noble Lady wished to make at report, though her original amendment actually offered an alternative form of words to a provision the government had brought forward for the purposes of clarification.

This amendment would require employers to assess the relative values of different terms and conditions on a case by case basis. Such an arrangement would result in uncertainty for employees and remove the protection offered by statutory minimums, ensuring a consistent flow for all support staff, terms and conditions is fundamental to the purpose of SSSNB. Such an arrangement would also cause uncertainty for employers who would face greater burden and legal risk in making their case by case determinations about the relative value of different terms.

All school support staff deserve to know what minimum levels of pay and conditions they will receive. My Lords. So, for example, where an employer provides lunch during a shift that may be regarded as a welcome benefit. However, it would be unlawful for an employer to deduct the cost of that meal from an employee's minimum wage. The law is clear that the minimum wage must be paid in monetary terms, and cannot be replaced or reduced by the provision of food benefits or other non-cash arrangements.

The government amendment. We make a report stage A secures protection for individual employees in that terms and conditions cannot be changed to their detriment. Following SSSNB negotiations. It provides ample flexibility for employers to innovate in response to local circumstances, circumstances and offer more favourable terms irrespective of their structure. Turning to subsection four of the amendment. Throughout the passage of this bill, we have been very clear that we will not impose a top down approach from government. It is only right that the SSSNB, which will bring together employee and employer representatives and sector experts, should negotiate on which minimum terms and conditions support staff should be entitled to.

It is not right to prescribe the terms and conditions to exclude in primary legislation, without the necessary consideration and consultation. The amendment would also allow employers to employ support staff on terms that are less favourable than the statutory minimum in those specified specified areas, without compensating staff through terms that are more generous than the statutory minimums. Section five would allow the Secretary of State to add to the list of areas to be exempt from the statutory requirements, which would further undermine the protections afforded to school support staff.

The bill already states that the SSSNB will have an advisory remit in relation to training and career progression, and therefore those areas would not be included in the minimum terms and conditions negotiated by SSSNB. My Lords are therefore asked the noble Baroness to withdraw his amendment. My Lords, in conclusion, I thank noble Lords for the valuable consideration contributions both during the passage of this Bill and in the course of today's debate across this House. We share a common commitment to ensure that this Bill achieves its full potential as effective legislation.

I beg to move the motion standing in the name of my noble friend, Baroness Lloyd.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Christian motion C be agreed to. As I can be very brief, because the Minister has brought glad the Minister has brought glad tidings, and I thank him for that very much, and for the way that he
16:49
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
set it out. As noble lords who followed this narrow but important issue will know, this is a confusion which stems from a 1920 Act of Parliament and how it applies in the modern era to volunteers and young employees on heritage railways and tramways. For more than a decade it's been taken up by the noble Lord Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has been campaigning to clarify this in law. So I pay tribute to him for ten years of hard work and his efforts behind the scenes to secure this important change today.

I'm grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness Lady Lord Hay, whom I welcome to her place. We had a very helpful meeting with them both last week. They were in listening mode and I'm glad they've taken this away and helped to solve it. The key issue. We welcome the drawing up of guidelines, as we said in our meeting with, and I'm glad to report that the office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have already begun their work with the Heritage Railway Association.

As the Minister said, I'm delighted to hear the target for that to be completed by the 31st of March. I'm sure that work can indeed be done. The sticking point for us was that this needs clarifying in law, as well as in guidelines. In our debate on report, the noble and learned Baroness Lady Butler-Sloss and it said it is no use ministers saying that guidance shows that organisations such as this will not prosecute. The fact is that the law forbids it.

If the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. That's why I was so keen that these guidelines should be given some statutory backing. In effect, the amendment that I tried to table was to describe what the government, the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered and are happy to happen. I'm delighted to hear that the government is happy for that to be written into the Bill. I accept, I'm sure my version has some drafting deficiencies, which I'll be very glad to work with the government to clear up and I'll be very pleased next week.

I have a non-financial interest to declare. I'm the Unremunerated chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. Very pleased to have succeeded the noble Lord Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who had to give it up in order to become the rail Minister. Next week I will be in Southampton with heritage railways from across the country, who will be delighted to hear that this long standing problem, which holds back young volunteers from getting experience and skills in our heritage railways, will finally be solved and I'm grateful to the government for their part in solving it.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I'm. Almost lost. For words. As noble Lord Lord Parkinson has said, this Lord Lord Parkinson has said, this is it's been a campaign that's been running for almost 15 years. The
16:51
16:52
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
amendment C, sir. Thanks to the government for that amendment. Lord Katz in particular has been very patient, provided time, and has responded to an issue that's first raised by Sir Marcus Fox in the comments following one of his constituents, who was a special constable, who presented the unfairness of the fact that he couldn't get time off from his employer as a right. And that was the issue that was raised in his amendment, which was dismissed in the Commons. I was supported in the Lords by Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, which I appreciate.

Of course, I would have preferred that the specials were added to the list of those who do get a right, but the government responded by saying they'd have a review. I said often reviews don't happen and if they do happen, they don't get any outcomes. So in that case, then how about making a statutory one? That's time limited. Now what's your argument? Well, it's a fair point and I accept that the review will take place. Is time limited. And I look forward to its outcome, because the government's other point was that, of course, there are other groups who might want a similar right on a list that is waiting to be addressed, and it would be unfair only to consider the specials.

I think that's a fair point, but I'm glad for the progress that's been made and the support the government have shown.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I feel in a lonely. Position not to be able to thank the government for their comments the government for their comments on my amendment. I did feel sad on my amendment. I did feel sad that I would have to rise again, as I hoped the government would have
16:54
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
I hoped the government would have talked to those running our schools and trusts and would have adjusted their approach, but they clearly haven't done that. So we're here again, and I have to say, I feel slightly sorry for the noble Lord the Minister, because. I think the remarks that he was given commenting on my amendment were, if I may, ill advised, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that my amendment would have put would have facilitated contracts where someone was offered a free lunch and then to be paid below the minimum wage.

There is absolutely nothing in my amendment that suggests that, and both the noble Baroness, the Minister and the Department for education and his predecessor Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, who I met with at the end of July, a very clear that there was nothing in that at all. And I will also challenge some of the other remarks that he made. But there is nothing in my amendment which would worsen the terms for my for employees. So I think it's unfortunate that that was the advice he was given on how to approach this by way of context before coming to my motion.

The just to remind noble Lords this is a very unlike heritage railways. With greatest respect to my Noble friend, this is a big issue. There are 800,000 support staff in our schools, about half a million full time equivalent employees. Half of them are teaching assistants and the other half are in a multiplicity. Literally thousands of different roles. So when the noble Lord says this is not a top down approach, I just my jaw hits the ground.

The the idea that the SSSNB is going to be able to create a full range role profiles, pay scales, etc. is just not realistic. We're going to end up either with a labyrinth or a straitjacket, and neither, I would suggest, are an ideal outcome. And despite having raised this at every point in debates on this bill, the government has not explained how it will address the multiplicity of roles that exist when the SSSNB was in existence previously, before 2010, we didn't have about 2500 trusts, each of different sizes, geographic footprints and organise differently with different roles within them.

The amendment also doesn't address the inconsistency in the government's approach between the school teachers pay and review body and the SSSNB, so in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the government accepted the principle of a framework that academies must have regard to in the Bill. In schedule three, the schools Bill schedule three, page 134, lines 27 to 32. It says academies must have regard to any provision of an order under section 122 that relates to conditions of employment, and it goes on to say they must also have regard to guidance.

We tried to bring in an identical amendment at report with my amendment 111A, which mirrored the government's own amendment in the children's Well-Being and schools Bill. But at the time, the noble Baroness Lady Jones of Whitchurch argued that it would be wrong to create a two tier system. So we do actually have a two tier system between for teachers, between maintained schools and academies. But we are rejecting a system which I'm proposing through my amendment, which would only offer upside to school support staff so that we end up with the triumph of uniformity over innovation.

So if we turn to my motion N1, it aims to give the government a practical way to deliver its objectives of consistency and fairness without unduly constraining the judgement of school and trust leaders in managing their workforce. The. Without this amendment, employers both in academies and in maintained schools will lose their ability to design contracts which meet both the needs of the workforce and the needs of their pupils. And that might include, for example, paying someone above the agreed pay scale if they agree to work towards a qualification, or if in a trust which has schools in multiple local authorities, they may receive a higher salary in return for working across a wider geographic footprint.

The government's approach removes the ability to do that. Every individual element in a employees pay and conditions has to be above a minimum standard, rather than allowing an employer to pay someone more in return for greater flexibility or the commitment to work towards a higher qualification. So, and the Minister wrote to me on the 1st of September, I won't. Keep the House by going through the examples, but all the examples in that letter were where this legislation won't apply.

But what we're interested in and worried about is where it will apply. So I feel this is a bit like Groundhog Day. We are back stuck with a model which will be either a labyrinth or a straitjacket. We're back with a model which will end up blocking innovation and ironically, will damage and hold back the earnings and prospects of the very staff that all of us in this House wish

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support. I beg to move. I rise to speak in support of
17:01
Lord Hampton Portrait Lord Hampton (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of the amendment N1 in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Baron, and noble Baroness Lady Baron, and declare that I'm still a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney, East London. In over ten years of teaching my Lords, I have encountered many tens, maybe not hundreds of Tas technicians, IT staff, catering staff, site staff and all the support staff that make schools function. My subject product design is entirely reliant on technicians.

They set up and prepare materials, they maintain equipment, they teach skills to us and the students. I have seen technicians who I had to be hunted out from one cigarette break to another to do their job, and those who have used the school's 3D printer to print a better 3D printer, to print a better 3D printer, and so on. Support staff are not all the same. Some are quite happy to do the basic 8 to 330 job, and I can tend to be paid for that, whilst others will take on extra responsibilities and duties.

I had one very fine technician who wouldn't go into the classroom while students were there, because he used to be paid extra for a teaching role, but the government abolished it. Quite rightly, he would say if he wasn't paid to do the job, he wouldn't do it. I've also seen technicians paid well over the going rate because schools, schools could see that they were irreplaceable. Their job would have to be done by teachers who had neither the skill nor the time.

At the moment. My Lords. These decisions are held by heads of department and they can make them. Schools need that flexibility. Lady Lea Barons amendment very sensibly creates a floor, not a ceiling, on pay as in the Children's Wellbeing Bill, meaning that all get a decent wage. But those who put in extra time and effort get rewarded. And should she be minded to test the opinion of the House, then I will be with her.
17:03
17:04
17:05
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lord, sir, I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions in today's debate. Today's debate have been wide ranging, from Special Constable, Heritage Railways and SS SSSNB, and I'm grateful for everyone's valuable insight. Now I will address the points raised by all noble Lords here in relation to motion C. I'm grateful the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe for indicating his support of the government's proposed amendment in lieu in relation to motion K1. Firstly, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on on his new role within the Heritage Railway Association, and I'm really grateful to him for working with the government on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with him on this issue, and also with my noble friend Lord Falkner.

My Lords Address motion N1 and the points raised by the noble Baroness Lady Baron. First, I just want to make one point absolutely clear. I can confirm that this bill, this bill will not will not set a ceiling on pay. In fact, it does set a minimum standard the floor whereby, you know, all support staff is entitled to, to, to to that pay negotiated pay packet pay pay. Rather when taken together, I mean basically the SSSNB measures in employment rights bill and the teacher pay measures in the Children's Wellbeing and School Bill and subordinate legislation respectively, will mean that teachers and support staff in all maintained schools and academies in England can rely on a minimum pay offer, and all schools will be able to innovate with pay.

No one is saying that they can't pay more than the minimum wage, minimum pay offer, so they can be innovative in their pay and conditions to attract and retain the very best workforce that they need for our children. What we are doing, my Lords, we are legislating for a new statutory body for school support staff rather than extending an existing system. Now, school support staff have been without a school specific national voice for far too long. It is right we are establishing a body where minimum terms are negotiated and agreed by school employer and employee representatives.

My Lords as most noble Lords would know, I mean roughly half of the 22,000 state funded schools in England are now academies, and the body is being newly established. So it is right that academies are included in the statutory remit of the new SSSNB in a statement, as maintained schools my Lords I said earlier, I mean, beyond the minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable favourable pay and conditions and the SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles training.

And no one is saying that they can't be accorded any training, support and pay and it will be up to the SSSNB to agree how this is to be done and what a Co offer looks like. And this can be all done by local arrangements. We want there to be a co offer that all support staff can expect to receive, with flexibility for employers to go beyond this in their respective local circumstances, so employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulation.

So, my Lords, I hope I've answered some of noble Lords concerns and I would urge all noble Lords to give due consideration to the government's motions and trust that members will feel able to lend support to the government's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

position. I beg to move. Before the noble Lord sets down. I just on the last point about I just on the last point about employers being able to retain employers being able to retain their existing contracts. In the letter I received from the minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on the 1st of September, of Malvern, on the 1st of September, she writes in relation to that specific point, as set out above, specific point, as set out above, the term of an employee's contract will only be altered by regulations where this is not detrimental to where this is not detrimental to the employee.

This allows employers to retain pay and conditions for to retain pay and conditions for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions. Provided. And I'm and I'm stressing this point, provided all terms are the same as or more favourable than statutory minimums. So if an employer today has an employee who they are paying well above the they are paying well above the statutory minimum, but are requiring to work in more schools requiring to work in more schools than would be in the standard role profile, that employer will no longer be able to continue on the same contract.

They will have to, I guess, reduce the scale of that employees work and reduce their salary. Does the noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

outcome? Well, I think that noble Lady for that. I mean, I must admit I haven't had the chance to look at my noble friend Baroness Morris letter, but as far as I know, and what I've been told is employers will be able to retain contracts will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable terms and conditions that were agreed prior conditions that were agreed prior to SSSNB. So basically, if they're offering more than what's negotiated, they can keep the terms,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

negotiated, they can keep the terms, but it shouldn't be less than that. Sorry to to intervene again on the noble Lord, but I think the I asked this question very, very specifically to Baroness Jones and specifically to Baroness Jones and Baroness Smith because that's what employers are worried about, that employers are worried about, that their existing staff will suffer as a result of this. And I think the noble Ladies letter is absolutely noble Ladies letter is absolutely clear. It uses the same language that the noble Lord has in his speaking notes, but with the speaking notes, but with the additional detail that all terms are the same or as favourable.

I are the same or as favourable. I believe we won't be voting on this motion until a little later. So if the noble Lord is able to clarify

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the noble Lord is able to clarify things in the meantime, I'd be grateful. Thank the noble Lady for that, and I will make sure that I read the letter. And I also ask my officials to confirm in writing to the noble Lady.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, that motion be be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' and to the contrary not content. The contents have it very content. The contents have it very quietly motion d Baroness Lloyd of
17:13
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Portrait Baroness Lloyd of Effra, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
quietly motion d Baroness Lloyd of Effra. My Lords, I beg to move motion d that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments 22 A and 22 B, I will also speak to motions f and j. I first come to motion D on non-disclosure agreements, also known as NDAs. In the other place, the government proposed two minor amendments to the clause on NDAs. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of the Houses of Commons and Lords.

We're proposing this change following discussions with the parliamentary authorities. The second will extend the scope of relevant discrimination covered by the clause to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons in section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. This will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered. Turning to motion F, I would like to thank Baroness Kramer for her advocacy for reform of the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996.

Whistleblowers play a critical role in shining light on wrongdoing, and the government recognises that the framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. Baroness Kramer is also championed. The importance of whistleblowers, and the government would welcome further engagement with the noble Baroness and others about their views on whistleblowing. The Minister for employment Rights and Consumer Protection would be pleased to extend an invitation for a meeting to the noble Baroness to discuss this matter further. I now move to motion J relating to amendment 49 by the noble Earl Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley.

This amendment seeks to require a formal consultation with at least 500 SMEs on the Bill's impact, with a report to Parliament within 18 weeks. The government has engaged extensively with stakeholders on its Make Work pay reform since August 2020 for a major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of the 15th of October, we have engaged directly with over 250 stakeholders. This includes 139 businesses, of which 75 SMEs. This. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations, where due consideration will be given to hearing views from small business organisations and their members.

We will also look to arrange focus sessions with SMEs specific to the practical implementation, to understand any challenges and ensure we can target guidance where necessary. We're proud to announce the consultations for duty. The duty to inform workers of a right to join a union, union, right of access and enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and lead for bereavement to include pregnancy loss are currently live and encourage all interested stakeholders to to respond as set out in our roadmap implementing the Employment Rights Bill.

We will continue to consult during 2026 on exploitative zero hours contracts, flexible working and industrial action, including the introduction of E balloting. Each phase will be shaped by the voices of businesses of all sizes, ensuring reforms are practical and fair. In addition to this, our impact assessment sets out a clear plan to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Bill and its secondary legislation following standard government practice. I won't Labour the point further. Small businesses remain at the forefront of our minds as we move closer to the implementation phase of this bill.

We're committed to full consultation, including with SMEs. I hope this reassures the noble Lords of our serious intent to consult thoroughly and responsibly. And I thank the noble Lord Lord Leigh of Hurley for drawing attention to the importance of SME perspectives. I thank noble Lords once more for their engagement on this Bill. We all share a commitment to producing legislation that is effective and practical. I therefore invite the House to endorse the government motions before you. Question is that motion D be agreed to? The question is that motion be agreed to as many as of that opinion, say 'content' the contrary not content.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents have it motion e Lord Collins of Highbury. My Lords, I have already spoken
17:17
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have already spoken to motion e that this House do not to motion e that this House do not insist on its amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 23 A and 107 A to 120 A do not insist on its amendment 106 and do agree with the Commons in their amendment 106 a to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 106. I beg to move. The question is that motion E be agreed to? Motion E one Lord Sharpe

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to? Motion E one Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I beg to move motion E one. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion E be agreed to. Since when motion E one has been moved as an amendment to motion E leave out amendment to motion E leave out from House to end and insert do from House to end and insert do insist on its amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their amendment 106 a the question, therefore, is that the question, therefore, is that motion E be agreed to.

As many as of that opinion will say content. of that opinion will say content. Thank you. Content to the contrary, Thank you. Content to the contrary, not content. Motion e the the the question is that motion E one be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

question is that motion E one be agreed to. Yes. Content consent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Content consent. And to the contrary not content. Not content. The question will be decided by
17:19
17:32
17:32
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion g that this House do not insist on its amendment 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 40 7AI will also speak to motions m and m one in this group. We will be debating amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade Union Industrial Action ballots. I will take these in turn to outline the government's belief that these amendments are unnecessary. I will first speak to motion G relating to amendment 47 and motion G one relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord Lord Fox.

And I would like to thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter. The government believes that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend, and this means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.

Employers, of course, are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they so if they wish and they deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed. For instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity. I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu which, instead of seeking to change the law on the right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see if any changes are appropriate.

And I'm happy today to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the government to consider this issue in further detail, and I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lord, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment. I will now speak to motion M regarding amendment 62 and motion M1, insisting on this amendment tabled by the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The government is clear. We want to foster a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions, employers and government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more cooperation and less disruption.

This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016, an act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the government's intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles, and respects unions democratic mandate. I think as the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from the 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest number highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as I think in the previous stages of this bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar, not consistent with other Democratic decision making. Votes in Parliament. Election for MPs. Local councillors do not normally include any turnout threshold and therefore not considered any less legitimate.

Furthermore, local elections are contested with turnout below 50%. Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for the repeal of the 50% threshold will also be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention, and there is a good reason for this. And notice my noble brother, sitting opposite has made a comment, but the intention is that this will be aligned to the establishment of balloting as an option for trade unions, thereby encouraging greater participation hopefully, than the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots provide, together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting.

The intention is that this will ensure industrial action mandates will have broad and demonstrable support. So once again, I am grateful for noble Lords contributions they've made throughout the Bill's passage, and I do hope you would agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and measures set out in this bill. So I hope noble Lords will
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page