Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for posing arguments against Clause 60 standing part of the Bill.

This clause seeks to repeal Section 15 of the Trade Union Act 2016 by amending the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to remove Section 116B. Section 15 required trade unions to pay public sector employers where they administer payroll deductions for trade union subscriptions, known as check-off. It further required that this service be made available only where workers have the option to pay their union subscriptions by other means.

The Trade Union (Deduction of Union Subscriptions from Wages in the Public Sector) Regulations 2024 were introduced as a cost-saving measure, with estimated annual savings of £1.6 million, totalling £12 million over the following 10 years. However, as the impact assessment acknowledged, the regulations would bring a cumulative cost of £17 million to public sector employers and trade unions over that period. This is far higher than the estimated cost savings.

The current system places bureaucratic processes on both trade unions and public sector employers that can be clearly simplified to support productive trade union relations. There should be no costs to employers associated with withdrawing the check-off regulations. Employers will have the choice to continue with or amend any agreed arrangements regarding the deduction of union subscriptions from their employees’ wages, in discussion with their recognised trade unions.

We feel that there is a need to simplify this process, which is what our proposals intend to do. While I thank the noble Lord for this very short debate, I urge him to support this clause, for the reasons I have set out.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation, although I am not particularly persuaded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join the general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I thought it was a most interesting introduction and I learned a great deal. I particularly liked the phrase “constitutional benediction”, which I am planning to nick—although not in this context, because I rise to join the Minister and express my clear and firm opposition to the proposed new clause after Clause 64. It seeks to enshrine in statute a so-called positive right to strike even in breach of contract, as opposed—if I follow the noble Lord’s arguments correctly—to the freedom to strike. It strikes me as somewhat semantic in terms of the practical outcome, which I suspect is an argument we will hear again.

Let us be absolutely frank about what the amendment would entail. It would insert into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 a wholly unprecedented and therefore dangerously broad provision that every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not it is in breach of any contract. It would not be subject to employer agreement or tethered to lawful procedures but would be an absolute statutory right to break contract terms and withdraw labour.

Industrial action, particularly strike action, is obviously a serious matter, and I think everybody would agree on that. It affects not only the employer but the public, the economy and, critically, the most vulnerable in society, who rely on public services. That is why we believe our existing legal framework strikes a careful balance. It protects the right to strike but does so within clear procedures and obligations: balloting requirements, notice periods and protections against unlawful disruption. This amendment would ride roughshod over all that.

What does it mean to have a right to breach your contract, regardless of process or proportionality? Surely, that is not a right; that is just carte blanche. This provision would displace the carefully constructed framework that governs how industrial action can be taken lawfully and responsibly. It would empower disruption without accountability. The purpose of employment law is not to tilt the playing field in one direction or another but to ensure that fairness, order and mutual obligations between employers and workers are respected. The right to withdraw labour must remain conditional on lawful procedures and not granted in the abstract, regardless of impact or legality.

Moreover, the proposed amendment would likely bring the UK into direct conflict with established contract law and create endless legal uncertainty. If workers are told that they have a statutory right to strike, even in breach of a contract, what does that mean for essential services, public safety, or the ability of schools, hospitals and transport systems to function with any consistency?

I do not think we should be mistaken. This amendment is not some minor clarification; it is a fundamental rewrite of the basis of workplace relations. It would undermine the principle that contracts entered into freely carry obligations and it would sweep away the balance between rights and responsibilities. I also have to ask: once a principle of contract breaking is established, how long before that is used as precedent in other contractual disputes?

Nobody denies that workers must be able to organise, speak up, bargain collectively and act where necessary. That is already protected in the legal framework. This amendment would take a sledgehammer to that balance. It would replace legal clarity, we believe, with legal radicalism, and accountability with absolutism. For those reasons, I urge the Government to reject the amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendment 238, which would establish a broad statutory right to strike. I thank him also for our constructive and amicable meeting a few days ago and for his impressive tour of international conventions this evening. I have to say to him that anything I subsequently say does not mean that I do not take our international obligations seriously. In fact, in this increasingly uncertain world, we have more of an obligation to work collaboratively across countries. I think there is a lot to be gained from countries if we do that, not only on these sorts of issues but obviously on other issues of social justice as well.

I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Jones, for adding to this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. He raised some of the issues around prisons. I will be addressing those in the next group of amendments, but the point is well made that we certainly have to look after and defend our prison officers and recognise the service that they do for us.

The Government recognise the intention to reinforce protections for industrial action but it is important to emphasise that the right to strike is already protected under UK law, as set out in Sections 219 and 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provided clear conditions are met. Introducing a specific codified right to strike would cut across the uncodified nature of the UK constitution and lead to a far-reaching and undefined statutory right that risks legal uncertainty and conflict with long-established frameworks that carefully balance the rights of unions and employers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will quickly follow and agree with my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough in their speaking against the amendments in this group. We feel that these amendments collectively represent a dangerous and retrograde step that would just take us back to the industrial chaos of the 1970s.

Such amendments would fundamentally undermine the carefully balanced framework of industrial relations that has served this country well for, now, over 30 years. I suppose the conventions of the House require me to address each amendment in turn, starting with Amendment 239. As the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, described, this would remove Section 223 of the 1992 Act, which currently renders unlawful any industrial action taken in response to dismissals for unofficial action.

When workers engage in unofficial action—that is, action not sanctioned by their trade union and without proper balloting procedures—they are essentially taking the law into their own hands, so employers must retain the right to dismiss workers who breach their contracts in this manner. To permit official industrial action in response to such lawful dismissals would create a vicious circle where lawlessness begets more lawlessness. It would effectively immunise unofficial action from any meaningful consequences, and encourage workers to bypass the proper, democratic procedures that unions themselves have surely fought hard to establish.

Amendment 240 is perhaps the most pernicious of all these proposals. It would restore secondary action, the ability of workers not just to strike against their employer over their conditions, but to support disputes elsewhere. We banned secondary action for compelling reasons. It allows disputes to spread like wildfire across the economy, dragging innocent third parties into conflicts that have nothing to do with their industrial relationships. A dispute between workers and one employer could paralyse entire supply chains, disrupting businesses that have committed no wrong and harming workers who have no stake in the original dispute.

The amendment would also remove the sensible restrictions on picketing, allowing pickets to target any workplace, rather than just their own. This opens the door to flying pickets and the mass intimidation tactics that we witnessed in the darkest days of industrial conflict. When pickets can descend on workplaces with which they have no employment relationship, the result is not legitimate industrial pressure but mob rule. Furthermore, by changing the definition of trade disputes from those “wholly or mainly” relating to employment matters to those merely “connected with” such matters, this amendment would politicise industrial action. Strikes could be called on the flimsiest of pretexts, with only the most tenuous connection to genuine workplace issues. This is a recipe for politically motivated disruption that serves no legitimate industrial relations purpose.

Amendment 241 would restore the right to strike for union recognition. We have established statutory procedures for union recognition that are fair, democratic and effective. These procedures protect workers’ rights to choose whether they wish to be represented by a union, without the coercion that inevitably accompanies strike action. When recognition can be achieved through industrial action, the process becomes tainted by intimidation, rather than informed by genuine worker preference. No worker should ever face the choice between supporting their family and supporting union recognition demands.

Amendment 242 would remove the requirement for unions to provide employers with notice of strike ballots. This seemingly technical change would also have profound practical consequences. Employers need advance notice to make contingency arrangements, to protect vulnerable service users and to engage in meaningful dialogue that might resolve disputes before they escalate. In essential services—our hospitals, schools and transport networks—such notice is crucial for public safety. To remove this requirement would be to abandon the vital principle that industrial action should and must be a last resort rather than a first response.

Amendment 243 would eliminate the requirement for separate workplace ballots, allowing unions to aggregate completely different workplaces and employment relationships into single ballots. This strikes at the heart of democratic participation. Workers in one workplace may face entirely different conditions and concerns from those in another. They should not be bound by the votes of workers with whom they share nothing but a common union membership. Workplace-specific ballots ensure that industrial action has genuine support from those who will participate in it, rather than being imposed by a union hierarchy pursuing its own agenda.

Taken together, these amendments would create a perfect storm of industrial instability. They would restore the legal framework that gave us the winter of discontent, when rubbish piled up in our streets, bodies went unburied and hospital patients were turned away by striking workers. They would empower union leaders to spread disputes across entire industries, to bypass democratic procedures and to hold essential services hostage to political demands. We must not forget the lessons of history. The industrial relations reforms of the 1980s and 1990s did not destroy trade unionism; they civilised it. They required unions to be accountable to their members and responsive to legitimate concerns while preventing the abuse of industrial power.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, would have us believe that they simply want to restore workers’ rights. But rights without responsibilities are merely privileges, and privileges being exercised without regard for their impact on others quickly becomes tyranny. The right to strike is not an absolute right; it is a powerful tool that must be used judiciously and with proper safeguards.

Moreover, these amendments would do nothing to address the real challenges that face working people today. They would not raise a single wage, improve a single workplace or create a single job. Instead, as my noble friends pointed out, they would create uncertainty, discourage investment and ultimately harm the very workers that they purport to be helping. Businesses need stability and predictability to grow and prosper. Industrial relations law that encourages conflict and chaos will drive investment elsewhere, taking jobs and opportunities with it.

I urge this Committee to reject these amendments. They represent not progress but regression, not liberation but license, and not workers’ rights but workers’ wrongs. We must maintain the balanced approach that has served our economy and our society so well. Let us resist the siren call of those who would drag us back to an era of industrial warfare that all of us hoped that we would never see again. The choice before us is clear. We can preserve a system that protects workers’ legitimate rights while maintaining economic stability and social peace, or we can return to those bad old days of secondary picketing, political strikes and industrial anarchy. I think and I hope that I know which path this Committee would choose.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his amendments on the right to strike and for raising the issue of prisoner officers’ right to strike, which was strongly debated in the other place.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has taken such a strident approach to the issues which my noble friends have raised. Although we do not necessarily agree with everything that my noble friend has put forward, I would say equally that we distance ourselves from the tone and attitude that has been presented by the other side this evening.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

This amendment raises a legitimate question around how notice periods are used and whether current arrangements strike the right balance between the needs and mobility of the employee and the needs of the businesses that employ them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for this short debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling Amendment 140.

When we were developing the plan to make work pay, we were clear in our ambition to establish a fair deal that balances employees’ rights and protections with employers’ confidence to hire the talent, skills and expertise they require to grow their business. A notice period is a period of time put in place to ensure a smooth transition, allowing the employer to manage minimum disruption to business requirements while the employee hands over their responsibilities. We therefore feel that, in the round, our proposals are beneficial to employers and fair. Many employers do not want their staff to leave too quickly, so that fairness is built in. Although the statutory minimum notice period that an employee must give an employer is currently, after one month’s employment, no less than one week, often a longer contractual notice period is agreed between the employer and their employees. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I do not recognise three months as the standard; for many workers, it is considerably less.

This is all about fairness and balance. In practice, employers and employees recognise that both parties require stability and certainty to maintain a fair agreement. Of course, if an employment contract specifies a notice period longer than the statutory minimum, an employee is entitled to receive that longer period of notice, but the employer sets that out in the contract at the outset.

The current minimum notice periods legislation entitles an employee to their normal contractual pay rate during a notice period, as you would expect. This measure would require an enforcement mechanism of employees’ rights to increased notice pay, which would result in more disputes being taken to employment tribunals or the fair work agency. It would create a requirement for an employee’s current and future employer to confirm their salary offer, adding an additional step in the process of offboarding an employee. It also presents the possibility of increased financial burdens on employers.

So, the Government feel that it is not necessary to make a further assessment of this. They have not made an assessment of the costs and the impacts of making this change to employment rights. To do so would require careful consultation with employers and employee representatives. However, we have not received lobbying or any suggestion from employers that they particularly want the sort of proposal that the noble Lord has put forward.

The Bill is delivering the commitments made by the Government to improve workers’ rights in the plan to make work pay. I have listened to the noble Lord, and I absolutely agree with the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hunt, that we want a simple process. Our process is simple. It is also fair to both sides: to the employer and to the employee. If those arrangements need to change, by and large, that can be done within the workplace, based on negotiations—so we do not feel the pressure to make the changes that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is proposing, but I thank him nevertheless for the suggestion.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sorry she does not feel sympathy for the direction I was taking. It seems to me that when you are addressing the question of productivity in the economy, there are no big solutions. It is rather like the way British cycling came to win: you make a very large number of very small improvements, all in the same direction.

This was intended to be one of those, to increase productivity but at the same time to make life a bit better for employees. I am inclined that way. I spent last weekend at a Premier Inn. Premier Inn does not provide toilet brushes. I do not see why the cleaners who come after me and other people should have to scrub out the toilet bowls when I could do that myself. Having a campaign with Premier Inn to change its policy on that would be worthwhile. It is a small change but, by making small changes enough times, you make some progress. Indeed, one of the secrets of this House is to make small changes. So I am sorry that this small change has not appealed to the Minister, but I will try again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Warwick for her thoughtful contribution to this debate on Amendment 143B. We fully recognise the need not to impose disproportionate burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities. However, it is important that we consider fairness and equality of treatment for all workers providing key outsourced services to higher education providers—for example, cleaning and catering services—so that they receive fair and equitable employment conditions comparable to both those transferred from the public sector and those working for local authorities or departments that provide the same services. As a result, there would need to be compelling arguments to exempt higher education providers.

Secondly, it is essential that we first consult with key stakeholders and seek their views before deciding on the ultimate content of the reinstated code and the extent to which certain public authorities, including higher education providers, are required to follow its provisions. I can assure my noble friend Lady Warwick that we will carefully consider the particular issues relating to higher education providers and the difficulties they might experience during this process. However, our view is that to carve out higher education providers completely on the face of this Bill at this stage would not be right.

My noble friend highlighted the particular financial challenges currently being experienced by universities. We are committed to creating a secure future for our world-leading universities so that they can deliver for students, taxpayers, workers and the economy. The Office for Students will continue dedicating significant resources to ensuring the sector’s financial sustainability. The DfE has appointed Professor Edward Peck as the substantive chair of the OfS, where he will play a key role in strengthening this commitment while also expanding opportunities in higher education. We have also made the tough decision to increase tuition fee limits in line with inflation. As a result, the maximum fee for a standard full-time undergraduate course in the 2025-26 academic year will increase by 3.1% from £9,250 to £9,535.

Finally, I stress that the code is being designed to be flexible so that it does not impose undue burdens. There are a range of options available here that could be pursued, for example by specifying to which bodies the code should apply or applying the code only to higher-value contracts, which could exempt low-value procurement activities such as those often carried out by educational establishments that may have fewer procurement resources. These are the sorts of issues that the consultation will examine in detail.

I am very conscious that my noble friends Lady Warwick and Lord Watson asked very specific questions. Given the lateness of the hour and the very specific nature of them, I think it would be helpful if we could write and put that on the record to provide, I hope, the reassurance that the higher education sector seeks. It is for that reason that I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and her attempt to reassure me and other Members of the Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie for his staunch support for what I am trying to do here. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his support; it was thoughtfully put, and I appreciate it.

I understand that the Minister is seeking to reassure me that she is very aware of the need to support the future of our universities. I do not think she really addressed, though, the issues around the impact on the different nations and the way in which that could affect the competitive advantage of the universities and the way in which they are seeking to increase efficiencies. I hope that, in writing to me, she will also undertake to meet the higher education sector once it has digested the detail of her response—I appreciate that my questions are technical. I hope she will undertake to do that because I think that would be enormously helpful and the most reassuring thing that she could do. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his letter explaining certain matters that were left over from the last day of Committee. The fact that the algebraic question required a three-page, detailed answer for one worked-up example rather illustrates our point that this adds a huge and possibly unnecessary level of complexity for small businesses in particular. But I will let that lie for now.

Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name would remove the broad delegated power in new Section 27BD. This Bill continues the concerning trend of the steady transfer of legislative authority from Parliament to Ministers. As I noted at Second Reading, it contains no fewer than 173 delegated powers. The Government may, and probably will, argue that this is justified by ongoing consultation, but that is in effect an admission that this Bill is not yet complete or ready for full and proper scrutiny by this House.

Time and again, we have seen ill-defined powers handed to the Executive allowing for significant policy changes to be made by regulation without meaningful parliamentary oversight. Clause 1 exemplifies this problem. It inserts new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996, establishing a framework for a new statutory right relating to guaranteed hours. However, through new Section 27BD(6), it grants the Secretary of State a remarkably wide power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply or where an offer may be treated as withdrawn. There are no limitations, no criteria and no guiding principles. There is no requirement for a consultation or justification. In effect, the Secretary of State is given a blank cheque.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has been very clear that the power is “inappropriately broad” and should be

“restated with a greater degree of precision”.

While the Government’s memorandum refers to

“maintaining the original policy intent while allowing reasonable exemptions”,

the committee rightly points out that nothing in the Bill legally constrains the Secretary of State’s discretion in that regard. Moreover, as we raised on the first day of Committee, businesses need clarity on the operation of guaranteed hours. If there are to be sector-specific exemptions—and there may very well be a case for them—they should appear in the Bill, not be left to future ministerial discretion. Uncertainty benefits no one—not workers, not employers and not enforcement bodies. Allowing such fundamental aspects of the regime to be decided later by regulation undermines the transparency and stability of the framework that the Government are seeking to establish.

I remind the Minister that, during the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, she rightly accepted similar concerns and tabled amendments which directly reflected the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At the time, she said:

“I hope the Minister is able to commit to taking on board the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee in this respect”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. GC 198.]


Why should that principle not apply here? If it is truly the Government’s intention that this power will be used only in limited and specific cases, then the legislation should make that clear. As it stands, any future Secretary of State could by regulation significantly weaken or disapply this statutory regime without the involvement of Parliament.

Regardless of one’s views on the underlying policy, that is not an acceptable way to legislate. When Parliament creates new rights in statute, they should not be left vulnerable to being hollowed out at the stroke of a ministerial pen. This amendment removes that overly broad delegated power and ensures that any substantive changes to the scope of the duty must be brought back to Parliament through primary legislation. Will the Minister now commit, as she has done before, to taking seriously the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and amending the Bill accordingly?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is very good to return to the subject of zero-hours contracts as we start day 2 of Committee. As we debated last week, the Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility and exploitative zero-hours contracts, ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and their finances.

Employers who already provide this security and predictability for their workers will benefit from a level playing field, but these measures will help drive up standards and eliminate undercutting across the board. Meanwhile, employees who enjoy the flexibility of their current zero-hours arrangements will not be pressurised into accepting a guaranteed-hour contract.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 18 and 19, which would remove the power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn. This power would allow the Secretary of State to react dynamically to changing employment practices that may arise, allowing for updates to maintain the original policy intent of providing a baseline of security and predictability so workers can better plan their lives. It could provide the required economic flexibility that businesses have been asking for, to ensure that the policy is working as intended while adapting to changing circumstances.

This power is separate to the power in the Bill to exclude categories of workers. Regulations made under the excluded workers power would allow specified workers to be taken out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours. Since the right to guaranteed hours is a new, novel right, it could be necessary to exclude certain workers in order to respond to the changing employment environment.

The power at issue here relates to specified circumstances where the right to guaranteed hours would otherwise apply but limited and specified circumstances justified an exception to the duty to make a guaranteed-hour offer. We envisage that any exceptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be narrow and be applied in specified circumstances; for instance, where the measures would otherwise have significant adverse impacts, even when the employers and the workers act with good intentions and there is no other accepted way to mitigate the risk. Examples could include unforeseen circumstances such as a pandemic or a state of emergency.

Consultation is required to further determine which specific circumstances may justify a potential exemption. I assure the Committee that we will give full consideration to any representations made in this House and by respondents to that consultation. Gathering the views from those who will be impacted by the policy via consultation remains of the utmost importance to this Government. By removing the power, we would become unable to make such exceptions and to provide flexibility in those specific circumstances. The power will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that both Houses will have the opportunity to debate this matter.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I am, as ever, grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its careful consideration of the Bill, including in relation to the power with which we are here concerned. The committee continues to serve your Lordships’ House well by providing a thoughtful analysis of the Government’s legislative programme, and I thank it for that.

As acknowledged by that committee, the need to respond to changing circumstances is an appropriate basis for such a power, but in the committee’s view, that power should be narrowed—whereas the amendment goes much further than what has been proposed by it. On that basis, I hope I have been able to set out more information on how the Government intend to use this power, and I of course look forward to responding more fully to the Delegated Powers Committee report in due course. I hope that reassures the noble Lord so that he feels able not to press his Amendments 18 and 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not welcome me back as well, but I am coming to terms with that disappointment. To briefly refer back to the first group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made some comments about the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and had I not had to leave before we got to that group, I fear I was going to subject the Minister to a somewhat satirical analysis of that particular amendment—but, frankly, the letter did a much better job than anything I could have done.

I ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to take that letter and that response and discuss it with 10 people responsible for HR in businesses of different sizes to ask them what they think of it, then perhaps they could tell us what the result of those discussions were. I absolutely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe: it is beyond parody that that algorithm should lead to that sort of calculation that any company is expected to make. There has to be a simpler way of getting the same result; that is what we should be thinking about.

I was somewhat intrigued by the degrouping strategy. We have amendments on guaranteed hours in the previous group, this group and the next, which is why I reserved the small comments I have to just this group. I have tried to pick through the bones of what we heard. There are some bones, and I should like the Government to comment on them.

I point to the use of language by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. On one side they are talking about flexibility and on his side they are talking about evasion and escape. Thereby hangs the problem of the debate that we might be having overall in your Lordships’ Committee. When we are talking about escape and flexibility, we are not using the same language. We have to try to find a way to bridge that divide in culture that we are dealing with. If we were doing conflict resolution, that would be the starting point.

Where I do agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is that we should not be looking to create a two-tier situation. We have to create a system that works for employers across the board. However, the noble Lord’s point was that it would extract a huge number of people from the benefits of the Bill were we to exclude. We have to work hard to ensure that the micro-businesses are not disadvantaged by what we are seeking to do, rather than exempt them from it. That is our view from these Benches.

Back to those bones: I look to the Minister to recognise that there are businesses that have lumpy—perhaps I should say fluctuating—demand. Some of these businesses fluctuate predictably—they are cyclic. Christmas comes at the same time every year, so we always have roughly the same amount of bulge. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out, for others that lumpiness can come with the weather. I want the Minister to recognise that these businesses exist and then for us to explain that a number of issues have already come up around how to manage a workforce fairly while being economically sensible to the business within this lumpiness and fluctuation. We had groups on the first day in Committee, we have these groups, and we will have more.

I would like to sit down with the Minister to understand how the Government envision the Bill allowing businesses that know that they will have lumpy, fluctuating demand to manage a workforce. What will be the fair approach, in the Government’s view, and the economic approach, in businesses’ view, to ensure that there is a win-win? This should not be seen as an evasion or a flexibility but as an opportunity to bring things together and make them better for business and employees, because the two are completely linked in this. We have to cross that divide and sit down with the Government, to work out how flexibility comes into this and how a business will manage this process properly, while delivering the fairness that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put forward.

Can those of us who are interested sit down with the Minister in a seminar where she explains how, if the Bill goes through as it is, businesses with lumpy and fluctuating demand, whether seasonable or variable, can manage that going forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 to Clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, that the detailed analysis of the algorithms by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, was presented only on the basis of a request for a detailed analysis of where those arguments came from. There was a much simpler version, which my noble friend gave in his verbal response, so there is more than one version of that challenge.

Amendment 20 seeks to allow employers to propose changes to permanent contracts issued after a guaranteed-hours offer within six months of acceptance, as long as there is a genuine material need in business operations. I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not required. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, the zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prevent employers offering their workers variations to their contracts following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer as long as the variation does not amount to subjecting the worker to a detriment. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Londesborough, the noble Baroness Noakes, and other noble Lords, that the Bill does have the flexibility that should reassure businesses that the zero-hours provisions can be changed. As we debated previously, when talking about zero-hours contracts in the context of, for example, individuals such as students or those with caring responsibilities, those who are offered zero-hours contracts will be able to turn the offer down and remain on their current contract.

Going back to Amendment 20, employers will still be able to propose and make changes to their workers’ contracts after they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, including in the sectors such as hospitality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, refers. This can be done following the usual process of negotiation and agreement between employers and workers. It would be subject to the terms of the workers’ contracts as well as existing and new legislation, such as the provisions on fire and rehire. Adding a provision stating that employers can propose variations—something that they will already be able to do—while considering only a limited number of matters may risk creating legal confusion. It may, for example, inappropriately suggest that variations can be proposed only in these circumstances or suggest that other provisions of legislation that do not include similar wording restrict employers’ ability to propose variations of contracts when this is not the case.

Amendment 21 seeks to make provisions that employers may still make redundancies where these are based on genuine business needs and not linked principally to a worker’s right to guaranteed hours. I am again pleased to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is not necessary. The zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prohibit dismissals by means of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. There are some restrictions on selecting an employee for dismissal by redundancy because they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, but this is not what the amendment seeks to address.

The Bill otherwise creates protection only against detriments and makes dismissals automatically unfair in very limited scenarios—including, for instance, where the principal reason for the dismissal is an employee accepting or rejecting a guaranteed-hours offer. If an employer wished to make an employee redundant, they would be required to follow the required processes in line with the terms of the employee’s contract and with employment law relating to individual or collective redundancies, to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This amendment would not substantially change the effect of the provisions, as the zero-hours measures in the Bill do not prohibit dismissal by reason of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. But it could create unhelpful doubt as to how the legislation on redundancy already operates.

Amendment 19A seeks to list in the Bill a number of factors and circumstances that would need to be considered when determining whether it was reasonable for an employer to give a worker a limited-term contract. I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Under the guaranteed-hours provisions, it is reasonable for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract would terminate after that task has been performed—for example, waiting at tables at a wedding—or the worker is needed only until an event occurs or fails to occur, after which the contract would terminate. This could include a worker covering another worker who is on sick leave or a worker needed only for some other kind of temporary need that would be specified in regulations, the contract expiring in line with the end of that temporary need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her partial response, but will she reveal the draft of those regulations while we still have an opportunity to debate them? Secondly, I think she was going to talk about consultation and so I ask what question that consultation will be asking.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will write to noble Lords about when the regulations will be available. This may well be part of the implementation plan, which is still awaited. Noble Lords can genuinely take it from me that they will receive it as soon as it is available.

We will consult on the contents of the draft regulations and engage with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether we could have further discussions about this. Of course I am happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply, because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility they seek is already in the Bill in its different formulations of wording. But I am happy to have further discussions about this.

I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in saying that I would really appreciate the opportunity to look at how this Bill deals with lumpy demand— not only predictably lumpy but randomly lumpy. I ask the Clerk at the Table to transmit to the Clerk of the Parliaments a request to tell us how the Bill will affect the House’s employment practices, because we are a great generator of lumpy demand, not least on the Public Bill Office. I would really like that immediate understanding of how the Bill affects a substantial organisation, but one with a very unpredictable set of demands such as the Houses of Parliament.

This lumpiness is a characteristic of, say, the NHS, which may suddenly get a demand and have to do things. Suddenly something emerges and the pattern of working has to change. Will the Bill fix those longer hours so that they become set and cannot be rowed back from when the lump disappears? A good understanding, before we reach Report, of how the Bill will work in practice and interact with a range of real businesses would be really valuable, and I hope the Minister can offer it to us.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had already offered to have further discussions, but I take the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were looking for the draft regulations. I do not think I need to remind the Committee of my declaration of interests; at Second Reading, I reminded the House that I am still a practising solicitor. It is no accident that, last week, City AM—a newspaper circulated widely through the City—said that the Bill is the biggest boost for the legal profession that anyone had ever seen. Many more lawyers will be needed to wade through the complexities of the Bill.

In particular, as my noble friend just pointed out, we are constantly debating the Government’s power to introduce regulations, but Parliament is not allowed to see those regulations when it passes the primary legislation that gives Ministers the power, after consultation, to do whatever they wish whenever they wish to do it. We are going to have this time and again in this series of debates. Surely it is right that, if the Government are taking the power to introduce detail—in particular by amending primary legislation—we should see that detail, if only in draft, before we decide to give that power to Ministers.

--- Later in debate ---

There is precedent in legislation to restrict full-time students to accessing particular rights, and that is in universal credit. Full-time students are not allowed to have universal credit, apart from one very narrow exemption. This is a good example of where we are considering the legislation in detail and recognising that we are talking here about the approach that the Government are taking to families and households. I think this is a good exemption that would still allow the flexibility wanted.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate on the subject of those who may be made exempt from the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. First off, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is quite right that the Government have a detailed plan to get young people into work and training. Of course, we want to provide new opportunities for all young people, and we are determined to do that.

Amendment 19B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to take workers who are full-time students out of the scope of the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the Government appreciate that zero-hours contracts or those sorts of arrangements can work well for many full-time students, who desire the flexibility that they provide. We have heard that from around the Chamber this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about term-time or seasonal work, but I urge him to look back through the previous debates we have had and the comments I have made, because there are a variety of ways in which employers can offer that flexibility of contract and the limited-terms contracts that could address those term-time only or seasonal work issues. I am not persuaded of his argument in that regard.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, that there are workers who nevertheless are full-time students, and they can still experience that one-sided flexibility, similarly to the workers who are studying part-time. It seems disproportionate to exclude workers from the scope of that right simply on the basis that they are enrolled in full-time studies. Full-time students may value guaranteed hours to help them manage their job around their studies or arrange their childcare in the same way as those in full-time work.

I think there is an assumption in this debate that we are talking only about a particular age group of people and that it is a group of young people who are earning some extra beer money. This is far from the case. Many full-time students are mature students with family or other caring responsibilities, or even simply with rental or mortgage commitments. For those people, guaranteed hours can be a financial lifeline. According to a 2024 TUC poll, the majority—80% of students on zero-hours contracts—also reported that they had experienced difficulties managing study and education alongside their work. They certainly, in this generation, try to manage both of those a lot more than they did in my generation, and it is now much more expected that young people will work alongside their study. Many of those students want the opportunity to have regular hours to avoid the burden of incurring long-term student debt, which they would otherwise take into their ongoing working life. As we have said, it is entirely up to the student to say what is right for them, but there are very good reasons why the guaranteed hours should apply to all people and we should not make an exemption for students.

However, as we noted, flexibility for workers is important and the Government are not seeking to change that, where workers value that flexibility and have some benefit from a zero-hours contract. As I say, that is why workers who are full-time students and want to retain their zero-hours contracts or arrangements will be able to do so by rejecting the guaranteed-hours offer. They can accept it or reject it.

However, it is the Government’s view that they should be able to choose, based on their individual circumstances, whether to accept a guaranteed-hours offer, rather than being denied that right, as the noble Lord’s amendment seeks, purely on the basis of the fact that they are studying. I hope the noble Lord will look again at his amendment. I feel as if it is penalising young people and students in a way that feels quite unreasonable in the circumstances where everybody else is entitled to this right. Therefore, I hope he will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a valuable debate; I agree with the Minister. Indeed, I welcomed her admission that zero-hours contracts work very well for students and are valued by them. I was interested in the TUC survey. All the surveys I have seen so far tell this Committee that full-time students do not want to lose zero-hours contracts.

It may be that the Minister will say, “Why is this amendment necessary, because they will not request full-time employment?” However, under the Bill, the employer has to work out how the business will be able to offer someone on a zero-hours contract full-time employment as and when they request it. It comes later, of course, when we are moving amendments, that we can say that it should not be the duty of the employer to give the opportunity of full-time employment; it should be the right to request full-time employment. What I think we are arguing about is whether all employers will have to go through the process in advance of any request being received. Under this legislation, they have to work out how they will be able to respond positively to an offer.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor shared the real-life experience and the way in which various students have taken advantage of these contracts. But what if they are not going to be offered them and given the opportunity of working as and when, in the flexible, lumpy way they want to organise their studies, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, pointed out? I thank him for going down memory lane; it was a fascinating glimpse of life as a stacker. I suppose all of us will remember what we did as students. I volunteered. I crossed Whiteladies Road in Bristol and offered my services to the BBC. The BBC took me on as a freelance newsreader.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

34: Schedule 1, page 171, line 37, leave out from “given” to end of line 2 on page 172 and insert “—
(i) less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed) and when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed); (ii) on or after the start of the shift;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that expands the meaning of the movement of a shift.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

39: Schedule 1, page 174, line 17, after “(4)” insert “(b)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects a cross-reference, bringing paragraph 23(5) of proposed Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996 into line with the equivalent provision (section 27BR(3)) inserted by clause 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I endorse what my noble friend Lord Davies said a moment ago. A trade union is defined by Section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, and it is an organisation of workers the primary purpose of which is to regulate relations between employers and workers. That is the only definition. Any body that does that is a trade union. So the sorts of organisations identified in these amendments will be trade unions. But, as trade unions, they have consequential obligations. For example, they have to elect their general secretary and their national executive committee by ballot every five years, and so on. So there are consequences to these amendments. By the way, a trade union defined by Section 1 is not necessarily independent. There are independent trade unions listed by the certification officer and non-independent trade unions. “Independence” has a specific meaning under the legislation.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Phew—I do not know whether I want to join in this philosophical debate because, clearly, we have heard strong views on both sides, and they have strayed way beyond the amendments we are trying to moderate today. But I would say that the Bill overall seeks to find the right balance between workers, unions and businesses, recognising that each has an important role to play. Our aim in the Bill is to modernise those arrangements for the 21st century so that we are not playing “Yah-boo, you did that back in 1953” but are actually looking to the future. We hope that is what the Bill will deliver.

These amendments aim to broaden the provisions in the Bill to allow employee representative bodies or staff associations to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours measures. The Bill already allows these collective agreements to be made, but only by trade unions. As we are allowing for modification of statutory employment rights, it is vital that the appropriate safeguards are in place. This includes that only trade unions that have a certificate of independence, and are therefore free from employer control, can agree with employers to modify or opt out of rights, and that rights are guaranteed in exchange and incorporated into a worker’s contract.

I make it clear that staff associations and employee representative bodies, some of which we have heard described this afternoon, can do really good work, and we welcome engagement between employers and workers in all forms. However, we do not think it is appropriate for these associations and bodies to be able to modify statutory employment rights. This is not least because they may not have sufficient independence from the employers—a point well made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady—unlike independent trade unions, which do have that independence and which offer high levels of protection to workers. Furthermore, there is a well-established framework for trade unions, including recognition, independence and incorporation of terms, and the provisions build off these provisions.

I can see that the noble Lord’s amendments suggest a framework of requirements that staff associations and employee representative bodies would need to meet in order to modify or exclude zero-hours rights. These include requirements around independence, recognition, elections and record-keeping.

However, as my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Davies have said, the more you incorporate those requirements, the more you add to a staff association or employee representative body, the more similar it appears to be to an independent trade union. Given that the trade union framework is well established, historically and legally, it is not clear to me that it makes sense to establish a similar but different structure just for the purposes of the zero-hours measures. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Davies, Lady O’Grady and others for reminding us of the hard-won rights that we have achieved through organisations within the trade union movement. Trade unions already serve to protect and advance the interests of workers.

I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, presented a caricature of the unions. For every criticism he has, we could come back with all the advantages that trade unions have delivered for working people over the years in pay and conditions and in some of the fantastic campaigns—for example, around the environment, women’s rights, and so on. They have already contributed enormously to modernising workplace rights, so I do not feel that it would be appropriate or proportionate to try to recreate them. The trade unions already provide the constructive dialogue with employers to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, refers, and membership of trade unions remains voluntary for employees.

I say, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there is a technical issue around all this. If his amendment was accepted as drafted, it would not achieve the aims that he intends. Collective agreements have a specific definition in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which the zero-hours provisions are being inserted into. The definition, referring to the definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides that collective agreements are ones between independent and certified trade unions and employers’ or employees’ associations, so there would not be scope in the way that the noble Lord has worded his amendment for a wider definition of employee representatives.

We have had a debate which I have a feeling we are going to return to on some of the other trade union issues, but, for the time being, with this set of amendments in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That was a short but most interesting debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for their comments. No one on this side is denying that trade unions often have a proud history. As my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out, they have a very strong history in securing workers’ rights which has been constructive for our country over many years—no one is denying that. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, not all modern trade unions support that history. I am sure that noble Lords would accept that.

The fact is that the world has evolved, and these amendments simply respect that evolution. My noble friend Lord Moynihan points out that only 22% of workers are currently unionised. The latest figure that I can find for the private sector is 12.3%. The other 88% have not been prevented from joining a trade union; they have exercised a choice not to, a democratic choice, so trying to argue that this proposal is somehow undemocratic makes no sense in the context of the rest of the Bill. Why, for example, does the Bill later on scrap the 40% turnout requirement for statutory recognition? That seems profoundly undemocratic.

Having said all that, I am obviously very grateful to the Minister for her response, and I accept that there are probably technical issues with my amendment. With that helpful hint, I shall improve them for the next time that we debate these measures. However, on the first day in Committee, we heard the Government argue that, in relation to guaranteed hours:

“Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers”.—[Official Report, 29/4/25; col. 1203.]


If the Government are willing to accept that logic for trade unions, surely the same reasoning must be extended to independent staff bodies and employment forums, many of which are embedded deeply within the day-to-day life of a company and have even greater practical knowledge of their specific industries and workplaces. In some cases, those bodies are closer to the operational realities of individual businesses than remote union structures, and they are more trusted by the employees themselves.

The debate should ultimately be about respecting individual workers and their choices. The Government’s stance suggests a lack of trust in individual workers and the belief that, unless a worker is represented through a traditional trade union, their voice is somehow less valid or less informed. Fundamentally, it appears that the Government do not believe in the individual and do not trust workers to know what works best in their own context; instead, they insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, even when that model may be entirely foreign to a smaller business or industries where union involvement has never been the norm.

What about the many employees who are content with their current representation? Will they now be told that their structures are not good enough and that they have to change, bring in new frameworks, hire experts and prepare for union-led negotiations, whether they want them or not? Will industries that have long enjoyed stable relations be pushed into more adversarial models, creating the very tensions that this Bill should be seeking to avoid? Can the Minister perhaps enlighten us as to how smaller businesses and those that have never operated within a unionised environment will adapt to rigid models such as this, which assume that union involvement is the only valid route to collective agreement?

These amendments do not challenge the value of trade unions—very far from it. They simply recognise that unions are not the only route to fair and effective representation. If the Government are truly serious about modernising employment rights, we must begin by acknowledging the diversity of how workers organise today. For now, I am of course content to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

45: Clause 6, page 34, line 14, at end insert—
““work-finding agency” has the meaning given by section 27BV;”Member’s explanatory statement
The definition of “work-finding agency” in proposed section 27BV of the Employment Rights Act 1996 applies for the purposes of Part 2A of that Act. This amendment adds reference to the definition to the Part 2A interpretation provision in proposed section 27BZ2 of that Act.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

46: Schedule 2, page 178, line 27, at end insert—
“Insolvency Act 1986
A1 In the Insolvency Act 1986, in Schedule 6 (categories of preferential debts), in paragraph 13(2), before paragraph (a) insert—“(za) a payment under section 27BP(1) of, or paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payment for a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift);”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will make payments under proposed section 27BP(1) of, and paragraph 21(1) of Schedule A1 to, the Employment Rights Act 1996 (payments for cancelled, moved or curtailed shifts) preferential debts for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the minute hand of legislation is approaching the blessed relief of adjournment, so I am going to reserve what I have to say about statutory sick pay to when I speak to Amendments 73 and 74 in the next group, in which I think some issues of the costs are addressed. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I have come up with amendments that are broadly similar, and I think it would be more appropriate to speak there.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have moved on and that we are now debating the Bill’s important provisions to improve the provision of statutory sick pay for millions of people across the country. I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 on this topic and speaking to them. These amendments would significantly change the statutory sick pay measures in the Bill.

The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship. Strengthening statutory sick pay is part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring that the statutory net of sick pay is available to those who need it most. These changes are important. Estimates indicate that up to 33% of influenza-like illnesses are acquired in the workplace. One sick employee coming into work can lead to 12% of the workforce becoming sick, according to WPI Economics’ modelling.

The changes to remove the waiting period and lower earnings limit from the SSP system will therefore benefit employers by reducing presenteeism, which in turn can lead to overall productivity increases and can contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff. This can help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, and also contribute to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I will turn first to Amendments 68 and 70. Removing the waiting period is essential to ensure that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover from being sick, regardless of whether they are an agency worker. Removing the waiting period will also better enable phased returns to work, which evidence shows can be an effective tool in supporting people with long-term health conditions to return to and stay in work. This change should help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, contributing to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I regret that the noble Lord’s amendment would make this more challenging, as it would mean that employees would have to take two consecutive days off to be eligible for statutory sick pay. I do, however, understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the impact of the waiting period removal on businesses, but if employers have the right policies and practices in place—and most good employers do—the risks of inappropriate absenteeism can, of course, be mitigated. Crucially, the additional cost to business of the SSP reforms is around a relatively modest £15 per employee. We have been lobbied from both directions on these provisions because, for example, many on our own Benches would say that the rates we are proposing here should be much higher. I am sure they will make their concerns heard at some point during the passage of the Bill. It is not a great deal of money—as I say, it is £15 per employee—and it is certainly aimed at the lower rate that could be available.

On Amendment 69 regarding agency workers, one of the fundamental principles of the Bill is to ensure that people who work through employment agencies and employment businesses have comparable rights and protections to their counterparts who are directly employed. Amendments that limit the entitlement of agency workers would undermine this objective and have no reasonable justification. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that employment agencies have more of an arm’s-length arrangement with their agency workers, but I would say the opposite: in fact, employment agencies are in a powerful relationship over their agency workers, meaning that those workers are less likely to abuse such a scheme.

Amendment 71 seeks to limit the maximum entitlement of SSP for employees with multiple employers so that they would receive no more statutory sick pay than they would be entitled to if they worked for only one employer. However, this would be administratively very complicated to deliver for businesses, particularly SMEs, and carries a high risk of SSP being miscalculated and employees being underpaid. It would particularly harm the very lowest-paid people who are working a limited number of hours. I also question the necessity of such an amendment. As it stands, employees with more than one job can already receive SSP from their employers if they earn above the lower earnings limit. The measures in the Bill will not change that, and I regret that this amendment would impact only the lowest-paid employees.

That is all I have to say on this issue at this stage, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I recognise that the Minister says that she understands the concern that has been expressed. We are aware too that many agencies have raised with the Government the serious impact on small businesses and the risk of increased absenteeism. I believe their concerns are valid and I hope the Minister will continue to keep an open door for those agencies to perhaps respond in more detail directly to the Minister.