Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

On this side of the House, we have always taken the view believed, as my noble friend and others have said—and I know that we have previously debated trade union activity, right back to the Tolpuddle Martyrs—that it is important for workers to be able to organise in their own interests to improve their working conditions, and pay in particular. But it seems odd that, in its haste to support the demands of the trade unions, this provision will remove proper, well-organised trade union supervision of industrial disputes. So, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, because the case has not been made, it will backfire, and you will have disorder and an acrimonious relationship in some of these industrial disputes. The Minister should think very carefully about whether, with regard to Clause 72, this is a sensible way forward to remove the provision for the proper, orderly, well-organised supervision of industrial disputes and strike action.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and I will say a word in particular about some of the amendments. On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, people in the country will ask, “How can it be that, in a democracy, a payment is automatically deducted from membership fees for a political fund?” That is a question about democracy in the workplace. How is it that it can go—if it does go—to one political party? I take the point about affiliated unions and the different purposes for which the political funds are used, but we are being asked as a Parliament to pass legislation that has a direct impact on the party opposite: the Government. I cannot think that there is a similar arrangement by trade unions for any other political party, but I am willing to be put wise. So, it is a sectional problem that we are dealing with.

All the amendments in this group seek to tackle workplace democracy under the Bill, which would use the law to promote the powers and funds of trade unions, despite their shrinking membership. Some 11% of them are in private sector businesses and command practically the whole productive economy of this country, and 30% are in the public sector—so 20% overall. Yet these unions are being pivoted into power with automatic funding from their members for political purposes. I think it is wrong that this should happen and be a matter of law for us to pass.

In the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which would remove Clause 59, we see the automatic payment deducted from the membership fees. That undermines any claim the Government make that the Bill is good for workers. It is the sort of sharp practice that is not only discredited in other walks of life but, in this context, unless it omits Clause 59, it brings disrepute on the unions, the Government and this Parliament. Otherwise, people in the country will rightly feel that the Labour Government of July 2024 has in the matter of so-called rights used the Bill, and other measures, to pivot one minority in this country to a position of dominance in our economy and work- force. That will not be regarded as a fair position in this country.

I also, for the same reasons, support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, to omit Clauses 77 and 78 because, in the interests of transparency, working people and trade union members need to see in the annual returns what the political funds are spent on. The noble Lord referred to some of the political purposes that they are used for. Of course there are others, and they may be very good purposes, but surely it is in everybody’s interest that we have transparency, just as I think the certification officer should have enforcement powers.

In the same vein, the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Evans of Rainow, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, suggest that the 50% threshold in a ballot for strike action should be retained. Without these safeguards, we make a laughing stock of the idea of democracy in the workplace, our economy and the whole country if we pivot a minority into this false position of power over a majority of the people concerned in the ballot, concerned in giving money or concerned in having their returns properly transparent.

I do not like the totalitarian thread of the Bill. Times have moved on since the days of Herbert Henry Asquith and the time when trade unions represented working people and the industrial economy was at the heart of Britain’s economy. Times have changed. Working practices have changed. Safeguards for people who pay money have changed. Today we see a service economy of roughly 80% and a productive economy of goods of roughly 20%. All the amendments in this group matter, and I particularly support those to omit Clauses 59, 77 and 78 and reverse the attempt by the Government to remove the 50% threshold for decisive action in a ballot.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to follow that 70 minutes of riveting debate. Members may argue that that is the point of this House, and that is what we do. Well, we could have just put the tape recording from Committee on and then gone to the Tea Room for a tea and played it for the same amount of time. Almost the same number of exponents were expressing the same views again and again.

I will try to be as brief as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, is right. We support his amendment. The reason for that is that the opt-in system is the best because it maximises choice and transparency for individuals and retains political funds. They need to understand what their funds are being used for.

Amendment 148 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would retain the 50% ballot threshold required for trade unions undertaking industrial action. The Bill would remove this threshold entirely, meaning that a trade union could vote for strike action without a majority of eligible voters. We tabled similar amendments in Committee, and we have concerns about the democracy and democratic integrity of strike action ballots, which this Bill could potentially harm. We also believe that the current threshold for being able to undertake strike action is suitable and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services. If a Division is called on this amendment, we will also support it.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, a central arbitration commission might not be Orwellian but I feel that a Central Arbitration “Committee” is. We can agree to disagree on that, but the word “committee” is in the actual name.

Imagine how all this will be taken by the neck on which this regulatory boot is going to be placed by the Bill. All my amendment does is suggest some small limit to when a trade union might announce the date on which it wishes to meet its members. That would provide a proper, proportionate and fair way of giving both sides, company and union, what they need. Indeed, the delay would actually help the union, by allowing it to find a time when more staff were present for the mooted meeting.

The Bill gives the union three months in which to complain if management refuse the proposed time to meet. Surely if three months can be given to the union, two days is not too much to ask for the employer to consider any such request.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments. There are good reasons to exempt small businesses, which make up the backbone of our productive economy, from the measures in Clauses 55 and 56, both for the statement of trade union rights and for trade union access.

We know, as we discussed in Committee, how rapidly trade union membership is falling, and that it has fallen particularly in the private sector. We know that, although it has gone up in the public sector, it still represents a much smaller proportion of trade union members than in 1995, when statistics began. Small and medium-sized businesses account for 99.8% of our productive economy. If we impose additional compliance costs on 1.16 million micro businesses of up to 10 employees and on 4 million sole traders, we are saddling them with the kind of compliance costs to which noble Lords have already referred.

I wholeheartedly support my noble friend’s amendments to exempt the majority of small, tiny and medium-sized enterprises from the compliance costs of furnishing a letter and the costs—indirect, perhaps—of access arrangements for trade unions, when there may be no trade unionists in the workforce of these small, entrepreneurial businesses.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to mark that this is the moment—21 July, at 8.59 pm—when the Labour Government are going to put such unreasonable demands on small businesses that they will all come together and say, “This Government are not our friend. This Government are distracting us from growth, from employing more people and from productivity”. Just as small businesses are getting over Making Tax Digital, Covid and tariffs, this legislation will do irreparable harm. I wanted to make that point because I assure noble Lords that there will be future reference to this very moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I may not agree with some of the sentiments of some noble Lords, but I have listened to all the arguments in the last few years, such as when minimum wage was debated. The scaremongering that businesses will go bust does not hold water with me.

We are not anti-business; you cannot find someone more pro-business than me. I have started businesses and been a small business person myself. I strongly believe that this Bill works for workers and for business.

Before I address the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, let me say this: the Government are committed to supporting SMEs. We accept that they have been subject to a challenging operating environment and global uncertainty. That is why the Government have set up the new business growth service, to streamline access to support, and why the new strategy will span key areas, including access to finance, market expansion, business capability development, entrepreneurship, and the creation of a strong and stable business environment. In combination with our industrial strategy, trade strategy and, I hope, our SME strategy, which will be published shortly, it is a key part of this Government’s plan for change to encourage growth and put more money in people’s pockets.

Let me turn first to Amendments 132, 133, and 134. We introduced a streamlined route through the Central Arbitration Committee, which was established in 1975. It is a decision-making process for model access proposals to ensure that genuine and reasonable requests for access are not subject to unnecessary delay, while maintaining appropriate safeguards where complexity or dispute remains.

Regarding Amendments 129, 131 and 145, we believe that strong trade unions are central to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. Right of access is key to this. The access framework allows for flexibility for SMEs. Unions and employers can negotiate an access agreement and employers may challenge proposals they consider unsuitable. Where an access agreement cannot be agreed, the CAC determines whether access should be granted, and this decision will be guided by matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.

On Amendment 128, the intention behind this measure is to ensure that all workers are informed of their legal rights at work without imposing undue burden on employers. Making it a requirement for employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union is about fundamental fairness and transparency. Too many people, especially in low-paid or insecure jobs, do not know that they have this right. We are not telling anyone to join a union; we are simply making sure that they know it is an option. Just as employers are expected to inform staff about health and safety rules or their right to paid leave, they should also be clear about the right to union representation.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Will the Minister agree that it is a bit heavy-handed to require an employer to furnish a new employee, at the same time as giving them the agreed terms and conditions of employment letter, with a statement on their right to join a trade union? I cannot see that that is proportionate.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

It is just like any other right that employees expect, such as health and safety, annual leave and all that. The right to join a union does not mean that they have to join a union; it is still their choice. It is a small step that empowers workers and supports a fairer and more balanced workplace.

The statement of trade union rights will be provided at the start of employment, alongside an existing written statement of particulars already required under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and at other prescribed times. Given that it builds on an established process, we believe that this measure places minimal burden on employers, including many small businesses. We will consult on the practical details of Clause 55 before this is set out in secondary legislation.

On Amendment 130, the right to access is a complex policy and will involve detailed practical consideration. We will therefore provide for the operational details of a responsible and regulated access framework in secondary legislation. Ahead of doing so, we will publicly consult on the operational details this autumn, including on model access terms that the CAC must consider reasonable for both employers and unions to comply with, and the appropriate amount of notice a union must give before access takes place. Consulting before setting out these operational details will ensure that we cater for a variety of scenarios and workplaces and will ensure that these measures are fair and workable in practice. We believe that providing for this operational detail now, ahead of consultation, would be premature. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw Amendment 128.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 144 in this group. We discussed the same amendment in Committee. If we do not have a number, it means that, essentially, one employee could trigger union recognition. Surely that is not something we should impose on small businesses.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, this set of amendments is a proportionate response to the Bill’s Schedule 6 to ensure that we have clarity in the Bill for all parties about the threshold to be met in respect of a union seeking recognition to conduct collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers making a request for recognition. As matters stand, employers, unions and employees know that the threshold for recognition is 10%. This is established under Schedule A1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, on trade union recognition for the union or unions seeking recognition to be entitled to conduct the collective bargaining on behalf of a group of workers.

The 10% threshold is set out in paragraph 36 and reinforced throughout Schedule A1 in the subsequent paragraphs that my noble friend’s amendments seek to reinstate. That includes paragraphs 45 and 51 on competing applications, paragraphs 86 to 88, and paragraph 14 on applications. As your Lordships know, this Bill substitutes the words “the required percentage”, including for paragraph 45 on the validity of applications. We know that the required percentage may be 2%, but it has become almost a euphemism for whatever a Minister may decide post consultation and impose via statutory instrument in whatever circumstances we may imagine. It may be that the union masterminding the Birmingham bin chaos, which finds its members fleeing to another union, wants the Government to get a 1% or 0.5% figure in the instrument—or else it would withhold its support from the Labour Party.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)]

If there is not to be a sensible probation period, is any employer going to have the courage to take on an ex-offender?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords I support the amendments in this group because they would mitigate the potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. The danger exists particularly in this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause 23 and the linked Schedule 3 repeal Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period of employment and make further amendments to the Act in respect of the repeal.

Section 108 stipulates that the protection under Section 94 of the Act, which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed, subject to certain conditions, does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years. During this two-year extended training period—for that is what it is, and I speak as an employer—when you induct a new employee, you know that if they do not work out, and there are clear headings governing this under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims.

Now, that is to be removed by Clause 23 and Schedule 3. We are repealing Section 108 of the 1996 Act, one of the basic building blocks of employment law in this country. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, have said, it helps offer protection to both parties. It makes for a fluid labour market and avoids the zombie businesses which do little for the wider economy and militate against growth.

I will not go through each of the amendments because noble Lords have heard about them already, but they would facilitate good working practices for both parties. Those looking for a job would be more likely, as we have heard, to be appointed. There will be more job vacancies, which, as we know, have sadly fallen and continued to fall over the last year. Those looking for a job would be more likely to find one and more likely to start their first job, as we have already heard today. The employer would be able to take a risk, as we have heard today—to take a chance on a new employee.

Taking on a new employee involves a great commitment. It involves the commitment not only of a salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost, but of time, training, patience, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation, so that they can contribute as a happy, contented, productive and effective member of the team. With this clause, we will not have the protections of that. I cannot think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person, and this will have very bad effects on the economy and growth.

We know there are legal grounds already for unfair dismissal in respect of the job itself. They include conduct, capability, redundancy, legal restrictions on employment and other substantive reasons. Noble Lords have spoken about these today, but there are cast-iron reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You cannot be dismissed as a whistleblower or for discrimination, and these do not require the two-year qualifying period. The law takes care of this.

Now, with the removal of the two-year period goes the protection for the employer and the opportunities for new employees particularly, but also for many employees who want to change jobs and start a new walk of life. They may find they are not so good at what they were doing and want to try their hand at a new job. They need time to settle in, just as the new person coming into their first job does.

I am not at all convinced that this initial period, which Ministers have told us will have a lighter touch in respect of unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful. Some law firms fear that it will impose pretty much the same strictures on an employer. We really need to know from the Minister what exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during that period will be, because I cannot see how we can have a Bill setting all this out when we do not know what is intended.

Like other noble Lords, I would value some statement. I do not need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment that estimates hundreds of millions of pounds, or the additional complexity in the recruitment process. Added to the other measures in the Bill, Clause 23 and Schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.

If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, willing to grow, to raise productivity as the Government want and to hire the new employees needed to raise that productivity, the Government should welcome Amendment 49 and all the amendments in this group. They accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and go some way in helping the Government to get out of the mess, which is of their own creation.

--- Later in debate ---

[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, this Government were elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment—not two years, not six months, but day one. To deliver this commitment, we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.

The Government recognise that, from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect that most employers already fairly dismiss employees, and the process need not be too arduous. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the Government believe that it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects. This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee’s performance and suitability will apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked what length the probationary period would be. As we have said previously, the Government’s preference is for nine months. We intend to consult on the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. The current two-year qualifying period is designed not as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal. If the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux, were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat looming over them of being fired arbitrarily.

Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill of exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction for many qualifying periods—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. I am pleased that the noble Lords agree with the Government’s policy, at least to that extent.

However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the Government do not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances; instead, they believe in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord spoke about the needs of young people looking for work. Of course we identify with that, and the Government are committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out on the Get Britain Working White Paper in November 2024:

“Our country’s greatest asset is its people”.


As I explained in Committee, we are

“transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility”

for learners and employers

“aligned with the industrial strategy”.

This will include

“shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors, helping more people to learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country, and providing high-quality pathways for young people”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 305.]

We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that, if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.

Beyond enhancing learning on the job and ensuring that a fair wage is paid for young people’s work, we also believe that all employees should be provided with security of work through protections from being fired arbitrarily. It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that follow. However, the Government recognise that employers use probationary periods to assess new hires’ performance and suitability for their role. We will ensure that UK businesses can hire with confidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about social mobility. We recognise that good employers take a chance on what we might call “rough diamonds” up and down the country. The valuable time that employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job is not recognised often enough. The statutory probationary period will enable this, with light-touch standards for fair dismissals. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. Of course, that will apply equally to healthcare employees.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunals. Provided that the employer can show that the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the outcome, as nothing is really new from the current situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about police officers. I understand that they are excluded from the existing legislation, as they would be from the Bill. In that sense, there is no change.

Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which, of course, can mean many different things. “Not a good fit” is often used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employee’s work ethic, their level of commitment to the job, or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations, these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the new light-touch standards will apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a protected characteristic then of course dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims, and the Bill does not affect that.

Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of “some other substantial reason” dismissals should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a power for the Government to define what a “some other substantial reason” dismissals “relating to the employee” should mean. As I have noted, the intent is to define what relates to an employee’s performance and suitability for their role. We will welcome employers’ and trade unions’ input on that important issue. However, these amendments would remove the Government’s statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment.

Noble Lords asked about consultation. We have already consulted on the proposals, and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to publicly consulting later this year. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26 June, which outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the Government’s development and implementation of day-one rights to unfair dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the detail of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House Library. I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the road map shows that these day-one rights, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027.

In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a day-one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Finally, my Amendment 52 is simply a minor technical amendment that corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 3. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 49.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, is nine months now the Government’s official position on the initial period? If it is, can they confirm what they are minded to put into their light-touch unfair dismissal arrangements?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have said before, we will continue to consult on this but that is our preferred option at this stage. We think that is a reasonable balance between the current arrangements and some of the proposals we have before us today.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 10th July 2025 Lords Chamber

What it will do is increase the time for which these children will be detained. The worst thing you can do for a young person is detain them for any length of time. The current way of dealing with it—maybe overnight or for 24 hours—was acceptable, but not detaining children for 28 days. I hope that the Government will reject these proposals on the grounds that we already have existing legislation protecting children and we need to maintain and uphold that. However, I could be entirely wrong as I have not heard the arguments put forward for it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said in pointing out the problems we have with the amendment. Detention centres are used, as the noble Lord said, for those with no legal right to be here—and whether that is a man or a woman who has come with no legal right to be here and who is subject to detention, that is a very good reason. They are also used for those whose identity is being established or where there is a risk of absconding.

If there were no detention after 28 days and, as the noble Baroness proposed, a right to community arrangements instead, we would not be honouring the wish of the people of this country to control illegal migration, or indeed the overall figures. There would be constant fears that people who came here without any right to be here, or whose identity was in doubt or who were at risk of absconding, would likely disappear into the ether and we would have no trace of them.

I also do not think that it is a good idea to suggest that we make gender differences in applying the law. It is very important that the law applies equally to men and women. I am sorry about the children, but I think the message should be to the parents who have put the children in this position, “Do not do it. Do not endanger your children. Do not subject them to the arrangements which must be made if populations are to be protected and the laws upheld. Stay elsewhere”. That would be a very good signal, because we would save children from being put on small boats by what I believe to be irresponsible parents who may be endangering the lives of their very own.

I therefore hope that we keep the detention centres for as long as is needed—and we keep people in them for as long as is needed—under the arrangements now proposed in the Bill, and in existence, so that we can properly process those who have a right to be here and those who have no right to be here.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 102A, 115A, 115B, 115C, 115D, and 115E, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seek to repeal Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023. This section sets out that “relevant persons” may be detained for as long as the Secretary of State deems “reasonably necessary” to carry out examinations or removal, to make an immigration or deportation decision, or to issue removal directions.

As with many of the decisions to repeal sections of the Illegal Migration Act, I question the noble Baroness’s intent on this point. Why does she oppose the exercise of reasonable detention to carry out an examination or to facilitate a removal process? As the Government themselves recognise, these are important powers that allow the Government to facilitate an operable migration system. If even this Government believe that Section 12 should be retained, this tells us something about its necessity.

I wonder what the noble Baroness proposes instead. What would she do, for instance, if a person refused to undergo an examination? What would she do if a decision was made to remove a person but, because the state could not detain them, they simply ran off? This does not seem to us to be a reasonable or proportionate amendment and I therefore oppose it on this basis.

Amendment 112 in my name seeks to reintroduce Section 11 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the Government in this Bill are proposing to repeal. This Section of the Act introduced a new legal power to detain individuals specifically in connection with the Government’s duty to remove people who enter the UK illegally.

Let us be clear about the provisions in this Section. Section 11 provided to immigration officers and the Home Secretary the clear, legal authority to detain people who fell within the removal duty framework, to hold them lawfully during processing and to enforce removals, while also incorporating safeguards for children and pregnant women. What in this do the Government disagree with so much that they feel that they have to repeal this Section of the Act? We are clear on this side of the House that people who come to the United Kingdom illegally must be removed.

I will set out my position briefly and then invite the Minister to explain why he and the Government want to axe this provision from law. We believe, as we have set out before, that those who come to the United Kingdom illegally should not be allowed to remain. What is the purpose of having law if we allow people to break it with no consequence? Is this not the equivalent of allowing shoplifters to hang on to what they have stolen? Is this not the same as allowing those who break into people’s homes to keep hold of the things they have taken after they have been caught?

Without this provision, we are directly allowing people to benefit from their criminality. To us on this side, it is wholly irresponsible for a Government to allow those who break our laws to benefit from their activities. I hope the Minister takes this opportunity to really defend what his Government are doing. To us, the decision to repeal Section 11 seems reckless.

Furthermore, our Amendment 113 similarly seeks to reintroduce Section 13 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which sought to reduce the administrative burden on our courts by reducing the chance that we would be faced with vexatious appeals early on in the detention process. This Section also sought to delay access to immigration bail. This has many benefits, the main one being that it addressed the problem that individuals who crossed illegally could be released on bail before the Home Office could organise their removal, leading to long delays, absconding or the person simply disappearing into the system.

Removing this provision poses a clear risk of complicating the removals process, clogging up the courts and fundamentally undermining the Government’s capacity and ability to get those people who should not be in this country out. I hope the Minister will similarly explain why the Government think this move is a sensible one. Can he assure the House now that this decision will not create any increase in the backlog, and can he confirm that this will not delay the process of removing those who come here illegally? Can he commit now to the reincorporation of Section 13 into this Bill, if any of his answers to those questions are in doubt?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords who spoke. As I said, we will come back to the issue of detention later, and it is helpful to have heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord German, in particular will take them on board when he comes to move his amendment later.

I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that no one is talking about people just roaming around, free to go where they like. I made the point that, in the pilots, there was no evidence of a reduction in compliance with UK Home Office directives. They are not just a holiday camp or something.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am sorry, but what I meant was the community frameworks about which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

That is what I was talking about: the pilots showed that there was a very effective way, alternative to detention, that still kept people where they were supposed to be. The noble Baroness might like to read the UNHCR report about the pilots.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord German, for his support. He probably explained what Section 12 is about rather more clearly than I did, so I thank him for that. My noble friend the Minister dealt with Amendments 112 and 113, so I will not refer to them.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked what would happen next if this amendment were successful and we removed Section 12. It would be the status quo ante—not some kind of strange situation that we have never seen before. I will not go on much longer, because I am conscious of time moving on.

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. I apologise for doubling up by asking a Written Question and then saying it, but when I wrote the Written Question this amendment had not been tabled. The Written Question was an alternative, and I am sorry that he has had to put up with it twice.

I will leave it to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, to read what my noble friend said. It is helpful to have it spelled out exactly why the Government are not repealing Section 12 of the Illegal Migration Act. I suspect I still do not agree with him, but it is helpful to have those reasons. I absolutely understand, and I will not push him to deal with the points I made about indefinite detention, alternative detention and so forth, because that debate will be had at a later date; it is just that I probably will not be able to be there for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 172. I would genuinely press the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to elucidate the meaning behind it, because I find it quite confusing. The amendment seeks to prevent the proper authorities gaining any information about a person. I read the wording very carefully. It refers to

“suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking”.

It could be that that status changes, and that a person was originally suspected of being a victim but when further inquiry took place it proved not to be the case. Therefore, I find it odd that under this restrictive amendment—I am happy to be disabused if I have got it wrong—a public authority would be speaking to, for instance, adult social care or adult social services, children’s services and others but would be prevented on a statutory basis from talking to anyone else on the chance that, somewhat down the line, that person may have criminal charges laid against them. At that stage, they may be found not to have been truly a victim of slavery or human trafficking.

To specifically rule out

“a customs official ... a law enforcement officer … a UK authorised person”—

I am not entirely certain what that is—or

“the government of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom”

seems pretty draconian and restrictive. Perhaps the noble Baroness might wish to enlighten us about the meaning behind this amendment. However, for the reasons I set out, I do not think it would be appropriate to incorporate it into the Bill, and on that basis, I oppose it.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I have my doubts about Amendment 182, which would insert a new clause after Clause 48 for victims of human trafficking, granting them leave to remain for at least 60 months, access to support services and employment, and eligibility for settlement after five years. Returning to the point made on these Benches by my noble friend Lord Harper and picked up on a different amendment by my noble friend Lord Jackson, I fear that there is always a doubt about real victims of human trafficking and slavery, who everyone feels the deepest of sympathy for and wants to support. However, by creating a system that gives undue advantage to such people, as Amendment 182 would do, one would, I fear, increase the perverse incentive for anyone to claim that they were a victim of human trafficking and slavery. That would create endless additional bureaucratic and other expenses for our legal system and our Home Office arrangements in trying to check the mushrooming of claims. I am not in favour of this more generous treatment under Amendment 182.

I also have certain doubts about Amendment 205, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce legislation to adopt into UK law the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, partly because we have made progress on many of these matters in UK law. At this stage, it is not very sensible to start adopting additional international frameworks, some of which are recent, while others relate to distant periods that we already cover. This would over-bureaucratise the system and add an additional expense. Where there are genuine claims, we must make our own laws work.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

The costs imposed by this Bill will far outweigh any benefit brought about by the minimum wage increase. While a small number of workers may see modest increases thanks to the minimum wage, many more will miss out on wage increases, as businesses have to manage their increased costs. Moreover, the jobs that might have been created by new businesses entering the market, often with higher productivity and higher wage positions, will simply not exist. I urge the Minister to undertake and commit to conduct a thorough assessment of the impact of this legislation on the issues that I have sought to highlight in this group of amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, calling for an impact assessment requiring an independent analysis on different measures. I have added my name to three of them. Amendment 310 asks for an impact assessment on business, new entrants and start-ups, while Amendment 311 asks for a productivity impact reporting, and Amendment 319 asks for a new clause on assessing the impact of the regulatory burden on businesses.

Amendment 310 would require an impact assessment on new business entrants and small start-ups, including the impact of administrative and financial costs. Why do we need this? We know from ONS data that the story of business start-ups from 2016-17 to 2023-24 was one of steady increase, from 664,750 new start-ups in 2016-17 to 800,000 in 2022-23. We know from other data, from an analysis for NatWest bank and the Beauhurst Group, that for the last calendar year 846,000 new businesses were registered, bringing the total to a record high of 6.63 million last year. Just under one-third of that, 248,000, in the first quarter was, sadly, a figure not sustained by the end of the year, with a 25% drop in business formation as the year progressed.

Of course, headline figures should be read with caveats entered. Here are just three. Quite a few new companies do not survive their first or indeed their second year. One tech and computer entrepreneur once told me that you would expect in his sector at least one or two failures until you got to a success; it was almost the necessity to fail that brought success. Difficult circumstances, such as an economic slowdown due to exceptional causes or external shocks, may have an impact on new start-ups taking off. Indeed, some companies will simply be reformations of existing organisations and businesses.

These may be the ordinary reasons why we see start-ups not doing so well, but one common obstacle to getting a new business off the ground or making a success of it is the burden of too much of the wrong—and unnecessary—regulation. The Government and the public will need to know the impact of this measure, after a year or at a period to be agreed between the Government and opposition parties, to see whether the decline in new applicants that we saw at the end of 2024 will continue in the first year of operation and, if so, what steps we may need to take to mitigate this. New businesses are our lifeblood. They help replace the stock of zombie businesses which go out of business and rightly fail in the competitive economy to which my noble friend Lord Hunt alluded.

This Bill, as others which the Labour Government have proposed or enacted since 2024, penalises employers and businesses and introduces a device of damaging politicisation and ideologically driven changes to favour certain vested interest groups over the interests of business, the whole UK economy and the people of this country, who depend on a strong, prosperous and competitive economy to find and keep a job to pay their bills and to pay the tax revenue on which their public services depend.

The Bill’s burdens on all will impose a multitude of additional costs—through employee rights without corresponding obligations or duties, and additional duties and costs on employers—uncertainties, as many of the proposals in the Bill will be decided by regulation, and costs to businesses trying to plan. They weigh the law against and involve cost and compliance burdens for an employer or business, as my noble friend has explained, not only in respect of the rights of employees but through procedures that vary from record-keeping and handling equality action plans in Part 2 to the new law on industrial relations, which is in favour of trade unions and changes or repeals measures that have been around since 1992 and, by and large, have brought peace and harmony to the labour market of this country and the prosperity we need.

These burdens will make for grave uncertainty, given the range of powers that will be exercised, as I have mentioned, by a Minister who may reflect the ideological bent of the current Government to direct their powers against business, employers and the UK economy in favour of those who pay for the Labour Party through political funding—we have had many a debate on that in this Chamber. They are to be finalised through consultation and announced later. Surely, it is not too much to temper such militancy by giving the public and the Government of the day an analysis of what the costs of the regulatory burdens will be so that any adverse impact can be measured and mitigated.

Amendment 311 calls for an assessment of the impact of the Act on productivity. My noble friend has said that the Government recognise in their own impact assessment that the productivity gain will be small. UK productivity is already significantly lower than that of our competitors in the G7—the US, Germany and France—but we will discuss international competitiveness later so I will not speak on that now. However, as a result of this Bill, we expect productivity to decline further by sector and by employee. We know that around 70.9% of workers in the UK work in firms with labour productivity below the mean. It is very difficult to envisage that productivity will increase as a result of the regulatory burdens in this Bill.

If growth is the aim of this Government, we need to increase productivity dramatically. This will not be achieved through an ever-shrinking workforce and the contraction of business activity; at my last count, our labour market had lost 115,000 workers since this Government came to power. Nor will it be achieved by burdening business—and, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned, its capacity to invest in new people, plant and technology—by increasing the money needed to pay for the extra compliance and regulatory costs of this Bill, rather than investing in the production of goods and services, and the training of the people who produce.

I support this amendment, as I do the others, so that we shall have a real measure, based on independent, impartial data, that will shed daylight on the impact of the Bill on these three counts and help the people of this country—and the Government—to press for change, should we need it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in both consultancy and the hospitality industry. I have really come to help the Government on this bit of the Bill, because the problem they have is that very few of those who are working on the Bill run businesses. I have run businesses all my life, except for the time when I was a Minister, and, as I read the Bill, I am very concerned that it has been written by people who have not run businesses. They do not understand the damage that they do to employment and new business. I hope every Minister will admit that to themselves, whether or not they have run businesses and met these problems. Have the civil servants who advise them, or the political advisers from their parties, run businesses and seen these problems for themselves? If the answer is “Not much”, “Not many” or “Not overall”, surely they ought to see whether they have got it right.

Frankly, I do not think they have got it right, but I am very happy to be proved wrong. I do not think they have got it right because I know what has happened in the businesses with which I am associated. I know that we are employing less, because that is the only way we can pay the increased demands on employers. I know that the balances that we have to make now are not to the advantage of staff recruitment. Above all, I know that if I were starting a new business, the temptation not to do so would be very much greater because of the complications that the Bill, and previous actions of the Government, place on us.

That puts me in a position in which I do not think the Bill is, in large measure, a good one. But I am prepared to be proved wrong if, by clear investigation, we look at the results of what happens and take account of it. The problem is that if this Government are going to carry out effectively many of the policies with which I agree—more than I agree with some of the policies on this side of the House—they must prove to the public that they listen and are prepared to look at the facts.

I came to this debate to plead with the Government not to say, “Oh well, this is what we are told by people and we think it is a good idea. It fits in with our obligations and our attitudes”. Instead, they might say, “We will argue in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and at the end of it we will see whether we were right. We will see whether the Opposition were right or we were. If we show we are right, we have a really good position to say to the public, ‘There you are, we said we were right and we have been proved right’”. They might say now that they are not even going to find out whether they are right, not going to measure it and not going to accept these amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I disagree on most things. Both of us, though, think that it would be a good idea to check to see where we are. I do not understand why representatives of the trade unions are not getting up and saying to the Government, “Look, we think we’re right and we think you’re right, so check it and independently show that it is right”. Instead of that, the Government are admitting, frankly, either that they do not know or that they fear they would be proved wrong. I want a Government who are brave enough to say, “We’ll actually put it to the test. We’ll actually accept these amendments and we’ll find out who’s right. If we’re wrong, we’ll change it. If we’re right, we’ll crow like mad over those people who told us we were wrong”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I, together with my ministerial colleagues, speak to businesses every day, whether they are tech companies, other businesses or whatever. Yesterday, I had a conversation with Small Business Britain, and we talked about this Bill and most of its members have confidence in this Government. We talk to all businesses.

I come back to Amazon: basically, what it means is £40 billion. It is creating 4,000 new jobs across the UK, which is a major boost to our tech and logistics sector. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows that business confidence is at a nine-month high, with a rise in hiring expectations among businesses. This is proof that our plan for change is working. Britain is open for business, and the world is taking notice. There is simply nothing more I can add to the noble Lord’s argument. This analysis—and we will continue to do impact assessments—will be done, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 310.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify whether he said that 90,000 jobs were created in the first quarter of 2025, or was it 290,000? I missed the exact figure. It is my understanding that, in the first quarter of last year, with which the comparison has been made by the Minister, there were 248,000 new entrants. The Minister spoke of new jobs, but our impact assessment is on new entrants to the market and there were 248,000 in the first quarter of last year. If the 90,000 refers to new jobs as opposed to new entrants into the workforce, that is a different comparison.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say this again. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created. Business creation was up by 2.8% over last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s excellent amendment, as we reach the end of Committee. Before I get into the substance of that, I will offer some praise. Noble Lords know that, last week, I took issue with the Government Front Bench about the potential lack of response to letters from individual noble Lords who had raised specific points during Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is no longer in her place, took some issue with that, resiled from my analysis and said that it was not the case. However, over the last few days, I have received a plethora of epistles from the Government in my email. As Private Eye may have said in the past, are those two occasions by any chance related? That was my praise; I thank the Government for coming forward with those letters and we will hold them to account when we reach Report. I am grateful for small mercies, nevertheless.

I commend to the Government the excellent report of the Social Mobility Commission, State of the Nation Report 2024: Local to National, Mapping Opportunities for All. I probably say this at every juncture, but my noble friend’s amendment is helpful, because there is a cross-party consensus that we should all be working to help young people in particular into work, innovative employment, and skills and training. As we all know, and as has been found by apolitical third parties such as the charity the Sutton Trust, which focuses on improving social mobility, there are disparities across the country. There are sectoral and geographic disparities, and disparities in people’s backgrounds, race, ethnicity, age et cetera. As far as is practicable, we should be designing legislation that tackles issues around improving life chances, training and skills, and innovation.

More fundamentally, we need to be designing legislation that tackles endemic, entrenched inequalities, and that is what this amendment is about. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is absolutely right that this is about opportunity cost. Many employers, given the chance, will try to help young people by giving them a chance to improve their life chances and skills, and by paying for their exams and training, et cetera—via apprenticeships, for instance. But the legislative regime will be such that they are encouraged not to employ that person, because they may have a disability, may be late to the employment market or may not be socialised—they may not understand the protocols of going to work each day, of being on time and of being dressed smartly, which are very basic things that we take for granted. That risk aversity, employers not wanting to employ those people, will have a negative effect as the corollary of this Bill.

Ministers have a chance at least to engage with this amendment and, when we come to Report, I hope to accept it; it would make a real difference to the lives of people who find it tough to enter and stay in the employment market. I encourage Ministers to look at the report to which I referred, and at the work that has been done to support the Bill and its laudable objectives. My noble friend offers this amendment in good faith in order genuinely to improve the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will look on it favourably and incorporate its ideas into the finished Bill.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I could not support this amendment more; I heartily support it. A social mobility impact assessment is vital.

I want to illustrate this with a few brief words on the retail sector. My noble friends have referred to the many reasons why people are excluded from employment in the retail sector, such as a lack of social mobility. When this Bill was coming forward last year, the British Retail Consortium expressed great concern and doubt about its ability to offer jobs. The BRC indicated that 61% of those consulted said that the Bill would reduce flexibility in job offers, 10% were unsure and 23% said that it would have no effect.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral to require an impact assessment on the effect on the emergency services. That is proposed in Amendment 254, which seeks to insert proposed new subsection (4) to Clause 75; and in Amendment 255, on the ability of the services listed in the 1992 Act to provide minimum service levels with a new Section 75, requiring an impact assessment.

As noble Lords will remember, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 enabled the Secretary of State to set minimum levels of services in essential services, so that employers could give notices to trade unions that their employees must comply with Section 234B. Specified services included health, fire and rescue,

“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste”

and border security. These are vital areas of the public services and, indeed, often incorporate private sector services too.

The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Coffey, both pointed out that the Act was not drawn on, but it is my view that it acted as a leverage, as has already been pointed out. I support also what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said: given time, the Act would have come into its own. It was not given time, partly because the Opposition, who were then in pole position to take over from the Conservatives at the next general election, made it clear that they would repeal it and fought tooth and nail against the Bill throughout the debates.

Clause 75, to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 for minimum service levels in these sectors, will appear, as has been said, to many people in this country as an irresponsible act of Government. They see that, every time the Labour Opposition is about to come to power or has the chance of coming to power, the trade unions ramp up their campaign, often calling strikes and causing chaos in the public services—some emergency services included—thus providing the Labour Government with the springboard to measures such as the present one, and indeed the present clause.

However, even if it served as leverage, the chaos was mitigated as a result of the 2023 Act, with schools kept open, rail services running reliably, if not quite as frequently, and hospital treatments taking place. Given the militancy of the unionised workforce mainly in the public sector, employers there may not particularly relish serving workplace notices, but there may be an incentive, and it may be necessary to give employers in the public sector an incentive or an instruction to do so. Right now, the issue we and the public face is, will we have our emergency and essential public services for which the country as a whole pays handsomely through its taxes for such services? Will people have a right to the benefit of the service they pay for?

Being an employer is not an easy job; it is a hard one: one of constant interaction and agreement with employees on whom the success of any enterprise depends, be it a business or charity or the public sector. It may be necessary to have such a requirement, as was stipulated under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, to bring employers who are not minded to go that extra mile to find an agreement to some dispute. It might be necessary to have that if there is no other incentive in place, and very often, in publicly paid for services, there is no incentive for an employer to go that extra mile.

Moreover, the prevalence of industrial action, with the disproportionate impact on the public sector and emergency services, must owe something—and does, in my view—to the prevalence of a proportionately large group of the public sector being unionised: almost 4 million, 3.9 million, in 2025 and 3.8 million in 2024, of the 6.4 million trade unionists.

This figure indicates that we are dealing with a potentially militant public sector union membership of around 50% who can hold our country to ransom if there is not a requirement for minimum service levels. This is not a very fair deal for employers who may want that extra muscle which the law has given to reach some agreement, and for the employees to reach an agreement also.

By inserting a requirement for an impact assessment, we shall at least be encouraging information to be supplied to taxpayers and the public, so they too can lend their voice to the need to mitigate the damage done by the lack of availability of treatment in hospitals and the damage done to children’s education, to border controls and to fire services, not to mention basic rail travel to go to work and earn a living, which is perpetuated by Clause 75. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendments, and I urge the Government, even if they are determined to bring forward this unnecessary clause, to allow the public to judge the impact by producing an impact assessment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group of amendments, which introduce various review provisions linked to the operation and impact of measures in the Bill. Amendments 254 and 255, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seek to ensure that the consequences of key provisions, particularly around the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the content of Clause 75, are properly assessed after implementation. While post-legislative scrutiny can be helpful, there is a balance to be struck between evaluation and reopening the substance of the reforms.

I shall also speak to Amendment 258, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately unable to be here today. His amendment would require a review of the impact of Part 4 on small and medium-sized enterprises within six months of Royal Assent. I am sure he will be delighted by the number of voices that have joined in support of that approach today, because this is an important proposal. Small and medium-sized businesses do not have the legal departments or HR infrastructure that larger organisations enjoy. Clarity, simplicity and practical support are essential if those firms are to understand and comply with new duties under employment law, particularly where industrial relations are concerned. This amendment would help to ensure that legislation worked in practice for the full range of employees it affected, and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment to ask for an impact assessment that details the number of days lost to strikes in the 12 months since the Act was passed and in the previous 12 months. He spoke about the repeal of elements of the 2016 Act and about the ONS statistics.

Part of the reason why we need an impact assessment on the number of days lost to strikes is because, as my noble friend said, we have no evidence. This Bill, in particular aspects of Part 4, is likely to increase the number of strike days. I say that because the main problem with many of these clauses is that they undermine the balance between the employer and the employee, which my noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about as both a public sector and private sector employer. They remove the arrangements on a number of accounts which allow for a balance to be struck between the interests of employer and employee, and for agreement to be reached.

The clauses also remove the inducements and encouragements to avoid industrial action. We spoke earlier about Clause 73, on protection against detriment for taking industrial action: new Section 236A gives workers the right not to be subject to detriment as a result of official and protected industrial action and stipulates that an employer may not take action, and may not refrain from an action, to prevent the employee engaging in legitimate industrial or protected action. Yet excluding the employer’s ability to give inducements to workers for not taking protected industrial action where others do, is in fact prohibiting actions by the employer to hold back or to encourage workers not to take such action. One example might be to offer a bonus or withhold some extra benefit.

There are very good reasons to avoid strikes, not least for the good of the whole economy and the good of this country. Employers and employees should be given a level playing field, and many of the measures taken by the previous Government since 2016 and before then, all of which are in the 1992 Act, allow for that level balance to be struck between both parties. But many of these measures will encourage industrial action, which is not to the good of workers, employers or to the country at large. An impact assessment would at least provide the evidence that the country so badly needs if we are to start putting pressure on the Government to restore the balance in this delicate arrangement between both parties.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions. I will be brief; I do not want to stand between noble Lords and their dinner break.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his Amendment 262. We have already debated impact assessments at great length and I will not repeat the same arguments. Any industrial action is regrettable and all parties have a duty to seek a resolution to such disputes. Failure to do so is basically a lack of management and leadership by all. We have also debated the repeal of the 2016 Act in previous debates. I will not mention that either. Furthermore, it is a manifesto commitment.

Despite its good intentions, the amendment would impose a review procedure that in effect repeats what the Government already intend to do. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, business and the economy are considered, and that analysis assessing these impacts is published. Our impact assessment also outlines a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation.

As noble Lords will see from the impact assessment, our Employment Rights Bill could have a positive direct impact on economic growth, helping to support the Government’s mission for growth and ensuring that we raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. The Bill is expected to benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country by saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work.

To conclude, I reassure your Lordships that we already have robust plans in place to assess and review the Bill’s impacts, including on industrial action. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to discuss the impact assessment further still stands. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 262.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

In short, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the wording of Clause 27, and to recognise the impossibility of consultation in these circumstances and that the need to provide for statutory redundancy pay for employees is already fully taken care of in existing legislation. Awards from employment tribunals for failure to consult—whether they require an extra three months’ or 90 days’ pay, or six months’ or 180 days’ pay—will double these payments or more. They will, in many circumstances, remove money owed to both suppliers and the taxpayer.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s amendment and have little to add to what he and my noble friend Lord Moynihan have said. I emphasise that we ought to support such amendments for reducing the levels of collective consultation for companies involved in insolvency proceedings. We should do so in the interest of reducing the escalating costs to a company as a result of compliance and protracted timing. I support these amendments for that reason.

As we have heard, the Insolvency Act 1986 obliges the administrator to act in the best interests of the creditors. The more time and compliance are demanded of a company, the more it will cost and the less there will be for creditors. These costs will escalate under Clause 27 as drafted. As a result, the creditors will have less available to pay their bills and their employees. We will see a domino effect on companies left short of cash flow and on their ability to pay their bills and their employees. These amendments are very important, because we cannot afford a domino effect, with businesses left short of cash because of the compliance costs and protracted timings posed on companies facing insolvency proceedings. They are suffering anyway; their bills have not been paid. In the end, the less that is available to pay them, the worse the outcome will be for the whole economy, for employment levels as a whole and for the cost of living.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this really quite interesting clause. I have carefully read Hansard from the other place in trying to understand what it is really putting in place. I am concerned by aspects of the comments made by the Minister at the other end, Justin Madders. He said that it really means only that businesses have to consult on their location and only with trade union representatives, and that, “By the way, these things get sorted in legal debate in the courts, and we hope the courts will understand”. That is not good enough when we are writing primary legislation.

In thinking this through, it is important for the Committee to consider what is happening here. Why is this needed? It has apparently been done to reduce the pressure on people with a vulnerability. Let us take the example of a pub chain, which has quite a big estate and has decided that it is going to reduce its number of hours. That could be a consequence of some of the other measures being brought in by the Government or just a trend that is happening. So it starts to think about what it is prepared to do in terms of how many people it employs in its pubs. It may not want to do that straight away; it may want to think about it in different sections and to leave that discretion to local managers. The man or woman in the street would think that that is perfectly sensible.

However, the businesses that gave oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee are worried—which the Minister recognised in saying that they should not worry—because that is exactly what the legislation is saying they will have to do. They could be undertaking consultation at huge expense, right across the country, while recognising that some of those situations could be very localised.

We already have sensible measures in place. When there are going to be significant redundancies across the country, it is already a legal requirement for them to go before Ministers, whether from the Department for Business and Trade or the Department for Work and Pensions, who can then mobilise local jobcentres and the like to prepare for those redundancies. Imagine going back to the business considering the impact of that on what can be quite localised operations. The Explanatory Notes are silent, frankly, which is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons.

I am concerned and would be grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach and how, despite the uncertainty still left in this legislation, the Government want this to be in place. Instead, they should accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt to make sure that these situations are well considered and that we do not end up in a situation where, despite the primary legislation, we have to go to an employment tribunal again and again. For that reason, I hope the Minister accepts my noble friend’s amendments.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

In general, I want women to have a fair shot in the workplace. This clause is doing nothing to help them.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am against Clause 31 standing part of the Bill. The 2010 Act protects against gender and other types of discrimination. It replaces earlier Acts, as your Lordships will know, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The principles of equality are commonly supported. The aims are those on which people agree and under which employers are bound. Section 78 of the Equality Act stipulates that:

“Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees”.


We have an Act that is commonly agreed on and obeyed, and known by those to whom it is addressed.

Clause 31 proposes to add a new Section 78A after Section 78, which stipulates:

“Regulations may require employers to … develop and publish … an ‘equality action plan’”


in respect of gender and equality,

“showing the steps that the employers are taking in relation to their employees with regard to prescribed matters related to gender equality, and … publish prescribed information relating to the plan”.

This will oblige more compliance, more bureaucracy and higher costs on employers—and it is unnecessary because we have the law.

We have just been listening to the discussion of the strategic defence review. We are going to have to spend a lot of money on defence. There are going to be lots of demands on the public purse. To oblige more compliance and bureaucracy on employers at a time when things are tight will not be a great help to the other demands on the public purse. It is not only about compliance and bureaucracy; much worse than that it leads to something beyond the principles of the Equality Act. It prompts institutions in practice to devise and interpret action plans that result in a 50:50 balance between men and women, and steps will be taken to achieve that level playing field and to discriminate positively.

Take the example of academic shortlisting, where, in order to achieve a 50:50 balance, things can be so ordained at the shortlisting stage in order to appoint women, and as they are so ordained, discrimination takes place against men and appointments are made not on merit but on gender. This results in action plans under which men are discriminated against. It is also unfair for women because, once positive discrimination comes into play, women too suffer. The women who are appointed are perceived to have been appointed not because they come first on merit, or in a fair competition, but on account of their gender.

I shall comment briefly on new Section 78A(4), which sets down that

“matters related to gender equality include (a) addressing the gender pay gap, (b) supporting employees going through the menopause”.

New Section 78A(4)(a) is too broad. Take the case of a male and female employee appointed at entry level to similar positions. They start with the same salary, but one may do far better than the other, be given far more responsibility and be promoted eventually to a higher role. How is the gender pay gap to be addressed, given that the talent, resourcefulness and ability of one employee naturally results in more responsibility and higher payment?

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has already mentioned new Section 78A(4)(b), which has no place in the workplace. It is discriminatory in its assumption that women need special help at certain times of their life. It also violates the professionalism of a good workplace in treating the personal as public, and it puts the employer into a discriminatory role in requiring special support for a select group of employees, rather than acting as a dispassionate employer who treats all employees well and fairly.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the proposition that Clause 31, on equality action plans, should not stand part of the Bill. We meet tonight with the knowledge that the OECD has downgraded the UK’s likely GDP for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said, I think I am right in saying, that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of the Bill. This is an example of exactly that.

I am very concerned about this clause, because it is very widely drawn and relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled, or laid before the House, once the Bill becomes an Act. I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Is it really the duty and responsibility of a Minister in the sixth-biggest economy in the world, a mature economy of 68 million people, to impose by ministerial fiat, in primary legislation, the minutiae, the weeds, of

“the content of a plan”

for every business that has more than 250 employees,

“the form and manner in which a plan or information is to be published; when and how”

that plan is published, and, in new subsection (5)(d)—maybe I am being obtuse, but I do not even understand the meaning of this—

“requirements for senior approval before a plan or information is published”?

What does that even mean? Does it mean the chief people officer, the chief executive, the managing director or what?

It would be much better were the Government to use their energy, and the good will that is behind significant parts of the Bill, to work with people such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others to develop professional, timely briefings for employers. But they are not doing that. They are instead insisting, in the Bill, that they will direct these equality action plans, irrespective of what type of business is being transacted and whether it has a workforce of 251, 25,000 or 250,000.

In fact, the clause does not even define “employee”, “employer” or “descriptions of information”. It fails to define them and says that those details will be reserved for regulations to be laid after the Bill gets Royal Assent. New subsection (7) is also very opaque when it states:

“The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed”.


Again, that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what it means or what sanctions will be in place and available for Ministers to lay down in regulations. New subsection (6) states:

“The regulations may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently”.


It does not say “must not”, so Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications of and changes to these regulations.

For all those reasons, this is an unnecessary clause. It will add costs and administrative burdens. It will certainly take a significant amount of time, for instance, to get in specialists in human resources as consultants to draw up these plans on perhaps a 12-monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative time and take away from employing people, for the bottom line and profit, which will impact employability. For that reason, I support the proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the Bill so succinctly. I welcome my noble friend Lord Harper, who is not in his place, and wish him very well in this House.

The Bill seems to have two aims and to be speaking to two different audiences. One of the aims is to control the borders by tackling the criminal gangs who ferry migrants to the shores of this country. A number of clauses—Clauses 1 to 12—will introduce a new Border Security Command to tackle the gangs. There will be new offences—in Clauses 13 to 18 and 21 to 23—with new powers and data-sharing powers. The Bill aims to address the very wide concern in this country about levels of immigration, both legal and illegal or irregular, but it aims also to tackle the asylum and immigration system, to strengthen and build confidence in the border system, and—to do that—to repeal certain parts of Conservative legislation.

That part of the Bill is addressed to people on the left who see the streamlining and processing of the asylum system as paramount. It is not a matter of tightening the rules, and I welcome the Minister’s outlining some of the more peripheral ways in which these will be strengthened—in Clauses 41, 43 and 45, for example. It is also not a matter of reviewing the international agreements from the post-World War II period for Europe to protect people who were displaced by the war, by the defeat of Germany and by the new arrangements with the Soviet Union to give it some sphere of influence over eastern Europe.

From the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, on the Cross Benches, we have heard something of the numbers involved then. We are speaking about 2.1 million people of European origin, displaced mainly in Europe. However, we are now looking at a world where, globally, people are on the move. The figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, is 400 million refugees. These are very significant numbers. He rightly alluded to the 1951 refugee convention and some of the international framework of law. Many people like to pooh-pooh those of us who feel it needs to be reviewed because it is totally unsuitable for today’s global world, with millions of people on the move. Therefore, I will concentrate on what kind of figures we are dealing with in this country alone for immigration and asylum. I fear that streamlining and processing the system is not enough to help reduce the overall numbers.

In the year in which the new Government came to power, there were 224,742 asylum cases in the system in June 2024. For the year ending March 2025, around 50% of claims had been granted at an initial decision, giving 45,084 people refugee protection, according to Home Office figures. Some 40% of asylum claims were granted between January and March. This is a significantly higher rate than historically; the rate was 29% in the period from 2001 to 2018. It was 18% more than in 2023 and 5% more than in 2022, and it includes almost all small boat immigrants, whose claims by and large tend to be successful—77% of them.

With such numbers arriving after the Conservative Government’s measures to deter, I am very worried about Clauses 37 and 38, which are going to repeal those parts of the Act that acted as a deterrent. The figures speak for themselves. In 2023 the numbers of people arriving—they are just astonishing—fell to 36,699, a figure substantially lower than the 54,702 the previous year. I cannot think it right to say that the measures that the Conservative Government introduced, the Rwanda scheme and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, did not serve as a deterrent. Those numbers do speak. I agree that it is too late for Rwanda, but certainly there are the measures in the Illegal Migration Act.

To close, I welcome those parts of the Bill that aim to strengthen the borders, strengthen control of the borders and bring in offences, but I rather fear that they will not be strong enough to deter illegal migration. I fear that in trying to speak to two different audiences, we will end up pleasing neither those who want a more streamlined immigration system that will allow more asylum applications and more claims to be granted nor those in the country who, by and large, want immigration, legal and illegal, drastically cut.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

There is a clear solution here. As currently written, the Bill offers some scope for exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours, such as in seasonal work. However, I plead that that is, certainly at the moment, a vague provision, and we need explicit regulation to define full-time students as a category of workers who are exempt from this duty. The regulation could specify that students on zero-hours or low-hours contracts are excluded from the obligation to be offered guaranteed hours, thus ensuring that universities, student unions and seasonal employers are not burdened by requirements that simply do not fit into the nature of student employment. This would ensure that employers can continue to offer flexible work to students without the threat of penalties or unnecessary costs, and it would also allow students to continue working in a manner that fits their academic schedules and personal needs, rather than forcing them into fixed hours that they cannot meet. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment in the name of my noble friend. I am an employer, and I have declared my interest in the register. I founded and was the executive director of a think tank for over the best part of a quarter of a century, and now I am research director there. We continue to employ students on a flexible basis. As your Lordships know, many universities have changed their timetables. Some are taking much shorter summer breaks, some have started working more flexibly and many work remotely for certain classes. Postgraduate and undergraduate students welcome the opportunity to train, get a foothold in the world of work and understand what happens there. They learn disciplines. They learn the discipline of work, timetabling and deadlines. But we have to be flexible. Terms can be busy. There can be things such as essay crises, or a postgraduate student may have an extra schedule to fit in, and of course we will accommodate that.

We have devised a good work programme. I am speaking only to give the Committee an example of the damage this will do, particularly to the students. We devise a work programme so they can work remotely and do research when they have free time. They want to earn money, and both parties are flexible. I, particularly as a former academic, recognise that their work in the university, their teaching and their essays come first. This suits all parties. We have had full-time staff who have come to us with good degrees, stayed three or four years and then gone on to do a professional training course, perhaps in law or accountancy. They, too, want to come back and continue with the work that they have brought to a high level, and they will be paid accordingly. There is no exploitation in this market; rather it is mutual gain.

It is a great pleasure for me to see young people. I have had students from inner London universities whose family had no habit of third-level or even second-level education, who came from families from abroad, who used to ask for time off during their time to take their granny to the hospital in order to interpret for her. We gave them opportunities, and it is a great pleasure to see that they have done very well as a result. Some of the work placements are organised directly with the university, and for others students write in themselves. I beg the Government to listen to this amendment and take heed, because the Bill will do untold damage to the life chances of students and their capacity to earn and keep afloat when they are paying for their studies.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this debate takes me back to my own student days and the work that I did as a student. It was not very glamorous, I have to say. I did the overnight shift shelf-stacking at Gateway, which set me up, obviously, to be a Peer in your Lordships’ House. I also did a stint at McDonald’s. That was valuable experience in terms of socialising, learning life skills and the important opportunity to meet different sorts of people.

I believe that this Government are fair-minded and decent in the way they wish to protect the interests of working families who want the certainty of being able to put food on the table and earn a decent wage. I think we all believe that that is very important as an imperative. However, the mark of a good piece of legislation is the ability to answer the question, “What problem is this solving?” Another mark of good legislation is the ability to be flexible in carving out some parts of a Bill where the effect of the Bill will be disadvantageous to a group. I think that this is one such example and that the very important points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral should be taken on board by the Government.

Remember that this is a student generation that has lived through the trauma of Covid. Many students and graduates have had to start their working career not being able to socialise in an office or a factory or out on site but at their kitchen table with their laptop. My problem is that employers who, broadly speaking, are not wicked and rapacious but want good people to join their business, make money for them and grow themselves as people and individuals and workers, will not take a risk with this legislation. This goes through the whole of this legislation. Employers are going to be significantly more risk-averse if they are going to be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to certain groups, including students. I think Ministers should give that consideration.

The reason that this is a good amendment is that it recognises that we have a very complex, fast-moving labour market and that young people are making decisions and value judgments about their work, employment, training, skills, knowledge and experience that I did not take 30 years ago and my parents certainly did not take, as you were generally in the same job for the whole of your working life, but—I would not use the word “promiscuous” necessarily, but I cannot think of a better word—younger people now are a bit more promiscuous in the decisions they take, and therefore they value that ability to enter into a flexible contract. In my time, I would not have expected a guaranteed hours contract. I would for someone aged, say, 35 or 40 who had a family and had to provide for them, but I think my noble friends have made a good point that this amendment would allow the Government to carve out this particular group. I do not think there is anything in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment that definitively makes the case for keeping students in this group, and for that reason I would like the Minister to give active consideration to this amendment. It is a sensible amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is designed to improve the Bill. It recognises the real-life consequences and issues that may arise from the Bill: in other words, fewer young people having the opportunity to work and fewer long-term employment opportunities. For that reason, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s very good amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29 and support my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 27. My amendment probes the Government’s intended meaning for the phrase “reasonably believed”, which relates to short-notice cancellation of shifts. This phrase may seem innocuous at first glance, but it carries considerable weight in determining whether workers—particularly those in insecure or temporary arrangements—are entitled to compensation when a shift is cancelled, shortened or otherwise fails to materialise. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a reasonable belief in this context, we risk leaving both worker and employer in an uncertain and potentially contentious position. A test that lacks definition can quickly become a source of dispute rather than a resolution.

To be clear, my intention is not to impose overly prescriptive language on the Government, but rather to seek clarity on how this standard is to be understood and applied. For example, it is not enough for an employee to assert that they are expecting a shift to proceed even when the hirer has not provided written confirmation. What factors should we consider in assessing what is reasonable? Should they include previous patterns of communication, the urgency of the situation or a reliance on verbal assurances? Clarity is not a luxury that employment law has—it is a necessity. Vague thresholds serve no one, least of all those trying to navigate an already precarious labour market. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide reassurance that the Government’s use of this term is underpinned by clear guidance, sound reasoning and a fair balance between the interests of workers and agencies alike.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 22, which would allow the duty to provide reasonable notice not to apply in certain cases, and Amendment 24, which would do likewise for the duty to provide compensation under new Section 27BP(1). The Bill’s approach is likely to damage the effective working of the labour market, for which any sensible law needs to take account of the delicate balance between the needs of a business, which needs a workforce, and those of a workforce, which depends on a business succeeding to provide work and income for the future.

If a Bill does not account for exceptional circumstances, it becomes a straitjacket on all parties. In the case of this Bill, in providing for exceptions to guaranteed-hours, reasonable notice and compensation obligations, it should take account of the difficulties businesses have to navigate to keep afloat and continue to make a success of things, as well as contribute to the whole economy and the country’s overall welfare, provide jobs for the labour market, and offer opportunities for people to work, earn and, sometimes, get their first job on the jobs ladder.

We understand that businesses have both quiet periods and busy periods—such as hospitality events—where they need extra hands. A business must allow for periods of extra business as a matter of course—some of these are predictable, others not. Businesses know there are times when cover is needed with no notice, such as when a team member is off sick or at a funeral, but by the same token they need to be able to avoid adding to their problems and costs when they are a victim of circumstances that unexpectedly change. Yet the Bill requires the employer to give notice of changes and make provision for compensation if a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened without sufficient notice.

These amendments simply ask that a Government can make regulations so that the duties under new Sections 27BI and 27BJ need not apply. That would give power to a responsible Government to ensure that there can be exceptions, so that businesses are not burdened with the costs and time involved in the tribunal process and potential compensation payments in cases where, due to unlikely and unforeseen circumstances, the guaranteed-hours work was not available at short notice.

We have already heard examples, but no business is exempt from the difficult changing circumstances with which they contend. Given the burden that the business sector will face under the guaranteed-hours clause, a Government will have few tools at their disposal to tackle what could be an unfair obligation—one that might be mitigated by circumstances in the normal course of events—to exempt the reasonable notice required for changes or cancellations that have an impact on the business, and the compensation obligation, which will add unfair costs to a business.

I will take three sectors—each very different—to illustrate a potential example. The first is the retail sector, where extra help is needed to deal with a delivery and prepare it for the shelves overnight. What if the delivery van does not arrive, or the motorway is closed due to an accident or roadworks? The business has little or no notice of the failure, yet it will lose custom and income on lost sales. None the less, there is no provision in the Bill to allow for it to give less than what, under the measure, will be reasonable notice, or to protect it from paying compensation.

In the care sector, extra hours may be needed to help with certain residents needing extra support, or someone due to arrive on a given day. What happens if the person dies or the resident falls ill, has a heart attack and must go to hospital right away? There is no notice of that, and the extra work does not materialise. The care home will lose income on its empty room and overhead, yet payment will be expected. Where is the money to come from—the local authority, the care recipient, or the estate if it is a death? What will the care home do to tide over an income shortfall when having to pay its suppliers for everything from food and cooking to linen, room cleaning and care?

The CEO of the Carers Trust explains that social care providers are often forced to rely on zero-hours contracts because of a “lack of funding” from local authorities. She says:

“If zero-hours contracts are banned”—


or, I would add, made more difficult or costly—

“social care providers must be given the funding to afford the increased costs that brings”.

The CEO of the National Care Forum says that

“these measures must be accompanied by the financial and wider support necessary for providers to implement them, as well as interim measures to boost care worker pay”.

These changes must be reflected in its funding so that it can continue to do its vital work. So are the Government prepared to make a commitment to cover the costs that will be incurred if these clauses go through unamended?

Another example would be a conference organiser where the IT system fails. Despite a service contract in place to repair it instantly, nothing can be fixed because the failure lies elsewhere: a cyberattack or an energy blackout. This can happen overnight. The business loses its data, it loses customers, who are unable to pay an entry price, and it loses an overhead. Depending on how long it is before the system can be got back to normal, it may lose so badly that, ultimately, if the problem recurs, it may have to curtail operations and overheads. Without the amendments allowing the Government to provide for exemptions from the clause, there will be higher costs that may ultimately lead to the failure of the business.

There are enough uncertainties and costs for employers without making these worse, but the obligations of the Bill and these clauses could add significantly to costs and complications. Who will pay these extra costs? We know that this Government have been in the habit of saddling the taxpayer with additional costs in respect of workers in the public sector but not for businesses or charitable trusts, or indeed independent schools in the case of imposing VAT. What about the care homes taking local authority work? What about the costs of the uncertainties of the Bill itself? Although the compensation clause stipulates that compensation will not exceed pay for the lost shift, we do not yet know what the amount will be, what “short notice” is supposed to mean and what is meant by “qualifying shift”. We have to wait for regulations.

There are good reasons for these amendments. If we want businesses and the labour market to flourish, and to enable businesses to navigate the unwelcome outcomes of unexpected problems preventing expected workloads without adding to their costs, there are good reasons for the Government to accept them and for the regulations to respect the spirit in which they have been made.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 28, which replaces the test of reasonable belief with that of formal confirmation. I mentioned earlier the work done by the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts when it reported in 2018. It also examined the issue of compensation for short-notice cancellation of shifts. It emphasised in its report that there would need to be fairly rigorous record-keeping. It said that both employers and employees would need

“proof a shift had been offered”.

That speaks to the content of Amendment 28. It does not seem to me to be sensible to have something that rests solely on reasonable belief, because that is impossible to prove and would result in difficult questions being put to an employment tribunal. Although I am obviously not in favour of imposing bureaucratic requirements on employers, this is one area where the legislation should point towards there being some formality of record-keeping so that there can be no dispute about whether shifts have been offered or cancelled.