Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 105 to 107 and 109 to 112 in my name, and I am delighted to have the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who has already spoken so eloquently as the mover of the first amendment in the group.

I agree with the noble Lord that this is the most damaging part of the Bill, which is why I have joined proceedings today. I support all that he has said, including his Amendment 334. The approach in Amendment 334 may reflect the Government’s intention on timing, so I look to the Minister to support this clarificatory amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for a very useful online meeting and for a speedy response to my queries from her excellent office.

My main current concern is the promotion of economic growth. It is also the Government’s stated main objective, with the Prime Minister saying that:

“Growth is the defining mission of this Administration”.


Yet, the need to drive growth conflicts with their manifesto promises on employment rights. These will slow growth and increase bureaucracy and inefficiency across the economy, especially the proposal to specify reasons if employees are let go in the period immediately after appointment, which is the subject of this group.

The Government cannot have it both ways, and with growth prospects so poor next year, changes must be made to the Bill. There is evidence to support this. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already quoted from the impact assessment. Careful reading of the DBT economic analysis of 21 October, written to support the Bill, admits in section 16, on unintended consequences, that:

“There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers, including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD”,


an external body,

“noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”.

In other words, it implies lower growth.

Noble Lords will know of my own background in retail and wholesale, working for many years at Tesco, a company that had a unique partnership with the trade unions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and I worked together, and I am delighted that he now sits on the Labour Benches and only sorry that he is not here today.

Retail is a sector that leads the way in employing the economically excluded and those who need flexibility in their hours and location of work.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, is sitting there, just not in his usual place.

However, I understand from the BRC, which has recently surveyed HR directors, that there could be a significant impact on hiring decisions, particularly for those starting in or returning to the workforce after a period of leave or inactivity. That includes those coming back from parental leave or those who have been unemployed for an extended period. The changes could reduce opportunities for entry level jobs—27% of the retail workforce is under 24—and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

As our birthday boy, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has already explained, it also jeopardises the vital increase in our apprentice population, which is desperately in need of a simpler and more flexible system —another reason to think again.

All this uncertainty is bad for the Government’s wider objective of growth and, very important, for getting hundreds of thousands off benefits and into work. Without a genuine probation period, employers, especially smaller employers, will no longer be willing to take a chance on people for fear of being stuck with bad or unsuitable employees or facing unaffordable compensation bills after a very short time.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

The noble Baroness mentioned the OECD. Is she aware of the OECD’s employment protection index, which shows that countries such as Germany, Poland and Japan have stronger protection than the UK on dismissal, yet they have lower unemployment? I think it would be helpful if she agreed that there is no direct association between employment protection on dismissal and unemployment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am not sure that I agree. I have sat on a German company. Growth is very poor in Germany at the moment. A company I worked in exited France because of the difficulty with employment protections. Employment protection is not the only issue we are talking about. In my opinion, we are trying to find the right employment protection mix to make sure that the economy continues to flourish.

Before closing, I highlight two of the less obvious perverse effects. The provisions will require significant extra internal resources to ensure compliance, in addition to the cost of the various measures in the Bill. If anyone has been through the sad process of sacking someone, they will understand this point. It is necessary to be extremely organised and have a cast-iron paper or email trail to avoid losing in a tribunal. This approach will now be necessary for the 9 million employees who currently work for less than two years in a job. Even if the Government introduce a lighter touch probationary period—now expected to be nine months—it will still be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees, including in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital, deferred a number of times because of the difficulties businesses faced, look extremely easy in comparison. Above all, it will increase costs, thereby reducing investment and growth.

The second perverse consequence, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said, will be the increase in traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I met someone yesterday whose case has been listed in 2027. The changes look as if they will plunge the employment sector into the sort of chaos we saw in the past on passports and in several other areas as a result of Covid.

I am extremely keen to find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances and am open as to how the problem is resolved. The fact is that sometimes appointments do not work out and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within nine months. If the changes on unfair dismissal are to be workable, let alone a success, the Government must listen and come forward with firm proposals before Report. These can be consulted on in parallel, as has already happened in other parts of the Bill. This House cannot agree to delegate this vital matter to the Executive in a statutory instrument that we have not even seen in draft.

The proposed nine-month probation period is a welcome start. However, so far, the only way forward I can see is to amend the Bill to allow the termination of employment during a probation period without giving rise to an unfair dismissal claim, as proposed in our amendment.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Of course, we need to keep things up to date. As part of our consideration of a call for evidence on road traffic offences and their policing, we are considering testing proposals to make not using a seat belt an endorsable offence. Not everything in the world of regulation is being done in this Bill. I hope I can reassure the noble Baroness that work is continuing and is important. The UK was instrumental in the development of these regulations, and they are compatible with our policy objectives that recognise road safety as a key objective for this Government. I am trying to go through these areas and give an appropriate answer. For this reason, rest assured that we have no intention of removing—

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

The Minister says that it is self-evidently right that we should give that guarantee now that the law on seat belts will be retained, and that she can give a cast-iron guarantee on that today. I genuinely do not understand why she cannot do the same for workers handling asbestos, for example, which seems equally important. On what basis is she making that judgment: that she can give that guarantee, which is very welcome, on seat belts but not on incredibly important health and safety legislation derived from the EU—and, indeed, case law —that workers rely on?

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me. I have put my name down to the Clause 1 stand part debate and various other things, but I have a family crisis and I have to go. I just want to make a few brief points a little out of sync.

My noble friend Lady O’Neill—a highly intelligent woman—just said to me that this is the most chaotic debate she has ever heard in this House. This House is being expected to have a serious debate on individual amendments that are terribly important: seat belts for kids, aviation and so on. The problem with the Bill—as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, whom I support 100% in what he said—is that there is nothing in it. There is no information in it. There is a wholesale sunset clause and wholesale referral for Ministers to decide what to retain, what to reform and, if so, how, and what to do with each and every policy area covered by this enormous Bill. As for the idea that Clause 1 should stand part, it seems fairly obvious to me that you cannot just sunset all this at the end of the year, but that clause makes way for Clause 15, where the wholesale referral of all matters to Ministers is set down.

I have appealed, and I will just say it once more, and I will not say it again, I promise—forgive me, your Lordships—that I hope the Government will have the self-respect to withdraw the Bill, go away and do the work that needs doing, because an enormous amount of work needs to be done, and then bring back a Bill which can be debated by Parliament. I just want to make again the constitutional point: Ministers have consistently said, during the passage of the Bill in 2018, the memorandum to this Bill and so on, that the purpose of this Bill and what became the 2018 Act was to shift policy-making power from the EU to the UK Parliament, to make the UK Parliament central to our policy-making. The Government have not done what they say they want to do; they have transferred all power to Ministers. I therefore appeal to Ministers to do what they apparently want to do. I do not expect the Labour Party to intervene on this: I feel this is a matter for the Government, and I just say, “Please, Government, do what I think you all know you need to do”.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Baroness Neville-Rolfe and Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have had correspondence with these bodies. Certainly, in my other work I deal with the Food Standards Agency. It is very helpful and it links with government. If I may, I think I will now move on.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a really practical question. Many people around the Committee have expressed the view that Parliament should have proper scrutiny and accountability, but, even on the Government’s own terms, I genuinely do not understand at what point people in the real world get to hear whether the deadline for the sunset has been extended. When it comes to food labels or workers’ rights, I know that the Minister personally understands that manufacturing companies, for example, cannot just turn things around overnight; they have to know what they are doing. This has a real impact in the real world, so how much notice will we be given, if the Government press ahead on these terms, on whether there is going to be an extension of the sunset clause?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

There is a process in place. The Minister explained earlier how it is working and that we will be giving more information, as we should. I was trying to reassure the Committee that, in advance of that, discussions are going on at official level, which I am sure will reassure people. There will be a process. Anything significant that needs to change will need to be the subject of a statutory instrument, which will come before the House in the normal way.

I am now going to move on to Amendment 17.