Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I also support all the other amendments in this group. Both the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend have already fairly comprehensively treated the issues that concern a number of us, so I will not repeat all those points.

I just underline three brief points. We are trying to look for a balance between the legitimate expectations of employees and employers, because we need those to work in harmony. At the end of the day—as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out—employers will be producing the growth that the economy needs, so their hiring plans will be critical and anything that harms this balance will damage the economy.

From an employer perspective, anybody who has undertaken recruitment as an employer knows that most employers approach this extremely responsibly—it is not a cheap process to get the right people into the jobs—but we also know that, however diligent you are in screening, interviewing and assessment processes, you do not always get it right. You can usually test whether a person has technical skills, although sometimes you need to see them in practice before you know whether they really have them. The important area is whether an employee fits with an organisation. That is really difficult to tell until the person turns up and starts working. Do they share the same values as the rest of the workforce? Do they have ways of working that are just not compatible with the culture of the organisation? This is particularly important for small organisations: if you have one employee who does not fit in a very small organisation, that is a significant proportion of the workforce and can be very damaging to the business of a small business.

The last point that I underline is that this Bill will make it much more difficult for the difficult categories of people who want to find a job but cannot. There has been much talk about NEETs, and ex-offenders are another case. Why would any employer want to take on an ex-offender with day-one rights? We know some of them make excellent employees but quite a lot of them do not. They can become quite difficult to handle in the workplace. If employers fear that they will not be able to easily overcome mistakes in recruitment they simply will not hire, which will harm people who want to work.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, as an employer who has employed people over the past 40-odd years, I know that the difficulty for an SME—any small business such as my own—is the ability to manage all the bureaucracy that is entailed with it.

For businesses in the social care sector, for example, unfortunately you cannot really understand how good or bad a care worker will be until they have worked a little while in the organisation, even with the training. However, if we are to give the rights from day one, the difficulty will be that we will end up with a sector already very short of workers needing to hire more workers in case any are not suitable for the role. We would have to release them, knowing that they may then apply workers’ rights on day one without proper probation periods and take us to tribunal. It is a difficult sector.

There are many sectors like the care sector, and it is particularly challenging for small businesses in the wider sector of delivering something that is so important. If the care worker is not the right fit, it does not really matter how big or small the organisation is—that person is just not suitable for the role. We need to have the ability to dismiss the person without having to go through the bureaucracy of all the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill. I therefore support my noble friend and the noble Lord on these amendments.

It is time to have a strong rethink about how we can come to a good middle ground, where employers are not fearful of employing. I have been talking to a lot of SMEs over the past few months, and the difficulty that noble Lords across the House will have found, when they have talked to businesses in their own communities, is the worry around what will happen when the legislation in this Bill is enforced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I get the impression that there is a bit of a misunderstanding around the nature of employment tribunals. I spent the first half of a long career at the Bar doing employment tribunal cases, many of them unfair dismissal cases. In fact, the first case I ever did—pro bono, by the way—was an unfair dismissal case in 1972, under what was then the very new unfair dismissal legislation. Unfair dismissal cases are difficult for employees to win. Most cases that go to a full hearing result in the employer being vindicated.

I want to make two points. The first is that employment tribunals now have robust procedures for weeding out vexatious cases; such cases never go to a full hearing. Secondly, I remind your Lordships of the law on unfair dismissal in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The test is in two parts. First, the employer must demonstrate that the reason for the dismissal is capability, qualifications, conduct or redundancy or the fact that the employment is in breach of some enactment. Once the employer has shown that that is the reason, the test for the tribunal—I shall read it out—is whether the dismissal is fair, which,

“depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”.

So all the factors that one would expect to have to be taken into consideration are taken into consideration.

The tribunal then has to determine that,

“in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case”.

The Court of Appeal has added yet another burden. When the tribunal decides whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably, it is not about what it considers was reasonable or unreasonable; it is about whether it considers that the dismissal fell within the band of responses of reasonable employers. It is at two stages removed. It is not like an ordinary negligence case where the court decides whether an employer was reasonable or not reasonable in putting a guard on the machine. It must decide. Even if it thinks that the decision was unreasonable, if it finds that, nevertheless, reasonable employers would say that it might be possible that the reason was fair, that would be legitimate.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

The noble Lord referred to the likelihood of cases succeeding if they got as far as the tribunal. Does he accept that the vast majority of cases that are initiated never get as far as a tribunal because there is a huge incentive in the system for employers to settle? The costs of taking a case right the way through are huge—not just in the monetary cost of employing clever employment lawyers but, in particular, in the diversion of management effort within the organisation. I have seen this in large organisations, where swathes of the management team can be tied up for long periods of time. Employers cannot afford that in the broadest sense. If you put that in the context of smaller organisations, they absolutely cannot cope with it.

Whatever happens at the tribunal and whatever the law says, the mere initiation of an action nearly always results in an economic decision, made by the employer, to settle. That is one of the most difficult aspects and is why extending that into the early period of employment causes so many worries for employers.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I absolutely agree that most cases never get to a full hearing; only a tiny minority ever do. The noble Baroness is right that many cases settle, of course. Many are conciliated, because there is now compulsory conciliation by ACAS, but many are withdrawn by the employee. You have to visualise it, as I am sure the noble Baroness does: most employees bringing an unfair dismissal claim are completely unrepresented. They are on their own, so all the expense, research and preparation that have to be done must be done by them personally. That is a huge disincentive. Many claims—tens of thousands of them—are simply not brought because it is not worth the employees’ while to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks.

I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I never mentioned spent convictions; I referred merely to the risk of employers taking on ex-offenders. I cannot think of a point I could have made in relation to spent convictions. The issue is these categories of potential employees who a represent higher risk in terms of judgment to employers, and I was using former offenders as one example of that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point. I can only reaffirm the point I was making: with all these issues, there can be reasons for fair dismissal during the probationary period, and we have set out quite clearly what the grounds for that would be.

Amendment 107A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As always, he thinks outside the box and comes up with interesting ideas, including the idea of a probationary period here in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure we all have strong views about. Going back to the specifics of his proposal, the Government have expressed an initial preference for a nine-month statutory probationary period. We intend to consult with stakeholders and the wider public before committing to a duration, which will be set by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation after this consultation has taken place. Maintaining this flexibility allows the duration and calculation of the statutory probationary period to be adapted in light of future changes in employment practices.

Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would also amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. It is of great importance to this Government to get the length of the statutory probationary period correct. The Government have already stated in Next Steps to Make Work Pay their preference for the statutory probationary period to be nine months in duration. However, this is subject to consultation, and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on that matter.

On Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while I recognise what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with his amendment, I reassure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that the Government have no intention of removing the two-year qualifying period until the regulations setting out the statutory probationary period are in force. We will, of course, give businesses time to prepare, and we are engaging with them already. These provisions will not commence before autumn 2026, which will give time to prepare. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.

I move on to address Amendments 103 and 123, from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, in respect of their mandates for further impact assessments. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, published alongside Second Reading, and based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, employees and the wider economy. Our analysis includes an illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting the record straight about the impact of tribunals, and the thorough ways in which they conduct their proceedings. Many cases settle in advance, and we want to encourage more cases to reach a settlement with proper advice and support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Barber for putting the scale of the problem in perspective, with only 5,000 cases referred to ACAS in 2023-24.

We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament, to the extent that those changes significantly change the impact of the policy on the enforcement system. This impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation.

To follow up on the impact of this, we acknowledge that the policy is expected to benefit close to 9 million employees, driven by well-being benefits arising from increased job security for those with under two years of tenure. There will be costs to businesses, including familiarisation and compliance costs, from this change. However, businesses could benefit through improving their people management and hiring practices, which could deliver medium to long-term benefits, such as higher labour productivity. In addition, increasing employee well-being could increase worker productivity. These benefits will be tested further during consultation.

The Government have also pledged to conduct a consultation on unfair dismissal policy, to collect feedback from employers and employees. Specifically, the Government have outlined that we will consult on the length of the statutory probationary period, and the potential cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal occurring during the statutory probationary period. I can reassure the House that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement. We will be updating our impact assessments in any case, alongside the consultation on implementing the various provisions in the Bill.

I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are not proposing to expand the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal that have been a central part of employment law for decades. An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in the early stages of their employment or otherwise will have to be underpinned by a fair dismissal reason, such as capability or conduct. It stands to reason that these would be the most likely dismissal reasons when employees fail their probation.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. I therefore ask that Amendment 103 be withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

If Clause 20 is unamended, it will plunge employers into a legal quagmire, force them to spend a fortune on obtaining and then implementing legal advice and inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech in those very places—pubs, bars, restaurants, football stadiums and universities—where people should be free to speak their minds. Who will bother to pop into their local for a drink if there are banter bouncers in every beer garden, a pronoun policy on every wall and the need to produce proof that you have had DEI training before you can get served? If this clause ends up on the statute book unamended, the only growth it will achieve is in the debt restructuring business, in law firms specialising in equality law and, above all, in the dole queue. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have several amendments in this group. I also support all the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. The extension of the Equality Act harassment provisions is not new territory. In 2023 it was included in a Private Member’s Bill, which became the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023. A number of us were concerned about the extension of employer liability for non-sexual harassment and tabled amendments to remove that part of the Bill. In the event, that aspect of the Bill was dropped, and we all heaved a sigh of relief until we saw this Bill published last autumn.

The provisions of Clause 20 are, in many respects, worse than the 2023 Bill, which at least tried to address the issue of freedom of speech. It did not go far enough, but at least it tried. This Bill proceeds on the basis that freedom of speech is not an issue. My noble friend Lord Young’s amendments are absolutely essential if there is to be a workable and fair extension of employer liability for harassment.

I will not repeat the arguments put forward but will emphasise how burdensome such a requirement can be for a small business. Since most businesses in this country are small, accounting for a bit less than half of private sector employment, Clause 20 is a very big problem. It is already hard enough to run a small business and cope with all the regulatory burdens that the state imposes. This new requirement will extend into the realms of impossibility. How can a small hospitality or retail business realistically cover itself against every possibility that a member of staff might perceive that they have been harassed by a customer or even a passer-by?

I have a specific question for the Minister on the territorial scope of Clause 20 or, more accurately, Section 40 of the Equality Act as amended by Clause 20. Does the duty to prevent harassment apply only to UK-based employees or does it also apply to those who are overseas?

I am sure that noble Lords who have dealt with overseas call centres recognise that it can be a somewhat vexing experience. Recently, a young man who was almost certainly in India insisted that he must educate me for 10 minutes on frauds and scams before he would unblock one of my credit cards, which had hit one of those fraud trip-wires in connection with a perfectly straightforward transaction that I had already completed on another card without any problems whatever. I explained that to the young man. I explained that I knew quite a bit about frauds, scams and financial services, but he was absolutely adamant about my educational needs. I hope that my responses were not perceived as harassment, but one can never tell these days. Does Clause 20 mean that my card provider will be liable if I intentionally or otherwise harass its overseas employees? If so, how on earth does that work?

My Amendment 87, in seeking to avoid single incidents being treated as harassment, is a softer version of my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 86. I stress that I am not talking about sexual harassment—a single incident of sexual harassment is one too many. Rather, I am talking about the kinds of harassment that my noble friend Lord Young has described. We really cannot expect employers to be able to prevent every single incidence of hurt feelings, if only because the highly subjective nature of workers’ perceptions means that employers face an impossible task.

My Amendments 89 to 96 concern Clause 21, which empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations about “reasonable steps” in the case of sexual harassment. I always thought that the Equality and Human Rights Commission was the correct source of guidance on the application of the 2010 Act. But if we accept that it is right for the Secretary of State to get involved in the specifics of sexual harassment and the “reasonable steps” that are necessary, logic requires that it should extend to all forms of harassment where an employer has to take all “reasonable steps”. That is what my Amendments 89, 93, 95 and 96 seek to achieve.

Furthermore, if the Secretary of State issues rules about what constitutes “reasonable steps”, we need to see what the consequences of that are. If employers can establish that they have followed the steps set out in the regulations, I believe there should be no question of falling foul of the revised harassment regime in Section 40 of the 2010 Act. It should be for the Secretary of State to ensure that the rules set out in regulations are comprehensive and for employers to follow them. My Amendment 94 would then give employers protection from the harassment provisions.

Lastly, and for good measure, I included a may/must amendment in Amendments 90 and 91, so that the Secretary of State would be required to issue regulations dealing with all “reasonable steps”. This is such a difficult area for employers, particularly in customer-facing businesses, but it should be incumbent on the Secretary of State to set out clearly and comprehensively what employers need to do.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, also seeks to extend requirements to other forms of harassment under Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. This would broaden the intended scope of the regulations under this power, which is to assist the employment tribunal when considering whether an employer has taken all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. Any such broadening would require careful consideration and consultation with employers, or would otherwise risk unintended consequences. That is why we will ensure that any regulations that are made add clarity for employers and employees, hoping to avoid the need for claims being brought to an employment tribunal at all.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why Clause 21 gives power to the Secretary of State to make provisions in relation to reasonable steps only for sexual harassment and not non-sexual harassment? I think she said something about it being an area in which there is evidence that this would be useful—I cannot remember her exact words. I cannot understand why the Government have not extended the logic of giving assistance in this area to tribunals beyond sexual harassment, especially given the broadening of the extent of non-sexual harassment by including third parties.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I can say only that it is for the reasons I have outlined previously in my speech. We want to make sure that where we broaden the protections, it is done on a very careful basis and achieves the desired effect.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

We are not talking about broadening protections; we are talking about setting out what constitutes reasonable steps in the case of sexual harassment, which is included in Clause 21, and other kinds of harassment, which, incomprehensively, are not included. I am simply asking why the Government have gone down that particular route.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the easiest thing is for me to write to the noble Baroness to explain this. It is obviously based on previous experiences of case law and so on. I will write to the noble Baroness.

Her previous question was about the Bill’s jurisdiction over overseas employees. While I cannot necessarily speak to the example that she raised, the Bill does not broaden the jurisdiction of employment tribunals beyond their current jurisdiction over any overseas employees. The situation will remain as it stands.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Can the Minister explain what the current jurisdiction is? What is the current territorial extent for all tribunal cases?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I presume that it is where employees are based here in the UK, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Baroness and clarify that.

In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. The Government are on the side of workers, not abusers. We will ensure that workers have the fair protections at work that they deserve. I therefore ask that Amendment 83 is withdrawn and that Clause 20 stands part of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I speak in support of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, and in support of more being done on statutory sick pay. I welcome the Government’s commitment to strengthen statutory sick pay by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period, but they must go further to ensure that people with mental health problems have a secure safety net when they need time off work, and a pathway back into work when they recover.

The UK has one of the least generous sick pay schemes in the OECD in terms of rates and length. It forces people to remain in work while they are unwell, which risks them becoming more unwell and eventually falling out of work. Because statutory sick pay is inadequate, people who rely on it often carry on going into work when they are unwell. This can risk them becoming more unwell, to the point where they fall out of employment altogether. We need a sick pay system that provides real security, is more compassionate, gives people the time they need to get better and supports them to return to work when they are ready.

Reforming statutory sick pay is beneficial to the economy, to businesses and to people with mental health problems. As my noble friend has emphasised, presenteeism—going to work when unwell—is costing UK employers £24 billion a year, according to figures produced by Deloitte. It reduces productivity and business competitiveness, as well as aggravating a person’s illness. Introducing a flexible statutory sick pay model that allows for partial payments alongside wages would help people to gradually return to work after a period of sickness, or allow them to reduce their hours when needed without being signed off completely. Not only is this beneficial for the employer, as employees are able to return to work sooner part-time, but it keeps the employee connected to their workplace and reduces the likelihood that they will fall out of employment altogether.

Extending the length of statutory sick pay being paid from 28 weeks to 52 weeks will enable more people to stay in employment, reduce rehiring costs for businesses and prevent people falling out of employment and needing support from the benefits system. Ultimately, we need to see a higher level of statutory sick pay, and I see no reason why, when you are sick, you should get any less than the national minimum wage.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, my main concern with the changes to statutory sick pay in this Bill is the impact on smaller businesses, which is why I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which provide for rebates for SMEs. Of the two amendments, I prefer that of my noble friend Lady Coffey because it clearly undoes the harms that Clause 10 will cause.

I could not find much data on how much businesses actually pay in statutory sick pay, but I suspect that, unless an employer is unlucky enough to get an employee who has long-duration sickness, most will be paying relatively little at present, because absences are mainly for less than four days. What the data does show is that most sickness absences are for minor illnesses, which are unlikely to exceed three days. The average days lost per worker per year in 2023, which is the most recent data I could find, is just short of eight days. Among smaller and micro-businesses, that falls to around five days.

Extending the days for which payment is made is likely to increase the number of days lost to sickness, as the current incentive to work if the illness is mild will simply disappear. The Government say they have no idea what the behavioural impact of the changes will be—whether positive or negative—but I am prepared to bet that there will be far more short-duration absences, which will qualify for statutory sick pay, than there were before.

If I am right that most SMEs do not currently pay much in the way of statutory sick pay, the changes in the Bill will straightforwardly increase their costs. An average small business of between 10 and 49 employees has about 20 employees, which means that the average for a small business will be to pay for at least 100 days of sickness that they do not currently have, which would amount to around £2,000 in additional costs each year, even if no additional sick days were taken, which I doubt. That is not a huge amount per business, but it adds up to many billions of pounds across the whole economy. It also, of course, comes on top of the jobs tax and the very significant increases in the national minimum wage, which leads me to the likely real consequences of this change on top of the others. Put simply, SMEs will not hire workers unless they absolutely have to. We can already see evidence of that from the surveys of smaller businesses and in the weakening labour market—my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom gave us an up-to-date view on that. It is only going to get worse.

Furthermore, all those groups that we as a nation want to get back into work, in particular those who are long-term sick, will simply not be attractive to employers. Any hint of an illness record in a job applicant’s background will count against them, because no employer would want to take on the additional costs that would automatically come with that employee.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that SMEs employ nearly half the private sector work- force. A reluctance to hire among SMEs will kill growth and opportunities for many of the groups that we need to be employed in this country. There is a simple way to solve this problem, set out in Amendments 73 and 74. The Government would be wise to go down that route.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 71A and 71B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Amendment 73 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a rebate scheme.

Amendments 71A and 71B propose a sensible modification to Clause 11 and strike a more affordable approach for a business paying the employee for time not worked, as well as for the compliance and record-keeping involved. I say “more affordable” rather than “fair” because many businesses—particularly small and micro-businesses, as we continue to hear in Committee —will struggle to stay afloat and in business, given the juggernaut of additional costs, burdens and increased obligations imposed by this Bill. That includes those in this clause and those in previous clauses that we have discussed.

In Clause 11, such costs are to be imposed for those below the lower earnings limit, as we have heard, which will add to the extra costs paid by employers. They will potentially open further problems raised in the impact assessment, the modelling for which suggests a rosier picture for business than the available evidence warrants but also raises questions of behavioural response. Indeed, that consideration was a fundamental principle addressed in the welfare state proposals by Sir William Beveridge in his blueprint Social Insurance and Allied Services in 1942. The original National Insurance Act was framed as a contributory scheme with strict conditions on benefit to avoid creating perverse incentives.

The impact assessment for this measure—which models outcomes on the basis of a variety of factors, including some unproven assumptions—contends that there is evidence suggesting that overall sickness absence may be reduced but, on the basis of evidence considered from other countries, says that it is

“possible that regulation changes induce a behavioural response”

and that

“studies from other countries have found that the incidences of sickness absences are higher when sick pay is more generous. There could be an increased number of sickness absence days taken due to improved financial protection”.

We can read that in whatever way we like, and we have heard different interpretations of more generous statutory sick pay, but it is incumbent on the Government to return to some of the original principles in the national insurance system in this country and to think further about not creating perverse incentives. There will now be days for which the employer will pay for which there is absolutely no productivity gain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have identified, we are now continuing the important debate on statutory sick pay and specifically to address the impact of these measures on businesses.

It is important to highlight that the statutory sick pay system, and the changes that we have brought about as part of this Bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual with minimising the costs to the employer. This group of amendments, Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health, and short-notice shift working.

As I mentioned earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already identified, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment which considered the likely direct business impact of SSP changes. This included considering the impact on small and medium enterprises and sectoral impacts.

Overall, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be approximately £15 extra per employee, a relatively modest amount when compared to the positive impacts that these changes will have for employees and overall productivity. I thank the noble Lord for the three amendments tabled in this group, all of which would require impact assessments. I look forward to debating those with the other 23 or so requests for impact assessments that the Opposition have already tabled. We have a plethora of requests for impact assessments. I reassure the noble Lord that we are at the same time updating our regulatory impact assessment and operating a post-implementation review of the measures—so the Opposition’s requests are probably not necessary.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 74A, requiring an assessment of the impact of the changes to SSP in the Bill on absenteeism, we acknowledge that overall sickness absence may increase as a result of this Bill. This is not a loophole, nor are the Government not considering businesses; rather, it is the very objective of these changes to enable the lowest-paid employees to take time off when they are sick. Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time that they need to recover from short-term illness without struggling through work and often risking the spread of infectious diseases such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition to prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employees might be encouraged to misuse the system. However, if employers have the right policies and practices in place, the risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.

Additionally, the noble Lord’s amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism versus legitimate sickness absence, and in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked the employer or the employee. The Government intend to build on the regulatory impact assessment and, as I have said, we intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill.

I turn to Amendment 74B, to assess the impact of the reforms in the Bill on employers’ ability to continue offering enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly in low-margin sectors such as retail. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the potential impact on this matter, and the Government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone’s interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay or occupational health provision. However, the Government’s view is that these changes will serve only to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I question why any business would want to use these changes as a reason to reduce the support that they provide their employees to help them stay in, and return to, work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about the Government’s policy on getting people back to work, and she was right to raise the issue. We are talking about a balance here; when people are sick, they should have the right to be off sick. I also accept the point that she made that being at work can in itself be a healing experience, and we should not lose sight of that—that there can be a positive health impact from being at work.

I once again draw noble Lords’ attention to the Keep Britain Working review. As I set out earlier in the debate, Sir Charlie Mayfield will consider recommendations on how the Government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces and support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. That review is expected to produce a final report in autumn this year. I believe that much of what the Keep Britain Working review is doing will address the noble Lords’ concerns, and I hope this reassures them that the Government are taking this matter seriously. We look forward to the results of the review.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 74C, which seeks to review the effects of the SSP changes on shift management and short-notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in relation to Amendment 74A, the number of sickness absences may go up as a result of these changes. This is because it would enable employees to take time off when they are sick.

I again reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to understand the impact of these changes on businesses. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of these measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

However, this amendment would require the Government to collect a significant amount of data from businesses on what noble Lords will understand is quite a wide range of issues. We believe that this would be administratively challenging for them to provide, particularly in less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid—the extra bureaucracy that he has talked about. For example, asking employers, including SMEs, to accurately record and report to government the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments because of sickness absence is not practical or reasonable.

We have had a worthwhile, short debate on these issues, but I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that we are on the case and therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said during her remarks that there would be a cost per employee of £15; I think she said that in the earlier group as well. Can she provide any more information on this? It seems counterintuitive. If the average number of sick days per employee is around eight, which is what the most recent survey data showed, that implies that employers are already bearing the cost of something like seven and a half days and are going to pay only for an extra half day. That does not seem to be consistent with the evidence of the nature of absences that also exist, which implies that most are at the shorter end and probably are going to be below the level at which they are currently being reimbursed by statutory sick pay.

It has been troubling me for some time, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some further information. I do not expect it from the Dispatch Box, although I would be delighted if it were to come from the Dispatch Box right now, but if she could write to me, I would be most grateful.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I suppose the simple answer to that is that it is in the regulatory impact assessment, which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, acknowledged was one of the things that we got a fair rating for. I refer the noble Baroness to that, which I think will give more details.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I have read it. There is no more detail in that impact assessment on the £15. That is why I am asking whether the Minister can provide further detail on how that £15 was arrived at.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I support this important amendment and endorse the serious concerns just now expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I declare my interests as a businessman, an entrepreneur and an investor.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, questioned the need for a stated purpose for the Bill. I am not sure what the logic is there: the most likely reason for a Bill having no purpose is a lack of clarity by its sponsors as to what they are trying to achieve. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, complains that the list stated in the amendment is non-exhaustive, which I agree with, and then somehow jumps to the conclusion that no list at all would be preferable. Again, I am afraid the logic of that escapes me.

I am far less experienced than my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I feel that there is always an obvious advantage in having a purpose clause. In the case of this Bill, I am sure the Government must agree that those who will face the task of interpreting the meaning of the Bill in the future should be given as much clarity as possible, through a purpose clause, as to why the Bill was passed and what its purpose was. Courts in the future will far prefer to have a lucid statement of what the new law sets out to accomplish, rather than being given too wide latitude and freedom to interpret the Bill in this way or that. So I commend the overall objective of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and hope that the amendment, or similar, will form part of the eventual Bill.

This very lengthy Bill will, if passed without a purposes section, be more open to abuses of the extensive powers it contains. This amendment would put a few appropriate, albeit modest, restraints on the ability of a Government to go too far in applying these powers. To be clear, this proposed purpose clause from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is just a start and, for me, not completely satisfactory by any means. The list is indeed not exhaustive. In addition, the additional amendments would burden companies with yet another compliance code of conduct, which will serve to send sensible non-executives screaming from the room and possibly off to Dubai. We have to let boards focus on managing their businesses, serving their customers and making sure it is a well-run business, not having to implement new compliance code after new compliance code that will only ever be observed with lip service.

On this point of a non-exhaustive list, I wish to add to the list of purposes of the Bill, in addition to the wording that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe suggested, an additional purpose of supporting, improving and not reducing flexibility in employment relationships. We will move on to the issue of flexibility in the next group of amendments, so I will not expand on that point here, but I recommend the addition of that purpose, as well as the wording proposed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to the list in Amendment 1.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have never been much enamoured with purpose clauses, although they are a convenient way of having an early debate on the principles of a Bill before we get stuck into the detail. Indeed, we can see that the opportunity and attraction of another Second Reading debate is irresistible to noble Lords. Part of the reason is probably that when we have Second Readings nowadays, at most about four minutes are allowed, but when we get into Committee we have 10 minutes, which is a wonderful way of proceeding.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has tried to encompass the Government’s aims for the Bill in his wording of Amendment 1, but in doing so he has not covered the whole content of the Bill. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, on that, although we probably will not agree on much else during the passage of the Bill. For example, Clause 75 repeals the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which we knew the party opposite hated when we enacted it. That Act empowered employers to set minimum service levels in a few defined public services so that service users, such as NHS patients and commuters, did not have to suffer the massive disruption that we have seen inflicted by the unions that are active in the public sector. Repeal of the 2023 Act takes away the power to protect public service users, and does nothing that fits within the purposes put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his Amendment 1. Does that mean that Clause 75 should not be in the Bill? If not, what is the purpose of a purpose clause? Perhaps the noble Lord can answer that.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

5: Clause 1, page 2, line 9, after “employer” insert “, other than a small and micro business,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another in the name of Baroness Noakes, takes small and micro businesses (and similarly sized undertakings) out of the ambit of Part 1 of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 5 and will speak also to Amendment 124 in this group. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden for adding their names to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, was hoping that we would be progressing rather more rapidly during Committee. Unfortunately, he has now had to leave us, but he has assured me that he remains fully committed to the principles behind these amendments.

Amendment 5 seeks to amend new Section 27BA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 as inserted by Clause 1 of this Bill so that the new right to be offered guaranteed hours will not apply to small and micro businesses. Small and micro businesses should not be dragged into any of the changes made in this part of the Bill, which is why I tabled the more extensive exclusion in Amendment 124. The Public Bill Office would not let me table that amendment at the beginning of Part 1, which is what I wanted to do, but it suggested Amendment 5 as a mechanism to enable us to have an early debate on the impact of the Bill on small and micro businesses. It is such an important issue that it has already arisen in the speeches of several noble Lords on the other two groups that we have debated, so now is a good time to have an initial debate on small businesses.

My blanket Part 1 exclusion—in Amendment 124 —applies to small and micro businesses. I have used the definitions in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, so that a “small business” is one with fewer than 50 staff and a “micro business” has fewer than 10 staff. The 2015 Act also encompasses other types of undertaking, so small charities et cetera would come under that definition.

I have some considerable sympathy for Amendment 282 in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, which is also in this group. It is similar to mine, but it instead also covers medium-sized companies, which are those with between 50 and 250 employees. I believe that the greatest harms done by this Bill will be to those at the smaller end of the scale, because they have the fewest management resources to cope with the kinds of burdens that the Bill will inflict on large swathes of our business community. I am not opposed to my noble friends’ amendment, but if we could see where the biggest harm would be, it would be at the very smallest end.

According to the latest Department for Business and Trade statistics, there were 5.5 million businesses in total, employing nearly 28 million employees. The micro-business segment—those with up to 10 employees —accounts for 95% of the total number of businesses, 5.2 million. However, 4 million of them do not have any employees. The rest—1.2 million businesses—have over 4 million employees between them. So we are talking about businesses with an average size of three employees; these are very small operations.

The 220,000 businesses that have between 10 and 50 employees have 4.3 million employees in total. The average for this category—small businesses—is around 20 employees, so it is still a very small operation. The rest, large and medium-sized businesses, account for only a bit over 1% of the business population—that is the number of businesses—but they employ 53% of the workforce.

If my amendment—to take Part 1 out of scope for small and micro businesses—is accepted, it would still apply to private sector businesses employing around 15 million employees, plus, of course, the 6 million employed in the public sector. It would not apply to around 1.4 million businesses with around 8.3 million employees.

The Government’s economic analysis cites a figure of 13 million employees who would be excluded for small and micro businesses, but that seems to include the 4 million businesses with no employees, which I have assumed are things such as sole traders, who are not actually employed. If the Minister responding to the amendment has any better analysis of the numbers, I would be grateful if he would write to me, because I find them a little confusing.

The Government’s assessment of small and micro businesses shows that five of the nine largest measures and two of the four medium-sized measures have a disproportionate impact on small and micro businesses. I am genuinely astonished that the Government would even contemplate bringing forward measures which are so disproportionately skewed in terms of harm to small and micro businesses. Those that have the biggest impact are found largely in Part 1 of the Bill.

Several noble Lords have already raised the problems that the Bill will create for those small businesses, and at Second Reading a number of noble Lords spoke to exactly the same issues. At the weekend, I went back to the closing speech of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, at Second Reading. She did not even refer to the problems for this important sector of the economy; she talked about business more generally, but not about the small and micro businesses, or even the medium-sized businesses, that will be impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Minister will find that the only amendment that can be withdrawn at the moment is Amendment 5. The others have not been reached on the Marshalled List.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part: the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord de Clifford, on the Cross Benches, and all my noble friends who have spoken in this debate. Between them, they have communicated the very special issues that arise for smaller businesses right at the beginning of their life, when those early decisions are made about taking people on as they grow, and the risks and opportunities that come thereafter. I do not think that the Minister has begun really to internalise all the additional impositions that the Bill will place on that group of people.

I have a couple of small points. The Government’s economic analysis says that there are 13 million employees in small and micro businesses. I may not have been listening carefully to what the Minister said in response to my question on the numbers, but I did not hear him mention 13 million. I am hoping that I can get an analysis of where that 13 million comes from in due course. That is probably the most straightforward of the questions that arise.

The important thing here is that small and micro-businesses are very prevalent in our communities and involve really small numbers of people in their businesses, and it is a question of understanding what effect the additional imposition of the rights that are being conveyed in the Bill will have on their businesses. Small businesses, as the noble Lord said, know that they are about people and that their whole success or failure depends on the people they get and the people that they can develop to grow with their business. But they also need significant flexibilities because, when you are that small, you need to be able to cope with the situations that arise in relation to those small numbers.

I do not think any small businesses are trying to get out of treating their employees with respect and developing them as suits their particular business, but it appears that the Government feel that you can impose the measures such as those in the Bill across the whole of the business community and just rest on platitudes such as, “Oh, well, the direct costs on business are going to be outweighed by the productivity gain”. That productivity gain is not peer-reviewed research; there is no evidence that there is a causative link between giving extra employment rights and getting any productivity. That has not been examined in detail, so it is wrong to keep asserting that the Bill will result in that.

But, importantly, the issue is what is relevant to different categories of business. I and my noble friends, and my colleagues on the Cross Benches, have been trying to convey the particular issues that small businesses encounter and need to be protected from. I had rather hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Leong, with his background, would have understood that and would have understood the need for those small businesses to have some degree of understanding from the Government Benches and not be told, “Well, of course they have to have payroll and IT; they’ve just got to go and get all those things”. We are talking about the wealth-creating segment of our economy. Not everyone is going to be growing fast, but some of them are, and some of them are going to be growing a lot. If we harm those, we harm the economic potential of our country, and that is what we have been trying to argue.

I am sorry that the Government are not in listening mode today. I am hopeful that they might be prepared to listen further, especially if they genuinely engage with the representative bodies that represent the smaller end of the business scale, because I believe that the Bill needs to take some account of the special circumstances in which small and micro-businesses find themselves. But obviously, today I will withdraw Amendment 5.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very bad Bill for many reasons, and I will have to ration myself to just two areas.

First, the Bill is unequivocally bad for businesses and therefore bad for growth. It is not pro-growth to impose £5 billion-worth of costs on businesses. It would be pretty bad if this Bill existed in isolation, but it is not in isolation; it is part of a triple whammy which involves the jobs tax, which will add over £20 billion to private sector wage bills, and the national minimum wage increases, which will add many more billions.

The Government seem to have forgotten that they need private sector businesses to grow if they are to achieve their overall growth objective. The economic impact analysis which accompanied the Bill claims the possibility of a small positive impact on growth, but the probability is a big negative impact, as suggested by the OBR in its spring forecast yesterday. For that reason alone, the Government should have killed this Bill at birth. The country cannot afford it.

In response to the triple whammy, most businesses are expecting to raise prices and reduce pay increases and employee headcount. That will lead to inflation, lower employment, reduced profits and reduced taxes. It will create an environment in which businesses will not invest, thus hobbling another leg of the growth ambition. A key plank of the UK’s ability to attract inward investment has been the flexibility of our labour markets. This Bill destroys that competitive advantage. It is an economic disaster zone.

SMEs are particularly hard hit by this Bill. The economic impact assessment is clear about this. Of course, anything which is bad for SMEs is also bad for growth, but policies which bear down excessively on SMEs are particularly destructive to the foundations of the way we do business in this country. At the last count, there were more than 5.2 million micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees and a further 220,000 small businesses with 10 to 49 employees. Between them, they have nearly 13 million employees. Why would the Government want to put this huge group of employees at risk? I will be looking at amendments to this Bill to protect SMEs from its excessive burdens, and I look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, on that.

My second area of concern is that the Bill is bad for some significant employee groups. For example, people with a history of health-related absence and young people with no track record will be less attractive as employees because of day-one rights and higher sick pay. There are many people who value zero-hours contracts, but they may be deprived of that opportunity because employers will be trying to avoid the risks of getting involved in conferring rights to guaranteed hours. This Bill will make life worse for many who want to work.

There are many aspects of the Bill which will need to be explored in detail. Your Lordships’ House has a responsibility to ensure that the Bill, as a minimum, does no harm. That will be a difficult task because it has deep flaws, but we must try.

Code of Practice on Reasonable Steps to be taken by a Trade Union (Minimum Service Levels)

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Lords Chamber

If the noble Lord, Lord Collins, decides to move his regret amendment, we will take the TUC’s advice and support His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I completely understand that the Benches opposite did not much like this legislation when it went through your Lordships’ House, as we have heard today, but it is the law of the land and has been passed by both Houses of Parliament. It seems churlish to hold out against a document that is only trying to help unions comply with its provisions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, have listed a number of reasons for the code of practice to be rejected or regretted, as the case may be. I suggest that these reasons do not stack up. I refer to the reasons as specified in their amendments, as opposed to the broader political speeches that we have heard.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, says that the code of practice

“imposes significant new duties on trade unions”.

It does not. Paragraph 7 says:

“This Code imposes no legal obligations”.


It is just guidance. It therefore does not go beyond the scope of the 2023 Act, as the noble Lord’s amendment alleges. Put simply, his amendment is inaccurate. It acknowledges that the intention of the guidance is to “provide … clarification to unions”, but then complains that there are “significant areas of uncertainty”. Guidance, by its nature, will never be exhaustive. He seems to be calling for absolutely certain rules and not guidance, but this is guidance. Much will depend at the end of the day on the circumstances, and the courts—not the Government—will determine whether a union has taken appropriate legal steps to stay within the law.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, did not go through her list of complaints when she spoke to her amendment, but I believe it is similarly misplaced. Her amendment says that the guidance can lead to fines on trade unions or make them into “enforcement agents”. She also complains that the draft guidance reduces workers’ rights. The guidance simply cannot do these things—it is just guidance.

The complaints of the noble Baroness might be more accurately targeted at the minimum service levels legislation itself, as we discussed earlier. That is now the law of the land. It is not the time to redebate those issues, which took up so much of your Lordships’ time in the last Session.

Lastly, the noble Baroness’s amendment says that the guidance somehow “breaches international labour commitments”, which, again, as guidance, it cannot do. Our obligations under the ILO conventions do not prohibit us from setting minimum service levels and certainly do not prohibit us from issuing guidance. I hope—though without much hope at all—that neither of the noble Lords will be pressing their amendments, as they really do not make sense.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, good grief, how did it come to this? I come at this at a slightly different angle as a businessperson, and I know that the Minister has much business experience. However, in business, a great deal of time and study goes into how to motivate people to work productively. I find it difficult—and I wonder if I could ask the Minister whether he shares my view—that passing a law that in effect forces people to work is hardly the way to go about things, and is, in fact, a sign of failure. It is certainly a sign of regret.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 11th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Faulks on this amendment. I am particularly grateful to him; I was involved in the earlier amendments, but I realised that it needed a premier division lawyer rather than a second division entrepreneur to get this through.

In our discussion with Ministers, we were often told that the enforcement agencies did not want this; that seemed disingenuous to me. I now have some information. For example, law enforcement agents have shown a strong appetite for cost protection and civil recovery. The chief capability officer of the Serious Fraud Office told the economic crime Bill committee that the SFO would like to see this, while the head of the National Economic Crime Centre told the same committee that they found cost protection “an attractive proposal”. I do not think that is a searing insight. Spotlight on Corruption has identified 60 high-risk cases, with the potential of £1 billion of frozen assets, and the chilling effect is palpable among them.

I respectfully disagree with the Government on this. I am grateful to my noble friends the Ministers who have spoken several times to all of us, but I think they are on the wrong side of logic.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have some very real concerns about the impacts of the new failure to prevent offence on small and medium-sized entities. If my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s Motion E1 is agreed to, I think it could be very significant. I believe that the other place was wise to restrict the offence to larger companies only. Setting the threshold at the micro-entity level would still leave very many small and medium-sized entities within the scope of the offence.

I did try to find out how many companies would be affected. My noble friend the Minister said 450,000 companies would be brought within the net of the offence. According to Companies House statistics, around 3.1 million active companies filed accounts last year. Of those, 1.6 million were for micro-entities, and would therefore be excluded, but 1.4 million were for small companies that took advantage of the audit exemption. That, very broadly, is the group of companies that would benefit from the changes made by the other place; it is obviously rather more than 450,000. Whatever the number, there will certainly be regulatory costs for those companies, whether 450,000 or 1.4 million. My noble friend the Minister has given his estimate of what those costs will be. I have never placed much faith in estimates made by Governments of the direct costs of regulatory burdens that Governments try to impose. I generally put a multiplier against them to arrive at a more realistic figure.

However, I believe the most important cost is the opportunity cost that is imposed by regulation. Every time a new regulation is imposed, the people who run small businesses have to spend time away from thinking about their core activities, which should be wealth-generating. Every moment spent thinking about whether they have reasonable prevention procedures in place, or implementing those procedures, is a moment spent not thinking about how to grow the business or how to make it more profitable. Large companies have specialists to cope with all this. Small businesses often have no one beyond the proprietor of the business itself, but they are the very people who are supposed to be spending their time growing their businesses, thereby helping the UK economy to grow—and my goodness me, do not we need growth in our economy?

The cumulative effect of incremental regulation on individual businesses is huge, as any small businessman will tell you, but the cumulative opportunity cost for those businesses of missing out on that growth, and the impact that will have on UK plc, simply cannot be ignored when we are looking at any form of legislation that imposes burdens on businesses. I urge noble Lords to accept the pragmatic solution that the other place has put forward.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I am greatly assisted by the correction made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks; I had great difficulty in understanding the amendment on first reading. Now that he has corrected it, I would like to say from the point of view of a Scots lawyer that there is nothing startling in the proposition that is made. We in Scotland are quite used to the normal routine that law enforcement agencies are not liable in costs for the proceedings that have been taken, probably for the reasons that the noble Lord has clearly expressed.