Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. My noble friend Lord Vaux’s more straightforward Amendment 50 would reduce the length of the qualifying period from two years to a minimum of six months, during which an employee may not claim unfair dismissal.

I am happy to agree with the Government that the current two-year period for effective probation, from my experience as an employer, is excessively long and merits revision. Like others, I understand that the Government are consulting on the length of the IPE, the initial period of employment, and that nine months is being suggested. However, given that most permanent employees have a formal annual review at 12 months, during which their remuneration and performance are reviewed, I think it is fair and transparent that the 12-month review also represents the end of the probationary or qualifying period. That provides clarity to both sides and, I believe, is sufficient time for the employer to assess the employee’s performance, competence and cultural fit.

I accept that, in the majority of cases, performance issues during probation surface within the first six months. A proactive employer should then step in to either articulate a performance improvement plan for the next six months, with clear markers and milestones, or come to an early conclusion that this is not going to work out and move on to dismissal. But if we overly squeeze the probationary period, we will deter employers, particularly entrepreneurs, from the creation of new jobs by reducing their appetite to take a risk on new recruits, as we have heard, which is surely not what the Government intend.

Clause 23 and Schedule 3 threaten to be a real menace for two groups of employer in particular. The first, as we have heard, is those sectors with naturally high staff attrition rates given the nature of their business, such as retail and hospitality. The second, perhaps less obviously, is those businesses that rely on particular job functions that carry higher risk and performance requirements, in particular sales, marketing and business development jobs that run across so many of our economy’s key sectors: everything from sales on the floor, in the park or in the kiosk, and, yes, telesales—which we all try to avoid—to those involved in B2B business development and client account management. I know from personal experience in advising start-ups and scale-ups that these are critical, revenue-generating roles with strong personal performance criteria where much of the remuneration comes—quite correctly—in the form of performance-related pay. We will do real damage to productivity and economic growth if we do not allow fair and proper time for assessment of these types of roles without the threat of unfair dismissal hanging over employers’ heads prematurely. That said, I will support Amendment 49 if it is put to the vote.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, as well as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Throughout our debates, one thing has become clear: Clause 23 is one of the more troubling areas for the business community and therefore potential employees. That concern is reflected not just in what we have heard in this Chamber but in the Government’s own impact assessment.

When a company hires someone new, it takes a risk. No matter how impressive someone’s CV may be or how well they come across in interview, things do not always work out, as we have heard. That is why probation periods exist. They give both the employer and the employee a chance to assess whether it is the right fit. I have seen this at first hand in my own company, Marsh Ltd. For small businesses in particular, hiring someone new, especially during a period of growth, can be a major financial and operational commitment. When things do not work out, the company should not be left to carry all the burden because of a mismatch that is no one’s fault. Introducing a day-one right to claim unfair dismissal outside the already established exceptions places a heavy weight on employers. It could discourage them from hiring altogether. Worse still, it may lead to pressure being placed on existing staff, who are asked to do more because their employers are hesitant to take on new people.

In the Financial Times, the Chancellor said an excessive safety-first approach was not seen in any of Britain’s global competitors, adding:

“It is bad for businesses, bad for growth and bad for working people”—


a description of this Bill and Clause 23 in particular. These amendments offer a sensible middle ground. They would reduce the current qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection from two years to six months. That strikes me as fair and proportionate. It matches the length of the probation period used in many companies, and certainly in the one I work for. Six months should be enough time to determine whether someone is right for the role. These amendments would make it better for business, better for growth and better for working people. That is why I support them.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to be a reasonable change to get rid of the two years, and I think six months is a more reasonable representation. My question, though, is about how this will affect police officers.

Police officers are not employees. Their terms and conditions are governed by secondary legislation or police regulations. It is already quite difficult to remove the ones who should be removed because, first, they are represented by lawyers—I say this with all respect to the lawyers in the room—in the misconduct process. It never makes it quicker, and it always makes it more expensive. Secondly, when the assessment is made of whether the proof is there to sack them, the test of the standard of evidence is moved from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. That is the same standard for criminal proof, so it is quite a high standard, and they are represented by a lawyer. It gets quite difficult.

The two-year probationary period has always been a good way to remove those people who should be removed or who are not suited to the role. If we are to remove that two-year period, one of the measures by which we get rid of the worst officers will be lost, and I worry about that. We know from research that often the officers who turn bad later should have been removed in their probationary period, had everyone had the courage to take that decision.

I am not saying that it is wrong or right, nor that the police regulations should definitely change, but I would like to understand what the Government’s reaction is. We will have a group of people who are not classed as employees—police officers—who will still have a two-year period and, under the new scheme, might have none at all. This is a group I think we should pay particular attention to. Perhaps the Government might give their view on how they intend to deal with that.

--- Later in debate ---

If that is true, we must ensure that all workers stand on that floor, not just those who have chosen to join a trade union. How can it be just or fair that two workers facing identical disciplinary proceedings have radically different statutory rights, simply because one is a member of a union and the other is not, for a multitude of reasons that I hope I have demonstrated. This is the very two-tier attitude to workers and the very approach that the Minister has been so keen to counter. I therefore hope that, on this very sensible and practical matter, the Government will accept either or both of these amendments.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to these amendments, to which I have added by name. What we are dealing with here is a basic question of fairness. Currently, the law recognises the importance of accompaniment at disciplinary and grievance hearings, yet it narrowly limits who that companion can be. Unless an employee has a supportive colleague or is a trade union member, they face these often-daunting proceedings alone. This creates a two-tier system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. How can it be right that two workers in the same workplace facing the same process are given different statutory rights based solely on their union membership?

This is not a hypothetical issue. In reality, 78% of UK workers are not in a trade union, which means most cannot count on the support of a trained companion in these hearings. I have no objection to trade unions; I am not a trade unionist myself, but I reject the idea that statutory rights should be tied to union membership. I have yet to hear a convincing argument and defence of the current system. This is why I support these amendments. Both aim to fix this imbalance in different, practical ways.

Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would widen the scope of acceptable companions. It would empower the Secretary of State to propose certifying bodies—for example, Edapt in the education sector—to approve trained companions, with Parliament having final say through secondary legislation via the affirmative procedure. This approach ensures fairness. Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, goes further, removing restrictions altogether and allowing the employee to choose their own companion. This gives power back to workers, who are best placed to decide who can support them.

We return to the core issue of fairness, which seems to have cropped up many times throughout this Bill—not only fairness for workers navigating difficult circumstances but fairness for employers, too, who would benefit from clearer, smoother processes and reduced risk of costly litigation. Ultimately, these are not radical proposals. The amendments are sensible adjustments that reflect the modern workplace and the real choices workers are making. As the Government’s document Next Steps to Make Work Pay rightly states,

“all workers should be able to enjoy fair rights and benefits”.

I hope that the House agrees.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which, to me, smacks of common sense, while also acknowledging that Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is a step in the right direction.

For those of us who have conducted disciplinary and grievance hearings—as an employer, I have conducted my fair share over the years—these are often stressful, time-consuming and sometimes very divisive, not only for the employee but often for the employer, the manager and the other team members who are involved. An officious approach, in which only a trade union official may accompany the worker into the meeting, makes this situation, if anything, more adversarial, more us versus them and, in my view, less likely to lead to a sensible compromise that works for both parties. This is particularly the case for small and micro-businesses in which trade union representation is lower and the worker very often does not have that option. To widen it out to other members, colleagues, friends or even family members, as Amendment 99 states, seems to me a sensible move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady of Nichols of Selby for that helpful clarification. I thought that was the case, but I am glad that she made it. She is in a far better position than I am to talk about UNISON and its membership.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I want to be clear that this issue has not come up in all the consultations we have undertaken, with a wide variety of stakeholders. It is not that I am saying, “We talked to some trade unions and, guess what, they’re quite happy with the status quo”. Genuinely, this issue has not come up. Simply, this is not an issue for workplaces. That is why I described it—

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

Does the Minister understand that there is a two-tier system here? If you are a trade unionist you can have somewhat more professional attendance than somebody who is not a trade unionist. That is what is important.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, if there is a recognised trade union or you are a member of a trade union then you can take a trade union representative, but you also have the right to be accompanied by a workmate. If you are a member of a trade union, you do not need to take that trade union representative along; you could have a workmate come along. If responsible employers want to have more flexibility, they can write this into their terms and conditions. There is nothing to stop people doing that. That is why I suggested, to again use the phrase, that the solution to such a problem is not something we really need to respond to in the legislation because it might create unintended consequences and, in terms of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, unfair administrative burdens on employers. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 98.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 100 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I want to focus on the societal and class element of this. I come from a community that has some of the poorest social outcomes in the whole of Europe. One of the features of my community is the lack of a father in the home. I have watched my community struggle for multiple generations with the reality of that—poor educational outcomes and lots of prison attendance by fathers and by children who are unattended. This is an opportunity to reverse many of the social challenges that we face, in one fell swoop. If the Government are serious about addressing child poverty and helping the poorest working communities in this country, levelling up paternal leave would be such a profound thing to do.

I have been a youth worker for over 38 years and one of the things that I ran was a single parent group with over 200 members. When you spoke to the young men involved, they all talked about a lack of connection to their family. If we can help to repair that, we can start to get into why our children fail so badly in school, why they spend so much time in prison and why their behaviour is so challenging in a school environment. The Government have a real opportunity to do this here. The economic impact of not doing this is significantly more than the tiny difference it will make economically to do it. This is a real opportunity for the Government to make a real impact for the poorest communities in this country. I beg that it happens.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend. In my view, these proposals are long overdue. When my children were born in the 1990s, paternity leave was not even part of the conversation. Much has changed but the statutory provision for paternity leave, currently just two weeks, still reflects a significant imbalance in the pursuit of gender equality. I am fortunate to work for the same employer— Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker—as I did at that time. It now offers 16 weeks’ paternity leave, to be taken within the first year after the child’s birth.

We have heard that the UK ranking in international standards is low. For many fathers, especially as household costs rise, taking time off is simply not financially viable, even if permitted. Better paternity leave benefits everyone: fathers; mothers; the child; the other children, if there are any; and, in the long term, the economy, as we have heard.

Although I recognise that the four months offered by my company may not be realistic for all, particularly SMEs, we must aim for a fair balance between the business realities and family needs. Research shows that around six weeks of leave is the point at which the broadest benefits are achieved, as proposed in Amendment 100. I believe that this is a reasonable balance and would make paternity leave viable for most fathers.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed this amendment in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I will not add to what many noble Lords have said, but I want to deal with one point.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, talked about being too prescriptive. We need such prescription to help new fathers. The idea that this is mind-boggling is ridiculous. It would extend paternity leave from two weeks to six weeks, at 90% of pay. We are not talking about a revolution. We are talking about a modest increase to make some connection between fathers and their children in their very early years. It is needed, because the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. It is good for fathers, bonding and mental health. It supports mothers, with a more equal division of care, and it is good for children’s development. It supports business, because employees will be happier, more contented and not stressed with trying to get back to the family home and their young children. This is not revolutionary. This is a modest step forward. I was delighted to be able to sign the amendment of the noble Baroness Penn, which we on these Benches support.