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.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 132 and 137. Both of them seek to expand the list of organisations recognised in law to represent workers. Amendment 132 relates to representation in reaching settlement agreements, while Amendment 137 refers to representation in hearings at workplace disciplinary and grievance hearings.

At present, the law specifies that individuals can be supported by trade unions, fellow workers or, in respect of settlement agreements, lawyers or other qualified people from, for example, the respected network of citizens advice bureaux. Both amendments propose that the right to representation be extended to professional bodies specified by the Secretary of State, and Amendment 132 refers in particular to CIPD members. I have to say I am genuinely puzzled about which other professional bodies would wish to take on this new role.

In short, the law should rest where it stands. Workers should be represented, where they are present, by workers’ organisations—trade unions—that, where appropriate, can provide legal representation. The CIPD is widely respected as an organisation of HR professionals, but it essentially represents employers’ interests and would surely be conflicted if it were to take on this very different role.

I know my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley is motivated by a wish to ensure that people working in small and medium-sized businesses without trade union representation should have relevant expertise available to help resolve difficult workplace issues. I support that aspiration, but ACAS—which I chaired for six years, to declare an interest—has the responsibility and the independent, impartial expertise to conciliate in such matters, and a considerable track record of success in doing so. Far better to ensure that it has increased resources to provide this vital service in the interests of both parties in any such dispute, rather than muddying the water on the issue of who is competent and appropriate to represent workers. I hope that both these amendments will not be pressed.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, it seems that, yet again, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and I are not going to quite agree. I support both these amendments, particularly the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.

I would like to look at the amendments from the point of view of the employee. When an employee finds themselves in a disciplinary or grievance hearing—we heard from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough earlier—it signifies a profound breakdown in their relationship with their employer. It is a moment fraught with stress, uncertainty and fear; one where an individual may feel their professional life is unravelling before them. They may question how they will continue to support their family, whether they can afford to remain in their home, and what their future may hold.

Large corporations, such as the one I work for, have the benefit of HR departments to guide them through such proceedings, ensuring that their position is well-organised and profoundly represented. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to make people redundant; it is not fun, even with HR beside you, but they had nobody. In smaller companies, personal relationships between employer and employee can add an additional layer of complexity to the situation. In either case, the individual facing the hearing is often isolated, and struggling to recollect past events and present their case clearly.

These amendments, particularly Amendment 137, propose a fair and practical position: the right to have the assistance of a certified individual—someone equipped to review the facts dispassionately, organise events in logical sequence and provide the employee with a much-needed sense of reassurance. As we have heard, the trade unions already fulfil this role, particularly in large companies. However, many employees, myself included, choose not to join a union for a variety of personal reasons. The absence of union membership should not mean a lack of support in such critical moments. This amendment would ensure that every employee, regardless of union affiliation, has access to a certified individual who may provide guidance when facing disciplinary proceedings, fostering a fairer and more balanced process. For this reason, I support these amendments to uphold the right of fairness in our workplaces.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing their Amendments 132 and 137.

As has been said, not all workers have or want access to a union representative. In fact, the latest statistics that I have from the Department for Business and Trade suggest that only 22% of all employees are unionised. Not all workers have access to or can afford legal advice, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, pointed out, those in smaller workplaces or those performing more precarious roles. Allowing trained, certified HR professionals to provide advice could help ensure that more employees are supported when making important decisions about their rights.

It is important to recognise the valuable support already available through organisations such as ACAS—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barber—citizens advice bureaux and others, which provide free and impartial advice. This amendment complements those services by seeking to expand the range of qualified advisers accessible to workers. The principle of widening access to competent support is a reasonable one, especially where safeguards are in place through certification by recognised professional bodies. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, if nothing else, that ought to serve to ease pressure on employment rights tribunals, which, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Committee, are stretched to breaking point.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, that that was a classic case of the TUC advocating for a closed shop, and I applaud him for that. However, not so many employees are now members of trade unions, as I have pointed out, and the majority of trade union members are in the public sector.

The question of genuine independence will be critical, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that. I would also say, perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that, without wishing to quibble too much with his amendment, I think that as currently written it gives the Secretary of State rather too much discretion in determining what is a professional body. If he wants to have a think about that, I am available for a chat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has pointed out, this idea was in both the 2022 Green Paper and in the paper that the Labour Party published during last year’s election. Clearly, there is an expectation that this needs to be addressed in this huge Bill, the main purpose of which, as I have said to this Committee before, could have been achieved through a statutory instrument.

However, one of the important things in the amendment, which has been carefully written by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, sets in place the idea that:

“The right to disconnect does not apply where … a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty”.


In trying to get into this debate, which is a fair debate to have, we find that the legislation already addresses the majority of situations where this would already happen, and so all that would happen if this were to become law is that contracts would be written in such a way that, in effect, if necessary, everybody would be on call—which would not be a desirable outcome.

I want to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to a variety of anecdotes and his personal experience. Personal experience matters in considering how a good employer can act. For what it is worth, in my private office, which was very busy, and in my parliamentary office when I used to employ people, I required everybody to have their “do not disturb” setting on. The setting works such that if somebody really needs to get hold of you—if you are a Minister, say—switch will get through to you eventually. I have to say to the people on the Front Bench that that is the case even if you do not have your phone on. Those situations are already addressed.

One of the things the Bill is trying to do overall is to get that balance. However, it is fair to say that not everything needs to be put into legislation. It is about having a positive relationship, and some of that can be done through ACAS and in other different ways, such as guidance. Trying to micromanage every single relationship that the millions of workers have directly with their employer risks overcomplicating things. The fear that I have, given that this is in the Government’s manifesto, which they seek to put in place—it will be interesting to see how they want to make this happen—is that this will make for very tricky legislation. Although there may be instances where this would work, ultimately, it comes down to employment tribunals and somebody else’s judgment.

For what it is worth, we have an evolving variety of workplaces. A lot of people who used to work at home have now come back to the office so that they can leave their job behind, as opposed to feeling that they will open something up after dinner or whatever.

I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how the Government are planning to fulfil their manifesto commitment while trying to make sure that they do not micromanage every single element of how a job can be done in the workplace.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness said, because this is about fairness and making sure life works. There are a lot of companies, big and small, where, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working. However, there are a number of instances—including somewhere like where I work—where I do not think this would work.

I will just give your Lordships one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge insurance broker. We had a client in the United States who by 5 pm had not decided whether to renew his insurance contract in London. If he had not renewed it by 1 June—which I guess was a Sunday—he would have had no insurance on that specific part of his business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word—he was probably out and about with the phone in his pocket—and the call came through at some time after 9 pm. Looking at the way the clause is drafted, I am not sure whether that would be considered enough of an emergency to get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak. Equally, that company might have had to stop working, doing whatever it was doing in the oil and gas industry—I know that will not endear me to the noble Baroness, but that is a fact. But we had to bind that insurance contract once we got the order. It was all ready to go; it was just a question of sending a number of emails to say that it was done. So there are huge swathes of the country where it is in fact in place already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has said, but in some of the big City environments where you are working across time zones particularly, it is extremely difficult to enact.

On working from home, we all worked at home for some time; personally I loathed it—I am back in the office almost as much as I can be. However, I have members of staff who like working at home, and, let me tell your Lordships, they know how to turn themselves off when they do not want to talk to us anymore, and they are good at it. So they should be, and I respect them for it. But if you really need them, you can always find them.

Finally, you can turn the damn machines off. Be it a telephone, a computer, an iPad or whatever it is, there is an off button out there. Certainly when I was a child, we were told never to call anybody after 9 pm, and that was friends and family. So there are some unwritten rules out there that are already very effective.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing us to a fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put us in touch with the real world, and then my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Ashcombe reminded us about what happens in real life. I suppose I have immediately to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. My phrase, which I always used to share with Albert Blighton, was that I was available 168/52. The number 168 is 24 times seven. So you quickly appreciate that, as a solicitor, you have to be available all the time.

When I won the contract to represent cricket with the England and Wales Cricket Board, they wanted to know whether I would be available on a Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match, and I said, “Yes, of course I would”. So it is very much up to the individual to make themselves available.

When I was asked to join the Front Bench in the House of Commons in 1977, I do not think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an Adjournment debate, even though it might have been at 3 am, which it was on one occasion. Therefore, you set your working parameter in the way in which you develop your own workaholic tendencies, but you should not expect it of everyone, and I think that is what the amendment is all about.

Do you have the right to disconnect? Although I am sympathetic to the idea that you should be able to switch off, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, put in context, when the Bill is already introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around shift notice periods, payment for cancelled shifts and wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, we have to be very cautious about layering on yet another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation.

The noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal, giving workers a right not to respond to emails or calls outside their contracted hours, but in reality, as the Government have quickly realised, despite what they may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions. What does “working hours” mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, in customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, and in businesses operating across time zones?

Employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs. This would add yet another administrative requirement. There would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect, a consultation process, enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims. So, we must ask: is this really the right moment to introduce such sweeping regulation?

The Bill already creates new rights and obligations that will take time to bed in. There is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effect of this amendment would be to increase that uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly. A blanket legislative approach risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught, especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who made a compelling case for these amendments. I rise to speak in strong support of Amendments 139 and 76, tabled respectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister.

The UK’s statutory paternity leave—just two weeks, paid at £187.18 per week—is the most limited in Europe. In many OECD countries, six weeks’ leave at the equivalent of full pay is standard. By comparison, our offer is inadequate and outdated.

Eligibility for paternity leave is also restricted. It requires continuous employment with the same employer for 26 weeks before the 15th week prior to the due date. That excludes many fathers, especially those in insecure work, the self-employed, or those working in gig economy roles. Many are forced to take unpaid leave or use holiday just to be present at the start of their child’s life.

The impact is significant. The TUC reports that over half of families struggle financially when a parent takes paternity leave, and one in five do not take the leave they are entitled to, mostly for financial reasons. Research from Pregnant Then Screwed found that 70% of fathers who did not take their full leave had to cut it short due to cost.

This is not just about finances; it affects bonding with the child and support for the mother or birthing partner, and it reinforces gender inequality in unpaid care. The lack of accessible leave for fathers limits shared parenting and is a contributor to the gender pay gap and future pension pot inequality.

The Employment Rights Bill includes provisions to address some of these issues. Clauses 15 and 16 remove the qualifying periods for unpaid parental and paternity leave. Clause 17 removes the requirement to take paternity or adoption leave before parental leave, allowing paternity and adoption leave to be taken following shared parental leave. However, these clauses fail to tackle the low level of statutory paternity pay, or to extend fathers’ and second parents’ leave entitlement past two weeks.

While the Labour Party committed in its manifesto to review the parental leave system more broadly, the Employment Rights Bill provides an opportunity in the here and now to implement changes that would make a real difference to families and people considering having children. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned the lower birth rate—an important context that we must take into account in considering in these amendments.

Amendment 139 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, offers a practical and immediate step forward. It would require statutory paternity pay to be a day one right, removing unnecessary barriers for thousands of working parents.

Amendment 76 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would mandate a comprehensive review of paid parental leave within six months of the Bill becoming law. Importantly, it sets the terms of that review: to consider a statutory, non-transferable period of paid leave for second parents, to raise pay levels, and to include the self-employed.

This is not merely a social issue; it is an economic one. Many noble Lords have mentioned the modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Progressive Policy, which suggests that increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% of earnings could contribute £2.68 billion to the UK economy by supporting more mothers to return to work and encouraging shared care from the outset.

Countries with more than six weeks’ paid paternity leave have significantly smaller gender pay and participation gaps, as we heard in the international examples shared by a number of noble Lords during this debate. The benefits are clear, and the public support reform—only 18% believe the current two-week offer is sufficient.

Other amendments in this group have been powerfully spoken to, such as Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and Amendment 127 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which both propose extended leave and fairer pay.

The case for reform has been compellingly made in this group. The Employment Rights Bill offers a real opportunity to modernise paternity leave, benefiting families, the economy and gender equality at work. I urge the Minister to consider the strength of the arguments presented today and to respond with the action that it deserves.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name in my noble friend Lady Penn.

I would like to think that the birth of any child is an important day in the eyes of the father as well as the mother; yet, when it comes to the parental leave granted by companies, they are treated very differently: up to 52 weeks for the mother and two weeks for the father. On this basis, as we have heard, the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with other European nations. In addition, 22 OECD nations offer more than six weeks, paid at the equivalent of 100% of salary.

The Government’s weekly rate of statutory pay, for the two weeks that it is paid to fathers in this country, is currently the lesser of £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings. This is a modest amount by any measure, given that the average full-time working man is paid just under £700 per week.

We have heard from other noble Lords of the benefits to fathers themselves, as well as mothers and children, when fathers are permitted to spend longer with the family in the early period of a child’s life.

I wish to draw on my personal experience. As I have said before, the company that I work for—Marsh, a very large insurance broker—now has a mature policy on paternity leave. Fathers are allowed to take up to 16 weeks’ leave, and the company ensures that they continue to be paid the equivalent of 100% of their salary during their time away from the workplace. Importantly, their job remains open for this period to facilitate their return. This benefit was not available to me when my sons were born in the 1990s—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I have not yet reached grandfatherhood.

The time allowed must be taken within 52 weeks of the birth of the child, or children in the event of a multiple birth. I am sure that our competitors offer something similar, as competition for staff is an ongoing issue, and benefits count enormously in any discussion should a member of staff wish to change employer. Such a policy helps to define the culture of a company that cares not only for itself but also for the lives of its colleagues.

I do not believe that Amendment 128, which asks for parental leave policies to be published by large companies, is making an onerous request; indeed, publishing them would enable meaningful comparisons, inform jobseekers and encourage best practice across industry. I support it.

As I mentioned in an earlier group, happy staff tend to do good work. This is certainly a stressful time in any family’s life, and the mental health of staff is important, as we have heard today from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and others. It is one thing for a large company with the ability to cover a colleague’s workload to offer such a period of paternity leave, but this is obviously more challenging for smaller companies.

I am not suggesting for one moment that all companies should offer such generous periods of paternity leave as my own, much as I would have enjoyed it in my time. The birth of any child is, I hope, an exciting experience. It is also, in my experience, a somewhat nerve-wracking one, which can be ameliorated by parents being able to spend more time together during this period.

Two weeks of paternity leave is simply not enough. I encourage the Government to extend the statutory period for paternity leave to six weeks, as suggested in Amendment 127, and to provide a more generous level of salary. I hope that this will encourage fathers to take off this period, which, as I have demonstrated, is exceeded in some workplaces.

Finally, I will look briefly at Amendment 139, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn, on which I have changed my opinion during this debate. I believe that companies of all sizes feel that day one paternity leave is a step too far when the new employee has not even walked through the door. However, if the Government insist on this, it seems only right that fathers should receive statutory pay as a minimum. Companies obviously still have the opportunity to decide whether to go further, as would be the case for employees who have been part of the workforce for a certain period of time.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I shall speak to Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, who is unable to be in his place today due to a long-standing family commitment.

Clause 9, on flexible working, will make a huge difference to working people, including those with caring responsibilities. Many of us know all too well and very personally the daily juggling-act miracle that working mums especially are expected to perform. Anything that makes their lives easier has to be welcome. Flexible working has the added benefit to business and for the wider economy of making it easier for carers to both enter the workforce and stay there. This will help close the gender pay gap, reduce child poverty and help keep mothers and babies healthier.

Amendment 66 seeks to address the concern that, to be effective, those new rights must have teeth. I know that my noble friend Lord Watson would want to acknowledge the support of Maternity Action and the National Education Union in preparing this amendment. Amendment 66 would require the Business and Trade Secretary to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award where an employer has not followed its obligations in dealing with an employee’s flexible-working request.

Currently, employees have the right to request flexible working, but employers can refuse on a wide range of listed grounds. Clause 9 boosts employees’ rights by introducing a reasonableness requirement, meaning that employers will be permitted to refuse a statutory flexible-working request only if it is reasonable to do so on one or more of the listed grounds. This new requirement is a positive step towards making flexible working the default. The problem is about the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award when it upholds an employee’s complaint about how an employer has treated their flexible-working application.

Currently, the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal can award is eight weeks’ pay, capped at £719 per week, which is a total of £5,752. This low compensation cap does not reflect the devastating cost to a worker where that flexible working has been unreasonably refused. Maternity Action and trade unions have documented how unreasonable refusals effectively force employees—particularly many new mothers and other carers—out of their job, often into lower-paid and less secure work or out of work altogether.

Flexibility should be a two-way street for the employer and worker, but in the real world too often it is mothers who are paying a high price. Set against the expense of legal representation, the low level of compensation available deters mothers from pursuing a flexible-working complaint through an employment tribunal. Their only meaningful recourse may be an indirect sex-discrimination claim against their former employer for which compensation is not capped. However, such claims are often long, complicated and extremely stressful. It is much better to send a signal that the Government are serious about enforcing flexible working rights so that employers are encouraged to do the right thing in the first place.

In the Bill’s impact assessment, it is stated that an aim of the changes in Clause 9 is to allow an employment tribunal to scrutinise whether the decision to reject a flexible working request was reasonable. For that to be effective, penalties should be introduced that reflect a substantive failure to act in accordance with a new reasonableness requirement. The Government’s aim of making flexible working the default is very welcome, but I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider bringing forward an amendment on Report or provide reassurance that other routes will be taken to ensure that the new right to flexible working is one that will be enforced in practice and that workers who are unreasonably refused such arrangements get adequate compensation.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest that I work for Marsh, a very large insurance broker in this country and around the world. I run a team of between 30 and 40 people. Within that team, I have all sorts, sizes and cultures—you name it. Of that team, all the married women—I should say, the women with children—have some sort of flexible way that they work with us. I can tell noble Lords from my own experience that unhappy staff do not do good work; it is 101. Happy staff are very likely to do very good work. One of my main jobs is to keep my team happy, and I am given immense flexibility to do it. Without this amendment, it is less easy. I rest my case.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which was so ably enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I think that the amendment is neither fish nor fowl really. It is perfectly possible, as I understand it, for the Government to have already addressed this issue and, by statutory instrument, to set differential rates for compensation at employment tribunal. It seems rather a waste of time, and not necessarily a good use of ministerial time, to put in primary legislation another review.

My substantial issue is also that this, again, tips the balance are much more towards the worker, unreasonably, and away from the employer. I think that is to be deprecated, because that is what we have seen in so many aspects of this Bill. This leads me to conclude something else as well. On a risk-based assessment of whether you would wish to employ a person, an employer may very well conclude—it may, unfortunately, be an encumbrance of being a female employee or potential employee—that “We do not wish to employ that person because she may apply for flexible working, and it is better to employ someone else”. This is particularly because of the risk that, in going to an employment tribunal, after already having believed they had behaved in a reasonable way, they would be subject to a potential substantial monetary fine, which will impact on their bottom line. That is not good for those workers. It is not for the women who wish to work and have flexibility.

I broadly agree with the idea of reasonableness in applying for flexible working. That is how our jobs market and employment regime works now. Many women do want flexible working, and it is absolutely right that employers reasonably consider that. But I think this amendment is a step too far, because it will have the unintended consequence of making it more likely that women will not be employed because they may ask for flexible working. I think it is otiose: it is unnecessary, and it will not add to the efficacy of the Bill.