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.