Employment Rights Bill

Lord Barber of Ainsdale Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I stand with some trepidation at this stage to support very much the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and indeed I support the other amendments in this group.

We have to think that any company—large, small, charity, whatever it may be—that hires a new employee takes a calculated risk. They are unknown. The company hopes that the individual, young or more mature, will integrate well into the company culture and be capable of handling the expected workload with the appropriate training needed.

I understand the Government’s position, as mentioned in a previous day’s debate on the Bill, that the employee also takes a risk when starting a new job or changing careers. They too must be confident that the role aligns with their skills and aspirations. A probationary period exists to serve both parties. It allows the employee to assess whether the role suits their interests, skills and abilities, while giving the employer time to evaluate whether the employee fits before making a long-term commitment. Is that unreasonable?

In my own place of work, I have seen this very much in practice. In fact, when I returned to work, I had a six-month probation period, and I had worked for them for 25 years before that. We once hired a seasoned practitioner with considerable market experience. However, for various reasons, they did not pass their probation. Should that individual be entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said? From the employer’s perspective, they are simply trying to safeguard their business, its culture and its ability to deliver results for clients. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as we have just heard and as, I think, the noble Lord accepted.

Is it right that an employee should be granted full employment rights from day one, when both sides are still in a learning phase? Is it fair that a company could face the threat of an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal if the probationary period is not successful, on which we have had a lot of discussion? Whatever happens, should it go towards that phase? Should it never reach the employment tribunal? It is a gruelling process for both parties, and an expensive one—emotionally, culturally, and potentially in the pocket.

The Government rightly seek to stimulate growth, as mentioned by the Minister on the previous group. For that to happen, businesses must feel confident in hiring. But, if the terms of employment are too burdensome, companies may hesitate to expand their workforce. It is imperative that the economy is prevented from becoming stagnant or, worse still, contracting. I simply do not understand why this clause is in the Bill. It does not propose anything that helps growth in this country.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

The noble Lord pointed to the daunting process that faces an employer potentially facing an employment tribunal accusation that would damage perhaps their reputation, as well as the daunting issues that also face the employee who is considering going down that course. My noble friend made some emphasis on that point.

The debate has been conducted as if this is a hugely common threat: indeed, as if it is a threat that, potentially, is going to do tremendous damage to our economy. But could I just point to the scale of the issue? In 2023-24, there were just over 5,000 unfair dismissal cases referred from the Tribunals Service to ACAS for the conciliation processes that my noble friend referred to. What is the size of our workforce in the British economy? Is it 25, 26, 27—

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

Thirty-four.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

Thirty-four million workers. Five and a half thousand cases. Why is the number so small? It has been suggested that it is because an employer’s immediate response is to offer a settlement to buy off the prospect of a tribunal. Some may make that judgement, but, given the evidence my noble friend has referred to about the unlikelihood of applicants succeeding with their claims, that does not seem a very wise response to give. There may be some, but for the individual, it seems to me, more daunting factors influence them to hold back because it is so painful and potentially stressful that they are reluctant to take their case in the first place.

This whole Bill is about giving people at work in Britain more confidence and there needs to be some sense of perspective about the scale of the issue we are talking about. Five thousand people.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

I am aware of a case of a small company that has got rid of four individuals in view of the legislation because those individuals are not doing a good enough job, but it could live with them if it had the ability to get rid of them. What it cannot face the thought of is having to go down any form of tribunal route or indeed threat thereof. That is not what we are trying to do with this Bill; we are trying to prevent that. We do not want to see those individuals leave employment. That is not what we want, and that is where it could lead a lot of people.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Barber of Ainsdale Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 7 in this group, as well as my Amendment 15. I also apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I am walking somewhat of a tightrope this evening. For 15 years, I was a senior shop steward for the GMB as a national negotiator. I also have my own company with 20 employees. I do not think that I will be able to cope with the ramifications of some of this legislation. Also, I have some guests up in the Public Gallery: they are small business men who employ people. Dinner could get quite difficult if I say the wrong thing in the next 10 minutes, which I hope I will not do.

My first amendment would set the initial reference period for the right to guaranteed hours to 26 weeks, to give flexibility to industries that rely on a seasonal basis for operating and employing people. It would also give greater flexibility to the labour market itself. When Members see this amendment, they automatically think of seasonal workers as fruit and veg pickers harvesting crops, but nothing could be further from the truth. Work has changed. We are now essentially a service-led economy, with no more enormous factories employing thousands of workers every day, producing goods to export across the globe, clocking in and clocking out, as I did back in the 1970s. Flexibility is the key, and work/life balance for many is crucial. The days of the nine to five are well and truly over, in my opinion, especially for small businesses. That flexibility is not only for the agricultural industries but for tourism, retail, hospitality and events—things that bind our country together.

We welcome this Bill. One could argue that it is 30 years too late; that was probably the time when unions were most under attack, when our beloved Margaret was in charge. Perhaps that was when people should have risen up, but we are where we are. However, the Bill should be proportional and reasonable; those are the two things that we would wish to persuade the Government to embrace, through not only some of our amendments but those of other parties. Reasonableness and proportionality are what we are proposing. We will support the Bill, but its architects must accept that the labour market has evolved. Flexibility for workers and protecting workers’ rights go hand in hand.

I will now speak to my Amendment 15. Other amendments in this group have rightly raised challenges regarding the right to be offered guaranteed hours. My Amendment 15 strikes a necessary balance between protecting workers and allowing flexibility for genuine short-term employment situations. This amendment would not undermine the main principles of the Government’s legislation. Instead, it would make a reasonable accommodation for short-term contracts while maintaining safeguards through proper disclosure requirements and strict time limits.

For seasonal workers, this amendment offers significant advantages. It would increase their employability, as businesses could confidently offer work during peak periods without complicated hour guarantees that extend beyond the season. Many seasonal workers prefer concentrated work periods with higher hours, allowing them to earn more money during these limited timeframes. Additionally, this flexibility would enable workers in industries such as tourism, agriculture and entertainment to secure multiple seasonal positions throughout the year, improving their overall financial stability. Many industries in our economy, including agriculture and education, are connected to seasonal events. We need this practical provision.

I urge the Minister to consider this amendment, or at the very least be cognisant of the challenges these seasonally dependent sectors face. If this legislation is designed correctly, we can arrive at a set of provisions that will protect workers while acknowledging the realities of our diverse job markets.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Fox and I met Amazon a couple of weeks ago in Portcullis House. Amazon employs 75,000 people in the UK and is not unionised. It has evolved its own democratic in-house solutions. I am not commenting on that, but it shows that, sometimes, legislation is not the only way to protect people at work, guarantee earnings and pay reasonable rates. That is the kind of bigger picture thinking that this Bill is missing.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the hugely important issue of zero-hours and short-hours contracts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, said, well over a million people in the UK work on zero-hours contracts. In sectors such as retail, it is also common for workers to have a small number of guaranteed hours but to work the equivalent of full-time hours.

These arrangements are not a win-win for worker and employer. More than eight in 10 zero-hours workers want regular hours of work. Without guaranteed hours, workers do not know whether they will be able to pay their bills or organise their caring responsibilities. The flexibility is invariably on the employer’s side. Research has shown that more than half of zero-hours contract workers have had shifts cancelled at less than 24 hours’ notice. Many experience being sent home mid shift and very few are compensated. The vast majority of those who ask for guaranteed hours are turned down, so I fear a right to request would not resolve that issue.

There is also significant evidence that employers do not use zero-hours contracts just as stopgaps but will often park workers in these insecure arrangements long term. Two-thirds of zero-hours contract workers have been with their employer for more than a year, and one in eight for more than a decade.

As well as causing financial uncertainty and disrupting workers’ private lives, this distorts workplace relations, with workers fearful of challenging inappropriate conduct in case it leads to them losing their work. Recent accounts of poor behaviour at McDonald’s branches, where zero-hours contracts are prevalent, included a 17 year-old reporting that she had been asked for sex in return for shifts. Also, when employers rely on zero-hours contracts, what incentive do they have to invest in skills? The answer is: little or none, with predictable consequences for productivity.

The Bill implements measures first developed by the Low Pay Commission, with the support of both trade union and employer-side representatives. An employer will have to offer a contract based on a worker’s normal hours of work in line with a 12-week reference period. That gives a clear indication of a worker’s usual hours while evening out peaks and troughs. Any period longer than that, such as 26 weeks, would simply allow employers to park workers on a zero-hours contract for a prolonged period.

The Bill contains powers for Ministers to specify the notice period for shifts that employers must give to workers and compensation for cancelled shifts, and these are an essential part of the package. Currently, workers on variable-hours contracts bear all the risk of any changes in demand, and they are usually low-paid workers who can ill afford the sudden changes to income.

In the House of Commons, the Bill was amended to ensure that those rights also apply to agency workers. That is crucial in order to close the loophole that could have led to employers hiring zero-hour staff by agencies and entirely subverting the intent of the legislation. I know the TUC would strongly oppose any amendment that would exempt agency workers or fixed-term contract workers on variable-hours contracts from these provisions.

Employers will still be able to put in place arrangements for coping with fluctuations in seasonal work—for instance, via fixed-term contracts. What will change is that workers will not bear alone the burden, in reduced wages, of sudden changes in demand. The current situation allows manifest injustices to take place. It is time that we level up the labour market.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, what will the noble Lord do when all those small businesses—I emphasise small businesses—start to close down because of this rigid approach to flexible hours?

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

I say to the noble Baroness that I have more confidence in the adaptability of British businesses to cope with intelligent, progressive legislation like this to even up the labour market.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry that I find myself disagreeing for the second time today with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, specifically on the proposition that the right to be guaranteed regular hours should be replaced by a right to request.

My noble friend Lord Barber reminded us that this proposal originally came seven years ago from the Low Pay Commission. In that room were nine commissioners, who produced a unanimous report. There were three independent labour market experts, three representatives of workers and senior representatives from the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and big business, and, as I say, the recommendation was unanimous. In that discussion, the Low Pay Commission considered, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, whether a right to request could operate more effectively than a guaranteed offer on the ground and in the workplace, and the conclusion was that a right to request would not be a better option. That was primarily because you would be asking workers who have the least power in the labour market—the most vulnerable workers—to assert their rights. As we have been reminded, the vast majority of those workers who at the moment request guaranteed hours are turned down.

Another problem, from my point of view, with the group of amendments that are suggesting that there should be a right to request is that they are all silent on the consequences of a denied request. That is a major problem with the propositions in the amendments. In this context, I suggest that a right to request is no effective right at all.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Barber of Ainsdale Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords and Ladies, I begin by expressing my congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Gray and Lady Cash, on their maiden speeches. I look forward with interest to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young.

I express my wholehearted support for this landmark legislation, which aims—for the first time in a generation—to rebalance the labour market in the direction of fairness. This will not only eradicate some of the grossest injustices suffered by far too many people in recent years but drive higher standards across the world of work in place of the race to the bottom. Decent employers have nothing to fear from this. Instead, they will be protected from being undercut by rogue competitors. As Churchill said, where there is

“no organisation, no parity of bargaining, the good employer is undercut by the bad and the bad employer is undercut by the worst ... where those conditions prevail you have not a condition of progress, but a condition of progressive degeneration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/4/1909; col. 388.]

The objective of this Bill is nothing less than to establish a condition of progress.

Many groups of workers stand to gain if this Bill is enacted: those workers who have been fired, only to be offered rehiring if they accept a savage cut in their terms and conditions of employment; those workers unable to get a mortgage or even plan their week-to-week household budget because their income under a zero-hours contract is completely unpredictable and can disappear altogether at the whim of their employer, and victims of sexual harassment let down by their employer unprepared to accept their responsibility to take the necessary actions to prevent this kind of totally unacceptable behaviour towards their employees. Many of the provisions in the Bill strengthen the legal rights of countless workers currently feeling powerless and vulnerable.

However, the Bill is more ambitious than that, because it rightly recognises that the most powerful force to hold bad employers to account—and to uphold workplace legal rights—is effective trade unionism. This reality is recognised around the world and upheld in the conventions of the International Labour Organization on freedom of association and collective bargaining. It is a matter of shame that Governments led by the party opposite have been found too often to be in breach of those international obligations as a result of crude and unworthy attacks on free trade unionism.

Therefore, it is wholly proper that the rights for unions to secure employer recognition for bargaining purposes should be strengthened to allow workers to make that free choice. It is right too that trade unions should have proper access to workers without rogue employers being able to bully them out of exercising their right to effective representation at work. Of course, there are countless good and responsible employers who recognise that respecting and valuing their workforce is the right way to achieve success. They should not be undermined by the irresponsible or malevolent. Surveys have shown how popular this package of progressive change is with the community at large. Millions of people are crying out for change. Let us get this Bill on the statute book and begin to change the world for the better.

Post Office Horizon Compensation Scheme

Lord Barber of Ainsdale Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

I want to express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Beamish for initiating today’s debate and give my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lady Elliott on her excellent maiden speech.

I feel very privileged to join this House and acutely conscious of how much I have to learn of its conventions and procedures. I am fortunate to have the guidance and wisdom of my noble friends Lord Monks and Lady O’Grady, who both supported my introduction to the House. John has been a mentor and close friend of mine ever since I first walked through the doors of the TUC headquarters, Congress House, in 1975—quite a long time ago. Frances, who succeeded me in the position of TUC general secretary, has demonstrated ever since that her talent and integrity wholly justified my confidence that the TUC’s leadership would be in great hands on my departure. I am also delighted that another very close colleague, now my noble friend Lady Carberry, has also joined us in this House. She will give great service.

Ainsdale, now in my formal title, is an area in the town of Southport, which has suffered greatly in the wake of those terrible events some months ago. I applaud the spirit of the Southport people in their response to that outrage.

Throughout my childhood in Ainsdale, my dad worked as a bricklaying instructor in a local approved school. The term “approved school” was the language of the time; now I guess it would be called a young offender institution. We had a house in the grounds of the school; perhaps I am the first noble Lord to have been brought up in such an institution—or looking around all the Benches, perhaps not.

I sometimes saw my dad defuse a difficult situation, with angry young men about to kick off, by using patience, calmness and reason, and sometimes humour too. As I have discovered, both in the TUC and during my time as chair of ACAS, these can be important factors in the resolution of any difficult conflict.

I have tried to learn from all my experiences as I have made my way through life. After leaving school, I served for a year as a volunteer teacher in Ghana through the VSO—Voluntary Service Overseas—programme. This began to open my eyes to the vast diversity of life experience across the planet we share. At the end of my degree course at City University, I spent a year as president of the student union, able to observe and play a part in the university’s most senior governance structures. A year followed working for an industrial training board before I saw an advert for a job at the TUC. The advert told very little about the vacancy to be filled. It was only after I reached the interview that I discovered they were looking particularly for someone to do research and briefing on industrial training policy. My experience at the ITB, I think, got me the job and I was there for the next 37 years—serendipity.

Today’s debate is an opportunity to highlight again a terrible injustice suffered by a blameless group of workers, inflicted by an irresponsible and overmighty employer which appeared to feel that it could act with impunity. Fair compensation is long overdue and this scandal, to my mind, reinforces the message that trade unions are as vitally needed today as ever to provide effective representation for people at work and to hold employers to account.

The half a century since my entry to the TUC has seen remarkable changes in the world of work and of trade unionism. The mid-1970s saw the agreement between the Labour Government of the day and the TUC of what was termed the “social contract”. That saw the level of inflation in the economy reduced from around 24% in 1975 to 8% by 1978. That was a staggering achievement that appears largely forgotten now as the “winter of discontent” followed the breakdown of that agreement. History, of course, is written by the victors. That was followed by a long period of the demonisation of trade unionism, even termed at one point as “the enemy within”, with workers at GCHQ—Government Communications Headquarters—even being told that being a union member was not consistent with loyalty to the nation.

The Labour Government of 1997 righted that wrong at GCHQ and made other progressive changes. Trade union recognition rights were underpinned by law. The minimum wage lifted living standards for the lowest paid. The UK rejoined the European mainstream on rights and protections for people at work by signing up to the European Social Chapter, from which the previous Government had opted the UK out. But despite those achievements, there are long-term trends that have still left working people relatively poorer. In simple terms, inequality has grown as the coverage of collective bargaining and effective workplace representation has been weakened. A rebalancing is long, long overdue.

Good employers have nothing to fear from this. The story of trade unionism is often told by reflecting on major disputes. I understand why the drama of such events appeals to news editors but for most trade unionists the real story is of agreements being made, with good employment relations being a crucial part of the mix in building competitive and successful organisations. Change is so much better managed with understanding and consent.

One letter I received as TUC general secretary reflected that reality in a graphic way. It came from 12 individuals who had together come through an educational programme established by their trade union under the TUC’s Unionlearn initiative, in a partnership between their employer and a local college, to deliver basic literacy and numeracy skills. They told me that the experience and skills gained had completely transformed their lives—to their benefit, of course, but also to the benefit of their employer; a win-win if ever there was one. Crucially, those individuals would never have had the confidence to get involved if the invitation had come just from their employer or the local college. It was only the support of the union that persuaded them to risk re-entering a classroom, in which they had always previously felt a failure. The letter to me, thanking trade unionism for making that difference, finished by saying that it was the first letter any of them had ever sent in their life. That was truly humbling. At its peak, Unionlearn was helping over a quarter of a million people a year back into learning, and I hope our new Government will restore the support that made that possible.

During my time at the TUC, I also served on the Court of Directors of the Bank of England under the dedicated leadership of the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury. That brought me up close to the global financial crisis of 2008-09, with all the terrifying risks to the fabric of our financial system.

Since leaving the TUC, I have been fortunate to serve on the boards of Transport for London and Openreach, and the Financial Services Culture Board, each with hugely important public interest missions, and from each of which I have learned a great deal. I was proud to chair ACAS for six years; it does such important work, often behind the scenes, in resolving so many difficult disputes. My time as a trustee of the Mountview Academy of Theatre Arts has also been a delight, dedicated as it is to opening up the hugely successful education and professional training it provides to young people from all backgrounds, so delivering opportunities to make the careers that their talent deserves.

Now, as I embark on this new chapter, I am sure that I will again have an opportunity to learn many new lessons from noble Lords and noble Baronesses in all parts of the House and from the dedicated staff, who have all given me such a warm and kind welcome, for which I thank them most sincerely. I look forward to this next phase of my lifelong learning journey.