Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness when she was speaking. However, I refer her to Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, with which I am sure she is familiar, as an EHRC commissioner. That is where the relevant test is set out.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. It is difficult to know where to start, so I thought I would do so with a couple of parish notes. To the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I say that the young man who was on the other end of her call was required by contract to read out a script. If he had deviated from the script, he would have been dismissed. The noble Baroness was not guilty of harassment, but of a lack of empathy concerning his contract. To the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I can report that hummus is for sale in the Co-op in Bow. Indeed, following the cyberattack, that was about all it had for sale. To the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I say that were he taken to court in the circumstances he describes—though I think that unlikely—for being grumpy in a football ground, all he would have to do was say where he was, and the judge would let him off on mitigating circumstances.

When the noble Lord, Lord Young, was announced as a peer I was very pleased, because I thought he would add something to your Lordships’ House from which we would benefit. To a great extent, that has revealed itself today. Through a cleverly and carefully constructed straw man argument, he has set up today’s debate. That straw man has been paraded, hoisted aloft, by a series of speeches either wittingly or unwittingly misapprehending the purpose of Clause 20. Before I begin to discuss that, though, let me say that I have been worrying about the use of the word “banter”. That word causes me to worry, and I will explain why to the noble Lord, Lord Young. For as long as I can remember, it has been used as a defence: “It was only a bit of banter”. It was only a bit of banter, but what was it? It has been justifying racism, sexism and homophobia since time immemorial. I was very surprised, therefore, that a man who understands words in the way the noble Lord, Lord Young, does, should use that phrase. The alliteration may work; but I am not happy with the word “banter”.

As I understand it, the point of the Bill is not the noble Lord’s straw man of policing personal conversations; the point is to take on the problem of workplace bullying by customers and users of particular facilities, and ensure that the employers adequately defend the workers, particularly those who have to interact with the public and who may otherwise feel exposed.

I would like briefly to drag this debate into the area of the practical reality for many people, often young, who work in industries where contact with customers is unmediated. After graduating, I ran a bar for a year, and I know what it is like for people working in those environments. They are largely in service industries—the very industries that some of your noble Lordships seek to absent from the Bill. My understanding of this part of the Bill is that it aims to protect people from having to withstand unreasonable behaviour. If we were to throw out that objective in the way that some of these amendments suggest, that would be to declare that we do not care about the plight of those employees and how they are treated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the customer always being right. That is one of the problems. In the past, bosses have taken the side of customers against employees because they need the trade. In a way, the clause seeks to address that. There are other potential economic benefits, too. For example, many people talk a lot about recruitment problems in the service industry. One of the ways of enhancing such jobs would be for potential recruits to know that their employer has their back. Many good employers already do that; but everybody needs to know that there is an expectation across the board that they will be protected.

To echo my cry at the start of Committee, we need to see how the Government expect this to operate. Here, I join forces with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We need to see what the draft regulations will look like and understand how the guidelines will interpret those regulations, so that your Lordships can be calmed and brought down from the current position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Was the noble Lord in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I was—I was sitting over there. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for speaking after him. I am sure he is welcome to speak after me if he disagrees with anything I have to say.

Obviously, I am a barrister, as are many of the contributors this evening. I practised in the employment tribunal and in human rights, and I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Joint Committee wrote to the Government in respect of the Bill, expressing concerns that were reflected by the Equality and Human Rights Commission: in particular, the potential for a conflict between the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10—as we have heard from various noble Lords—and the Article 8 right to a private and family life. That balancing exercise would be difficult for many employers to carry out.

The previous iterations of measures of this type included safeguards which have been omitted from the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out. In the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 there was a measure that sought to place a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, and which is now Section 40A of the Equality Act. During its passage through Parliament, that Bill included provisions which sought to introduce a duty on employers to prevent non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties. That was Clause 1 of that Bill, as brought from the House of Commons. That provision failed. It would have required all reasonable steps to have been taken to prevent harassment of the employee, solely because they did not seek to prevent the expression of an opinion in circumstances where the conduct constituting harassment involved a conversation in which an employee was not a participant.

In short, the Government have so far failed to answer the question from the Joint Committee about their reasoning for not including a similar carve-out for overheard opinions in the new duty in Clause 20. That was echoed in the original iteration of the Equality Act 2010, passed by the previous Labour Government, under Section 40(2) to (4). That would have required an employer to be liable for third-party harassment where they had failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable to prevent the harassment. However, to be liable, the employer would have had to have known that the employee had been harassed by a third party on at least two other occasions.

The Government have decided not to adopt the same three-strike policy taken in the equivalent provisions or in the earlier potential measure proposed in the 2023 Act. Instead, we have a rule-making power that is said to provide what steps are to be regarded as reasonable. To my mind, that sits uneasily with the mandatory terms set out in new subsection (1A). For those reasons, it should not be part of this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I asked the Minister to set out in detail how future regulations and these clauses will work in practice. I hope she is able to take that on board between Committee and Report.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will attempt to update your Lordships’ House on these issues at the time the noble Lord has suggested.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. That a Lucas can agree with a Cromwell demonstrates the healing power of time—it has taken only 400 years.

I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 101. I very much like the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because it would draw in what happened to my friend who went through the NDA process. I like Amendment 147 because, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, this should all be about producing better behaviour. You want an incidence of bad behaviour to lead to better behaviour, not to disguise and cover-up. That ought to be the fundamental drive of the process.

To add a couple of sidelights, I am told it is very much current employment practice to ask, when taking a reference from a previous employer, whether an NDA has been signed. If the answer is yes, you take that employment no further—so NDAs can be really damaging things to sign. It is therefore important that someone signing one has achieved the fully informed consent that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to.

Another aspect of obscurity is in tribunal awards. I note, for instance, that tribunal awards that really criticise what has gone on in a school remain private. They never get sent to Ofsted. We ought to be using that tribunal process and what it has discovered to produce change. Where these things cannot be made public, as is often the case, they ought none the less to get into the system in a way which encourages better behaviour in future.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said—I apologise if I have mispronounced her name—most if not all speakers have worked on these two important and connected issues for years. That has been reflected in the quality of the speeches we have heard. It also reflects the fact that progress has not been made. We need to make progress here.

The traditional approach from Ministers in situations such as this is to say, “These are important issues and we agree something needs to be done”, and then either “We need more consultation”, as my noble friend pointed out, or “This is not the right vehicle for these issues”. Those are the two excuses that will be given. The point on consultation has been well made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As for whether this is an appropriate vehicle, just look at this Bill. It is well over 300 pages and covers almost every aspect of employment. To say there is no room in this Bill—I am pre-empting what may or may not be said—would be wrong. There is more than enough space in this Bill to cover these issues.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, said, this was debated in the Commons and my honourable friend Layla Moran also had an amendment on this issue, but the Bill came here without it. The safe way of making sure that this can survive contact with a very large majority at the other end is for the Minister to take this on and put it in the Bill on the Government’s behalf. We have heard a lot of excellent speeches from the Minister’s own Benches, as well as across the Floor. Clearly, we can all agree on both these issues. The Minister should stand up and say “We will take this on, work with all interested parties and produce two amendments for both of these issues” to address what has clearly been going on for too long without being resolved in legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that this has been an extremely interesting debate. I thank all noble Baronesses—they are mostly Baronesses, with some noble Lords—for their contributions. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, deserves singling out for her very thought-provoking introduction to this group.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral pointed out in the previous group, every individual should feel safe and supported in their working environment. We recognise that NDAs have deviated from their original purpose, which was to protect trade secrets and intellectual property, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, pointed out. They have been abused in some circumstances, particularly where they are used to silence the victims of misconduct, which includes sexual harassment.

However, we must also acknowledge there are some cases where NDAs may serve a legitimate purpose. Some individuals may wish to resolve disputes privately, without the need for public disclosure. It is important, therefore, that we do not take a blanket approach but instead consider the context in which NDAs are being used. Many of the amendments acknowledge those simple facts. Having said that, we also need to consider the wider impact that NDAs might have—for example, in cases of medical malpractice. How can society and the medical profession learn from mistakes that are not made public?

It is clear that further scrutiny of NDAs is essential. The potential for abuse cannot be ignored, and we must ensure that any agreement entered into is fully informed and entirely voluntary. I will briefly speak as a non-lawyer, because I was particularly taken by Amendment 281, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I was rather shocked that such an NDA might exist even under the current regime. How can one sign a legally binding document that prevents the disclosure of a breach of the law? With apologies to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I say that only the legal profession could manage the perverse logic to invent such a thing.

As we have seen, particularly in the NHS, whistle-blowers are often the individuals who bravely speak out against wrongdoing, misconduct or unethical practices that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their courage in raising concerns is critical to maintaining trust and ensuring that the organisation remains committed to the highest ethical standards.

Both noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the NHS. I looked into this earlier, and in one high-profile case, the NHS spent over £4 million on legal action against a single whistleblower, including a £3.2 million compensation settlement. This sparked criticism from Professor Phil Banfield, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who argued that whistleblowing is often not welcomed by NHS management. He emphasised that NHS trusts and senior managers are more focused on protecting their reputations than addressing the concerns of whistleblowers or prioritising patient safety. That is clearly a very unacceptable state of affairs, and that example alone suggests that the Government should take these amendments extremely seriously.

I am sure that the Minister is about to stand up and offer to have further discussions on this subject. We will pre-empt her and volunteer to take part in those discussions. There is clearly much more work to be done in this area. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.

Trade Negotiations

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The economic prosperity agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States is a welcome but limited first step towards a comprehensive free trade agreement. As such, it signifies a positive move towards strengthening the special relationship with our most important ally. Indeed, it was particularly refreshing to see that the special relationship was explicitly acknowledged as one of the three core objectives. If the relationship is to endure, it must be based, as the document says, on fairness and reciprocity.

The United States is the UK’s largest bilateral trading partner outside the EU, with trade in goods and services valued at over £310 billion in 2023. Following the costs imposed by the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, this agreement brings some relief to sectors in our economy. For example, tariffs on UK vehicles have been reduced from 25% to 10%, benefiting up to 100,000 vehicles annually, as well as attendant auto parts. With UK car exports to the US worth £7 billion last year, this is an important development and will provide some relief. As Mike Hawes of the SMMT noted:

“The agreement announced today to reduce tariffs on UK car exports into the US is great news for the industry and consumers. The application of these tariffs was a severe and immediate threat to UK automotive exporters so this deal will provide much needed relief, allowing both the industry, and those that work in it, to approach the future more positively”.


We take Mr Hawes’s words at face value.

Similarly, the removal of tariffs on steel and aluminium, which had disrupted £400 million-worth of exports, is welcome news for our manufacturing sectors. But can the Minister say what exactly will the fact that the US is constructing a quota at most favoured nation rates for UK steel and aluminium products mean in practice, and particularly for the troubled British Steel?

In agriculture, US beef export quotas to the UK have increased from 1,000 to 13,000 metric tonnes, and negotiations are expected to continue on pork, poultry, rice and seafood—sectors where the United States has significant export interest and capacity. The US Agriculture Secretary has made it clear that these areas are priorities in their trade agenda. As further discussions progress, it will be important that they take into account the structure and needs of the UK’s own farming sector. Although there is broad support for open and competitive markets, we know that some British producers, particularly in poultry and seafood, have raised questions around production practices and the cost implications of different regulatory approaches.

The agreement acknowledges that both countries will

“comply with the importing country’s sanitary and phytosanitary … standards”.

Can the Minister therefore update the House on the nature of conversations held with domestic farming representatives so far, and on how the Government expect ongoing negotiations in this area to progress? Are there any major areas, apart from the frequently trailed chlorine-washed chicken, which may cause difficulties?

There is also very limited detail on digital trade, despite the Government’s ambition, set out in their AI opportunities plan, to position the UK as a global leader in emerging technologies. We would welcome clarity on how this agreement supports the goal in practice but acknowledge the commitment to negotiate an ambitious set of digital trade provisions. Can the Minister update the House on what discussions are under way regarding the future of the digital services tax?

Moreover, the agreement states that the UK will receive preferential treatment if new tariffs are not imposed as part of the US Section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals and other products. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what that means. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 provides the President with the ability to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce that the products under investigation are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.

So preferential treatment sounds positive, but we are awaiting clarity on what it means in practice. Will it mean lower tariffs, exemptions or more lenient treatment than other countries may receive? This is crucial for the UK’s pharmaceutical sector in particular, and we need transparency on the details of this arrangement. How will that impact our relationship with Ireland, which is home to a number of pharmaceutical companies with extensive operations here? On the subject of Ireland, can the Minister enlighten us as to exactly how Northern Ireland will be affected by this deal?

Note that security of supply chains in our exports is explicit in this agreement. China has expressed concern, suggesting that it could lead to the exclusion of Chinese products from British supply chains, and it may risk breaching international trade norms. In light of the Government’s stated intention to reset and stabilise relations with China, it is important to understand how these concerns are being managed. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that progress with one strategic partner does not inadvertently compromise engagement with another?

Furthermore, in the context of the UK’s economic and financial dialogue agreement with China, which includes co-operation on pharmaceuticals and financial services, how do the Government assess the potential impact of this new US deal on future negotiations in those same sectors? I appreciate that the Statement refers to other sectors, including copper, lumber, film production, semiconductors and critical minerals, but the themes of national security and defence run through this document, and obviously they represent the foundation of the special relationship. However, I note that no mention is made of the defence sector, so could the noble Baroness perhaps update us on discussions in that space?

The agreement states that:

“Both countries intend to build on an existing set of Mutual Recognition Agreements … by negotiating additional agreements … across certain industrial goods”.


How does that square with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is currently in the Commons? Superficially, this would suggest that the Government should have accepted some of our amendments in this area, but I say to the noble Baroness opposite that it is not too late.

While tariffs on UK exports have been reduced, the US baseline tariff of 10% remains higher than pre-President Trump levels. We should acknowledge the progress but also recognise that this still represents a return to a less favourable environment for UK exports. What this country needs is a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States to alleviate these challenges to our businesses.

It would be remiss at this point not to mention that small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our economy, need clarity on how they will benefit from this agreement. Tina McKenzie from the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out that practical measures to boost SME access to the US market remain unclear.

In conclusion, while this agreement represents important progress, it is clear that much remains to be done. The Government must now focus on expanding the deal to include services, investment and small business support, ensuring all sectors are given a fair chance to thrive. I have one last question, which has been asked and evaded every day this week. Will Parliament have a say?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as a vice-chair of the All-Party Motor Group, I must say that this agreement was good news for the UK car industry or, perhaps more importantly, it was less bad news—coming in where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, left off. In truth, manufacturers will still see a rise from pre-Trump tariffs of 2.5% to post-Trump ones of 10%, but that is much more manageable than the 27.5% that was being faced and jobs will be saved, which is good news. As a key shareholder in the industry, I am sure the Government will welcome the moves on steel as well.

But on those and on the wider perspective, there is much detail still to resolve and I think it would be helpful if the Minister could set out a timetable for when businesses will start to know the detail of what this agreement will actually deliver. To date, the Government have not published the documents we need, such as impact assessments on key British industry. That leaves us in the dark at the moment as to what Ministers have really given up in exchange for these lower tariffs.

I was a little intrigued by the ethanol concession. Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds said in the Commons:

“On ethanol, we … are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/25; col. 35.]


This seems a little late. Some weeks ago, when I met staffers of senior senators and asked them what their number one red line was, the most popular response was “Ethanol”. If I knew six weeks ago, I assume the Government knew a long time before that, which means there was plenty of time to work through the implications on domestic suppliers. Yet it seems only now is that process under way. How can negotiators know the value of what they are conceding without having done the work that seems now to be under way?

The deal also allows more American beef into the UK market. The Secretary of State was at pains to say that imports would not compromise our standards, so can the Minister confirm that this is being achieved by uprating the tariff rate quota for so-called “high-quality” beef? To put this into context, can the Minister share the Government’s analysis of how much high-quality beef the US produces per annum and what is the annual expected level of imports of that beef into the United Kingdom? Finally on this, can she set out in detail what border inspection regime will be planned to make sure that this indeed meets the standard of high-quality beef?

Given the urgent need for phytosanitary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what conversations the Government have had with their EU counterparts about this decision to allow US beef into the United Kingdom?

Overall, how certain is any of this? For example, Trump 1 signed a full trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the USMCA, in 2018 and then Trump 2 threw this self-same deal out in his first week of this presidency. This UK-US agreement may have been endorsed by President Trump this month, but what confidence do the Government have that new demands will not be made next month, or the month after that—or at Christmas? Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the best long-term defence is to build our trading relationships with long-standing partners which do not change their views all the time, including the European Union and dependable allies such as Canada? Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House the Government’s analysis of how this US deal impacts the furthering of relationships with those reliable potential partners?

A further unanswered question, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, surrounds our position with China. The deal with the US includes strict security requirements, particularly around the British steel and pharmaceutical industries. These requirements have already caused China to complain that this could be used to squeeze Chinese products out of British supply chains. How will the Government manage their relationship with China when President Xi knows that Trump is leaning on us in every way with our relationships? What is the Government’s message to China as a result of this deal?

The level of uncertainty over the details in this agreement begs many questions, but again, it seems the Government will duck proper scrutiny. If this was a full-blown trade agreement, we would expect it to be put before your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member. But so far, we have been starved of the involvement of the Grimstone agreement and we have not really been taken in on this. Can the Minister confirm whether the International Agreements Committee will scrutinise this agreement?

Even if we did make a report, the key to a debate in the Commons is still held by the Government. The shortcomings of our scrutiny process of trade deals are laid bare. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that this agreement will have a full Commons debate? If the Government do not follow this course, that will indicate that this agreement is not a treaty that needs to be fully ratified and lodged with the WTO. If it is not a fully ratified treaty, under the WTO most favoured nation rules the UK will have to offer similar tariff-free entry to all other countries, not just the United States. Unless Keir Starmer wants to join Donald Trump in breaking a fundamental international agreement that supports world trade, this should be treated as a trade deal and lodged with the WTO. That requires a full CRaG process in your Lordships’ House.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their remarks and the questions they have asked today. Of course, we recognise the strong level of interest in this House in this historic trade deal that we have secured with the United States. To ensure that those interested can see for themselves precisely what has been agreed, the general terms of the deal have now been published on GOV.UK and a copy has been placed in the Library.

As the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are living in a new world now, one

“less governed by established rules and more by deals and alliances”.

Our vision is to leverage our relationships with other powerhouse economies to make the UK a global hub for trade and investment. This is why last Thursday we reached an agreement on the basis of an economic prosperity deal with the United States. But I say in answer to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that this is a deal; it is not a full-blown treaty. We need to be absolutely clear about that.

Our trading relationship with the US, worth £315 billion per year, is now set to grow. We already have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and between us we employ about 2.5 million people across both countries. That is why the deal is so important. Saving thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs that are vital for our economy is essential, protecting jobs in the automotive, steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals and aerospace sectors, which employ over 320,000 people across the UK. In addition, an estimated 260,000 jobs are supported across the economy by the auto industry alone.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, said that the deal on the automotive sector brought welcome relief. I agree with that. For the car industry, we have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles which reduced tariffs from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an arrangement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role the sector plays in our economy. We have already seen Jaguar Land Rover come out in support of the deal. It is very positive news for iconic British manufacturers such as McLaren and Morgan.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the future of the steel sector. For steel and aluminium, the deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs to an average of 0.6% for steel, including derivatives, and 2.7% for aluminium, including derivatives. This is a major victory for steelmaking in the UK. It reassures us that steelmaking is alive and well in this country, thanks to the action that this Government are taking, providing a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about agriculture. For UK beef farmers we have delivered unprecedented market access. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef, through an exclusive UK quota, to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market. The NFU has long campaigned for this, and this Government have delivered. I want to be crystal clear: agriculture imports to the UK will still have to meet our high-quality food and animal welfare standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox—or maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—asked whether we were engaging with the farming community. I confirm that colleagues in Defra regularly engage with the farming organisations, and indeed with the NFU, on this issue of market access.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about statistics to do with beef. I have to say that I do not have those to hand, but obviously I am happy to write with the detail of those proposals.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the digital services tax. I reassure him that there are no changes to that tax in the agreement.

The noble Lord also asked about the impact on the pharmaceutical sector. For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, the deal provides assurances that we will receive significant preferential access in the case of any new US tariffs in future, something that only the UK has so far secured. The pharmaceutical manufacturing sector alone contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, so that is a welcome move.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about Northern Ireland. I confirm that we have closely considered the impact of this agreement on Northern Ireland. First, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exports can access the US markets under this deal on the same basis as those from the rest of the UK. Secondly, the deal does not affect how imports in Northern Ireland operate, and Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under the deal can avoid unnecessary duties within the established Windsor Framework schemes, such as the UK internal market scheme. As we have said all along, we continue to act in the best interests of all UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lords asked whether Parliament will have a say. I make it clear that the general terms document is not a treaty and will not be subject to a vote in Parliament. We will implement the terms of the existing deal in accordance with the appropriate domestic processes. To be clear, we are not seeking any change in the process of ratification of any duty. Members of this House will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed and presented to the House.

If I have missed out any of their points, I will of course write to noble Lords. To summarise, the deal shows what can be achieved through pragmatism, diplomacy and acting in the national interest. It shows the UK to be a key and influential player on the world stage, and one that can get deals done. We are sending a message to the world that Britain remains open for business, we will protect jobs and investment, we will boost and defend our industries, and we will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I will need to check what is already set out in writing. There is a good deal more work to do on the background information that will need to be set out. I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Can the Minister share that response with Front Benches as well, please?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

All right; thank you.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a very interesting debate. I will try to reflect on what I have heard as I speak; that will make my job quite difficult and probably make my speech completely incoherent, but I will do my best.

We closed last week with a couple of de-grouped Conservative amendments. I promised to reserve what I would say on statutory sick pay for this group, which means that I am unlikely to speak on the next group. Last week the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, spoke firmly against the Government’s proposed changes. I have seen evidence of businesses arguing strongly either for the status quo or for a two-day threshold.

I am not a behavioural scientist, but I can read a room politically. The party that is sitting on a huge majority in the Commons has made it very clear where it stands on this issue, and that has been reasserted by some of the even stronger comments we have heard from the Benches opposite. Businesses have drawn the same conclusion. Many of those I talk to are seeking ways to ameliorate this, rather than eliminate it, which is probably unlikely.

I was interested to hear the noble Lords from the Conservative Front Bench speak to Amendments 71A and 71B. Their version of amelioration appears to be to reduce the amount of SSP, or at least severely limit it. We heard a different story from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady O’Grady, who set out why SSP is important and why the rate is meaningful. To contextualise poverty, we are talking about the poorest people who are working people but still extremely poor. It is difficult to overestimate the generosity of this scheme, but that is what I have heard from several on the Conservative Benches. This is a very modest offer. With her statistics, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set it out very clearly, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

Before I talk to my own Amendment 74 and Amendment 73, I will deal with the others. In Amendment 75, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, call for a reviewer to report within two years. I mentioned there is a subsequent group which also has impact assessment amendments in it. I am not really sure why we are debating them separately. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am going to mention 74A to 74C, which have been shunted into a separate group. Taken together, there is a slightly curious mismatch of timings: Amendment 75 is after two years, 74B and 74C after six months and 75A after a year. I agree that there do need to be impact assessments following whatever your Lordships decide, perhaps on a more systematic calendar than the ones suggested.

I am interested in the pre-emptive impact assessment. For the benefit of your Lordships’ Committee, it would be good to hear the Minister spell out the detail of the impact assessment of business on the current proposed measures. If, as the Minister says, the costs will be relatively modest, the costs of Amendment 73 or 74 would also be relatively modest, which takes me to the point in question.

As we have heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she and I have come up with very similar suggestions in terms of amelioration, which is what I was talking about earlier. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I slightly prefer the version from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but that is not the point—this is not a competition. We would like to sit down with the Government and thrash through a way whereby a rebate scheme can be reintroduced. This seems to be the sensible approach. We care deeply about SMEs—they drive a huge part of our economy. This is a way of making sure that they do not get disadvantaged as employees get what they deserve as SSP. That is what I am asking for from these Benches. Very sensibly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Noakes, and others supported it. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive noise about that and we can sit down and have that conversation.

Today, we have heard that SSP is absolutely vital for a section of society who are already massively disadvantaged. We should not be drawing lines and pushing them further down. We should be finding ways of making sure that they are not disadvantaged even more and, at the same, we should find ways of making sure that our SME sector is not also disadvantaged.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a really good debate on these issues, and I hope that I can do justice to all the questions and points that have been raised.

I begin with Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, on independent reviews into the effects of SSP reforms on small and medium enterprises. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published on 21 November 2024 and can be found on GOV.UK. This considered the likely direct business impact of the SSP changes, including on small and medium enterprises. In the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that delivering these measures will cost businesses a modest £15 extra per employee. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of the SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

I draw attention to the Keep Britain Working review. We asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead this independent review, which will consider recommendations to support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces, support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence and retain more disabled people and people with health conditions.

While I am speaking about the variety of illnesses that people on sick leave incur, let me address the issue of mental health absences, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the Bill. The Bill is intended to improve the experience of employees at work, so measures such as flexible working, guaranteed hours and protection from harassment could—we believe will—reduce stress at work, potentially leading to fewer incidents of burn-out and better employee mental health, and therefore fewer related absences. For us, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor.

Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a rebate scheme to reimburse SMEs for the cost of SSP for the first four days, although I think she clarified that she meant three. I thank her for her interest in SSP, and of course I appreciate her extensive knowledge and experience in this area, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As previously mentioned, regarding waiting days, the changes we are making to SSP will cost businesses around an additional £15 per employee, a relatively modest amount in comparison with the benefits of reduced presenteeism and the positive impact that this will have on our lowest paid members of society. As the noble Baroness may recall, we previously delivered SSP rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. This was abolished due to SMEs underusing it, and feedback that the administrative burden was complex and time consuming. So I suggest that a rebate scheme that covered only the first three days of sickness and absence would also be quite administratively burdensome, both for businesses to claim and for the Government to process.

Previous SSP rebate schemes also did not encourage employers to support their employees. We know that employers having responsibility for paying sick leave helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able.

Sticking with the theme of rebate schemes, Amendment 74, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would introduce an SME rebate scheme for the whole duration of sickness absence. I reiterate the points I made earlier about the limited cost to business as a result of SSP changes and the experience of previous rebate schemes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that we have moved a long way from the Beveridge system of social insurance. The costs and the mechanisms are very different now.

A rebate for the full cost of SSP could cost the Government up to £900 million a year. I do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time. We will be considering the findings of the aforementioned Keep Britain Working review, which is expected to produce a final report with recommendations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, challenged me to keep talking about this, and of course I am very happy to do so.

Amendments 71A and 71B were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As they may be aware, the Government consulted on what the rate of SSP should be for those who currently earn below the lower earnings limit. There was no clear consensus from stakeholders on the percentage. The Government believe that the 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to the lowest paid employees when they need to take time off work to recover from illness and limiting the cost to business. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, if we are not careful, we will be penalising the very poorest in our society.

Crucially, the total amount saved by business, if the rate were set at 60% compared to 80%, would be around £10 million to £30 million per year. That is about a £1 difference per employee per year, or less than 0.01% of total spending on wages annually by businesses. On the noble Lord’s Amendment 71A, which would set the rate at 60% for the first three days of a period of incapacity for work, the amounts potentially saved by business become even smaller, with the difference in cost being a matter of pennies. Given the minimal savings for businesses, the complexity for employers in administrating different rates is difficult to justify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It would be very useful if she could share it with the other Front Benches as well.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. We have had a very important debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, because we have not really spent enough time worrying about the people who are just unable to cope. Working conditions have changed so much. Stress-related sick leave is a huge issue, as is what the noble Baroness referred to as “losing the habit of work”. These are issues that we have to think about very carefully.

There is an important and complex issue of so-called presenteeism, which deserves greater attention in our discussions about workplace health and productivity. I came across some research—perhaps the noble Baroness had this in mind—carried out by Robertson Cooper: its 2023 data, drawn from over 3,000 UK respondents, revealed that almost two-thirds, 60%, of employees reported working while they were unwell, so-called presenteeism, in the last three months. That is an important issue, which has to be taken into account in any impact assessment.

The distinction is essential because not all forms of working while unwell are inherently harmful. Some, such as pragmatic or therapeutic presence, can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. The challenge lies in identifying when presenteeism becomes detrimental and ensuring that workplace policy, including statutory sick pay reform, supports businesses in managing that balance effectively.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the finding of the Regulatory Policy Committee. We just need to be aware of the severe criticism that was meted out about a Bill that is making such profound changes while in the gloom of uncertainty, because no one can be actually sure what effect these changes are going to have.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) improve the fairness and security of employment;(b) facilitate cooperative arrangements between employers and workers, including the protection of workers’ rights and wellbeing;(c) make provisions about pay and conditions in certain sectors; (d) facilitate constructive workplace relations between employers and workers representatives, including trade unions;(e) make provisions about the enforcement of labour market legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause at the beginning of the Bill to set out its overarching purpose and provides a framework for understanding the aims of the legislation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 283 and 327.

In February 2023, Keir Starmer launched Labour’s five missions. The first is to get the UK’s economic growth to the highest sustained level in the G7 by the end of Labour’s first term. I need hardly remind your Lordships that it is with that mission, and the four others, that the Labour Party went on to win the general election with a majority. Since then, the Government have unwisely raised employers’ NICs and introduced this Bill. It is through those lenses that business views the Government’s attitude towards it.

Amendment 1 is an attempt to set this legislation in context, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for also signing it. It was quite difficult to come up with wording that the PBO would let past its eagle eyes, but I am sure that the Minister will not find much of this objectionable. For example, proposed new paragraph (a) sets out the need for “fairness and security” as drivers for the Bill; I am sure the Minister will agree with that. Proposed new paragraph (c) is well represented in this Bill, as large parts of it set out new rules around trade unions.

However, I will spend some time discussing proposed new paragraphs (b) and (d). I cannot read this Bill without the feeling that it envisions just two states of employment—happy workers represented by unions and abject employees working in non-unionised concerns—but, of course, that is not true. Even in the very welcome conversations with the Minister, there seems to have been little recognition that the vast majority of people in this country are in employment where the facilitation of co-operation agreements between employers and workers is not automatically dependent on their union status. Let us remind ourselves that, for most people, those co-operative arrangements work pretty well, and that the proportion of UK employees who are trade union members is around 22% in this country. Constructive workplace relations can be forged in many ways other than via direct representation of employees by their unions.

When the Minister generously gave her time to meet with me on this Bill, she explained that discussions between government, employers’ organisations and the unions had been constructive and amicable. I am sure they were, but those selfsame employers’ organisations have also raised serious alarm over this Bill. The British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the IoD, the FSB and Make UK all sent a joint letter, which I am sure all noble Lords have received and read. The B5, as it is known, is not alone: all manner of industries—including hospitality, food and drink, and employment agencies—have raised serious concerns about the Bill. The telling phrase in the B5 letter is:

“For us the challenge has never been what the government wants to achieve, but the unintended consequences of how they implement it. Unfortunately, the Bill locks in several irreversible policy directions that will force business to make difficult choices between jobs, investment and growth”.


The Minister may well say that she is getting equally forceful lobbying from the unions. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, will provide ample evidence of that with his later amendments. She may say that the Government are pitching this Bill in the middle of these respective positions—and she may claim, on that basis, that the Bill is in the right place. However, Governments are elected not to work out the average position of policy but to make the right decisions. I ask the Minister to take on board the concerns of business and, importantly, to recognise that there are issues in this Bill, which, if not addressed, will impede the Government’s chances of delivering their mission of economic growth.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the UK economy, accounting for a huge proportion of the business population and employing approximately 16.7 million people—around 61% of private sector employment, according to data from the Federation of Small Businesses. In that regard, the Minister should recognise that the impact of many of the measures in the Bill will disproportionately affect small and medium-sized businesses. These smaller businesses have neither the administrative horsepower nor the reservoir of human energy required to meet the collection of tasks that the Bill will introduce. Given their economic footprint and vital role in local communities, SMEs must be central to the purpose of the Employment Rights Bill. Placing SMEs at the heart of the Bill’s purpose offers an opportunity to foster better employment relations while supporting enterprise, resilience and long-term growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, may be relatively new to this House, but she is not wrong that purpose amendments are often the source of great opprobrium across your Lordships’ House—and I am afraid I am something of a serial offender in that regard. But the aim of this amendment has certainly partially been achieved, in that I think we have started the process of flushing out some of the issues.

I have a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and I think she gave a very spirited speech, but I think that she gave a spirited speech to the speeches that came after hers and not to mine. If she reads, in tomorrow’s publications, the words of what I said, I think she will find that at no point did I speak against the Bill. I was seeking through this process to achieve two things from the Benches opposite. First was a recognition that there is much work to be done to bring employers into this process, and I did not hear that empathy from the Benches opposite or from the Minister. The second point on which I was seeking recognition is that a lot of this legislation is arriving late. The Minister said she would give this House an adequate time to consider it; it is already too late for it to be adequate time, because this stuff is arriving well past due date. We are not getting adequate time on the programme that we are currently getting, and there needs to be a recognition of that. If the Government want to reach across the House and support all the good things in the Bill, then they have to have some empathy about the things that are wrong with it and with the process of the delivery. That was my main purpose in this purpose amendment, and it has not achieved that purpose to date. I hope that, going forward, we can get some recognition of what is required.

On Amendments 283 and 327, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who I think got my point: we need an operator’s manual for the Bill. The Minister absolutely cemented the reason why we need one, because she then went on a journey across several different bits of legislation and all sorts of codes and practices and stuff. If I am sitting in the HR department of one person in a business of 12 people, I need a guidebook that takes me to the right guides and the right legislation. The information may already exist, but I do not need to go on a website trawl to find it; I need a signpost that takes me to the places that I need to know to operate this legislation when it becomes an Act. That is what Amendment 283 is seeking to achieve. If this stuff already exists, then it will not hold up the process; it is merely a question of bringing it together and saying, “You get this bit there and that bit there”. The more that can be done within a code of practice to deal with that, the easier it will be for businesses to comply, and the easier it will be to avoid a proliferation of tribunals, which I am sure no one in this House is seeking to achieve. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Minister, if not to accept this amendment, at least to commit in Committee to including a clear definition of low-hours contracts on Report. If the low-hours threshold is set at the right level, the Bill will indeed succeed in addressing potentially exploitative practices—which, as noble Lords on the other side of the Committee have rightly pointed out, good employers want to be addressed as much as they do. The Bill can do so without dismantling the legitimate employment practices that work—for our economy, for our service industries, and, most importantly, for millions of working people across the UK. In that spirit, I commend Amendment 8 to your Lordships.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is with some trepidation but some pleasure that I follow that speech. I rise to speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name, and to offer support to Amendments 7 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Goddard, although he will speak to those on his own account.

Speaking on the previous group, I said that there should be a change in the polarity of the guaranteed hours offer from an obligation to offer to a more streamlined right to request. We have heard in the previous two speeches that the aim is for this offer to be made to people who want it rather than there being an obligation to make it to everybody, when we know for a fact that a large number of people who will get the offer will not want to take it up. It is unnecessary activity when there is plenty to do in business. It is a very simple principle, and I genuinely do not think it subverts the intention of the Bill, in the same way as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was trying not to subvert the purpose of the Bill but to help it succeed while helping business at the same time. In a sense, that reflects the point I made before withdrawing Amendment 1. It is really asking the Government to have some understanding of how these things will be delivered on the ground, in the workplace. That is why the previous speech was so helpfully revealing.

I think that a large part of the early part of this Bill is designed to deal, in essence, with a number of employers who the Government have in the back of their mind as not doing the right thing and not achieving what we would all like to achieve. I understand that. Unfortunately, it is dragging the whole business programme, from microbusinesses right up to huge businesses, into a series of practices to crack those particular nuts. Later in Committee, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will introduce Amendment 318, which targets the sort of employer who I think the Government have in their mind as bad or exploitative. It would create, in essence, a new class of employee, the dependent contractor, which is in fact in many cases what we are starting to look at. It would sharpen the regulatory focus, particularly on some elements of gig economy employers, but avoid the heavy-handed approach that we are in danger of using with this Bill.

Amendment 4, and I think there are a couple of others that are very similar, would simply reverse that polarity to: if employees ask for it, the employer is obliged to deliver it. Some obligation on employers occasionally to remind their employees that they are entitled to ask for this would help the process.

As for the rest of the group, I will listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, when he comes to his amendments. I think much of this will be addressed also when we get to the issue of freelancers and to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, so I imagine this is not the last time that we will have some elements of this discussion, but some sign from the Government Front Bench that they understand that something should and could be addressed in this area would be a good starting point.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 3, 6 and 9 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I also support Amendment 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, but for different reasons. I will not speak on that, but I like the idea of a low-hours contract. I will speak about zero-hours contracts, because I do not believe they are getting a fair look in.

These amendments would give workers the right to request, rather than putting an obligation on employers to guarantee hours. I think they are worth while and worth supporting. In the labour market this year, there are 33.9 million people employed. Of them, 1.3 million are on zero-hours contracts. There has been an increase since 2000 of 805,000 people on this type of employment contract. This is 3.1% of employment in the UK. Most are young people in the 16 to 24 age group. This is a popular way of working; the figures speak to that. There has been far more significant an increase in this type of contract than in the overall type of working arrangements chosen by employees and their employers.

Much of the popularity lies in the flexibility on both sides. The evidence is that the majority of people on zero hours, 60%, do not want more hours, although some, 16%, do. Amendments that would allow an employee to request guaranteed hours as distinct from obliging the employer to guarantee certain hours seem more in tune with people’s wishes. Of those on zero-hours contracts, around 1 million are young people. However, 946,000 16 to 24 year-olds are not in employment, education or training; that is around 50%. Yes, people on these contracts may work fewer hours than other workers—I gather the average is around 21.8 hours a week compared with 36.5 hours for all people in employment—but is it not better that there are jobs which people want and can get, particularly young people who may not yet be in the labour market or who may have been thrown out of the labour market or left it for one of the many reasons we hear about it? I am afraid that it seems from the Government’s approach that they do not think so.

This Bill and Clause 1 must be seen in the overall context of the party opposite’s approach to labour market and economy reform. Not only is the NIC tax hike on the productive sector along with the decrease in the NIC threshold taking £24 billion out, affecting 800,000 businesses and their ability to employ people and offer opportunity to the 16 to 24 age group, but other costs have been piled high, one on top of the other, since the party opposite came to power. Of those employed in December 2024, 27.8 million were in the private sector and 6.14 million in the public sector. If employers are obliged to move to guaranteed hours, that will most likely serve to cut the number of people productively employed under these arrangements, with a corresponding decrease in output and growth. Surely these amendments speak for themselves, and a Government whose priority is to increase economic growth should accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group but the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has painted a horrific picture of the impact of zero hours on some workers. For some people I know who have been on the receiving end of zero-hours contracts, sometimes it has been even worse. I know of people who have been required to turn up at work at 4 am for a shift and been sent home again at 5 am, so I know how bad this is. However, my noble friend Lady Verma makes a strong argument as to why just removing all the measures, which would happen by virtue of the Bill, would also have a detrimental effect.

So far, I have not heard from those on the other side a response to the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, which is that we have to find a way forward on this matter that addresses the employment rights issue, which the Minister has said is the purpose of this legislation, but also allows business to deliver the kind of economic growth that the Government are also saying is the purpose of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is not in his place at the moment, but we have to take heed of the point that he made in the debate on the first group: we should not be in a situation where this is a stand-off. Hopefully, through some responsiveness and empathy from the Minister, we will find ourselves in a position where the Bill will not have a detrimental effect on business but will address the worst work practices, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Barber.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think I am allowed to come back in Committee. I want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, because I probably did not articulate terribly well what I was proposing. I certainly was articulating a right to request, but I was also assuming there would be an obligation to meet that request, given certain thresholds that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was talking about. It would not be an option for the employer as long as the request was within those thresholds. I suspect that is not what the noble Baroness thought I was proposing, and I just wanted to set the record straight.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 8. I commend my noble friend Lord Wolfson on his excellent speech, bringing the reality of employing so many people into the heart of this debate, along with the constraints and the concerns being raised, while still recognising that I understand why so many people consider casual work and zero-hour contracts to be particularly poor when people are trying to have certainty of employment over some time. I also support Amendments 7, 12 and 13—in essence, any amendment that refers to specifying the reference period in the Bill.

I say that because, when thinking of 26 weeks, I think in particular of the hospitality industry in coastal areas. There are a number of employers around the country who literally shut down their businesses, or move to a much lower level of needing people, at certain times of the year, and then, in the summer, are desperately trying to find people. We need to give flexibility. The 12 weeks simply does not recognise that, as has been referred to. It is perfectly usual for people to work at different points throughout the year, potentially in on annualised-hours contract, but varying the number of hours expected to match the demand of customers requiring a particular service. I fear that the 12 weeks does not address that sort of business.

Across the country, 2 million people work in the hospitality industry. It is one of our biggest industries, and for many families it is key to how they support their household income. For the flexibility that employers want, and—thinking of how many people lose their childcare at certain times of the year—for employees to have flexibility around their hours worked, bringing in casual staff is a key element in how employers keep those businesses going.

There is another element that needs thinking through. While I appreciate that the Government seek to reduce the number of agency and bank workers in the NHS, let us not get away from the fact that, unfortunately, many NHS trusts are actually terrible employers. A lot of people leave or reduce their permanent contracts because they simply cannot get the flexibility that they need working in the NHS. That could be for caring reasons, for all sorts of people—it does not matter whether it is men or women; people provide care to their families and to their friends. I am concerned, and I intend to discuss further with NHS Professionals how this will impact on the NHS fulfilling its expectations for people right across the country. I appreciate that it is not simply NHS Professionals; many individual trusts have their own bank. That is intended to provide flexibility based on need, and recognises that simply not everybody can work the NHS shifts expected.

Thinking of the 26 weeks or the 12 weeks, I am also concerned that, at the other end of the Corridor, 650 Members of Parliament are all individual employers. They have to sign contracts, which are provided, but when people are ill or go on maternity leave, MPs can and do take people on through certain term contracts. I am concerned that there will be unintended consequences for the provision of services. As a real example, if you had to guarantee hours beyond when the employee came back, you could end up in a situation that you simply could not manage.

It is for those reasons that we need to think very carefully about the reference period when we are considering the different employment situations that small employers find themselves in, as well as the large sectors, such as hospitality and retail, which have already been discussed.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

3rd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Even more briefly, I hope, I thank both Front Benches for facilitating an open and very clear debate, which proceeded in the right spirit. I associate myself with the Minister’s list of people to thank. I reiterate what I said at the beginning to the House authorities and everybody across the House. Today has been incredibly smooth and like a normal working day, which is very much to everyone’s credit. We should all be very grateful. Finally, I thank Humphrey Amos in our Whips’ office, who has kept us all in line.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment tabled in my name. I am conscious of the extraordinary powers that are being granted to the Secretary of State today.

I will briefly speak in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. It is my understanding, having been in government, that anything in the name of the Secretary of State can be automatically delegated to a civil servant, but it cannot go beyond that. As we have seen in a number of cases, civil servants already have some powers to gain entry, but only in relation to specific Acts of Parliament—so perhaps this amendment would give a wide-ranging element.

This is clearly not an occasion to use the Civil Contingencies Act, but something that surprises me about this Bill is that the powers being given to the Government and the Secretary of State today are extraordinary and go way beyond what happened with the Coronavirus Act 2020. The inspiration for my amendment comes from the Bill that was presented to Parliament then. It set out that, to have scrutiny, a report would be put forward by the Secretary of State—over several periods, not just a year—and that there would be a debate on that report. Having a report matters because it would bring together how the powers have been used: have they been used in the way that both Houses anticipated? It may even extend to the provision of how the finances would be distributed for the regulations we have yet to see.

Overall, it is important that, when we give these powers for just one industry—I guess that if we were to name the company it would end up being a hybrid Bill, so that has been deliberately avoided to make sure that it covers the entire steel industry—we should be able to have regular discussions, not simply because this is the steel industry but due to the scale of the powers being granted. To that end, that is why I have literally lifted, with a bit of adjusting, what happened in the Coronavirus Act. Frankly, for something that took over our country in such an unprecedented way, I hope that the Government would concede to think carefully about how they will report back to this House and how this House can be involved.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Brinton.

The whole House heard my contribution during the take-note debate, and I am grateful for the subsequent supportive comments that noble Lords made to me afterwards. Amendment 5 reflects that contribution. As noble Lords can see, it calls for a debate in Parliament after six months. That would be a substantive debate on which the House could vote if it so decided.

The whole House also heard me pledge to work constructively with the Government to get a solution to the question of giving Parliament an opportunity to debate a possible continuation or cessation of these emergency powers. I hope that the constructive discussions we have had over the past hour or so will bear fruit and that the Minister will be able to accept the spirit, if not the letter, of Amendment 5 from her Dispatch Box. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we too have, in a sense, lifted experience from Covid, but—with all due respect to her—we believe that Amendment 5 offers more flexibility to the Government while also giving the oversight that Parliament needs at a level that is not overbearing.

These are emergency powers and periodic debate is essential. Equally, the Minister called for sufficient flexibility for the power to be either kept or discarded. We should recognise that there will be times when this may need to be turned on and turned off, and the process I propose would allow that happen. Our amendment provides for that flexibility while also somewhat enhancing parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships that she agrees with us.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will make a brief supplementary point to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I cannot support a sunset clause of the sort proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. That would cause these provisions to cease altogether after 12 months, and I think these provisions are necessary—albeit very draconian, as has been accepted.

I would have gone for a different option that combines a sunset provision with a debate, of the sort that we used to have with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts, year after year, from 1989. We would have a clause providing for the expiry of the provisions after a certain period—be it six or 12 months—subject to renewal by an order subject to affirmative resolution. That would mean there would then be a debate in each House and approval would be required for the provisions to continue. We would have a debate but would also have the provision for expiry if the Houses voted for that. That is not here, but I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, thinks that his amendment could procure a vote, because that is the key to this, with these powers being so draconian.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Fox]

5: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause—
“Debate on provisions of this ActWithin six months of this Act coming into force, a Minister of the Crown must, in both Houses of Parliament, table a motion for debate on the continuing necessity of the provisions contained in this Act.”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I would just like to say a few words. I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his kind words—which I had not expected—but, mostly, I thank the Government Front Bench, in particular the Chief Whip, for the constructive discussions that we have had, which enabled the Minister to say the things that we hoped she would say. The point is that we understand the need for flexibility, but we also understand the need for parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that, between us, we have got to that point, thanks to the flexibility and the scrutiny that we have had over the past few hours.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Steel Industry

Lord Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it has been an unanticipated pleasure to have a debate with noble Lords today. Many of us following the British Steel saga expected to find ourselves debating the issues in your Lordships’ House at some point, but I do not think we expected to debate them today. I will not comment on how on earth this scramble happened, but, like the Chief Whip and others, I thank the House authorities, Black Rod and her team, and all those across the House who made this debate possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, with his characteristic hubris, made remarkable accusations—remarkable because the decline of the steel industry has been largely under the auspices of his party. Years of neglect and drift have happened on its watch and that has led to the crisis that we now see today. I do not think that the Government should take any lessons from that party, and I do not think that they will.

Having seen the Bill for the first time just a few hours ago—I thank the Minister for her characteristically clear explanation and her letter—I think it is a Bill that gives the Government of the day very strong powers. It is a shame that we should be rushing it through, but we on these Benches understand why the reason for haste is there. Time is now of the essence. The future of the UK’s last blast furnaces at Scunthorpe steelworks hangs in the balance. Closure would bring British virgin steel production to an end, as noble Lords have set out.

As we have heard and read, Scunthorpe’s Chinese owner, Jingye, has turned down offers of help and declared the Lincolnshire plant unviable. President Trump’s tariffs seem to have been the final straw that exposed the remaining elements of the British steel industry to a harsh global reality. Perhaps those in the past who have spoken volubly and favourably on the merits of Trump II would now like to reflect on a global trading environment with higher tariffs than in living memory, and that is after the 90-day suspension.

Owning and running a steel business should be a long-term enterprise; it should be measured in decades, not months. Scunthorpe’s owners since 1988 include the British-Dutch Corus partnership, the Indian Tata Steel conglomerate, then Greybull Capital and finally Jingye. For the latter, Scunthorpe has been a bit-part player in a global multinational with strong Chinese Government links, and Jingye seems happy to walk away from the Government’s £500 million offer to keep Scunthorpe open. But steel is not a bit-part player in our industrial economy; if Britain is to have a green and long-term industrial strategy, and if it is to have a defence industrial strategy, it needs steel.

Finally, after years of successive Governments producing piecemeal temporary fixes, we reach the crux. It is now or never, and nationalisation seems to be the only route to some sort of salvation. Steel has been here before, as my noble friend pointed out, but, of late, nationalisation has been anathema. Perhaps we should not be so squeamish. As my noble friend pointed out, the French, Irish, Danish and Norwegian Governments own our wind farms; the Dutch state runs our trains; and the Chinese Government, through PetroChina, own part of Grangemouth, the UK’s oldest oil refinery. No matter what the Minister had to say, this Bill looks like a paving Bill for nationalisation.

Given the sweeping powers within the Bill, will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what additional powers the Government think they need to grant themselves full ownership of this industry? Do they actually need any more powers than are currently within the Bill? Given that this is one part of the UK’s remaining steel industry, how does Port Talbot fit into the picture?

Clause 7 speaks to compensation. There is government-backed finance in this. Can the Minister assure us that the measures taken today will not inadvertently increase the value of this business and therefore increase the necessary compensation that may be forthcoming from this Government? Finally, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what will happen to the other Jingye steel businesses in the United Kingdom?

We are still waiting for the Government’s so-called modern industrial strategy, but now, with steel in the balance and automotive on the edge, it is time for the Government to get it out there and start working with industry to deliver it. Within that strategy, the future of our steel industry must have a place. We are clear that steel should be classified as a national strategic asset and be backed by a comprehensive plan to ensure that more British steel is used in vital infrastructure projects, from defence to renewable energy. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that just because we abandoned aluminium, why should we abandon steel?

Within the industrial and defence strategies, the Government need to determine what sort of steel we need, and need to produce locally, in order to deliver on our key strategic and security objectives. That requires a real analysis of whether electric arc manufacture can produce the sorts of steel that we need. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that this analysis is a priority and will be published before any irrevocable steps are taken on the blast furnace?

That begs the question, of course, on environmental impact and energy. Whatever the future looks like, it must still be executed within a long-term carbon strategy. We do not support going back on our environmental objectives, but I suggest that the route to achieving them might be different from the one envisaged a while ago.

Secondly, it is clear that certain key industries are massively hampered by energy costs. It is a big issue that this Government handed to that Government: the price for energy has not materially increased since the Conservative Party relinquished control of government. That is on their watch, not this Government’s, but it is now on this Government’s watch to do something about it, and that is what we want to see happen.

As has been pointed out, we also need to understand how the UK will handle the Chinese dumping of steel on our industry. With the US market gone, how will the Government create a level competitive playing field? May I ask that the Trade Remedies Authority accelerate its review of Chinese markets?

Turning to another international issue, at this stage, the Government are not taking the enterprise into full public ownership, so presumably they will transfer money from a UK taxpayer to the plant ownership. Parts of Clause 2 give the necessary powers. This Government seek to uphold the international rule of law, and there are commitments on subsidies arising from the UK’s continued membership of the World Trade Organization, primarily set out in the agreement on subsidies and countervailing measures. Further commitments are contained in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in trade-related investment measures and the general agreement on trade and services. These are not new commitments, as your Lordships know; the UK was subject to WTO rules when it was a member state of the EU.

Furthermore, the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement contains a chapter on subsidies aimed at ensuring that subsidies do not have a detrimental effect on trade and investment between the UK and the EU. The requirements of the TCA are incorporated into the UK’s Subsidy Control Act, which has been in force since 4 January 2023. It is important for the Minister to set out how, under its proposed activity, it will meet these international obligations. I want the Government to succeed, but they should succeed within the rule of international law. More especially, at a time when we desperately need a closer trading relationship with the European Union, as set out by my noble friend, we want to know how this Bill and these actions will affect our relationship via the TCA obligations that we have made.

I had the pleasure of working on the Subsidy Control Bill, and it seems to be the core of this issue, yet somehow absent from any discussion of this Bill. Given the complexity of the Act, I do not propose to go into details, but Sections 19 and 20 are the key specific areas. The Act says that a

“subsidy … given during the preparation by the enterprise of a restructuring plan”

can be legal as long as it

“contributes to an objective of public interest”.

That is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made, and it is what it seeks to achieve. However, further on is the condition that the public authority giving the subsidy needs to be

“satisfied that the restructuring plan … is credible … is based on realistic assumptions, and … is prepared with a view to ensuring the return to long-term viability of the enterprise within a reasonable time period”.

Do we have such a plan—or when will we get one? Perhaps the Minister can give a brief answer on the subsidy issue and set out in writing the detail of how we will meet our legal obligations to support the Scunthorpe plan.

A great deal of concern has been expressed about the open-ended nature of the Bill and the strength of the measures contained therein. We believe that there needs to be some end point in the Bill, and we are happy to discuss with His Majesty’s Government ways of alleviating our concerns on this—but these are genuine concerns felt right across this Chamber, and possibly at the other end.

This is a very difficult time for the people of Scunthorpe and everybody connected with this important plant. I close by reiterating comments we have heard right across the House: our thoughts go with this community—to the people who must be sick with worry about what is going to happen in their town. We on these Benches will do our utmost to support and maintain this industry so that it can move forward and they can have a future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords not just for participating in this debate but for returning to this place in these exceptional circumstances. Before I respond to the comments that have been made, I reiterate the points made by the Prime Minister yesterday and by the Business Secretary in the other place today: the Government have always said from the outset of their negotiations with Jingye that we would keep every option on the table and act in the national interest to protect British jobs.

UK-forged steel built our railways, bridges and buildings. It is an integral part of our economic future, as it has been in our industrial past. That is why we need to pass this legislation today. I am therefore grateful to my noble friends Lord Reid, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord West, Lady Drake, Lord Glasman and Lord Hanworth, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for reminding us how fundamental steel is to our infrastructure and our future economic growth plans. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and my noble friend Lady Ramsey, who reminded us of the human cost of the potential closure of the Scunthorpe site. We reiterate our commitment to protecting jobs and communities impacted by that potential closure.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Moylan, complained about the urgency with which we have had to rush this legislation through. I think they do not appreciate the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in. Those blast furnaces were in danger of failing within days. That is why we are here today and why this action was so necessary. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am not inclined to take lessons from the party opposite, given their record over the previous 14 years. In her year and a half as the Business and Trade Secretary, Kemi Badenoch met UK steel companies on just three occasions. On the party opposite’s watch, UK steel production plummeted by 4 million metric tonnes between 2010 and 2023—an eye-watering fall of 42% in manufacturing. The UK went from the 17th largest steel producer in the world to the 26th largest over that period. The economic output of UK steel halved to £2.3 billion in that time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, heralded the use of coal and the opportunities that it would provide. I must remind him that it was his party that closed the coal mines and made us reliant on imported coal in the first place.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked if we would apologise. The Government will not apologise for acting in the national interest. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, this issue should have been resolved years ago. The situation we inherited across the board on assuming office is one in which most of our foundation industries found themselves in difficulty. Since 2010, UK crude steel production has almost halved. We know that rebuilding our steel industry after years of neglect will be a challenge, but it is one that this Government have grasped and it is why today, where others have shied, we have stepped up to take action.

I move on to some of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the legal advice from the Attorney-General. It is the Government’s policy not to discuss advice provided to the Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about Teesside. Ultimately, British Steel has been responsible for commercial decisions regarding its location strategy. The Government were right to prioritise protecting as many jobs as possible during those negotiations, but it is not right to force job losses in Scunthorpe to benefit Teesside. However, of course we want to do the best we can by Teesside communities, so the Government are continuing to work with the Tees Valley Combined Authority and local partners on regional investment and growth opportunities.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about international law and our obligations. I can assure him that everything we do is in compliance with our international law obligations under the WTO, the GATT framework and international law more generally. I reassure him that we are entirely satisfied that these short-term powers are within the terms of our international law obligations.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others asked whether compensation would be paid. We need compensation provision within the Bill to preserve the investment climate and to comply with international standards, but the chances of compensation being recovered are slim because the powers are there to protect the company’s assets, not to damage them. Compensation would also have to be done via an SI, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked whether the Bill’s powers were overreaching for the Secretary of State. The powers are linked to what a relevant person could have done. Basically, they are to do anything that management is empowered to do, so they are there within those confines.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Laing, and other noble Lords asked about the sunset clause. Because of the speed at which the legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline for these specific interventions. The current international situation is unpredictable, so a fixed sunset clause would not be workable or acceptable, as we might have to come back to Parliament and do it all again. We can, of course, revoke directions at any time in relation to a particular steel company once the need for intervention has passed. We would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee to make sure we work with Members and keep them updated so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary. We understand the concern of the House about the use of these powers, and it is right that Parliament closely monitors this. We will be updating the House every four weeks on the use of these powers.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words. What this House seeks, rather than an update, is the opportunity to invoke these powers in a way that they appear to be intended. They have been called emergency powers, and the Minister has called them short-term powers. Will the Government, within six months of this Bill coming into force, commit to having a substantive debate, in both Houses, to determine whether the Act will continue and to acting on any resolution of the House of Commons on the further continuation of those powers?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been here on a number of occasions answering questions on the situation with steel. In the future, we will continue to engage as widely as we have done to make sure that Parliament is updated on these matters. As I have said, we will update the House every four sitting weeks on the use of these powers. I honestly think that, in these circumstances, that is sufficient.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister for Industry made clear on Thursday, this Government believe in the UK steel sector. Of course we take national security issues very seriously. We keep developments in all strategic industries, including steel, under constant review. For example, high-quality steel, including for defence programmes such as the Royal Navy’s new Dreadnought-class submarines, is already being made by UK EAF producers. British Steel is not a critical supplier for other defence programmes.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister would join all your Lordships in expressing sympathy to the workers and communities not just in Scunthorpe but in Teesside who have had their steel industries whipped away from them. We have not heard much about the Government’s modern industrial strategy lately. We need one across the country and, as we have heard, we need steel to ensure we have the raw materials for manufacturing and our defence industries. If there is one, can the Minister set out for your Lordships what the Government’s steel industrial strategy is? What are the three key elements of that strategy?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, steelmaking in the UK is absolutely fundamental. We are in the process of developing a detailed steel strategy and we will come back to your Lordships’ House with further details. I make it clear that the Government will simply not allow the end of steelmaking in the UK, despite the situation we inherited, in which there has been a 50% decline in crude steel production over the past decade. We will continue to give steel, and steel in the UK, an absolute priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that this is a balance, but there are many good reasons why we need a steel industry in the UK, although obviously not at any price. We have made a significant offer of financial support to British Steel, and I hope that when those discussions continue the matter will be resolved.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I detected a dissonance in the answers there. At one point, the Minister said that we will always have a steel industry, but she just said “not at any price”. Those two things do not work together, so which is it? Is it we will have a steel industry whatever or there is a price that we will not pay for the steel industry?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we have made a very generous conditional offer of financial support to British Steel and negotiations are continuing. This is a live negotiation, and I cannot comment on commercially sensitive details at this stage, but we believe that our co-investment offer is fair and generous. We call on British Steel to accept that offer and the associated conditions. Obviously, there is a point at which those negotiations will not come to fruition, and we are making contingency plans, but we very much hope that we do not have to use them.

Employment Rights Bill: Productivity

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we have taken into account the impact on small and medium-sized businesses, but having an entitlement to fair, flexible and secure working should not be available only to those who work for larger organisations. At the moment, 9 million employees—almost 40% of the whole private sector—work in small and micro businesses. Any exceptions to policy based on business size would create a two-tier labour market, with some workers facing fewer protections, leading to an uneven playing field between employers of different sizes and reducing incentives for small businesses to grow.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is citing one example. There are numerous examples of external support for our arguments. Academics at Warwick University, Oxford University, MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research—but, of course, I would welcome the opportunity to meet the academic to whom my noble friend referred.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, clearly, we have many hours in front of us as we scrutinise this Bill. Much will depend on definitions and explanation, not least a proper definition of zero-hours contracts and the role of agencies in employment. But the glaring omission is the absence of any mention of freelancers. Does the Minister agree that freelancers form the mainstay of many important sectors, not least our creative industries? Will she undertake to ensure that the Bill focuses as much on freelancers as it does on other sorts of employees?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: we will have many happy hours debating this Bill in Committee and on Report in due course. On the issue of freelancers, he will know that this is only one piece of legislation. The make work pay programme includes a much more substantial piece of legislation. Where issues cannot be resolved fully in this legislation, they will come up in the wider Bills going forward.