Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment provides the means to check that the Bill, once enacted, achieves the purposes for which it is intended. It is a more comprehensive amendment than several that have been debated already, which provide for a review of certain provisions within 12 months of the Act coming into force. I shall argue that the relevance of the amendment goes beyond the Bill itself.

Too often in the past, legislative success for a Minister was seen as a Bill receiving Royal Assent. In evidence to the Constitution Committee’s 2004 inquiry into Parliament and the legislative process, former Clerk of the Parliaments Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth and Professor Vernon Bogdanor noted that,

“all too often, Parliament forgets about legislation once it has reached the statute book”.

Legislative success should be seen not as getting a Bill on the statute book but rather as delivering on what Parliament intended it to deliver.

As the then leader of the House of Commons, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, told the Constitution Committee,

“there is no point in passing legislation if it is not having the desired impact or it is having a different impact”.

Recognition of that point led the committee in its 2004 report to recommend that most Bills should be subject to post-legislative scrutiny within three years of their commencement or six years from their enactment, whichever was the sooner. In 2008, the Government accepted that Bills should normally be subject to review three to five years after enactment, a policy reiterated by Ministers in recent months. Indeed, in January this year, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, reported that the Cabinet Office had written to departments reminding them of the importance of post-legislative scrutiny.

In practice, not all Bills are subject to post-legislative review by departments. Some have undertaken thorough reviews, but the enthusiasm for completing them appears to differ between departments. Earlier this year, I asked whether the Government would encourage departments to emulate the Home Office, which had engaged in detailed post-legislative scrutiny of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019. There is a compelling case for ensuring that, in respect of certain Bills, post-legislative review is put beyond doubt through being embodied in the measures themselves.

There are precedents for including within a Bill a provision for post-legislative scrutiny. The most recent incidence is the Football Governance Bill. The Government, to their credit, accepted the argument that the Bill should provide for post-legislative scrutiny and brought forward their own amendment on Report to give effect to that proposal. The wording of my amendment may appear familiar to the Minister as it is taken from the Government’s amendment to the Football Governance Bill.

Bills that meet certain criteria should contain such a provision. The criteria I propose are that the Bill is large, is complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. Bills that meet some but not all of the criteria may be considered for incorporating such a provision. A Bill that is not large but meets the other criteria should normally be considered for embodying provision for such scrutiny.

Each year your Lordships’ House usually appoints a special inquiry committee to engage in post-legislative scrutiny of an Act or group of Acts, such as the Mental Capacity Act or adoption legislation, that generally do not meet any of the criteria I have mentioned. That we select measures of this type for such scrutiny is not an argument against enshrining post-legislative scrutiny in some Bills but rather the reverse. We steer clear of Acts that are large and contentious. We are not likely to select the measure before us for post-legislative scrutiny in a few years’ time. Our scrutiny should complement that undertaken by government of measures covered by these criteria.

The arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of major Bills are several. There is the effect on drafting—knowing that a measure will subsequently be subject to review helps to concentrate the minds of Ministers and drafters in preparing the Bill. It serves to prompt a clear adumbration of purpose—of delineating the basis on which one will know whether the measure has achieved what it was designed to do. Perhaps most importantly, knowing that it will subsequently be reviewed may serve to reassure critics of the measure. That was especially helpful in the context of the Football Governance Bill. I think it applies in the case of this Bill.

Above all, providing the means of checking whether a measure has or has not met its aims and identifying what needs to be done to rectify any problems with its delivery contributes to good law. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel has previously defined good law as law that is

“necessary, effective, clear, coherent and accessible”.

I have defined it as law that is well intentioned, well drafted and well implemented. Some of these features need to be checked during the Bill’s passage, but others, especially being effective or, in my terms, well implemented, are best tested through post-legislative scrutiny. As one Minister told this House’s Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005,

“while getting the Act onto the statute book had been a success, ensuring that it was fully implemented and understood was ‘work in progress’”.

This Bill clearly meets the criteria I have outlined. It is large, complex, makes a substantial change to employment law, is clearly contested and was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee has considered more than 330 amendments over 11 days. There are clearly disputes about the principles it embodies and its effect. Putting a provision for post-legislative scrutiny in the Bill, thus ensuring such scrutiny, meets the purposes I outlined.

The Minister may remind us that the Bill will be eligible for post-legislative review in any event, but this amendment puts it beyond doubt. If the Government have confidence in the Bill, they should have no problem in accepting the amendment. Critics may be reassured that, as with the Football Governance Bill, its effects will be reviewed. The amendment sets out the review to be undertaken before the end of a period of five years, and what the review in particular must assess. It also requires the Secretary of State to publish an invitation to interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the Act.

As I say, the provisions replicate those in the Football Governance Bill, omitting only the parts that are specific to football and do not lend themselves to replication in other measures. I urge the Government to build on what they have already achieved in the Football Governance Bill and establish best practice in embodying within this Bill provision for post-legislative scrutiny. Utilising the criteria I have detailed limits the number of Bills that merit such a dedicated provision. This Bill does merit such a provision, and I hope the Minister will demonstrate that the Government have the confidence to embrace it. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. He is not only a great author and academic, but he is regarded as a world authority on constitutional issues, and he has certainly been described as the greatest living expert on Parliament, so we take very seriously his very constructive suggestion for post-legislative scrutiny.

However, I rise to speak to Amendment 335, standing in my name, which would introduce a sunset clause ensuring that the Act will expire after three years unless the Secretary of State demonstrates that it has led to a net increase in employment. I do so against a background of economic data emerging in recent months painting a deeply concerning picture of the UK labour market. The UK’s jobless rate ticked up to 4.6% in April, while payrolled employment has fallen sharply, according to official figures covering the period when the Budget tax hikes on businesses came into effect.

We had an understanding that some of us would attempt to put together an overall view of what is happening in the jobs market at present, but the response from the business community to this Bill has been unambiguous and deeply troubling. The Institute of Directors has published research showing that more than seven in 10 business leaders—72%—believe that the Bill will have a negative impact on the UK’s economic growth. This is not a marginal concern expressed by a vocal or unrepresentative minority; it represents a clear majority of all those who create jobs in our economy.

Even more alarmingly, half of business leaders reported that they would be less likely to hire new staff as a direct consequence of this legislation. Let that statistic sink in. We are therefore considering legislation that, according to those who make the hiring decisions, will directly reduce employment opportunities for British workers.

These employment figures do not exist in isolation. They form part of a broader pattern of economic decline that, sadly, has accelerated since this Government took office. The combination of increased employer national insurance contributions, the various tax rises announced by the Chancellor and now this additional regulatory burden create a perfect storm of disincentives to business investment and job creation.

We are now witnessing the practical consequences of economic policies cobbled together on the basis of wishful thinking and political prejudice by people with little or no first-hand experience or understanding of how businesses operate in practice. When costs rise, businesses must respond. They cannot simply absorb infinite increases in regulatory compliance, tax obligations and employment-related expenses. The rational response is to reduce costs where possible—and, unfortunately, employment costs are often the largest element in business operations as well as the most unpredictable.

Throughout the debates on this Bill, both the Ministers opposite and their colleagues in the other place have maintained that it will not harm employment. They have repeated this assertion with remarkable consistency, despite mounting evidence to the contrary. This represents either a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic principles or a deliberate choice virtually to ignore inconvenient evidence.

The Government appear afflicted by a sustained delusion that they can simultaneously increase the costs and complexity of employment while maintaining that employment levels will be unaffected. This surely defies both economic logic and empirical evidence. It is rather like claiming that one can increase the price of a product while ensuring that demand will remain unchanged, simply by insisting that it must be so.

We have to entertain the possibility that we on these Benches are wrong. Perhaps the business community is wrong. Perhaps the Office for Budget Responsibility is wrong. Perhaps the employment statistics are, at best, misleading. Perhaps the correlation between increased business costs and reduced hiring is merely coincidental. Perhaps economic theory and established business common sense are for the birds. My amendment is designed to test the Government’s confidence. If Ministers are indeed confident that this Bill will benefit workers and boost employment, they should graciously accede to this amendment and demonstrate to us all their unshakeable iron confidence that this is not, after all, an unemployment Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

324A: Clause 151, page 147, line 31, leave out subsection (2)

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 324A and to speak to Amendments 324B and 324C on behalf of my noble friend Lady Coffey; I will also speak to my opposition to Clause 151 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving notice of his opposition to Clause 151 standing part, which gives me the chance to set out the purpose of that clause, and for speaking to Amendments 324A, 324B and 324C, which, as I understand it, are probing amendments.

Clause 151 grants the Secretary of State a power by regulations to make amendments to other legislation which are consequential on any provision made by the Bill. Consequential amendments are fundamental to ensuring that the statute book remains coherent and workable. It is a Henry VIII power similar to the ones used in previous legislation of similar size and complexity. It allows the amendment of Northern Ireland legislation, as it does Acts of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru. This is necessary to allow the statute book across all UK jurisdictions to be maintained effectively.

None the less, the power in Clause 151 is appropriately constrained because it allows only amendments which are consequential to the substantive amendment already made in the Bill itself. For these reasons, we consider it both necessary and proportionate. I also remind noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the power in Clause 151 in its report, to which we will reply in due course.

I reassure noble Lords that, where possible, amendments to other pieces of primary legislation that are required as a result of the provisions made in this Bill have been made in the Bill itself, as my noble friend Lord Leong set out earlier. However, it is possible that further provisions could still be identified that require consequential amendment. Allowing these to be made by regulation will mean that they can be made without delay and with an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. This is a standard power in a Bill of this size and complexity. There are multiple examples in legislation from recent Conservative Governments that took the same approach, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.

Amending the clause so that any exercise of the power would be subject to the affirmative procedure would result in debates on every consequential amendment, which we believe would be disproportionate. For these reasons, the Government oppose these amendments, and I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that the power this clause vests in the Secretary of State is proportionate. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 324A.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the concerns that I raised during this debate. However, I remain unconvinced by the Government’s justification for these sweeping powers. As we have said on several occasions already, there are far too many delegated powers in the Bill as it stands. To extend this approach to all consequential future provisions represents a qualitative leap in executive authority that goes well beyond what is necessary or constitutionally appropriate.

I recognise that the Minister has given assurances about responsible use of these powers, which, no doubt well-intentioned, cannot substitute for proper parliamentary oversight built into the legislative framework itself. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque, drawn on the account of parliamentary sovereignty. The breadth of these consequential powers, combined with the minimal oversight mechanisms, represents precisely the kind of constitutional overreach that this House exists to prevent.

I remind Ministers—like many noble Lords, I have painful first-hand experience of this—that the powers may not be indefinitely in the hands of Ministers of any one party. Power changes hands from time to time, and they ought possibly to reflect on the extraordinary legacy of centralised executive power they may find themselves bequeathing to a new Administration that is not of their political persuasion. Governments change, Ministers change and political priorities evolve. Constitutional safeguards must be designed to protect parliamentary sovereignty, regardless of who holds executive office. I urge noble Lords across the Chamber to reflect carefully on whether we are prepared to accept such a substantial erosion of parliamentary authority in the name of administrative convenience. Some principles are surely too important to compromise, and parliamentary sovereignty is surely paramount among them. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 324A withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendment. She raises thoughtful and important questions about Parliament’s role as an employer and the complexity of managing the site, which contains over 600 other employers. These are legitimate concerns that deserve proper consideration, not least because Parliament should seek to model best practice in matters of employment and compliance. I think we all agree with that, but does it comply, and should there be a power of entry into these premises to check that we are complying?

My noble friend has made compelling points, and I hope that the Minister will respond with clarity and detail. The concerns that my noble friend outlined are not theoretical; they touch on the credibility of this institution as both lawmaker and employer. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the Government's justification for retaining—or reconsidering—the exemption as drafted.

[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 the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which raises an important topic: how the enforcement provisions in Part 5 would apply to Parliament and MPs as employers.

Parliament must of course comply with employment legislation. However, the Bill provides that the powers of entry in Part 5 cannot be exercised in relation to

“premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament”;

otherwise, Part 5 would apply to both Houses of Parliament and to MPs as employers. We are in danger of having something similar to—but slightly less than—a deep constitutional crisis, because the approach was agreed on the advice of the House authorities. It is therefore not a government decision; it is a decision made by the House authorities. They are more powerful, as far as I can see, and they can therefore overrule what the Government may think about all this.

This approach is not unusual. It aligns with recent precedents, such as Section 165(1)(a) of the Building Safety Act 2022, to respect parliamentary privilege. In this case, Parliament has to comply with employment legislation. The only issue raised here is about the power of entry not applying to the Parliamentary Estate. The noble Baroness might understand why we want to make sure that the Parliamentary Estate is secure from that challenge, and there is probably another place where she could raise her concerns about employment in the Parliamentary Estate. I have some sympathy with some of the cases that she argued about, but I suggest that she sees the House authorities about them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

279GA: Clause 149, page 147, line 16, at end insert—
“(2) Subject to subsection (3), this section is repealed three years after the day on which it comes into force.(3) The Secretary of State may, following a full independent review of the operational impact of the section on tribunal efficiency and access to justice, by regulations made by statutory instrument provide that the provisions of this section are not repealed in accordance with this section but shall continue in force indefinitely.(4) The regulations in subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a sunset clause to ensure that the extension of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims is subject to periodic parliamentary oversight.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 279GA would introduce a sunset clause to ensure that the extension of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims is subject to periodic parliamentary oversight. I will speak also to Amendments 330ZA, 330D and 334A in my name.

I have tabled these amendments along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom because I believe that the state of the employment tribunal system is deeply concerning and urgently requires our attention. The proposals before us introduce a range of new rights for workers, including the critical right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of employment. We must therefore confront the uncomfortable truth that the current tribunal system is simply not prepared to handle the additional burden that this Bill will place upon it. Indeed, we have heard from a respected law firm that there is broad consensus among legal professionals that the employment tribunal system is, in its words, the “biggest problem in the legal world”.

The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that tribunal cases will increase by around 15% as a result of these reforms, yet I must ask how this figure has been calculated. Given the scale of the backlog we are currently witnessing, can this be anything other than a gross underestimate? The reality is that, by extending the time limits within which individuals can bring claims, the Bill itself may actively incentivise an increase in the volume of cases. If people have more time to bring claims, it is only natural that more claims will be submitted—claims that must then be processed by a system that is already groaning under enormous pressure.

To put this in perspective, we are currently facing, we are told, an employment tribunal backlog of nearly 50,000 cases. This backlog has now reached record levels, with preliminary hearings being scheduled as far away as April 2026, and full hearings not likely to take place until well into 2027. This must be a crisis. A delay of this magnitude means that justice for many is effectively denied. When someone has to wait years for their case to be heard, the protection that the law is supposed to afford becomes little more than an empty promise.

The causes of this backlog are clear. There is an acute shortage of employment judges. There is insufficient funding. There is inadequate administrative support. Although the Government have pledged to recruit hundreds of new judges, the practicalities of ensuring that those judges have the necessary expertise and that adequate administrative support is in place remain significant challenges.

That is why I believe these amendments are vital. They do not seek to block or delay the introduction of important workers’ rights, but they instead insist on responsible, measured implementation. It is essential that before these new rights come into force an independent and thorough assessment is conducted to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of the tribunal system. This assessment has to address current delays, judge numbers, funding and the likely impact of this Bill’s provisions on tribunal caseloads. Moreover, the Government must commit to implementing all necessary measures identified in this assessment to reduce the backlog to a manageable level, specifically to fewer than 10,000 outstanding claims. Only then should these rights be activated.

This is all about ensuring that, when workers exercise their rights, they have access to a tribunal system capable of delivering timely, fair justice. Additionally, the amendment regarding the extension of time limits for claims rightly insists that this measure cannot come into effect until the Senior President of Tribunals certifies that the system can handle the expected increase in cases without further lengthening hearing times. Without such a safeguard, we risk compounding the problem and turning an already overstretched system into something unworkable.

There is another important point that I must raise. Nowhere in the Government’s impact assessment is there any explanation of why the option of introducing a right to claim unfair dismissal between day one and two years was not considered. If the intention is truly to balance the employment relationship and provide fair protections, why do we have to leap to day one? This decision is not just a legal technicality; it carries real risks. One such risk is the disincentive it creates for employers to hire workers who may be perceived as risky or less secure in the labour market—such as individuals with a history of mental health challenges, younger workers or others on the margins of employment —by exposing employers to potential unfair dismissal claims from the very first day. This Bill may inadvertently make it even harder for these vulnerable groups to find work in the first place. This would be a tragic and unintended consequence, compounding insecurity rather than alleviating it.

We have debated at length the potentially vast powers of the new fair work agency, its funding and the role it might play. However, many questions remain. Will the fair work agency with its undefined enforcement officers and unclear operational framework genuinely take on the enforcement of workers’ rights in a way that meaningfully reduces the burden on the already overstretched employment tribunals? Or will tribunals continue to bear the brunt of this increased workload without adequate support or relief?

I now look to the Government to provide this House, workers, businesses, law firms, and no doubt the tribunals with some assurance, clarity and ideally a timeline for the day-one rights provisions in this Bill. Perhaps this is the moment when the Minister will at last share with us, at least in draft, the implementation plan that we have heard so much about during the course of this Committee. Will she please undertake to ensure that we have the implementation plan before we reach Report?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 279GA for a sunset clause. I perfectly understand the reason for extending the period in which employees can make claims, but I am quite sure it will increase the burden on the tribunals. We have heard about the very long delay, with even preliminary hearings not scheduled until April 2026, and these delays have continued for some years. People going to tribunal sometimes have to wait more than 18 months just to have the preliminary hearing. If numbers increase, as they are likely to, as my noble friend suggested, it is going to put far more pressure on the tribunals. The parliamentary oversight proposed and the sunset clause must take account of that.

Not only is there no point in law in having a claim left unsettled for years, but it is very bad for business to have the uncertainty. It is very bad for employees and their lives to be subject to such delays and uncertainties in what is going to happen to them professionally, because taking a claim to tribunal is not an easy matter. It can be expensive and full of obstacles. Not knowing how it will pan out is very worrying for people. For businesses, being subject to constant pressures of claims in a tribunal, whether they are justified or not, brings insecurity and a lack of confidence.

For these reasons, I think this moderate request for a sunset clause and coming back to Parliament for an affirmative vote are a good proposal, and I hope the Government will listen kindly to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, 50 new fee-paid employment judges were appointed in 2024-25, and a further three recruitment exercises to further increase capacity are now being undertaken in 2025-26.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for putting all this in the context of the security or insecurity of workers right across the board faced with this terrible backlog. The Minister upbraided me for the previous Government’s culpability in this, but she will know that we have been expressing serious concern about this backlog for a very long time. The fact is that it has got worse: it is 20% up on what it was when the Government came into office last year. The Minister was quite right to say there was a backlog, but my plea to her is not to make it worse.

As we draw this debate to a close, I worry that the Government have not fully grasped the critical importance of these amendments. They are not obstacles to progress but necessary safeguards to ensure that the rights we are creating are not rendered ineffective by an overwhelmed tribunal system. We urgently need clarity on the implementation plans.

The Minister promised that we would have the implementation plan “shortly”. The definition of “shortly” is “within the next hour or so”. In the dictionary, we are told that shortly means that something is about to happen. So where is it? I would like to believe that the noble Baroness’s reference to the word, which she must have carefully considered, means that tomorrow we will get it. I am very happy for her to interrupt me if I am incorrect—perhaps she could clarify.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I was trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, but since he provokes me, I will simply say that I have used my interpretation of “shortly”, rather than the dictionary definition. It will not be happening in the next hour, I can assure the noble Lord of that.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Could I possibly have a copy of the noble Baroness’s dictionary? She has just quoted from her dictionary, but sadly I do not have it to hand. We would all like to see the implementation plan, so please can we, if possible, before our next day in Committee next Tuesday?

There are all sorts of issues we have discussed that have not been answered. Why a measured approach between day one and two years? Was it ever seriously considered? There has been no answer from the noble Baroness on that. Did she look at it or did she move straight to day one? The gap in reasoning leaves many of us deeply worried about the unintended consequences for workers and employers alike. Regrettably, these are crucial issues which remain unresolved, and the Government have yet to provide the assurances we need. As we approach Report, we will have to return to this matter with a determination to secure the clarity and commitments that are so essential if the Bill is ever to be successful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 279GA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 280 is designed to address the use of substitution clauses that allow for illegal working. There are different ways of measuring it, but on some estimates there are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including around 120,000 official riders at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country.

For years we have heard stories of labour market fraud and visa abuse committed by contractors related to those companies, and much of that abuse has come through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses. These clauses have traditionally been used to give flexibility to businesses, but in the gig economy they are being used to allow illegal working. From late 2018 to early 2019 there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to Transport for London. During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally.

I acknowledge that some action is being taken that will address part of this issue. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition, but as someone who worked on the original proposals in this area that stemmed from the Taylor review, I also understand the complexity of resolving this, and I fear that it could end up being put in the “too difficult” pile in Ministers’ in-trays.

The Government have also brought forward amendments to the borders and immigration Bill to include a legal requirement for organisations to carry out right-to-work checks on individuals they employ under a worker’s contract or as individual subcontractors, and for online matching services that provide details of service providers to potential clients or customers for remuneration. What are the timescales for the consultation and the secondary legislation to bring those measures into force? On my understanding, these provisions will not extend to the use of substitutes, meaning that this loophole will remain.

Amendment 280 seeks to go some way to addressing this through the introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors. Such transparency would help to ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, and would also support the enforcement of right-to-work checks. An alternative approach would be to ban substitution clauses altogether, or at least for those companies and sectors where abuse is the most prevalent—or, as Amendment 323E in a later group from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to do, restrict their improper use.

Given that substitution clauses have played an important part in case law on determining employee or worker status, this could have broader implications, so I have focused on transparency as a first step. But I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on removing or restricting the use of substitution clauses and whether that is preferable to a register delivering transparency, for example.

A further alternative would be to introduce right-to-work checks for substitutes by the original engaging business. While this was deemed to be out of scope for this Bill in the Commons, I had hoped that the Government’s amendments to the borders Bill would fill this gap. However, unless I have misunderstood—I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify this for me—their approach leaves this loophole untouched. The impact assessment for the Government’s amendments to the borders and immigration Bill reflects the harms that illegal working has on our economy. It says:

“Illegal working creates unfair competition, negatively impacts legitimate businesses, and puts additional pressure on public services. A rapid growth has been observed in the UK in modern labour market models where businesses can currently engage workers without the requirement to complete right to work checks”.


Without further action to address the abuse of substitution clauses, as the App Drivers and Couriers Union has said:

“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything”.


The Government need to take action to guarantee fairness and justice in our labour market. A register of dependent contractors provides a way to resolve this abuse and hold big employers in the gig economy to account. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Penn on tabling this important amendment. The requirement for certain company directors to maintain and report a register of dependent contractors under substitution clauses is a measure that would bring much-needed transparency to a complex area of employment. It recognises the evolving nature of work arrangements in sectors such as courier services and taxi operations. Of course, there are compliance burdens associated with maintaining such registers, especially for large companies operating over multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, data protection considerations must be carefully addressed to ensure sensitive personal information is handled appropriately and securely. These are important factors that require careful balancing against the benefits of increased transparency. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for her Amendment 280 and for meeting with my noble friend Lady Jones and me last month to discuss this very important issue.

I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already taking action to tackle the main risks that arise from substitution, including illegal working. As she mentioned, substitution is a complex area on which we are still gathering data.

An ONS online survey of around 10,000 businesses from across the UK, published this month, found that close to 3% of UK businesses use substitution clauses. While we do not know the number of substitution clauses used in the gig economy, we know that this could impact a large number of individuals. Although estimates of the number of gig economy workers vary vastly in various surveys, from around 500,000 to 4.4 million people—the noble Baroness mentioned some 4.7 million people—the CIPD finds that roughly 75% of those in the gig economy consider themselves to be self-employed.

We have introduced an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, to extend the scope of employers required to carry out right-to-work checks to those who engage limb (b) workers or individual sub-contractors, such as those working in the gig economy. This requirement will cover those working as substitutes.

We understand the complexity of these issues, and of employment status more widely, and that is why we have committed to consult in detail on a simpler framework for employment status. Comprehensive consultation will better account for the full range of today’s employment relationships, while addressing the minority of employers who will seek to avoid legal obligations.

We were clear that some reforms in our plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We do not have a set timeline for consulting on employment status at this point, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will keep her up to date as and when this happens. We understand the complexity of employment status, as I mentioned earlier, and we are definitely committed to consulting in detail. Comprehensive consultation will better accounts for the full range of today’s employment relationships, while also addressing the minority of employers who will seek to avoid legal obligations, as I mentioned.

The noble Baroness’s amendment would create significant additional reporting burdens for businesses and would not necessarily change how those businesses use substitution clauses, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, to withdraw Amendment 280.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

271ZZA: Clause 91, page 110, line 12, at end insert—
“with the three-year period resetting three months after any general election.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that a new government would not be held to the labour market enforcement strategy of a predecessor government for up to three years.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 271ZZA, I will also speak to Amendments 274 and 278, standing in my name.

Clause 91 requires the Secretary of State to set out a plan for enforcing labour market legislation over a three-year period. However, as currently drafted, Clause 91 lacks the flexibility necessary to reflect changes in government and political leadership. As the Minister will be aware, Clause 91(1) places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to publish a labour market enforcement strategy

“before the beginning of each relevant three-year period”.

Subsection (6) then defines those periods as

“beginning with the next 1 April after the day on which this section comes into force”

and every successive three years thereafter. At first glance, that may seem entirely sensible, but let me explain why it creates a democratic and practical problem that our amendment seeks to fix.

Suppose, for example, this Bill passes this year, in 2025. Under Clause 91(6)(a), the first strategy would need to be published before 1 April 2026 and it would then run until March 2029. Now, imagine a general election takes place in 2027—entirely plausible, perhaps even probable. That would mean that a new Government taking office in 2027 would be bound by a strategy formulated and published by a previous Administration, with potentially very different political priorities, until well into 2029. I suggest to the Government that this is neither democratic nor desirable.

Labour market enforcement is not a neutral administrative matter. It involves clear policy choices about which sectors to prioritise, what level of inspection and enforcement to undertake, what approach to take with non-compliant employers, and how to engage with trade unions, businesses, regulators and workers. These are not technocratic decisions. These are matters of political judgment. They ought to reflect the democratic mandate of the day.

Our amendment is, therefore, straightforward. It would insert into Clause 91(6) a provision that the relevant three-year period should reset three months after any general election. This would provide any new incoming Government with a short period—not an immediate obligation—in which to consult the advisory board and prepare a revised strategy, only if they wish to do so. It would not force a change of strategy; it would simply enable one at a more appropriate and timely moment.

Amendments 274 and 278 together seek to inject evidence, accountability and proportionality into the Government’s proposal to establish a single labour market enforcement body under this legislation. These are not abstract or procedural concerns; they speak directly to the credibility of this legislation and the consequences it will have for workers, businesses and the rule of law in the labour market. We are therefore being asked to approve a significant structural reform—the consolidation of multiple specialist enforcement agencies into a single, central body—without a clear estimate of how much it is all going to cost and without a rigorous analysis of whether it will improve enforcement outcomes.

The idea that such sweeping institutional change could proceed without a public, detailed cost-benefit analysis should give us all pause for thought. The creation of a new enforcement authority is not merely a matter of administrative reorganisation; it involves physical premises, staff transfers, IT infrastructure, the legal realignment of enforcement powers, data-sharing agreements, and the re-establishment of everything, from complaints mechanisms to enforcement protocols.

All of this will come at considerable financial and operational cost, yet no such cost has been published, nor can it be debated. It is absent. This is particularly concerning given that we have seen similar government reforms in other domains—such as the establishment and eventual dismantling of the UK Border Agency—go badly awry, not for lack of ambition but for lack of foresight and planning. An effective enforcement agency cannot simply be declared into being. It has to be built carefully, deliberately and on the basis of hard evidence.

That is why Amendment 274 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a detailed cost assessment. We understand that the Government’s broader agenda includes a desire to reduce inefficiency and waste in the public sector. That is a principle all sides of this Committee would support. We would not, and I hope the Minister would not, wish to see the creation of another bloated agency duplicating functions and budgets and wasting taxpayers’ money under the guise of reform. Without clear planning, the risk is precisely that a new bureaucracy, with vague lines of accountability, an unclear mandate and spiralling costs fails to deliver better outcomes for workers and businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

We have had a fair amount of scrutiny of the wider proposal, rather than the Bill’s specific fair work agency proposals. As I said, over the past nine years since 2016, there have been 33 different strategies and reports, including—but certainly not limited to—the Taylor report. This is not an area that has not been considered and scrutinised to some degree. I also say to the noble Baroness that the Single Enforcement Body—as it was called by the previous Administration—was the policy of successive Conservative- led and Conservative Administrations. I am not going to intrude on the great policy disagreements on that side of the House. We feel it important to establish the fair work agency and to ensure that we have strong enforcement of labour market regulations. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 271ZZA.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very significant debate, because I believe it is the first time I have heard from the Government Front Bench an acceptance that the Opposition will eventually take over government again. He and I may disagree on when this will happen—of course we disagree: I just happen to believe that it is going to happen at the next general election. That is why these amendments are so important.

I also want to say how much we miss the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I was very disturbed indeed to hear about his unfortunate accident, but I am very pleased to hear that he may shortly be with us. I hope that, by speeding up the process to Report in July, he will still be able to be with us, because he has always brought a note of common sense—despite coming from the Liberal Democrat Benches. Now I am upsetting everyone. All I want to say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, is that he has been a marvellous substitute, if one can say that. His pragmatic approach to the Bill has been enormously valuable, but we do miss the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor, who is quite right: we are moving into unknown territory. Although the Minister might remind us that the Conservative Government were committed to looking at stepping in this direction, we are still moving into unknown territory and, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, the CIPD cost estimates are really worrying. I do not think the Minister properly addressed his key question on the whole issue of accountability.

However, here we are. I am surprised that the Government have rejected Amendment 271ZZA. It is a reasonable and pragmatic amendment that simply recognises the basic democratic principle that a new Administration should have the ability to review and, if necessary, revise a labour market enforcement strategy to reflect new economic realities and public priorities. Despite the amendment to which he referred—which is at the margin—the Government have always insisted that a labour market enforcement strategy must run its full term without reset, regardless of elections or changes in government. But why should a new Government be bound by a strategic direction set by their predecessor? That is not consistent with the democratic mandate bestowed on any incoming Government. Surely it is neither logical nor democratic to compel a newly elected Government to implement a strategy they did not design, especially in a labour market that is dynamic and constantly evolving.

Economic landscapes can shift dramatically within short periods, whether due to international events, technological change or domestic challenges. Flexibility to adjust enforcement priorities accordingly is essential. It is not only a question of governance, but of ensuring that enforcement remains effective and responsive to current labour market conditions. The Government have already recognised the importance of periodic review and the resetting of the labour market enforcement strategy every three years, as set out in Clause 91. If I am not mistaken, that periodicity is built into the framework precisely to ensure that the strategy remains relevant and responsive.

The main feature of this debate has been the cogent arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. His insights, and those of my noble friend Lady Coffey, highlight the pressing need for a substantive independent review of the proposed fair work agency. While the promise of increased efficiency in enforcement is welcome, we must remember that there are intentions and then there are results. We must understand how such efficiency will be achieved and at what cost, what other alternatives were considered, and why they were rejected.

To date, the Government have not committed to publishing any specific details about the establishment of the fair work agency—details that are crucial for proper scrutiny. We lack clarity on the expected costs of this new body, the standards by which compliance will be measured and the criteria that will guide enforcement decisions. Without that transparency, it is difficult to assess whether the creation of this body will represent genuine progress or simply add another layer of bureaucracy, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, stressed, will impinge on smaller businesses in particular.

There remains much to discuss and questions to be answered about the fair work agency. Unfortunately, I find myself unconvinced by the Government’s arguments against the amendments proposed by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. Our proposals are not about obstruction but about ensuring proper oversight, accountability and flexibility in this important area of labour market governance. I am sure that we, and the Liberal Democrats, will return to these issues on Report, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 271ZZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 271ZC and 273BA but I first thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Coffey for their amendments. My noble friend Lord Jackson began by describing his amendments as a “cornucopia”. I was always told that a cornucopia was a goat’s horn overflowing with flowers, fruit and corn. A better definition than the one he used would be “an abundant supply of good things”, which opened the opportunity for the Minister to justify the unjustifiable. We all look forward to hearing from her.

Amendment 271ZC seeks to avoid governmental overreach by excluding holiday pay from notices of underpayment, given that the existing legal framework provides adequate remedy for individuals seeking to enforce their rights in this matter.

Amendment 273BA seeks to ensure that labour market enforcement undertakings are requested only when there is a public interest in doing so. This amendment provides an essential layer of protection against the risk of regulatory overreach and against the misuse of powers that could otherwise affect individuals and businesses unfairly. Clause 117 gives the Secretary of State considerable discretion to impose conditions on people or businesses suspected of labour market offences. That discretion already includes subjective tests of what is just and what is reasonable. Who defines what is reasonable? Who ensures that decisions are being made not just fairly but in service of the broader public good? By requiring measures to be in the public interest, as this amendment does, we would root enforcement action in its proper purpose: protecting workers, upholding lawful employment practices and maintaining public confidence in our regulatory system.

This amendment would strengthen the legitimacy of LME undertakings. It would ensure that measures are not only lawful and proportionate but meaningful, and that they serve society as a whole, whether it is tackling exploitation, improving transparency or deterring repeat offences. I believe the public interest must be front and centre. Without this safeguard, we risk opening the door to punitive, reputational or performative measures that may be justified in form but not in principle. This amendment would give Parliament, and more importantly the people affected, the confidence that LME undertakings will be guided by public value, not political expediency or administrative convenience. I urge the Government to support this amendment.

As I mentioned, I also support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. His proposed changes to the wording of the legislation, particularly in relation to enforcement powers, are both thoughtful and necessary. By raising the evidential threshold from a simple belief to one requiring an evidential basis, and by increasing the standard of proof for courts from “the balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”, these amendments would introduce essential safeguards. They do not undermine the policy intention of the Bill to tackle labour market offences effectively. Rather, they ensure that enforcement actions are firmly grounded in evidence, and that the rights of employers and individuals are protected from potential overreach or misuse of power. In short, my noble friend’s amendments help strike the critical balance between robust enforcement and fairness, which I believe is vital for maintaining public confidence in the system.

Amendment 273PB, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, is an incredibly important amendment. We live in a world where migration patterns are increasingly complex and the risks associated with illegal immigration, visa overstays and exploitation in our labour market are growing. At the same time, threats to our national security have become more sophisticated, requiring a co-ordinated and agile response across multiple agencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friends’ excellent speeches on this clause. I press the Minister on what the Explanatory Notes say about subsection (4), because we have talked about the concept of persons and what that actually means. My noble friend spoke earlier about ministerial powers and the lack of information on costs, which should have been in a proper and more detailed impact assessment but is not. It is not in any supporting material, including the Labour Party manifesto for the general election. Presumably, the Minister will say that such information about the form and function of the clause will be developed in secondary legislation.

The sentence in the Explanatory Notes about subsection (4) is extraordinary, because it touches on what is potentially ultra vires and will certainly, I think, be subject to litigation or judicial review. Given that this is an Employment Rights Bill about labour relations and employment, it says:

“Subsection (4) makes provision for situations where proceedings relate partly to employment or trade union law … and partly to other matters”.


I just do not understand what those other matters can be. This is an employment law Bill. It is about labour relations and the relationships between employers, trade unions and a workforce. What other matters are within the bailiwick of Clause 114? I think we need to press the Minister on that, because we are being invited to give a blank cheque with taxpayers’ money to something that is very opaque, we do not understand, is not costed and is not detailed. On that basis, the Minister should address those specific issues.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Noakes and Lord Jackson of Peterborough for some penetrating questions about the power to provide legal assistance as set out in Clause 114. First, I would like the Minister to share with us what discussions have been held with the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice. A number of the points made by my noble friends relate to the fact that legal aid is already available in certain circumstances, so what is this all about and, as my noble friend Lady Coffey asked, who is this going to benefit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not want to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid he is stuck with me again. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling amendments on legal assistance and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for notifying us of her opposition to Clause 114 standing part of the Bill.

I will start with Amendment 272BA. To be fair, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others indicated that this has overlapped with not only previous discussions today but discussions of groups on previous days in Committee. As my noble friend Lady Jones said on Monday, the drafting of Clause 114

“was carefully thought through and is deliberately broad and inclusive”.—[Official Report, 16/6/25; col. 1883.]

It is only fair that it covers not just employees but employers and trade unions. To answer a specific question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about what other assistance could be provided, this could include help in understanding procedural requirements, preparing documents or accessing expert input. It is designed to be flexible and responsive to individual needs. Given this, we cannot support Amendment 272BA.

Amendment 272D would restrict the amount of support that could be offered to any individual through this power. It is not a reasonable measure. I understand that it is a probing amendment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, but the small amount proposed in the amendment would leave the power meaningless. As we have discussed, this would be, although it is not intended as such, tantamount to a wrecking proposal, because it is such a small amount. Obviously, as we have discussed, this is a manifesto commitment. The fair work agency should be able to decide how much support it can offer, without being constrained to random financial limits for no good reason.

Amendment 272E would create an additional process before the power can be used. Part 5 of the Bill already calls for the fair work agency to publish an annual strategy, as we discussed on an earlier group. Requiring yet another administrative document in this way would be burdensome and unnecessary, and I think we share across the Committee a desire to reduce bloated bureaucracy—a phrase that has already been used this afternoon.

Turning to Amendment 272F, the powers under Clause 114 will operate in tandem with those in Clause 113, but workers will not always want to be separately represented in proceedings brought by the fair work agency. They can be represented, but they do not have to be. Therefore, we cannot support this amendment.

Amendment 272G would mean that the fair work agency would duplicate ACAS’s existing responsibilities regarding dispute resolution. This power is not intended to be a replacement or a duplication of existing support. We cannot support this amendment, as it would complicate the enforcement landscape when we are trying with this Bill to simplify it.

Amendment 272H would limit the scope of this power. It would create situations where legal assistance would have to cease, even if proceedings continued, leading to unfairness. It could lead to people being unable to continue their cases, which could cover other matters such as discrimination, because support could no longer be offered. The fair work agency should be able to decide what is appropriate and fair in each case.

Amendment 272I would put an unnecessary burden on the Secretary of State to have insurance in place before being able to provide advice on a settlement agreement. To be fair to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she sort of indicated uncertainty around this. To be clear, this amendment wholly contradicts established government practice. I refer her to paragraph 4.4 of Managing Public Money, which sets out that the Government should generally not take out commercial insurance and it is not good value for money.

To summarise on Clause 114, the legal system can be intimidating, particularly for vulnerable workers or those from marginalised backgrounds. To repeat what my noble friend Lady Jones said in the previous group, many vulnerable workers are reluctant or unable to bring their cases to tribunal to enforce their employment rights, and this has serious consequences. Rogue employers exploit this, breaking employment law, and get away with it. For instance, Citizens Advice suggests that high-paid workers are more likely to file a case with an employment tribunal than lower-paid individuals, despite the latter being more likely to have their rights infringed. As I said, this lets rogue employers off the hook, and that is unfair for the vast majority of businesses, which we all know do the right thing by their staff and want to. It is unfair for the vulnerable workers involved—to state the obvious—who are being denied their rights, and it is unfair for the rest of the workforce, who are denied work opportunities due to illegal practices undercutting them.

As was said in the last group, that is why, in the plan to make work pay—again, a manifesto commitment—we set out that the fair work agency will have powers to bring civil proceedings to uphold employment rights. The Bill will give the fair work agency the power to bring civil proceedings in the employment tribunal to uphold rights. This is a critical power, particularly for situations where a worker feels unable to bring proceedings themselves. But there are occasions where a person is able to bring proceedings in the tribunal or another court but needs assistance, or where the case has wider ramifications and the person concerned could benefit from the fair work agency’s expertise.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister remind us to what extent there has been consultation with the Secretary of State for Justice? Has the Lord Chancellor been involved in putting together this scheme, which is going to sit alongside legal aid, for which she is responsible? It would be really helpful if the Minister could make sure that the Government is joined-up in putting forward what is, in a way, as my noble friends have pointed out, quite a blank cheque, which has not properly been costed. Can he put us right on all this, please?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am more than happy to. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, anticipates the comments that I was just about to come to—but we can address the point now. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, focused on this as well. This is not expanding legal aid. The power is intended to give the fair work agency a discretion to provide support in employment-related cases. It is not an alternative to legal aid and it will be used in specific cases. The Government will set out how and when the fair work agency will exercise its power in due course and will discuss this with a range of stakeholders. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we have regular conversations with the Ministry of Justice, including on the Bill’s implementation.

I return to what I was saying about the importance of ensuring that the power of legal advice is appropriately bounded. It cannot be used to fund dispute resolution facilities delivered through other routes. Importantly, the clause protects the integrity of the courts and tribunals by confirming that nothing in the clause overrides existing restrictions on representation imposed by legislation or judicial practice. This clause complements the fair work agency’s wider role in promoting access to justice and fair treatment in the workplace. It provides a vital lever for supporting individuals who might otherwise face legal barriers alone or for ensuring compliance with relevant law, and it delivers our manifesto commitment on which Members in the other House were elected.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked about the costs. These will be set out in due course and will be discussed with a range of stakeholders, particularly employers, trade unions and employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am conscious of the sentiments expressed here, but it would put the Government and the Secretary of State in a very difficult legal situation if they were to hold information that they were not allowed to pass on to relevant authorities within the rest of government. I hear what the noble Baronesses have said, but I do not know, with all the other rights that are starting to come through this Bill, why anyone should be afeared, especially when they are here on a legitimate visa as in the example to which the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, has just referred. I am conscious of some of the exploitation, but I believe that same sponsor was suspended from sponsoring any more visas. I was not aware of what the Home Office did or did not do, but restricting the Secretary of State from formally upholding the law is quite a worrying trend.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, whom I had the honour to serve when she chaired the Home Affairs Select Committee. She has raised a number of key points, as has the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and my noble friend Lady Coffey for their speeches as well.

Let me make it absolutely clear: modern slavery remains one of the gravest human rights abuses of our time, and tackling it requires vigilance, clarity and effective enforcement. It is crucial that the agencies tasked with identifying and assisting survivors and with co-operating closely with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner have clear mandates and necessary powers to act decisively. While the specific amendments before us seek to clarify the transfer of roles from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority to the fair work agency, the wider point is this.

Enforcement bodies must be both effective and well co-ordinated to respond to the complexities of modern slavery. Without this, vulnerable individuals risk slipping through the cracks, and the machinery of justice and protection loses its impact. Ensuring transparency about which bodies are responsible for what and guaranteeing that they are properly equipped underpins our broader commitment to eradicating modern slavery. It is not just about legal technicalities but about safeguarding human dignity and upholding fundamental rights.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

263: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation on trade union legislation(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 4 of this Act on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. (2) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, no sooner than eighteen weeks after the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on—(a) the outcome of that consultation, and(b) the Government’s proposals for changes to the legislation referred to in subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the operation of trade union legislation.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 263 and 330 standing in my name require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 4 on the operation of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and to report on the outcome and any proposed changes. It is a modest proposal, even a restrained one, but, make no mistake, it is a necessary amendment and a crucial one.

What we have before us in Part 4 is not the result of careful planning, measured engagement or evidence-based policy. No, what we have instead is a so far unconsulted set of sweeping reforms to trade union law inserted on Report in the other place with little scrutiny and even less transparency. I believe it is extraordinary that provisions of such weight, which could dramatically alter the balance of industrial relations right across the country, should arrive in this House having not been through a proper public consultation. The provisions would allow the Secretary of State to rewrite fundamental aspects of how trade unions operate, how they are recognised, how they interact with businesses and how ballots are conducted. This is not a footnote to the Bill. This is, I believe, a redrawing of the boundaries of employment law and industrial relations. It has been done without engaging employers, without informing the HR community and without giving those who will be most directly affected any chance to prepare.

We must ask ourselves who, precisely, was consulted. It certainly was not business. It was not those employers, large and small, who will be forced to navigate the implications of this legislation. We are left to presume that only the trade unions were consulted, or at least advised, because the changes serve their interests almost exclusively. They have access to workplaces in ever-broadening circumstances. There is the weakening of independent oversight by stripping powers from the certification officer; the dilution, or in some cases outright removal, of long-standing ballot thresholds that were introduced to protect the legitimacy of industrial action; and the potential for significant changes to trade union recognition processes that could alter the employer-union relationship fundamentally—all to be done by secondary legislation.

That point cannot be emphasised enough. These changes are not in the Bill. They are hidden in the detail that is to be brought forward later through regulations, through statutory instruments, through mechanisms that allow for no amendment and only limited debate. That is no way to legislate on matters as fundamental as the recognition of trade unions or the conditions for lawful industrial action. These are not administrative details. These are foundational questions of how workers and employers interact under the law. They deserve full, open, transparent scrutiny. They deserve proper consultation.

Perhaps most galling of all is that even when the Government speak of consultation, they do so with inconsistency and confusion. I draw your Lordships’ attention to two statements by the Minister for Employment Rights in the other place, Mr Justin Madders. On 7 May he stated unequivocally:

“No decision has yet been made by the Government as to whether or when to exercise this power. Therefore, there is no planned timetable for consulting on it at present”.


No decision, no timetable, no consultation—yet less than a month later, on 3 June, the same Minister declared:

“The Government will consider what criteria to assess whether to lower the recognition threshold in due course, including through the public consultation process”.


We go from no consultation to a planned consultation in the space of four weeks.

This is not just a contradiction. It is, sadly, becoming a symptom of a Government who are making policy on the hoof and who are unable or unwilling to provide clarity on matters of legal and constitutional significance. Let us talk plainly about what that power is. It is the power to reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to just 2%. No justification is offered for that number. There is no White Paper, no consultation document, no cost-benefit analysis, no report from ACAS, no statement from employer organisations or trade bodies, not a single name that the Government can point to that supports the reduction of that recognition threshold to just 2%.

Yet here we are, with Ministers potentially claiming this power to change that threshold by statutory instrument, out of reach of substantive parliamentary control. Why is it 2% and not 20% or 50%? If the Government believe that a change is needed, surely a change should be in the Bill and the rationale should be available to all stakeholders, including this House. If the Government are not prepared to provide that rationale, surely we are entitled to suspect that it has not been thought through.

How will employers respond to these changes? What of the small businesses, the charities, the start-ups, the growing firms that have never had to deal with trade union recognition processes before? They are not anti-trade union. They are simply unprepared, yet under these proposals they may soon be required to accommodate access, to facilitate recognition and to engage in statutory processes for which they have no guidance, no support and no warning. These employers are being thrown into an environment of legal uncertainty, an environment shaped not by consultation or consensus but by expediency. It is also abundantly clear that the Government have shown little interest in listening when they have, in the past, consulted.

On those parts of the Bill where consultation has occurred, however limited, the views of employers and professionals have largely been ignored. We are hearing consistently that business voices are being drowned out and that legitimate concerns about workability, proportionality and unintended consequences are being brushed aside. What then is the purpose of consultation, if it is treated as a procedural formality rather than a genuine dialogue?

Let me repeat again for emphasis: on trade union recognition itself, there has been no consultation. It was confirmed in the other place. To move forward with such a major change in industrial relations law without even the courtesy of asking stakeholders their views is frankly an abdication of responsible governance.

I do not stand here as someone hostile to trade unions: far from it. I recognise their historic role and their ongoing contributions to workplace fairness and safety. But fairness has to go both ways. Changes of this scale must be fair, transparent and built on consensus, not stealthily inserted into a Bill and then pushed forward by ministerial decree. That is why the amendment matters. It seeks only to do what the Government should have done in the first place. It seeks to restore process and balance where neither is currently present. I urge your Lordships to support it, not out of ideology or political interest but out of principle, out of a shared commitment to deliberative democracy and out of basic respect for all those who will live and work under the laws we make in the House. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the reason I support the amendment is that it links making sure we get the consultations done and then not proceeding with the legislation until that has been printed. This goes to the heart of trying to understand, in effect, the detail of the Bill and how it really will impact jobs, because that is what this is about; how we will not only help workers but make sure they have jobs to still be in. That continues to be the underlying concern, which is why this perfectly formed group of amendments makes sure that at least this House knows full well what the expectation is that employers have, and the risks and opportunities that are highlighted, before it makes the final decision on when this becomes legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I am very clear about micro-businesses, medium-sized businesses and small businesses. At the event I attended, we had everybody. Not all were B Corps. We had owner-run businesses, businesses with just one or two employees and medium-sized businesses as well.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed that the Minister does not wish to engage in responding positively to this amendment. My noble friend Lady Coffey put it very much in context, and my noble friend Lady Verma stressed again the complexity of what we are talking about so far as small and medium-sized enterprises are concerned. My noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Noakes further put questions to the Minister, to which I do not think he has responded positively.

I say once again that I cannot see why the Government cannot accept this amendment. On trade union recognition, for instance, there has been no consultation at all. Yet this is a major change. It is the “etc” in Part 4 that I get worried about. Part 4 is described as:

“Trade unions and industrial action, etc”.


There is so much here that has not been consulted on. I agree with the Minister that there has been some consultation, but have the Government really listened to the results of that consultation? Why have they not consulted more widely, particularly on trade union recognition? I think this is an aspect to which we will have to return on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 263 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to come on to the subject of pensions at 10.30 pm. However, I know not to try the patience of my noble friends or even the noble Opposition. In truth, the amendment, although it comes up here and refers to enforcement and the fair work agency, is really about the place of pensions within the Bill. My contention is that pensions are not given adequate consideration, and I am using this as a mechanism to press my noble friend the Minister to expand on how the legislation will reflect on pensions.

Of course, we get the Bill. One wonders how legislators coped before the introduction of “word search”, because there are 300 pages, 157 clauses and 12 schedules; and a use of word search tells us that “pension” appears 19 times in such a massive piece of legislation, and quite a few of those are where it forms part of “suspension”. The Bill fails to give any serious consideration, as far as I can see, to the place of pensions as an important element in the terms and conditions of employment.

That is where I started from. I looked at particular ways that pensions should be addressed in the Bill. The amendments we are considering now—Amendments 264, 265 and 324—are tabled as a sample to press my noble friend to explain.

Amendments 264 and 265 relate to Schedule 7 and enforcement of labour legislation. There is labour legislation on pensions: there are obligations on employers to consult trade unions in certain circumstances—that is covered by Amendment 264. Amendment 265 in effect applies to automatic enrolment, where it is an inherent part of the labour contract that people have that pension. Enforcement agents are going into companies. If they are going in, it seems a wasted opportunity if they do not check for compliance on these particular issues as well as the other issues specified in the Bill. At heart, my amendments are a request for my noble friend to explain whether these issues and pensions more generally should not be included throughout the Bill.

My Amendment 324 appears very late on; it has been promoted from the “miscellaneous and general” part of the Bill. It seeks a definition of “remuneration”, which appears 75 times in the Bill but is not defined anywhere. It could well be defined by other legislation and judgments in the courts, but there seems to be a total lack of consistency. I could point to particular judgments and international standards where remuneration is defined in one way or another, but there is no overall consistency. Yet remuneration is clearly a crucial part of the Bill and there is a lack of clarity about what it means. I really hope that it is obvious; I am raising the issue only because I want the Bill to include pensions. You cannot understand someone’s remuneration if you do not know what pension they are being offered; it is part and parcel of the package. To look at some elements but not pensions seems wrong.

I urge my noble friend to make a positive response that the Bill will be looked at in detail again for places where pensions should have their proper role. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I always have tremendous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, in particular his knowledge of pensions, because he, like me, is an actuary. Whereas he is a true actuary, I am just an honorary fellow of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, so I always respect his views.

I am not sure there is very much I can say in intervening between him, his Secretary of State and the Minister. All I will say is that his amendments represent a shift from a consultative culture to a more legalistic and punitive model. That would be a shift at great cost. Like him, I believe that people are entitled to proper pensions and proper security. Like him, I fought on many occasions to ensure that that is an enforceable right.

I do not want to anticipate what the Minister will say, but we have to consider the employer’s perspective. We all want to see businesses offer generous, flexible benefit schemes—things such as pension contributions, healthcare and travel allowances—but if those are brought into tight regulatory definitions and packages, and enforcement frameworks, I worry that some employers might feel discouraged from offering them at all. I await the response of the Minister.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his contribution, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for tabling Amendments 264, 265 and 324.

I respect my noble friend’s concern for upholding rights relating to pensions. The power in Part 2 of Schedule 7 would allow us to extend the fair work agency’s remit to cover enforcement of pensions legislation in the future, but it would not be appropriate to make this expansion to the fair work agency’s remit at this time. Changing how pensions are enforced would be a significant undertaking, requiring careful consideration, consultation and planning, not least regarding how the fair work agency would interact with the current Pensions Regulator. Therefore, I must respectfully resist these amendments.

Amendment 324, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, seeks to ensure that pension arrangements are covered by the definition of remuneration. While I understand my noble friend’s concern here, this amendment is not necessary and its introduction would have far-reaching implications across the Bill. While pension arrangements are already covered by some of the provisions in the Bill, it brings forward issues around sectoral collective arrangements, which I am sure my noble friend would not want to frustrate. So while I appreciate the intentions of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, I respectfully ask him to withdraw Amendment 264.

--- Later in debate ---

As I say, these amendments do not introduce new policy, and I hope that noble Lords will see that they are necessary to deliver what is an important policy that has broad support. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister not only for her speech but for the briefing she held for all Peers to explain the background to these amendments. We fully appreciate that from time to time, there may be technical issues with legislation that necessitate amendments being brought at a later stage. Such occurrences are of course all part of the legislative process. In this instance, however, it is disappointing that these matters were not addressed and dealt with from the outset.

Ideally, these amendments should have been tabled and thoroughly considered in the other place. Instead, we have seen the Government bring forward a number of policy-related amendments at a relatively late stage—amendments which, regrettably, received limited scrutiny in the Commons. I do not believe that this approach lends itself to the transparency and rigorous examination that effective lawmaking demands. We sincerely hope that in future, the Government will engage with the legislative process in a more considered and structured manner. Proper scrutiny at all stages is not just a formality; it is essential in ensuring that the laws we pass are sound, effective and in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

267A: Clause 89, page 108, line 17, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) the conduct of, but not the decision as to whether the Secretary of State will bring, proceedings by virtue of section 113 (power to bring proceedings in employment tribunals).” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot delegate the decision to bring proceedings on behalf of employees.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments address important gaps in the Bill, ensuring fairness, clarity and accountability in the enforcement of employment rights. Amendment 267A relates to Clause 89 and the delegation of the Secretary of State’s functions. Currently, the Bill allows delegation of functions, including enforcement, but does not explicitly restrict the delegation of the decision to bring proceedings to employment tribunals.

This amendment would ensure that while the Secretary of State is delegating the conduct of proceedings, the crucial decision to initiate legal action remains with the Secretary of State. Without this safeguard, delegated bodies could independently decide whether to bring legal claims, potentially leading to inconsistent decisions, lack of ministerial accountability and confusion about who holds ultimate responsibility. Maintaining ministerial control over such decisions is essential to preserve political accountability and to ensure decisions are made with proper oversight.

Amendment 271B focuses on Clause 113 and seeks to clarify the scope of claims that the Secretary of State may bring. The Bill currently refers broadly to “any enactment”, which risks allowing the Secretary of State to bring claims on a wide range of employment issues, including individual employment rights traditionally pursued by workers themselves. This amendment narrows that scope to relevant labour market legislation and Parts 1 to 4 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, ensuring that government enforcement targets systemic labour market regulation issues such as pay and working conditions, rather than individual employment rights or disputes. Without this restriction, there is a risk of governmental overreach into private employment matters, diluting resources and causing confusion about the limits of state intervention.

Amendment 271C addresses a practical and vital issue regarding claims that workers have already lawfully settled. Under current law, individuals can settle employment claims following independent legal advice, providing certainty to both employers and employees. This amendment prevents the Secretary of State bringing claims that had been settled in accordance with Section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Without this amendment, there is a danger that settled claims could be reopened by the Government, undermining the finality of agreements and subjecting employers to repeated litigation, even after fulfilling their obligations. Such uncertainty would damage trust in settlement processes and could discourage both workers and employers from entering into settlements.

Amendment 272ZA concerns the financial protection of workers in tribunal proceedings brought or conducted by the Secretary of State. It ensures that where an employment tribunal orders costs against a worker, such as legal costs or wasted costs, these costs must be met by the Secretary of State rather than the individual worker. This protection is critical, because workers who had not themselves initiated proceedings should not bear the financial burden of litigation costs. Without this safeguard, workers could face significant personal financial risk, deterring them from seeking support from the Secretary of State and ultimately restricting access to justice. Employers might then attempt to recover costs from these workers, imposing unfair hardship and undermining the purpose of public enforcement. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 272 in this group. When an Act of Parliament creates rights and duties, it usually then allows those who benefit from the rights and duties to enforce them in law, which in the case of employment matters is via the employment tribunal.

This Bill fundamentally changes that and inserts the Secretary of State whenever he or she wants to intervene to take up cases that employees do not themselves want to pursue. It also interferes in the order of things by providing a back door route to legal aid for employees, which is not covered by the normal legal aid system. This part of the Bill is simply going to increase the number of cases heading towards the employment tribunal. As has been debated on several occasions, that system is already under massive stress, and it does not make any sense to stress it any further. I therefore support all the amendments in this group.

My own Amendment 272 merely states that the Secretary of State has to meet a public interest test if he or she wants to use the Clause 91 power to take over a case that an employee does not wish to pursue themselves. As drafted, there is no constraint whatsoever on the Secretary of State’s use of the power. The Secretary of State can simply find out one morning that an employee has a potential case and is not going to do anything about it, and decide to take it over. A public interest test would at least make sure that the Secretary of State intervenes in matters where there is a genuine national interest in the case being pursued.

I suspect that the Secretary of State will be pursued and lobbied by various organisations, quite possibly trade unions, who will see this provision as another weapon in their armoury to have a go at certain large employers, particularly where those employers have not been particularly interested in playing along with whatever trade unions want to do with them. The power is an important departure from the normal way of enforcing rights and duties, so guardrails in the legislation surrounding the use of the power are essential. There is absolutely nothing in the current Bill.

My first instinct was to delete Clause 91 entirely. As far as I can tell, no case has been made for its existence. But I can just about construct a scenario in which the Secretary of State concludes that there is a genuine public interest in overriding the wishes of an employee and pursuing the case in the circumstances I have described. I would expect such a case to be very unusual, and I hope the Minister agrees. Because of that, we should be looking to restrain the power in some way. The words I have used may not be the right words, but the essence of what I am trying to achieve is to reduce into something more reasonable an unconstrained power to completely subvert the normal way in which rights and duties are specified by Parliament and open to enforcement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tabling their amendments. This Government are committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker: it will mean that all employers are held to the same standards.

Amendments 267A, 271B, 271C and 272ZA have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions behind them—seeking fairness, clarity and accountability—I believe that they undermine those objectives. I have major concerns about Amendment 267A. A fundamental principle of the fair work agency is that it will have operational independence. As we have debated, the Secretary of State’s involvement will be at strategic level only. This amendment would undo all that; it would explicitly make any use of the civil proceedings powers dependent on a political decision. This goes against the whole thrust of what we have been debating up to now, and we therefore cannot support the amendment.

Amendment 271B would exclude legislation, such as on family leave, unfair dismissals or redundancies, from the scope of this power. These issues can have a substantial impact on people’s working lives and they are part of the employment package. It is right that the fair work agency has the discretion to support enforcement in these areas and to ensure that employees get what they are entitled to.

Amendment 271C is unnecessary. The Bill already builds in appropriate safeguards to prevent cases being relitigated. In considering whether a worker will bring proceedings, the Secretary of State will have to consider whether a worker has already contacted ACAS. If they have, it would serve as a strong indicator that they are contemplating proceedings. Therefore, where a settlement is being discussed, or has already been reached through ACAS, it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State would pursue a claim. This amendment would create a rigid prohibition that may have unintended consequences. The Government would be restricted from acting where new evidence shows that a settlement was reached under duress.

On Amendment 272ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the Bill already makes it clear that any reference to a worker in proceedings brought by the Secretary of State should be read as including the Secretary of State. In practice, this means that, while it is for the tribunal to decide whether or not to award costs, a costs order could be made only in respect of a party to the case. This would be the Secretary of State, where they are the party that has brought this case. Therefore, this makes this amendment unnecessary.

On Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, a worker may want to bring proceedings but fear the repercussions they may face from the employer should they be de-anonymised. Allowing the Secretary of State to take a case forward without consent would make it harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees and also ensure that action could be taken against exploitation. Ultimately, I agree with the noble Baroness that this will take place only in exceptional circumstances, not least because it is more difficult to argue a case without the assistance of the worker. Nevertheless, where there is a breach of employment rights, there should be consequences. The fair work agency will decide the most appropriate route of enforcement, and it is important that in the most serious cases we allow this power as an option.

Finally, on the Amendments to Clause 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the existing drafting of Clause 114 states:

“The Secretary of State may assist a person”.


This drafting was carefully thought through and is deliberately broad and inclusive. It includes both natural and legal persons, so it already covers both employers and their legal advisers. This amendment does not alter the substance of the clause, but merely restates what is already covered and therefore risks introducing confusion.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 272C, Clause 114 has been carefully monitored against the provisions found in Section 28 of the Equality Act 2006, which also provides for any other form of assistance. This language has been used to ensure flexibility and inclusivity in the types of support that may be provided. This is neither novel nor excessive and is limited to assistance in the context of civil proceedings. To narrow the clause in the way this amendment does would compromise its effectiveness and undermine its accessibility. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not pursue their amendments and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his Amendment 267A.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for providing an important guardrail: the idea that the Secretary of State has to pass a public interest test. I do not think the Minister gave us a direct answer to that suggestion. So far as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough are concerned, there are huge concerns about the way this will affect small businesses in particular. Again, I do not think the Minister addressed that particular point. I regret the fact that the Minister has not acknowledged the importance of these significant gaps in the Bill.

It is concerning that the challenges inherent in delegating the Secretary of State’s enforcement functions to others who may lack the necessary competence or accountability are not being fully recognised at the present time. How does such delegation genuinely serve the interests of workers if it risks inconsistent decision-making and a lack of clear responsibility?

Moreover, the Bill fails to address the very real issue of claims that have already been settled. Employment tribunals are already struggling with an overwhelming backlog, and reopening settled cases would only exacerbate this problem. Surely, we have got to avoid a situation where the Secretary of State is empowered to reopen disputes that workers and employers believed were finally resolved. This not only causes unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for all parties involved but threatens to damage the fragile trust and relations between employers and employees. If this Bill is to be truly effective and fair, it has got to acknowledge these realities: —ignoring them will only undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 267A withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

215: After Clause 56, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to switch off in relation to trade union representatives(1) The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) After section 69 (right to terminate membership of trade union), insert— “69A Right to switch off in relation to trade union representativesIn every contract of membership of a trade union, whether made before or after the coming into force of this section, a term conferring a right on the member to refuse to monitor, read or respond to contact (or attempted contact) by a trade union representative outside their working hours shall be implied.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause confers a right to switch off on trade union members in relation to contact from trade union representatives.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 215 and 332 are in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. They insert a right for trade union members to switch off—to ignore contact from union representatives outside their own working hours.

Let me be clear at the outset that we on these Benches do not see this as an unimportant, “nice to have” option. It is a necessary safeguard in the context of a Bill which is probably doing more than any legislation in living memory to grant privileges to trade unions and inflate union power and will encourage aggressive recruitment regardless of whether or not workers want it. This amendment goes to the very heart of a deeper question we have to ask ourselves: whom is the trade union there to serve—the worker or itself? If we are honest, the Bill increasingly seems more interested in empowering the institution than protecting the individual. The Bill certainly tilts the playing field, not towards workers as individuals but towards union structures as institutions, and it does so with no meaningful safeguards, no checks and balances, and no regard for the fact that many workers today want something very different from what the traditional trade union model is capable of offering.

The Bill is not neutral nor balanced, and it is not simply updating outdated frameworks or modernising collective bargaining: I believe it is a deliberate attempt to revive old-school trade unionism in a dramatically changed industrial context by granting unions not legitimate rights but privileges, whether or not the workers want them. Through expanded access rights, new entitlements and a raft of concessions, the Government are artificially breathing life into organisations that are, frankly, no longer representative of most working people. Union membership has been declining for decades, not because of external barriers but, I believe, because of internal obsolescence. The nature of work has changed, and expectations have changed, yet trade unions have not. Instead of accepting that reality, this Government have decided to push unions back into the workplace, not by making them more attractive but by giving them more power. We know what happens when institutions are given power without accountability: they use it and, often, abuse it.

This amendment is therefore a response to that risk. It says clearly and unapologetically that, even if the Government want to empower unions, individual workers should still be able to set boundaries, especially in their own time. The pressure that comes from union representatives is not always welcome, and it is certainly not always proportionate, especially now that, under the new powers granted by the Bill, I am sure we will see a rise in out-of-hours messaging, campaign pushes, late-night emails, WhatsApp group bombardments, friendly reminders to attend meetings or urgent invitations to back a ballot. It will be relentless, not because it has to be but because unions will be under pressure themselves to prove their relevance, grow their numbers and mobilise more quickly and visibly than ever.

The burden of that spurious urgency will fall squarely on the ordinary—often reluctant—member, who will have joined the union for protection, not politics, and who just wants to do their job and get on with their life. That member deserves a basic right: the right to draw a line. This amendment gives them that right. It says that, outside your working hours, you cannot be expected to respond to union communications, not because you are hostile to unions or are trying to undermine solidarity but because your time is your own—and because respect for the individual must come before deference to the organisation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his very entertaining contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to Amendments 215 and 332 in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

The proposed new clauses would create a right in primary legislation for trade union members to switch off from contact from trade union representatives. As far as I am aware, there is not any demand to introduce such a requirement on trade unions. I have not heard this from my colleagues, or from trade union members, or from any worker, or indeed from any employer or employer organisation that I have spoken to lately.

It is difficult to see what benefit or purpose such an obligation inserted into membership contracts might serve. Currently, there is no obligation for a trade union member to reply to communications from their trade union, as was ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. There is nothing stopping a member ignoring them or telling them to **** off.

This Government are committed to the well-being and positive work-life balance of all workers. The Employment Rights Bill is proof of this commitment, with relevant measures including making flexible working the default except where not reasonably feasible. This will help employees and employers to agree solutions which work for both parties.

I say politely to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I reject his allegation of trade union influence and power interfering with people’s lives. As it stands, every member can ignore the messages and communications —whoever has approached them—outside work. There is no evidence that this is currently happening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to reflect on that and to be careful with some of the pretty harsh words he has said. I invite him to withdraw his Amendment 215.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord has to face the reality of the situation when looking at today’s world, where trade unions represent only 12% of private sector workers. He tells the Committee that this provision is not necessary now, but we are entering a new era. It is one that I recall vividly, when I first came into the House of Commons, just under 50 years ago, at a time when the trade unions dominated lives to a huge extent. Talking to some of my friends in the trade union movement, I sense that they look forward to the day when the trade unions will re-emerge in the private sector and become again dominant in public life.

I too was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for talking about work-life balance. I am rather sad that the noble Lord in responding did not really get into that. That is what this amendment is all about. In sharing with us his experiences in the GMB, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put it in context. I have, in the past, done a lot of cases for the GMB; it is a wonderful, friendly society that looks after people in a huge way. This amendment is not ideological, it is not radical and it would not weaken unions. It would not restrict collective bargaining or impose new administrative burdens on trade unions. All it and the subsequent amendment seek to do is to offer trade union members the right—the dignity—to say, “Not now. Not after hours. Not in my living room. Not when I am at home, off duty and seeking the same privacy and peace of mind that every working person deserves”. We are looking forward to that day, or are we?

If these new provisions give additional power to unions in the Bill, why do the Government not stop for a moment to ask how this will affect ordinary members? Not union leaders, not officials, not full-time organisers, but the actual members who just want to get on with their lives, in peace. That is what this amendment is about—not disruption, not dilution, but balance. I fully accept that many of these members will not complain about out-of-hours contact from a union, but not because they agree with it but because almost certainly they will be tired and will not want confrontation, as they worry that pushing back could lead to exclusion, being labelled or being isolated within the very structure that they joined for protection.

--- Later in debate ---

Leaving out Clause 57 would allow SMEs to continue to have an opt out from the compulsory duty to recognise a trade union irrespective of the number of employees working for the SME.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the opposition to Clause 57 standing part of the Bill and to Schedule 6 being agreed, tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I also support Amendment 215AZA to Schedule 6, which proposes inserting

“other than in the usual course of the employer’s business”

after “units”. This is all part of a much wider debate that we are moving towards on trade union access and recognition. The amendment may appear narrow in scope, but it addresses a serious flaw in the current drafting which could lead to unintended consequences that undermine the objectives of the Bill and the practical realities of the modern workplace.

The purpose of the provision as drafted is to prevent employers undermining trade union recognition by artificially inflating the size of a bargaining unit with new employees after the application day. That objective is entirely sound. Employers should not be able to frustrate or delay the process of recognition by manipulating the workforce in bad faith. While the provision seeks to target such behaviour, however, the current wording does so in a way that ignores the economic and operational realities facing most employers.

In the vast majority of businesses, employees join and leave as a matter of course. Recruitment is not a manipulative tactic—it is a normal, often essential part of running an organisation. Particularly in sectors with high turnover, employers must routinely recruit to maintain service levels, respond to demand or support business growth. But under the schedule as currently worded, any new employee who joins the bargaining unit after the application date may automatically be excluded from consideration, regardless of whether that recruitment was completely ordinary and unconnected to the union process.

This risks creating a perverse incentive for employers to delay or freeze hiring during the recognition process—something that may last nine months or more in practice. Employers would be put in an impossible position: either pause recruitment at significant operational and economic cost, or continue recruiting and face the uncertainty of whether those employees count in the CAC’s consideration. It also risks unjustly penalising new employees, who, through no fault of their own, would be deprived of representation in the collective bargaining process simply because of the timing of their hire.

This kind of rigidity does not reflect how businesses operate or how workforces evolve. The schedule, without amendment, assumes a static picture of the workplace—one frozen at the moment of application. That may make theoretical sense in a static model, but in reality it is artificial and unworkable. In doing so, it creates uncertainty for all parties and opens the door to protracted disputes about who should or should not be included in a bargaining unit.

Furthermore, the Central Arbitration Committee is already well equipped to monitor changes in workforce composition. It regularly requires updates to information throughout the recognition process. Employers and unions alike are accustomed to this and operate within it. The idea that including new, routinely hired employees in a bargaining unit would overwhelm or undermine the CAC process is not supported by the CAC’s own established practice. The amendment, therefore, does not introduce an undue burden; it aligns the legislation with how recognition procedures already work in practice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

These amendments seek to delay when unions would be able to request access during the recognition process until after the bargaining unit had been agreed or determined. While I understand what the noble Lord is attempting to achieve with these amendments, employers have access to the workforce throughout the recognition process. The Government’s view is that unions should have access to the workplace as well from the point where the CAC accepts the application for recognition. This enables the unions to also have access to the workplace for a time closer to the start of the recognition process.

Amendments 215FG, 215FH, 216GA and 216MA seek to remove specific unfair practices from Schedule 6. They seem to seek to allow employers or unions to make an outcome-specific offer or use undue influence with a view to influencing the recognition application. These unfair practices are of long standing and are already set out in the legislation currently in force. The use of undue influence could, for example, include the threat or the use of violence. We therefore see no argument for removing these prohibitions on these unfair practices.

Amendment 216 seeks to reverse changes in the Bill by reinstating the requirement that unions meet the 40% support threshold in addition to a majority in a statutory union recognition ballot. I remind noble Lords that this was a manifesto commitment set out clearly in our plan to make work pay. We are committed to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. We believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. Our view is that the existing legal framework needs to be simplified so that workers have a more meaningful right to organise through their trade unions.

To achieve this, we are removing the current requirement for a union to have at least 40% of the workforce in the proposed bargaining unit supporting union recognition. In future, unions will need only a simple majority in a recognition ballot to win. We believe that the 40% support threshold represents too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are increasingly fragmented.

Amendment 216KA seeks to ensure that an employer is not prohibited from taking action against the worker for meeting or indicating that they would like to meet unions during the statutory recognition process if the worker has breached any term of their contract of employment. The prohibition that this amendment seeks to amend is carried forward from the existing legislation, where the proposed proviso about the worker not having breached their contract does not appear. While well intentioned, this amendment is not necessary. The prohibition applies only where the employer takes action against the worker solely or mainly on the grounds that they met with the union. It does not apply where the sole or main purpose is another reason, which may, in some circumstances, be a breach of their contract of employment. I hope this provides the necessary reassurance to the noble Lord.

I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for the debate and for tabling these amendments, but I must ask the noble Lord not to move the amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for revealing to the Committee that we are discussing a fundamental reshaping of workplace democracy, with potentially profound consequences. She is right to explain that that is what the Government are about. The Employment Rights Bill does not just tinker with existing procedures; it carefully dismantles the framework established by previous Labour Governments. Under these reforms, as the Minister just revealed, unions would need to demonstrate just 10% membership support to trigger recognition processes, and that is a threshold that regulations could reduce, after consultation, to an extraordinary 2%.

Let me explain to the Committee what that means in practice. In a bargaining unit of 250 employees, recognition could be initiated by as few as 25 members under the 10% threshold, or potentially just five members if it is reduced to 2%. More troubling still, with the removal of the 40% support requirement, union recognition, granting negotiating rights over all 250 employees, could theoretically be achieved with a single yes vote, provided no one votes against. This is not hyperbole but mathematical reality under the proposed framework.

Perhaps most concerning of all is that, as the Minister, Justin Madders, acknowledged in the other place, there has been no consultation on these fundamental changes. We are being asked to revolutionise industrial relations based on ideology rather than evidence, without hearing from employers, workers or even the Central Arbitration Committee, which must implement these provisions. This lack of consultation betrays a troubling disregard for the complexity of workplace relations and the legitimate interests of all parties: employers, workers who support unionisation, and those who do not.

The amendments I spoke to are not anti-union but pro-democracy. They recognise that legitimate collective bargaining must rest on genuine demonstrable support from the workforce it claims to represent. The current proposals risk creating what I can only describe as recognition by stealth, where small, motivated groups can impose collective bargaining arrangements on entire workforces without meaningful mandate. That is not industrial democracy; it is the antithesis of it.

Consider the worker who joins a company the day after a union application is filed. Under these proposals, they may be excluded from the very process that will determine their workplace representation. Consider the 245 employees in my hypothetical bargaining unit who never joined the union and never voted, yet find themselves bound by collective agreements negotiated on their behalf by representatives they did not choose.

Beyond democratic concerns lie practical ones: the amendments I have tried to persuade the House to accept recognise that businesses must continue to operate during recognition processes that could stretch over nine months. Routine recruitment, staff transfers and ordinary business activities cannot be frozen pending union ballots without severe economic consequences. Yet the Bill as drafted forces exactly this choice: suspend normal operations or face the uncertainty of having legitimate business decisions treated as manipulation.

These reforms occur within a pattern of changes that consistently favour union interests over balanced workplace relations. The lowering of thresholds, the removal of safeguards and the expansion of access rights: each individual change may seem modest, but collectively they represent a fundamental shift in the balance of industrial relations. This is particularly concerning given the Government’s stated commitment to economic growth. How can we simultaneously demand that businesses expand, hire and invest while making their operations subject to collective bargaining arrangements that will lack genuine workforce support? The Government must bear in mind that these Benches will not sit back and allow this to happen. We will return to it at Report, but in the meantime, I will not oppose the clause standing part.

Clause 57 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief, as the dinner hour is upon us and there are—as we say—strangers in the House.

While I recognise the importance of transparency to inform members’ choice regarding funds, this group of amendments raises serious questions about proportionality. Amendments 216YC and 216YD would introduce notably higher thresholds for political resolutions, requiring support from a majority of all eligible members, rather than just those voting, and mandating new resolutions every five years. These are significant changes from the current practice. Likewise, Amendments 221 and 223—expertly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—seek to reduce opt-out notices from 10 years to one or two.

While the intention behind these proposals is clear, the impact warrants careful consideration. Other issues have been slightly sidetracked. There are fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address head-on. These issues are at the nub of trade unions and political funds, so we need some clarity on them from the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, what an important debate this has been. I think 14 noble Lords have participated, starting with my noble friend Lady Coffey. She dealt with Clause 58 in particular, whereas most of the rest of the debate has been around Clause 59.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. His speech dominated the debate, as he set out so clearly the history of what he described as the 2016 compromise—which in fact it was—that Clause 59 now seeks to overturn. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, about the importance of campaigning and seeing full participation in that area. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for coming specially on her birthday to remind us all of the role she played on the Burns committee. Despite interruptions, she got across a series of key points about that compromise. Those who were interrupting her did not seem to realise that shareholders have to approve any political donations made by companies—but never mind.

I move on quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Cash, who had a fascinating exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, speaking now as a practising lawyer, that my noble friend Lady Cash is right: if money is taken for any period without knowledge or consent, freedom of association has been removed—it does not matter whether it is for a week, a month or a decade. In a way, though, that was a side issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, then took us way back in time. We all always benefit from the noble Lord, Lord Monks. I still have the guilty feeling that I caused a cartoon to be shown in the Guardian showing him getting into bed with me, in which his was the face on a huge cart horse. I was Secretary of State for Employment, and I was being accused by the Guardian of being too nice to the trade union movement by getting into bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks—but we are not in the same bed tonight.

We heard from my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who really put the record straight and elevated the sort of smears that were thrown—usually from a sedentary position—from the party opposite in that context. My noble friends Lord Leigh and Lady Lawlor did the same. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for really trying to encapsulate what has been a very complicated and detailed debate.

Let us be clear on one thing—and it is up to the Minister to respond to all the very valid points that have been raised: Clause 59 says that workers will be presumed to consent to union political contributions unless they actively opt out. This is a fundamental shift. It reverses the presumption of consent in a way that would never be tolerated were it an employer imposing such terms on a worker. Where, then, is the Government’s concern for free choice, transparency and the dignity of the individual to act without coercion? Surely, if we are to be consistent in protecting worker autonomy, we must apply the same standards to trade unions as we do to employers. Anything less is not principle; it is partisanship.

The Bill includes provisions that would require employers to provide workers with written statements outlining their trade union rights on day one of employment and at other points that the Government see fit. But until Amendment 218 comes along, that principle appears to vanish entirely so far as political fund contributions are concerned. A worker can be enrolled into a union and begin contributing to political causes, most often aligned with one single political party, without ever being clearly and directly told what that money supports or how to stop contributing. I believe that to be a serious democratic deficit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I think we have answered that question in quite a lot of detail now. I hope that noble Lords feel that I have answered these points in sufficient detail.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

We appreciate the detail that the Minister is going into, but a number of questions have not been answered. Can she undertake to write to noble Lords with the answers? Also, can she clarify whether, if a union member fails to opt out of contributing to the political fund on day 1, they could then be bound not to have the opportunity to opt out again for 10 years?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am absolutely confident that union members can opt out at any time, not just every 10 years. It is the reminder that goes every 10 years, rather than the requirement for them to remain.

We have had a very detailed, long debate, and I have attempted to answer all the questions noble Lords have raised. If there are any outstanding issues, I will write. In the meantime, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her Amendment 216YC.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am quite concerned about this amendment, although I rarely disagree with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I am just concerned about the number of agencies or government bodies that keep being created. We already have considerable regulation in this country; I am not convinced that this will add value. Although I recognise the reasons why my noble friend put this forward, I hope he might reconsider tabling it again on Report, if he was so minded.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by saying how pleased we are to see my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his place. I had the privilege of moving his previous amendments in his absence, but we are delighted to see him back with us and I thank him for proposing this important amendment.

The way my noble friend did it was very welcome because, at the heart of his speech, was a recognition that the labour market—especially the supply of temporary and agency workers—has to be fair and transparent. He used those particular words and stressed their importance. I agree with him that it is essential that all companies involved in these arrangements operate under the same clear set of rules. Too often, we see instances where umbrella companies or certain intermediaries do not meet the standards expected of traditional employment agencies, whether on pay, workers’ rights or transparency. This inconsistency undermines the integrity of the labour market and can put vulnerable workers at risk. Licensing could, in theory, help address this by ensuring that any business participating in employment arrangements meets minimum standards and is subject to proper oversight.

However, as my noble friend Lady Coffey stressed, the amendment raises some other important questions. Clause 34 broadens the definition of “employment business” to encompass a range of activities connected to supplying workers who are employed by one party but work under the control of another. This means that the regulatory net will be set much wider than before, potentially to cover businesses beyond traditional recruitment agencies.

Moreover, it is worth considering whether the same objectives could be achieved through improved enforcement of existing regulations rather than by introducing a new licensing framework. In this Chamber, we have to weigh carefully the costs and benefits, particularly to smaller businesses that may struggle with additional compliance burdens. We must also consider the impact on businesses and the wider economy. Many employment businesses operate with tight margins; for them, licensing means added costs, added paperwork and longer lead times to launch new services or respond to labour demand.

This is not an argument against regulation per se; it is simply a recognition that badly designed or poorly phased licensing can create barriers to entry, reduce competition and even push some providers underground, where abuses are harder to detect. In sectors that are already experiencing labour shortages, such as social care, hospitality and logistics, the cumulative impact could be significant.

As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, there is also the risk of regulatory duplication or conflict. Some sectors already have licensing or registration schemes; others are subject to sector-specific standards set by Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission or the Financial Conduct Authority. Without co-ordination, we risk creating overlapping regimes, with businesses subject to multiple audits, rival codes of conduct and inconsistent enforcement. Workers too may be confused about their rights and the mechanisms available for redress.

I also note that the amendment does not contain any provisions for parliamentary oversight or consultation. The power it seeks to create is broad and, while it is subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, it is not constrained by any statutory duty to consult stakeholders. In a sector as economically important and socially sensitive as this, there must be consultation. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his amendment concerning the licensing of employment businesses. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in saying how nice it is to see him in his place this afternoon. I share the privilege that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, noted as I responded to the amendments that were tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and these were on important issues that he was right to raise. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, these are around fairness, transparency, equity and the problems that some less than scrupulous umbrella organisations and employment agencies currently raise in the market. He is not raising unimportant issues.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already noted, through Clause 34, the Government have sought to amend the definition of “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, so that it includes the concept of employment arrangements. This expanded definition will capture so-called umbrella companies and place them in the scope of regulation. As your Lordships know, employment businesses are subject to regulation through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which were enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and subsequently will be enforced by the new fair work agency that Part 5 of the Bill creates.

The Government acknowledge that the current regulations are not appropriate for application to umbrella companies so, following consultation, we will set out a new regulatory framework that will apply to umbrella companies. In our view, these regulations are the most proportionate way of reducing non-compliance in the umbrella company market, without introducing a new regime that would add complexity for business. The creation of a licensing authority at this time would therefore not be appropriate. I am happy to say that on this rare occasion, we share the concerns of both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, from whom we heard earlier on this amendment.

The regulation-making powers in the Bill have been carefully considered and included only where the Government consider it justified and necessary. We are not convinced that the amendment will provide additional benefits for businesses or workers significant enough to expand this power, as it proposes.

The Government want to take care to get the regulations right. We have heard throughout our wonderful time spent discussing the Bill in Committee so far that there is a balance to be sought between the burdens that we create through new legislation and regulation on businesses, including small businesses, and protecting the rights of workers. It is a balance we get right, and we want to make sure that we get regulations right in relation to the new definition of employment businesses in this case. Our focus will be on that, alongside the establishment of the fair work agency.

Taking all these factors into consideration, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.

The whole intention appears to be to limit the scope of any collective bargaining. It is as clear as day. Different forms of words can be come up with concerning who is involved, who should clear what, and so on. That delays things, and that is the intention of the amendments before us.

Noble Lords have to understand that the proposals legislate for the Secretary of State or their nominee to be involved in the negotiating body. I personally have no reservations about that. We want to talk to the people who have the power and the influence to make decisions that improve the service and teaching in our schools. This proposed new body is intended to improve schools and education. What better way of doing it than to bring people together, give them a voice, allow it to be heard and come to conclusions which are for the benefit of all?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very important debate, and I thank my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Coffey for their amendments in this group. We have had some very interesting real-life examples given by my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, and an important dimension from the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, to which I will return in a moment.

I am, however, pleased to speak in support of Amendment 151, introduced by my noble friend Lady Barran. This amendment highlights an essential but often underappreciated part of our school workforce: the support staff. That is where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds. Those support staff keep schools running smoothly every day. From teaching assistants to catering teams, their work is vital, and as my noble friend put it, they form the backbone of the whole system.

The Government’s Bill takes a step forward by proposing the creation of a school support staff negotiating body, and I make it clear that I believe that is a welcome move. However, the Bill’s current approach, with its push for a single set of national pay and conditions, risks overlooking the real differences which exist between schools, as my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton pointed out, especially between maintained schools and academies.

What this amendment does so well is to recognise the need for a flexible framework for academies, one that they must consider and may depart from only in exceptional circumstances. This respects academies’ independence while still promoting fairness and consistency.

We must of course remember that “support staff” is a broad term covering a wide range of roles and responsibilities. The needs of a small primary school and a large multi-academy trust are not at all the same, and any framework has to reflect that diversity. Like in most areas of the Bill, the Government have taken a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that I am concerned could create confusion and strain resources. Instead, a balanced framework such as the one my noble friend proposes offers a practical way to support staff fairly, without unnecessary bureaucracy.

My noble friend also raised an important point about the potential costs and bureaucratic complexity that come with establishing another negotiating body such as the school support staff negotiating body. This is not just about money but about the practical demands placed on schools and trusts, especially smaller ones with limited administrative capacity.

Setting up and maintaining a new national negotiating framework involves significant resources: time, personnel and funding. Schools will need to engage with the school support staff negotiating body’s processes, potentially adapt to new systems for pay, terms and training, and ensure compliance with frameworks that may be complex and constantly evolving.

For large multi-academy trusts, this might be manageable, but for smaller schools—already stretched thin—it adds a layer of bureaucracy that can divert valuable time and resources away from teaching and supporting pupils. Moreover, the negotiation and implementation processes risk becoming slow and cumbersome, delaying important decisions on staff pay and conditions. This could lead to uncertainty and frustration among support staff and their employers alike.

I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her insightful remarks. She makes a compelling and important point: the Secretary of State is already required to consult the prescribed school support staff organisations, which represent the full spectrum of support staff voices, yet this amendment rightly challenges why the Trades Union Congress should be given a special, privileged position with an additional mandatory consultation in primary legislation that risks unnecessary delay, added bureaucracy and potential obstruction.

Although the TUC is of course a major trade union umbrella—many colleagues across the Chamber will remind us of its history—it does not have a monopoly on representing school support staff. Many staff organisations operate independently and effectively without TUC oversight. Therefore, by insisting on formal TUC consultations, we risk entrenching a narrow set of interests, potentially sidelining smaller or non-TUC affiliated groups that also deserve a seat at the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)]

My Lords, many of my noble friends have spoken about the possible collapse of the social care system. The toxic combination of chronic underfunding and the dysfunctional market system means that thousands of elderly and disabled people do not get the care that they need. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to establish a framework to establish legally binding agreements that, at long last, would set pay, conditions and terms for workers in the adult social care sector: an adult social care negotiating body in England made up of relevant employers and trade unions.

Staff in the sector are voting with their feet. They are leaving in droves. The vacancy rate is one of the highest in the economy and 130,000 jobs remain unfilled. Low pay is endemic. Over 400,000 adult care workers live below the real living wage, and 40% of the whole workforce live below the real living wage. A quarter are living on the verge of poverty and one-tenth are living with food insecurity. That is hardly a vote of confidence in our social care system.

Perhaps the most important reason for not delaying the action that is so desperately needed rests in the costs to our National Health Service. The latest State of Care report from the Care Quality Commission stated in April this year that waits for care home beds and home-based care accounted for almost half the delays in discharging patients who had been in hospital for more than 14 days. Nearly 4,000 people were delayed on an average day. The proposed fair pay agreement for adult social care staff has the potential to do so much good. Low pay, the lack of any career ladder and limited professional recognition are all inextricably linked in the social care sector. Experienced care workers with over five years’ service are paid, on average, just 8p an hour more than a new starter. There is little or no incentive for care workers to remain in the service; there is no meaningful career progression.

I cannot support the idea, which has been floated, that the new negotiating body would not apply to providers of care in the private sector. The whole point of the proposed fair pay agreement is that it will address low pay across the whole sector, not just those who are publicly funded. It would be deeply divisive, creating a two-tier care workforce with some benefiting and others shut out.

Privately funded providers should be requested to sit on the proposed adult social care negotiating body. We need that body to cover the whole sector, not just the public sector. If it is to work and to be successful in driving up pay standards across the whole sector, it must apply to the broadest definition of care workers. The proposed fair pay agreement is the first step towards a more structured pay system that over time should enable employers to offer a career pathway into social care, rather than low-status, low-paid employment with a high turnover rate.

So many of our citizens who need social care will benefit from the suggestions in this Bill. It is the first building block to a national care service. It will help with one of the most intractable problems facing our public services. The chief executive of the National Care Forum stated:

“We welcome any measures to strengthen the rights and improve the pay, terms and conditions of the social care workforce who make a significant contribution to our economy and the lives of millions of people”.


I ask that we allow this proposal, which will do so much good, to go forward, and that any amendments are no longer pursued.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I say at the outset what an important debate this has been. We on these Benches support fair pay, decent working conditions and recognition of the vital work that social care workers do. I join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in his tributes, and welcome and thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this group. I want to say how pleased we all are that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has decided to come and deal with this issue, in a Bill for which she has no immediate responsibility but certainly does in the context of the social care negotiating body.

I had no part in deciding which group of amendments I would respond to, and I find myself in some difficulty, because the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, gave us the most brilliant exposition of the 126 years since the ILO was established in 1919 and the right to collective bargaining. However, in a way, that was directed not so much to the Minister but to his noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who, under the European Convention on Human Rights, signed to say that:

“In my view the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.


Therefore, is it not the noble Baroness who should be responding to the tour de force that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy? Perhaps she has already communicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, what she would say in response.

We on these Benches cannot support a structure that hands over the steering wheel of national employment frameworks to a narrow group of trade union and employer representatives with little regard for broader public interest, service user experience or the realities of a publicly funded care system. By insisting that the chair be chosen exclusively by agreement between union officials and employer representatives, and in the event of disagreement by ACAS, these amendments would introduce unnecessary complexity and risk deadlock. By removing ministerial appointment, a crucial source of impartial leadership and accountability disappears. We cannot afford a negotiating body that stalls at the first sign of disagreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for introducing a fascinating debate. My own relationship with heritage railways goes back some 45 years, to when I participated in all those wonderful railways in north Wales. I took my daughter Daisy to the top of Snowdon in one of these wonderful train rides. Sadly, the Western Mail had a picture of Daisy and me driving the locomotive, illegally, with the headline, “Daisy drives Dad around the bend”. I shall never forget that.

Therefore, like my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Mendoza, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, I approach this debate with some degree of positive expectation, because the noble Lord, Lord Katz, is going to reply. If ever there was anyone who would understand the need for this amendment, it is the noble Lord, Lord Katz. Whether his brief will allow him to show that level of understanding, we will have to wait and see.

This amendment brings welcome clarity and common sense to an area where outdated legislative definitions risk interfering with well-established and valued community practice. Heritage railways and tramways are not industrial undertakings in the conventional sense. They are, overwhelmingly, charitable or volunteer-led organisations dedicated to preserving history, offering educational experiences and engaging communities, often in rural or heritage-rich areas. This amendment recognises the important distinction between exploitive industrial labour and safe, structured, voluntary participation. Many young people who volunteer on heritage railways gain practical skills, develop a sense of responsibility and form connections across generations. It is, for many, their first taste of civic engagement and teamwork and is often a path into engineering, public service or the arts.

By inserting this narrow and well-defined exemption into the 1920 Act, this clause would ensure that young volunteers can continue to participate safely and legally in activities that benefit not only themselves but the broader public. Importantly, this does not in any way dilute protections against child labour or weaken employment law. It simply makes sure that our legal framework does not unintentionally penalise or prohibit what is clearly a public good.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, my reputation seems to precede me on this amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for tabling Amendment 201 and have enjoyed a slight diversion in subject matter on the Employment Rights Bill. It is truly a pleasure to be able to continue the discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Faulkner about the railways for many years, both inside and outside this House. My noble friend is a true champion of heritage railways across the whole piece, not simply on this issue. I pay tribute to his role as president of the Heritage Railway Association.

It has been fantastic to hear from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendoza and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, all of whom extolled the virtues of heritage railways in providing a positive way of involving young people in transport, industry and civic engagement—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was just saying—as well as contributing to the tourist sector and the Government’s mission for growth. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke very strongly about that, and, as he pointed out, it is the 200th anniversary of the railway this year. We are doing a lot to commemorate that, and heritage railways will have their own role in that. I pay special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for being the first person to out me as a rail nerd in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also had that pleasure.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, took us on a little tour d’horizon of the Private Member’s Bill debate we had in this House on this topic a few years ago, and mentioned a number of heritage railways. I can speak of the pleasure I had as a young child travelling on the Ruislip Lido railway, which was small in scale but mighty in reputation for those of us in north-west London. The noble Lord is right to point to the virtues of heritage railways, both as an economic activity and in individual engagement.

As a Government, we recognise and support the valuable opportunities young people have through volunteering to do a wide range of different work activities, including on heritage railways. Obviously, it is important that these things are carried out in a safe way, with employers, organisers and volunteers supervising activities to make sure that risks are properly controlled. To give some background, I will say that noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for regulating health and safety at work, but, in the case of the heritage railways, the Office of Rail and Road is the enforcing authority. Both these regulators have considered carefully what powers they have and how these would be applied in the case of young people aged between 14 and 16 volunteering on a heritage railway.

The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to, is a long-standing piece of legislation intended to prohibit the employment of children carrying out high-risk work, such as construction in industrial settings. To be honest, amending or repealing it would not be a straightforward matter.

The law protecting children in the UK is also a complex area, and this amendment touches on not only health and safety protections but other legislation and local authority by-laws. These are all devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and this amendment would impose changes there too. The 1920 Act is old legislation; amending it should be considered only after a thorough review of the impact on other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences. It is worth pointing out that the primary legislation governing child employment, including light work, is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Amending or repealing the 1920 Act would still leave the 1933 Act in place, which—together with any by-laws made under it by local authorities—limits children to undertaking only light work. So repealing the 1920 Act could have unintended consequences across a number of sectors, and a full impact assessment would be required.

As we have heard, modern health and safety legislation does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to the Heritage Railway Association survey, which demonstrated that there are around 800 under 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways across the country. There may be activities that are unsuitable for young volunteers to carry out—for example, safety-critical tasks such as train diving—but I am pleased to say that both regulators are very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to determine what sorts of activities would be safe, appropriate and suitable for young volunteers aged 14 to 16 to perform on the railways.

Of course, regulators should, and do, take a proportionate approach to enforcement action. It is worth noting that the last time the 1920 Act was used to support health and safety enforcement was in 2009. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester told us, there have been no prosecutions under the 1920 Act, either of public bodies or private individuals, which proves that the status quo is not absolutely terrible.

The aim of this amendment is to remove any barriers to allow children to gain valuable experience volunteering on heritage railways and tramways. Nobody wants to see more young men and women developing an interest and, indeed, a career on the railway more than I do. It is not clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this legislation is creating any barriers and, as we know, many heritage railways run very successfully with young people volunteering in a wide range of activities to support those ventures.

Both the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive remain very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association to develop additional guidance and, possibly, examples of good practice to ensure that young volunteers can continue to work safely in heritage railway settings. While this is a sensible and proportionate way forward to address this issue, I have heard the strength of opinion on this matter from across the Committee. I am more than happy and willing to facilitate a meeting with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—other noble Lords may be interested—with the HRA, DfT, ORR and HSE to further pursue this issue. Without making any further commitments, I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment for now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not expected to speak at any point during this Bill, and I will do so now only very briefly to express my thanks to the noble Earl and his colleagues for praying my name in aid in relation to this amendment. I really just want to say that I may be the only person in the House—and I am certainly, I think, the only person in this Chamber—for whom a casting directory was the bible of my life for many decades. Therefore, I know exactly how important it is to performers that there should be a trusted published work of some kind to which they can refer their information which can then be the source of potential employment through the work of casting directors and other industry professionals.

I just say to the Minister, when she comes to consider this amendment—which, by the way, I do support, and I have nothing to add or anything I wish to contradict in what has been said so far—that it is important to recognise that this is an extremely delicate ecosystem in which there are many, many people who need to avail themselves, and have done over decades, as we have been told, of the kind of service that a casting director and a casting directory provide. Frankly, for most of all of our lives, it has been Spotlight, but it could be others. The people who need to avail themselves of that service are many in number, and the people who need to use it in order to find out about those people are much fewer in number—mostly casting directors. It is very important that they have a trusted source, that performers can rely on their information being carefully curated, looked after and protected in the way that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have already outlined, but that we do not disturb the particular delicate relationship between those two aspects of the way that the business works. While I am not in favour of exceptionalism on the whole, I think we do have to understand that this industry operates not always perfectly but certainly in an unusual kind of way, and it is necessary that it continue to do so with the right protections in place.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for bringing this very important subject to the attention of this Committee. All sectors of the economy, including the creative industries, deserve fair and proportionate attention in the development and review of employment law, particularly when, as the noble Earl pointed out, the workplace is changing so fast and at such speed.

As the noble Earl reminded us, we need a framework which strikes the right balance. We are all grateful to him for not commenting in any detail about an ongoing dispute, which we will all carefully avoid mentioning any more, although we all agree we must keep a watching brief on what is happening as regards that particular instance.

However, as we consider wider reforms to employment rights and protections, we must ensure that we are not unintentionally leaving out those in less conventional work arrangements. Performers and others working in the creative industries often operate outside the normal employer and employee model. They frequently rely, as we have heard, on casting directories and digital platforms to access work—platforms that are increasingly central as to how creative labour is bought and sold, and have been for a number of years. Yet this part of the labour market is rarely the focus of legislative scrutiny. That must change.

I hope we are all agreed that we cannot claim to be modernising employment law if we ignore how it interacts with one of the fastest growing and culturally significant sectors of our economy. This amendment does not, of course, call for regulation but for understanding. A review will help us grasp better whether existing protections are functioning as they should, and whether any further action is needed to ensure fairness and transparency in the systems on which performers so clearly depend. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to how he would like to respond to what is a fast-changing situation.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very short but very interesting debate, and declare an interest that many and perhaps all my actor friends are registered with Spotlight. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for tabling Amendment 204C.

Providers of work-finding services, which can include digital services, are regulated through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which are enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and in due course they will be enforced by the fair work agency. I hope that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on who enforces regulations in this area.

The conduct regulations also allow for employment agencies to charge work-seekers in specific occupations, such as actors, musicians and singers, fees for their inclusion in a publication for the purpose of work finding. These costs can be no more than a reasonable estimate of the cost of production and circulation of that publication.

I am sure that all noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot say anything more about the ongoing litigation between the actors’ union and that particular organisation. However, I will share with all noble Lords how the Government are supporting the creative sector.

The UK is home to world-class creative industries. Every single day, our arts and culture bring joy to millions of people, not just in our four nations but all over the world. Every second, someone somewhere will be listening, reading or hearing one of our creative artists. They are part of our soft power, part of our economic power and part of the joy that we so generously give the world. They enrich our lives, bring our communities together and drive our economy. The creative industries have been identified as a growth-driving sector in our strategy, Invest 2035.

People and skills are an important part of this strategy. The Government have been working closely with the sector, including through the creative industry sector plan task force, to develop a plan for the sector. The Creative Industries Taskforce includes Creative UK, the British Fashion Council and the Royal Shakespeare Company, and I hope that it will address some of the issues that were asked about earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to improve the working conditions of those in the creative industries, and I will discuss this further when we debate a later amendment on the performing arts and entertainment sectors tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I make my case. The only reason those interest rates were cut was that our economy has been improving. Some £63 billion of private investment was announced at the investment summit last year. Introducing this Bill within 100 days will boost protections and quality of work for the lowest-paid, raising living standards across the country and creating opportunities for all.

I turn to the actual amendments. Amendments 205 and 207, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would introduce exemptions to this measure based on the size of the business. The new duty on employers to inform all employees of the right to join a union is a key part of the Government’s wider commitment to strengthen workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Making exemptions of this kind risks creating a two-tier system in which some workers benefit from this important information while others do not, based purely on the size of their employer. We are committed to striking a fair and proportionate balance, ensuring that workers are aware of their rights without placing undue burdens on employers.

The statement will be provided at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which employers are already required to give under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and on a prescribed basis. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we do not believe that this is a particularly significant extra burden to justify exempting certain employers because of their size, because they already have to give that information anyway.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked about the frequency. We will consult on the specific details, such as the frequency, manner, form and content of the statement before it is outlined in secondary legislation, and I can let noble Lords know that that will be via the negative procedure. We will particularly encourage input from both businesses and unions of all sizes to share their views.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The Minister just referred to the negative procedure. Is that a final decision? Given that the Bill takes so much power to make a series of important decisions by statutory instrument, I think the general expectation would be that such an important decision would be made by affirmative resolution. Would she perhaps contemplate whether that might be the better solution?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that introduction, because I was going to go on to say that the Government think that the powers taken in Clause 55 are necessary and proportionate. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee said that

“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”

it had

“only found four on which to raise concerns”.

Clause 55 was not one of those four, and we will of course respond to the committee’s recommendations in due course.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

While we are considering what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded, I recall that the last time I raised the use of the Henry VIII powers, the Minister said that this Committee would see her draft implementation plan, to which my noble friend referred just a short time ago. We have not yet seen that plan, and a lot of businesses are very concerned about the uncertainty that is being created by not knowing, certainly by now, when these various powers are going to be brought into effect. Will she give some timescale by which we will see the implementation plan, if only in draft?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I know we have discussed the implementation plan several times now, and I can assure noble Lords that we are working at pace to finalise that. I do not think it would be helpful to see it in draft or imperfect form. We want people to have a categorical road map which shows the way forward. We absolutely understand that businesses need to see that; we are working on it. I am very confident that when businesses see it, they will be reassured that none of the things that we are proposing in this legislation will be rushed through. They will have time to prepare for it—I think we had a debate about this earlier. We know that businesses need time to prepare, we are absolutely aware of that, and we are going to make sure that they have it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

208A: Clause 56, page 74, line 34, leave out “or communicate with workers (or both)”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment to section 70ZA(2)(a) removes the reference to union officials being able to “communicate with workers” as part of an access agreement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 208A, 209A, 210, 210A, 213A and 213B, standing in my name. Those first amendments remove the reference to communication with workers as an element of access agreements between unions and employers. They further remove provisions that attempt to cement that right to communicate by any and all means, and which prohibit a party from relying on the availability of physical or non-physical communication as a reason to limit the other. Taken together, these provisions amount to a significant and unjustified broadening of what has traditionally been a clearly understood and workable arrangement: namely, the right of union officials physically to enter a workplace for legitimate access purposes.

This access, by its nature, has always been specific, scheduled and carried out in a manner agreed upon by both parties. It is bounded in both scope and form. The Bill as drafted risks blurring those lines in ways that introduce legal ambiguity, managerial uncertainty and operational disruption. The reference to communication

“by any means, whether directly or indirectly”

is particularly concerning. This is an extremely wide formulation that is open-ended in both language and intent. It creates uncertainty not just in principle, but in practice. What exactly does indirect communication mean in the context of an access agreement? Does it encompass digital platforms, printed material, third-party intermediaries, or perhaps the passive dissemination of content in workplace systems? Without clear boundaries, employers will be left navigating uncharted waters, unsure of what they are obliged to permit and what may lawfully be resisted.

We must also think about how such broad phrasing sits alongside an employer’s duty to maintain a safe, orderly and productive working environment. Workplaces are complex ecosystems. They are governed by routines, procedures and, crucially, the employer’s ability to direct the operation of their business. If union officials are granted sweeping rights to communicate “by any means”, without the tether of physical presence and supervision, there is a genuine risk that communications will occur in ways that distract, disrupt or even divide—not necessarily through bad faith, but a lack of structure.

Equally problematic are the provisions that state that physical entry to a workplace should not be refused simply because non-physical means of communication exist, and vice versa. These clauses, while perhaps intended to protect flexibility, in fact remove the very discretion that employers must retain in managing their own premises. They suggest that the availability of one channel of communication can never justify the refusal of another, regardless of context. Surely that is both inflexible and unrealistic.

There may be very good practical reasons for an employer to prefer one form of engagement over another; a highly secure site may welcome scheduled, in-person access, but find unsolicited, off-site communications disruptive or invasive. A remote or hybrid workforce may prefer written updates to physical visits. By attempting to lock in symmetrical rights to both physical and non-physical communication, the Bill as drafted risks creating conflict where co-operation is needed and rigidity where discretion would be more effective.

Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that union engagement can and does occur outside the framework of statutory access agreements. The purpose of this legislation is not to create an open-ended entitlement for unions to interact with workers in any manner they choose; it is to provide a draft legal mechanism for arranging workplace access for legitimate purposes—access that must be reasonable, structured and proportionate. That mechanism surely must not become a Trojan horse for a much broader intervention in the management of communications within private enterprises.

The cumulative effect of these provisions, if left unamended, would be to tilt the balance too far, away from the well-established equilibrium between union representation and employer control. They would introduce legal uncertainty, operational disruption and potential privacy concerns, all under the banner of modernising union access.

It is vital that we place Amendment 210 in the proper context. The idea that unions could gain access to employers’ digital platforms, including internal communication systems, company email servers and private digital infrastructure, was not part of the original Bill but was added by the Government in the other House only on Report, with minimal explanation and no real opportunity for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. That is simply not acceptable.

This House is now the first truly to consider the full implications of what would, without question, be a major expansion of union access rights into employers’ private and operational space—not their physical space, but their digital infrastructure which is, in many ways, just as sensitive, just as regulated and potentially far more vulnerable. I believe that we must take our scrutiny role very seriously and that this House must now do what the other House was denied the opportunity to do: we have to probe this new power fully and openly.

We are now confronted with a proposal that, for the first time ever, would allow trade unions to reach employees via internal platforms such as company intranets, corporate email systems, Zoom, Microsoft Teams and other work-based communication tools, many of which are governed by strict internal policies, compliance frameworks and even sectoral security requirements.

This is not a theoretical concern. The Bill now provides a broad enabling power, with the detail to be filled in later through secondary legislation. We do not yet know which platforms will be in scope, how frequently unions will be permitted to post or engage, or what rights employers will have to review, edit or even be informed of the content beforehand. We are being asked to legislate on the basis of a skeleton—a blank cheque—with the flesh to be added later by statutory instrument, and that is precisely when parliamentary control is at its weakest. It is in secondary legislation where the balance of scrutiny too often shifts from robust parliamentary debate to rubber-stamping.

So what are we really dealing with here? Employers will, under the current drafting, be expected to engage constructively with union requests for digital access and will be given as little as five working days to respond. This is not merely hypothetical; this is a system designed to operate particularly in workplaces where physical access may be difficult or impossible—for example, remote teams, field-based staff and distributed or digital-first organisations. This may sound practical in theory, but it raises serious unresolved operational questions in practice. Who controls the messaging? Who controls the content? Who approves it? Can unions directly upload material on to a company’s internal platforms, or is it the employer’s responsibility to upload union-drafted content? In that case, does the employer have the right to make edits or raise objections? Can the material be branded? Must it be neutral? Will it sit alongside or appear to compete with official communications from HR or leadership teams?

So will the Government publish guidance? If so, when? At the moment, we just do not know the answers to any of these questions. These are not small matters; they are foundational issues of governance, internal messaging and even risk. For some employers, particularly in finance, defence and data-sensitive sectors, internal systems are subject to strict regulation and security controls. Can they allow access to these platforms without compromising legal obligations? In some cases, they may not be able to grant access, even if they wish to, and in others they may face exposure to reputational or compliance risks if improper messaging is circulated without oversight.

We must also consider the precedent being set. Allowing third-party organisations, however well-intentioned, to access digital systems designed for internal business-related purposes represents a significant departure from current practice. The potential for confusion, conflicting messaging and unintended consequences is high. This should not be rushed through under cover of secondary legislation.

For all those reasons, the amendment before us is entirely justified. It places a necessary brake on an overreach that has not been debated or examined and certainly not consented to by both Houses. If the Government believe that digital access is necessary and can be sensibly and safely managed, then let them bring forward a fully detailed proposal in the proper way. Let us have the opportunity to debate that openly, with all the facts in front of us—not as an afterthought or implication and certainly not as a quietly drafted regulation.

I therefore strongly urge your Lordships to support this amendment. Let us draw a clear line around what “access” means in this legislation and what it does not. If Parliament is to grant new powers, it must scrutinise them fully, which is what this Chamber is supposed to do.

I turn to Amendment 213B, which goes directly to the operational realities of the modern workplace—the way in which access is exercised, whether it involves scheduled meetings, ad hoc visits, group briefings or one-on-one discussions. That all can have a substantial effect on day-to-day operations. The frequency and timing of those visits matter enormously. Daily interruptions at peak hours are not the same as occasional meetings during quieter periods. Repeated unfocused access can, however unintentionally, become disruptive, particularly in sectors where workflow depends on concentration, safety procedures or continuous operations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy to write. I resist the idea that I am not being candid here. The noble Baroness may not like what I am saying, but the point stands. I am of course very happy to write to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, with more detail.

In conclusion, we expect that, in many cases, employers and trade unions will be able to agree the terms on which access takes place, including for digital access. In the event that there is no agreement, the CAC can impose terms, including terms dealing with digital access. I repeat: the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation. I therefore ask that Amendment 208A be withdrawn and that noble Lords do not press their other amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, first, I say to the House authorities that we greatly appreciate the way they have tolerated the fact that we have gone way beyond the normal rising time on a Thursday, particularly as we are sitting tomorrow at 10 am. In mitigation, I note that we have tried to truncate what is a hugely important group of amendments. There are many things that we would want to probe further, so we will have to return to this on Report.

I thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lady Lawlor, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Coffey for their contributions. I was interested, as always, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, although I hope that she will mitigate the damage she may have done with her remarks about one of the biggest investors in the UK, Amazon.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

This is the second time the noble Lord has taken on my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who made perfectly reasonable comments. I do not think it is a good idea to be patronising in the House.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am sorry about that discordant note, introduced into what has been a really useful day in Committee on this important Bill.

I hope that people outside will realise that we have been debating a group of amendments that were made at the last moment in the House of Commons. They have not had any scrutiny at all in Committee in the Commons. That is why this House has so much responsibility to ensure that, in a fast-moving digital world, we do not transgress in a way that places employers and employees in an impossible position.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. He asked some direct questions, but we have not yet had the answers to them. It may well be that the Minister will write generally to us all to respond to the points he did not have time to answer today. I appreciate that he has limited time too, but he might like to respond in writing to us all, covering the points that he has not yet been able to deal with.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy to write, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

On that positive note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 208A withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and declare my interest as the chair of a small housing association, Look Ahead, where we employ a lot of care workers and are encouraging apprenticeships to keep people in care work and to develop proper careers. We have not yet got the Casey review on care workers, but we know that the Government intend to reduce visas for overseas workers in this area. However, when you go into care work, you always find a small proportion of people who, when they realise some of the challenges of giving intimate physical care, feel unable to go on with that particular work. That is perfectly appropriate for both the apprentice themselves and the people they are supporting. I urge us to try to reach an agreement on this that is more flexible, so that people can have the opportunity of an apprenticeship in care, while recognising that, sometimes, a different kind of work is more appropriate.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been such a valuable debate, for a number of reasons. We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lady Garden of Frognal. In many ways, it gives us an opportunity just to see where we are going, and to identify the fact that, for many of us, apprenticeships mean something deep and profound.

I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in his place. He probably will not remember but, 32 years ago, he came to see me when I had responsibility for this area of policy. Accompanying him was the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and they said to me, as Secretary of State for Employment, that apprenticeships needed to be brought into the modern age and that there had to be something deeper, wider and more productive for the individual than the idea of standing by a machine for five years and then qualifying. They were talking particularly of young apprentices. I was persuaded, and, slowly but surely, modern apprenticeships have evolved.

I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, remembers this, but that was followed by a cartoon in the Guardian, which my children still show me—I should not talk like this on my birthday. The cartoon demonstrates me getting into a large four-poster bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who was in the form of a large cart-horse—the cart-horse had the face of John Monks. This gives me an opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord. I suppose that the Guardian was saying that it looked as though the Conservative Government were listening to the TUC. We did, and modern apprenticeships have taken off ever since.

The levy though, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, reminded us, has shifted the emphasis and the whole intention, which was to encourage younger people to get more involved. In a way, we need to identify that—and I hope that the Minister will recognise that apprenticeships are the lifeblood of the new economy, in particular, provided that they receive that special status. It was very helpful that my noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us about age, and that perhaps 25 is a better age in this regard. My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston also put it much more into context, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, gave an additional dimension. It has been a valuable debate.

I remind the Minister that we are talking about specific instances where there has to be an apprenticeship contract containing often wide-ranging provisions but giving security and opportunity. So it is a balanced and measured amendment that acknowledges the critical reality that apprenticeships are not just simply jobs—they are a structured training programme, often the very first experience that a young person has of the workplace. For many of these individuals, particularly those youngsters, an apprenticeship is a gateway not just to employment but to the habits, responsibilities and expectations of adult working life.

We are already in a time, as many of my noble friends pointed out, when young people are struggling to access secure employment. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, reminded us about the serious problems affecting NEETs, which have cropped up several times in this debate already—and also the fact that, in other European countries, apprentices have a special legal status. In many ways, that is recognised in this amendment, because it talks about a contract. We can identify that we are talking about a very special situation, and I hope that the Minister sees that.

I will just add that, without legal clarity around probationary periods, particularly in the case of apprenticeships, many employers will be left uncertain—and uncertainty breeds hesitation. It becomes less likely that they will take on the risk of hiring an inexperienced young person, especially under a regime of day one unfair dismissal rights, with no allowance for the formative nature of apprenticeships. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that matter, on how the Government seek to balance the protection of apprentices with the practical realities of probationary periods. I support the amendment.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to wish the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, a very happy birthday. It is a fine way to spend a birthday this evening.

I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, notably the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and for all the work that she has done in primary and secondary education—especially her book, The XX Factor, which should be read widely by every person involved in education policies.

This group relates to apprenticeships; a later group delves deeper into unfair dismissal and probation. The Government recognise the significant value of vocational learning, and on-the-job training will continue to be fundamental to building the skills that the economy needs to grow. We recognise that employers value building knowledge and skills through apprenticeships, and this Government are committed to apprenticeships.

The Government are providing day one protections against unfair dismissal to all employees, including apprentices. Maintaining a qualifying period for apprentices will leave them open to being fired without any recourse to legal challenge on the grounds of unfair dismissal during their apprenticeship. This amendment would not create a probation period, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said; it would deny young people their day one rights. The Government’s preference is for statutory probation to be a period of nine months; in some instances, when an apprentice completes their apprenticeship, an employer may not have a permanent job for them. Most apprenticeship contracts are around two years in duration; in this case, the apprenticeship contact will expire and the normal tests for unfair dismissal will apply.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

113ZA: Clause 26, page 45, line 24, after “sought” insert “without good reason”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Sharpe limit the application of the clause to cases where the employer sought, without good reason, to vary the employee’s contract of employment in relation to their pay or benefits.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, as we move to consider Clause 26, I believe Amendments 113ZA and 113B bring essential clarity, balance and proportionality to the Bill’s treatment of contract variation.

In last week’s debate, we discussed how recent changes to statutory sick pay might prompt employers to scale back or modify enhanced sick pay schemes. Such adjustments would require changes to contracts, and under the Bill’s current wording could be caught by these provisions. This raises the question: is it really the Government’s intention to classify necessary contractual changes prompted by those reforms to statutory sick pay as grounds for unfair dismissal?

The Government’s plan to make work pay rightly criticises cases where these practices have been used to enforce lower pay or to reduce terms and conditions. That is a legitimate concern. However, as currently drafted, Clause 26 goes far beyond this intention. It would cover any contractual change, no matter how minor, technical or reasonable, even those entirely unrelated to pay or benefits. This creates serious practical problems. Employers would be exposed to legal claims of unfair dismissal, even when seeking to modernise contractual terms; for example, aligning shift patterns with contemporary trading hours or updating disciplinary procedures drafted decades ago. In effect, this clause could fossilise employment contracts, preventing businesses from adapting to economic, operational or technological change, unless they meet a narrow and restrictive test.

I acknowledge that the phrase “without good reason” in Amendment 113ZA may introduce some degree of ambiguity. However, any dispute from it would fall to the employment tribunals to determine. While we have previously argued—and I maintain—that the Government have no credible plan to resolve the serious backlog and underfunding of the employment tribunal system, the fact remains that these tribunals will be the ones to judge whether a variation was sought with good reason.

In the current economic climate, businesses may need to make reasonable changes to pay structures to remain viable. Without these amendments, I believe employers may be deterred from offering pay increases or promotions, unless employees accept other contractual changes, potentially creating a two-tier workforce. In more extreme cases, employers might choose to make roles redundant altogether, rather than risk costly litigation over sensible and necessary variations.

I will speak also to Amendment 114 in this group. The clause’s reliance on language such as

“the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”

and “financial difficulties” implies that only in the most extreme circumstances—insolvency or imminent closure—can dismissal and re-engagement be considered. That is surely far too narrow a test. Businesses are not static and responsible employers must often adapt to evolving market conditions, consumer behaviour and, of course, technological innovation. These changes are not about survival, they are surely about growth, competitiveness and investment, as we expressed in earlier debates.

Medium and large businesses may face particular challenges here. They may need to apply changes to specific segments of the workforce, not the entire business, yet the Bill appears to treat the business as a whole, creating further uncertainty and limiting proportionate action.

It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain how the Government define business. The revised wording in this amendment, “could reasonably be expected”, better reflects how responsible employers assess risk and manage their operations. It would give them the legal certainty to act proactively to avoid crisis, rather than reactively once a crisis is already upon them. The existing wording could penalise businesses for prudent foresight, discouraging early intervention and increasing the likelihood of greater harm to jobs and continuity of business.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have managed to convince some noble Lords, and I respectfully urge the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 113ZA.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I have a feeling that although the Minister was doing his best, he was reading from a script that had been drafted before this debate took place. I listened to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Goddard of Stockport. They were just giving ordinary examples that need clarity. We did not get from the Minister a clear exposition of how, in those individual cases instanced by colleagues in the debate, they could prevent the Minister’s overall objective. We all agree with him that we have to try to prevent the sort of situation that arose, which we all condemned, ever happening again. But do not let it be so wide that it will stop just minor organisational changes.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The principle here is that we have to consult with employees before the final resort. Fire and rehire should be the final resort and remedy. Before we even reach that, the whole process of consultation and sitting down and finding a solution should be an underpinning principle.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I think we are all in agreement, except that the Bill goes too far. For a minor change of address when a company moves offices to be caught by all this in the way that we have exemplified—I think we need greater clarity. But, of course, the hour is late and I do not want to prolong the debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 113ZA withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

97: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Employer duties on harassment: impact assessment(1) The Secretary of State must carry out an assessment of the likely impact of sections 19 to 22 of this Act on employers.(2) The assessment must report on the extent to which the prevalence of third-party harassment makes the case for measures in sections 19 to 22 and—(a) include an assessment of the impact of sections 19 to 22 on free speech;(b) include an assessment of the likely costs to employers of sections 19 to 22;(c) include—(i) an assessment of which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment through no fault of the employer, and(ii) proposals for mitigations that can be put in place for employers employing people in such occupations.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report setting out the findings of the assessment before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 19 to 22.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 97 stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, have also signed this amendment.

As we look back over the debates we have had on Clauses 19, 20, 21 and 22, we quickly reach the conclusion—as the Minister said in winding up the last debate—that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the effect of these clauses. That is because the Government’s impact assessment is simply not fit for purpose. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of the provisions of Clauses 19 to 22.

In many ways, I am only repeating what I have said on several other occasions throughout the passage of the Bill: there has not been enough homework done on the impact of the various clauses. That is particularly true in relation to the clauses concerning the requirement for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes have not exhibited synthetic rage but genuine concern. They have raised a number of important and serious concerns about the clauses as drafted. Yet the Minister, although I was hoping she might, failed to commit to undertaking a comprehensive and robust impact assessment. That is just not good enough.

In fact, on all three of the standard criteria used to evaluate regulatory proposals—rationale for intervention, identification of options and justification for the preferred way forward—the Regulatory Policy Committee has given a red rating to the Government. That should be deeply concerning to all of us in this Committee.

The Government are, of course, absolutely right that harassment in the workplace is unacceptable. That is a point on which there is strong consensus right across the Committee, and rightly so. Many noble Lords have spoken powerfully and persuasively on this matter during our debates, including many, very eloquently, on the Government Benches. Given that, it is all the more baffling that the Government should have taken such a lacklustre and superficial approach to the impact assessment for these specific clauses.

The assessment surely needs to provide a much more rigorous analysis of the risks. There is, for example, no mention at all of the very risks and impacts that led to the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 being amended during its passage through Parliament. That legislation originally included provisions around third-party harassment, which were dropped after those serious concerns were raised, particularly in relation to freedom of speech and the cost burdens on employers. Surely no justification is offered here for ignoring those previous conclusions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very thought-provoking debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendment 97. The noble Lord is seeking to add a new clause that would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact on free speech and on employers of Clauses 19 to 22 when the Bill becomes an Act. We have already produced and published an extensive set of impact assessments. Indeed, we have produced and published no fewer than four impact assessments covering provisions in the scope of the noble Lord’s amendment.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

In order to get his speech off to a really good start, can the Minister include his defence of the red rating given to those impact assessments by the Regulatory Policy Committee, a completely independent assessment?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of this; we covered it last week. The RPC did not question the policy of the Bill. It just questioned the evidence—and I will go further on this Bill.

These assessments are based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, workers and the wider economy. We plan to further define this analysis in the future, working with a range of stakeholders including businesses, trade unions, academics, think tanks and the Regulatory Policy Committee to do so.

The Government are steadfast in their commitment to tackle all forms of harassment in the workplace. We know that harassment at work can have a huge impact on affected individuals, as well as broader economic impacts. The burden of holding perpetrators to account and of driving change is too great to be shouldered by employees alone. These measures send a clear signal to all employers that they must take steps to protect their employees from harassment, including from third parties, to encourage a cultural change.

We know that the vast majority of employers agree that harassment is unacceptable and are working to ensure that their employees are treated with respect. We will work in partnership with them towards this shared goal and will support them with these changes. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for amendments made to primary legislation during the Bill’s passage through Parliament that would significantly change the impact of the policy on business. This impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. Additionally, we will publish further analysis, alongside carrying out further consultation with stake-holders, ahead of any secondary legislation, to meet our Better Regulation requirements.

According to our best estimates, across all our harassment measures the monetary cost to businesses will not be significant. Other than the initial one-off familiarisation cost, repeatable costs to businesses are very low. All three measures will also bring benefits to businesses in avoiding the harassment of staff.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

We are all very grateful to the Minister for sharing that personal experience. I believe he can be comforted by knowing that there is a shared desire right across this House to ensure that all workplaces are safe, respectful and free from harassment. I hope that he would also expect, in the light of his personal experience—and I think several of us could probably share our personal experiences—that we must, however, act as a Parliament should act, which is that well- intentioned legislation has to be workable, proportionate and underpinned by clear evidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, made the point about the benefits, but any impact assessment will not be restricted to looking at the costs but will also look at the benefits. Any proper impact assessment should give the full picture, so that when the legislation is presented to Parliament, we can adjudicate on it. In many ways, the consultation he instanced is coming the wrong way round. The consultation should accompany the intention to legislate. Then, once the consultation is complete, we are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Consultation is no excuse for lacking accountability to Parliament. That is, I think, where the issue divides us.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I take on board every contribution made by every noble Lord. This is a very important aspect, and we need to get it right. Rather than me reading a couple of sentences provided by my officials in the Box, I make an offer to all noble Lords that I will organise a meeting so that we can sit down and go through this in more detail.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

There is no need for me to say any more. Thank you very much. I accept that offer, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 97 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to this excellent amendment, but I am also speaking as a winder from these Benches. I shall speak very briefly, because I will touch on many of the issues in a later group, but this is so important. I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, brought forward an amendment that focuses on the issue of investigation and action.

The noble Baroness has made the case powerfully, but for many people, it is such a shock to realise that it is the victim of sexual harassment—usually a woman, sometimes a man—who finds themselves, in effect, on trial. That is how the investigative process, when it happens, generally progresses. We all know that that is wrong and has to change.

If you talk to people who have been victims and ask them what they want most as a response to having spoken out, despite what they have gone through, the answer, again and again, is twofold. First, they never want this to happen to anybody else; secondly, they want investigation and action. The systems we have in place never focus on that issue and drive it as the primary response when somebody speaks out with a serious complaint of this nature; we will be talking later about complaints of another nature. I hope very much that people will become engaged with this issue, which has been so well represented here today.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Morrissey on moving this important amendment. She speaks from her own personal experience with wisdom and understanding, in particular on the whole issue of investigation and action. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer: the victim can so often find themselves on trial, and that is unacceptable.

So I have some sympathy with this amendment, in that it seeks a more proportionate approach to the matter than the Bill currently contains. We all agree that harassment, particularly when it is persistent—and, even worse, when it comes from a senior colleague—is a stain on society. Not only does it poison the workplace; it can ruin lives.

The amendment emphasises the need for employers to act reasonably, particularly in cases involving serious allegations such as sexual assault or harassment by senior management, and to protect the well-being of the employee involved.

Of course, many businesses already follow best practice, and we believe that proper measures to address the issue are critical in building safer and more respectful workplaces. Clause 20 as drafted also raises concerns about free expression, and it is our view that the amendment would be better placed elsewhere in the Bill, where it can be more thoroughly examined and discussed in its own context, without the issue of freedom of expression being engaged.

I want to emphasise from these Benches that we are committed to tackling sexual harassment in a meaningful way, but we also believe in ensuring that the right to free expression is carefully protected. We will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response to these concerns, and we will continue to advocate for a balanced approach that protects the dignity and safety of individuals while preserving fundamental rights.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

74A: After Clause 11, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment: Statutory Sick Pay provision on absenteeismWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions in this Act relating to Statutory Sick Pay on levels of absenteeism.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of how the Statutory Sick Pay provisions in the Act impact absenteeism, within 12 months of the Act being passed.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, after what has been a fascinating, wide-ranging and important debate on statutory sick pay, I would like to focus on the impact that these changes are going to have in particular on absenteeism, on short-notice shifts and on enhanced sick pay schemes. So I shall speak to Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C. We will continue to make the point that this Bill brings with it a raft of unintended consequences.

The importance of Amendment 74A cannot be overstated. Absenteeism is a critical issue for many businesses, especially those in hospitality, retail and other service-based industries, where staff shortages can lead to disruption, cancellations and even closures. With the removal of waiting days for SSP and the expansion of eligibility, it is essential that all of us should understand fully how these changes will affect absenteeism patterns across various sectors.

One of the sectors most concerned with the potential rise in absenteeism that these changes will cause is, of course, hospitality. Many businesses in this sector rely on part-time, hourly or zero-hour contracts, often employing younger workers, students or those with fewer financial responsibilities.

As we know, a significant portion of the workforce in hospitality earns below the lower earnings threshold for statutory sick pay, and may be employed for only limited hours. These workers are typically less dependent on their income, often still living at home or with fewer financial obligations. This brings us to a major concern. If these workers know that they will still receive statutory sick pay regardless of their financial needs, there may be little incentive for them to attend work when they feel under the weather, or even when they would simply prefer a day off. The concern is that the reforms could result in workers taking sick leave when it may not be strictly necessary, as the financial implications of their doing so would be mitigated by the statutory sick pay payment.

For example, if a student worker or part-time employee knows that they will still receive statutory sick pay, even if they do not meet the earnings threshold, they may not feel the same level of obligation to attend work. This is particularly true in a sector such as hospitality, where work provides either temporary or supplementary income. As such, the absence of financial pressure could lead to increased absenteeism in the short term, which could, in turn, lead to operational challenges for hospitality businesses, especially those that already operate with small teams, a high turnover of staff, or both.

As I mentioned, we believe it is essential that the Government thoroughly evaluate how these statutory sick pay provisions would affect absenteeism, particularly in sectors such as hospitality, where the risks of absenteeism are most pronounced. The impact assessment called for in Amendment 74A would enable us better to understand the extent to which these reforms would result in higher absenteeism rates and whether there are any other unintended and undesirable consequences, such as workforce disengagement, or a lack of motivation to work, in sectors where employees may not be so financially reliant on their income.

It is vital to understand, first, how absenteeism levels might change, especially in sectors with a younger, less financially reliant workforce; secondly, the operational challenges businesses would face due to potential increases in absenteeism; and, thirdly, the wider economic effects of these changes, including potential impacts on service quality, customer satisfaction and employee morale.

I turn to Amendment 74B. The proposal to remove the waiting period for statutory sick pay and the lower earnings limit represents a substantial shift in how sick pay obligations are structured. It carries serious financial implications, particularly for low-margin sectors, such as retail and hospitality, and for small and medium-sized enterprises more broadly. This amendment seeks a modest but necessary safeguard. It asks the Government to publish, within six months, a report on the impact of these statutory sick pay reforms on employers’ ability to offer enhanced sick pay and occupational health and well-being services.

As of 2024, 28% of UK employers offer occupational health services, while 27% provide sick pay that goes beyond statutory minimums. While we certainly want to see those numbers improve, we must surely understand why provision remains relatively low. A survey conducted last year found that 43% of business leaders cite financial constraints as the primary barrier to offering enhanced sick pay. Another 31% highlighted legal complexity; 28% cited administrative burden; and 31% cited staffing challenges as further obstacles. Rather than addressing those challenges, surely the Government have to recognise that the Bill threatens to amplify them.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.