Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise swiftly to join the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, on a magnificent maiden speech, if I am allowed to say that. I will return to the content in a few moments. It gives me an opportunity to join the noble Baroness in praising the Government Chief Whip for having agreed to this debate. It is important to remind ourselves of how this all happened and evolved.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, that she has an impressive record of service and, in particular, a great deal of knowledge about the issues she will face in office. She has an unrivalled opportunity to bring substance to the promises made at the last election. I think everyone will wish her well in fulfilling the destiny that the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, prophesied for her, although I am not sure that she will be happy with one or two of the other comments that the noble Baroness mentioned about her background, of which I was completely unaware. But I loved her tribute to the river network that London is proud to have. They will be raising a glass in the Effra in Brixton tonight to praise her outstanding contribution to this debate.

Going back to where we have come from, I say to the Government Chief Whip that, when we look back at what happened on that Saturday 12 April, when the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I wound up a debate—I moved an amendment for a sunset clause and the noble Lord moved an amendment to have a debate in both Houses of Parliament—I praise the Government Chief Whip. The House of Lords was at its best that Saturday, responding so positively to the fact that we need this debate. I am just sad that the other place is not having what would have been—had the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, been accepted—a debate on this subject.

We really could not envisage that so little would have happened to bring about the steel strategy, referred to by the noble Baroness. In a way, this debate is not well timed—although we all thought it would be—because we have yet to receive the steel strategy. Where is it? It was referred to as a concept by the noble Baroness in her speech, but it is now over six months since we last debated the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, which became an Act that very day. There have been six months of delay, drift and indecision, which I believe is a direct result of the Government’s inability to get a firm grip on a serious situation. So where is the plan?

We have been promised and promised again a comprehensive steel strategy, and yet we are still waiting. So let us briefly go through the timeline. In December 2024, the then Secretary of State for Business, Jonathan Reynolds, told us that the Government would publish a steel strategy by spring this year. It would, he said,

“look seriously at the options to improve steel capabilities across the whole supply chain, including for primary steelmaking in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/9/24; col. 40WS.]

As a result, when we came to debate this emergency legislation on 12 April, we tabled that sunset clause, and we were told by the then Secretary of State that it was unnecessary. He said that

“I do not want these powers a minute longer than is necessary”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/25; col. 841.]

Well, it is now October, and I must ask: when precisely will these powers cease to be necessary?

Between February and March this year, the Government ran a consultation on the strategy. By July, we were told that it would be published later this year. Then, in response to a Written Question on 4 September, the Government repeated the same refrain: “later in the year”. Here we are, deep into October, and no hint of any such strategy has emerged. We really need to see this strategy.

I understand from meetings we on these Benches have been holding with those affected that there was an opportunity last month for the new Secretary of State to chair the body that would evolve the steel strategy. But then, at the last moment, the meeting was postponed, and it has still to take place. I just say this: when the Conservative Party was in government, we demonstrated a clear and practical commitment to Britain’s steel industry, not through slogans or sound bites but through targeted investment and partnership. It was a Conservative Government who provided the £500 million grant to support the transition to electric arc furnace production at Port Talbot, already referred to by the two previous speakers. I believe that was a forward-looking measure designed to secure jobs and ensure that British Steel remains competitive in a constantly changing global marketplace.

The Government must surely recognise that nationalisation is simply not sustainable, especially in its current form. British Steel was losing around £700,000 every single day, and it is now the taxpayer who must shoulder that burden. According to Sky News, the cost of full nationalisation is estimated to be between £4 billion and £5 billion, an extraordinary sum by any measure. The Office for National Statistics has provided the first official assessment of the impact of this decision on public finances. Its analysis makes for grim reading. The ONS concluded that the move to nationalise British Steel will increase public sector net debt by approximately £600 million, with a further £900 million of financial pressure expected under the Government’s own preferred fiscal measure. Nationalisation is not a solution—it is a ruinously expensive illusion. It places an enormous burden on the public purse while offering no credible plan for long-term competitiveness in one of our strategic industries.

I hope that all sides of the House will agree that we want to have a strong industrial base in Britain. The strength of our industry determines the strength of our economy, our communities and indeed our nation, yet this Government’s approach since the election has shown a profound misunderstanding of what it truly means to build that strength. What the Government do is, I fear, as damaging as what they fail to do. A whole series of policies are combining to make the United Kingdom an increasingly unattractive and, frankly, unaffordable place to invest. I refer of course to the so-called job tax, the ill-conceived unemployment Bill, which we will return to next week—rejected almost universally by business—and the Government’s rigid ideological pursuit of net-zero targets, pursued without realism or regard for competitiveness.

UK Steel has stated that the UK steel industry has a hand tied behind its back as it faces electricity prices up to 25% higher than its European competitors, let alone its global counterparts. Uncompetitive power prices pose a threat to jobs and future investment and threaten to harm the Government’s own net-zero targets. Just three days ago, the United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, Warren Stephens, said he had told the Prime Minister directly that if the UK aspires to attract more foreign direct investment from the United States then we must lower our energy costs. He went on to say—and I quote him verbatim:

“When I meet with British business leaders—whether on AI, technology, agriculture, or manufacturing—the message is the same: high energy prices are holding back growth”.


We have already had reference to Sir Tony Blair, not a man who has always echoed the Conservative Party on economic matters, but today he has been quoted as urging the Government to scrap their arbitrary clean power targets—a moment of clarity that Ministers would do well to heed, in particular the noble Baroness.

We understand that there are global challenges, particularly given China’s approach of heavily subsidising its steel industry. We know that makes it difficult for British steel companies to compete. The imposition of tariffs by the European Union is also unhelpful. While we may recognise that some forms of state aid can incentivise private sector investment, Ministers must be cautious about introducing large subsidies, all paid for by the taxpayer. Subsidy, especially excessive and sustained subsidy, inevitably distorts markets and leads to misallocation of capital, as resources are lured towards the production of inherently uncompetitive goods and services.

We have already heard about the World Trade Organization. We need to know what further discussions have taken place with it since China’s trade policy review and the UK’s statement that,

“we call on China to rejoin international efforts to remove market-distorting subsidies which support excess capacity in steel making”.

We look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood. What do the Government intend to do to exert greater pressure, through the WTO, to ensure that China addresses its harmful and distorting subsidies?

The foundation of a strong industrial base, whether in steel or any other vital sector, lies in lowering the cost of production and creating the conditions in which businesses can compete and thrive. The principal challenge of our age in steel production is a technological one, but the necessary new technologies are now emerging, and we must decide whether we want to be at the forefront of them. If we want steel production, be it new steel or recycled steel, to become greener, we shall need more electric power, lots and lots of it, and at a price that is truly competitive. That will require investment and a truly national effort. Unfortunately, this Government are wilfully making the UK increasingly unattractive for both domestic and foreign investment, threatening skilled jobs across the country.

Steel is essential not only for our infrastructure and economic development but for our national defence. I am so glad that there is some form of consensus now, across the parties, that this is a question not only of emerging technologies, subsidies and tariff policy but of steel security. The Government must create an economic environment in which the steel industry—indeed, all industries—can thrive, expand and flourish, not merely hunker down and survive. The forthcoming November Budget and the long-delayed steel strategy must contain concrete measures to reduce long-term energy costs, restore our competitiveness, and give British industry the stability and confidence that it so urgently needs.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

158A: Clause 149, page 149, line 32, at end insert “and provides for the early conciliation period to be extended from six weeks to three months”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that the early conciliation period is proportionate to the extended limitation period for tribunal claims. This is necessary to promote the early resolution of claims and to clearly convey that, from a policy standpoint, there is active support for avoiding litigation.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we now move to consider the employment tribunal system. I shall speak first to Amendments 158A and 158B. The Government are extending the time limit for individuals to bring claims to an employment tribunal, but if that is the case, and if, as the Government have repeatedly said, they value early conciliation and the vital role that ACAS plays in resolving disputes before they reach litigation, then surely the same principle must apply to the conciliation period itself. Extending the early conciliation period from six weeks to three months would provide claimants and employers alike with more breathing space to resolve matters amicably, reducing the burden on the tribunal system and promoting quicker, less adversarial outcomes.

I will also speak to Amendments 180 and 186. I will not repeat the arguments that I and many noble Lords across this House have already made about the state of the employment tribunal system, but let us be clear: the situation is now dire. We have spoken to a range of people involved in the system and hear the same message: employment tribunals are in disarray, with claimants waiting for up to two years for their cases to be heard. We believe that justice delayed is justice denied.

The Government say they are investing in tribunals, pledging to hire more judges and providing additional funding, so I hope the Minister will be able to answer these questions. First, how many new judges have been appointed? Secondly, what is the scale of the funding and how will it be allocated? Thirdly, will the Government also commit to hiring more administrative staff to ease the backlog? If so, how many? Until we have clear, credible answers to these questions, we believe it is simply irresponsible to bring forward clauses in this Bill that will place even greater strain on a system that is already buckling under pressure. I just hope that the Minister will have answers to these and other questions.

I will also refer to Amendments 186 to 188. We believe that there is this difficulty with the existing system and we have already seen the Government push back implementation of parts of this legislation to 2027. I do not know whether this is because they have at last had a moment of clarity and realised just how damaging some of these measures could be in practice. We now have an amendment asking to delay further until 2029. Frankly, this is not just reasonable; we believe it is necessary. A four-year delay might be the bare minimum to avoid the disasters which would otherwise be presented by this legislation.

Let us not pretend this delay is some kind of political foot-dragging on the part of the Government. To seek to delay implementation until 2027 of what was said to be a vital Bill is an admission that this legislation is deeply flawed and that rushing it through risks wreaking havoc on businesses, workers and the tribunal system alike. What is more, with the Government and the unions now seeming less like allies and more like wary rivals, this delay might be something the Government are willing to accept. I beg to move.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am pleased to have a contrast in terms of debate length. It is good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. I will speak to this quite large group of amendments and, for the sake of brevity, try to cover as much ground as I can in time.

On Amendments 180 and 186. We recognise the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, over the employment tribunal system. I reassure noble Lords that we have heard the concerns of your Lordships’ House, the other place, and broader stakeholders representing employers and employees, and we are already acting. This includes recruiting more judges and legal caseworkers, and providing significant additional funding to ACAS for 2025-26. ACAS’s annual report shows that, of the approximately 125,000 early conciliation notifications received by it, approximately only 33% proceeded to employment tribunal claims.

I can try to answer some of the direct questions from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the increased resources for the system. On new judges, 50 new fee-paid part-time employment judges were appointed in 2024-25 and a further three recruitment exercises to increase capacity are being undertaken in 2025 and 2026. I will reflect on Hansard and, if there are other questions on this I have not covered, I will of course write to the noble Lord.

As was pointed out earlier in the debate, we are also considering other areas such as the role the expanded fair work agency could play, where this would reduce the need for costly and lengthy tribunal claims. We are happy to receive further constructive suggestions from noble Lords on their ideas for reform, but we are of the view that it would be disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers’ rights contained in this Bill dependent on the kind of review the Opposition propose.

Amendments 158A and 158B were also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The suggestion about increasing the time for early conciliation is indeed constructive. As we have said previously on a number of occasions, we are engaging with businesses and unions to consider the ways to address growing demand and improve the efficiency of the employment tribunal system. Part of this work involves looking at how we can improve the already good work that ACAS is doing to help parties reach mutually agreed outcomes without the need for stressful and expensive litigation.

The six-week early conciliation period takes place prior to a claim being brought to the employment tribunal and provides an opportunity for employers and employees to try to reach an agreement without having to go to a tribunal. Increasing the time for early conciliation could provide some benefits to parties, but we need more time to consider how this would interact with other reforms and identify potential unintended consequences. Changes to the period of early conciliation can be made using secondary legislation and therefore it is not necessary to use primary legislation for this purpose. Perhaps the compromise I might suggest is that we will be happy to reflect on the suggestion that has been made as part of our wider work, and I thank the noble Lords and other colleagues for their amendments.

I turn next to Amendment 185, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 unduly restricts the right to strike and undermines good industrial relations. It has proven to be ineffective and has contributed, one might argue, to industrial unrest. It is worth pointing out again, as we have already heard this evening, that no employer has ever issued a work notice under the Act and not a single day of strike action has been prevented since it was introduced. Indeed, reflecting on Questions earlier today, I repeat that we lost a record number of days to strike action in 2022 and 2023—the highest number since 1989, if I recall correctly. That Act definitely did not prevent more industrial action taking place.

Rather, we believe negotiation and co-operation are better ways to ensure that essential services continue during strikes, while respecting workers’ rights. For these reasons, we are committed to removing this legislation as soon as possible. Our commitment to repeal the legislation has been trailed for over a year. We made the commitment to make work pay, it was reiterated in our manifesto, and we announced it again in August last year, so it will not come as a surprise to any employer. As I said, in any event, employers are not using the legislation anyway.

Amendments 187, 189, 190 and 191 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley—he is not in his place—and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. We have always said that we would engage and consult comprehensively on implementation to ensure that strengthened rights, protections and entitlements work for all. We want employers, workers, trade unions and others to have the time and space to work through the details of each measure with us.

On Amendments 187 and 189, I remind noble Lords that our road map, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, referred to, sets out our plans for consulting on key provisions in Part 1 and Part 4 this autumn and into early 2026. We will then publish our response to each consultation, in line with published guidance. This will include a summary of responses received and a breakdown of the type of respondent. This reflects what we have already done in published consultation responses.

Through all these consultations, we will continue to engage with SMEs to ensure that their vital perspectives are fed into policy development, and we will provide sufficient support to prepare for these reforms. We value the constructive feedback and insights that such businesses and organisations give, and we will continue to prioritise engagement moving forward.

On Amendment 190, I remind noble Lords that, since 2016, there have been 33 reports and strategies on the effectiveness of labour market enforcement. I also remind noble Lords that the single enforcement body, regardless of the name, was a policy pursued by both the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I believe that the proposal, under different titles, was in all three manifestos at the general election. So, whereas previous Governments have dithered and delayed in taking action, we are taking action to tackle the fragmented and ineffective enforcement system by bringing it all under one roof in the fair work agency.

Lastly, I turn to Amendments 188 and 192, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which concern commencement. We have always said that the Bill must work in practice, not just on paper. That is why we are committed to consultation and taking a staggered approach to implementation, as per our road map. These timelines have been carefully considered to ensure that implementation works for employees and businesses of all sizes, in all sectors. We are taking a measured and phased approach to implementation to ensure that the reforms are practical, workable and sustainable. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to withdraw Amendment 158A on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. I believe that he accepts that there is grave concern across the board about the state of our employment tribunal system today. That concern is among workers, employers and, especially, employment lawyers.

I welcome the fact that the Minister accepts that there is a need to extend the early conciliation period. He said that it could be done by secondary legislation; well, let us reflect on that. It would certainly help to reduce the pressure on the system, which is already under immense strain, but we lack clarity on some basic questions. How will employment tribunals be funded? There are so many question marks about how many further judges are needed and how many administrators will be appointed. What is the plan to bring the backlog under control? It is very serious at the present time. If rights cannot be enforced in court, they effectively do not exist. I urge the Government to take these concerns seriously and bring forward proper solutions. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 158A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

No, I give up.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I do not believe that for a moment.

This has been such an important debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and my fellow lawyer—not solicitor—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for what has certainly been a long-standing advocacy on behalf of freelance workers. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said, with all his experience as a Minister, there is no doubt that freelancers play a vital role in our economy and their interests deserve proper attention.

We on these Benches have also made the case that this issue is likely to become more urgent after the passage of the Bill. We cannot avoid the suspicion that the Bill is going to drive more workers into at least considering turning freelance. Time will tell, but as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, pointed out, the number could rise towards 3 million freelance workers.

We are all very grateful indeed to the Minister for organising an important meeting on this subject, because it was most useful. We welcome the Government’s intention to create a freelance champion, announced last month as part of the creative industries sector plan. That may be half a loaf, but it is a welcome enough commitment. We recognise the intent behind the amendment to establish a freelance commissioner, but at the moment, in the light of the assurances given by the Minister, we feel that the Government should have the benefit of the doubt for now, not least because we are not totally persuaded that the creation of another public body is the only solution.

What freelancers certainly need is clarity, simplicity and proportionate support. If the new champion can deliver that, all well and good. But we remain of the opinion, as came across in some of the contributions we had in Committee and just now, that socialists despise the very concept of freelancing. “How dare workers choose to avoid our elaborate structures?”, some of them say. So we will be watching with a very keen eye to see how this proceeds, particularly in the light of the speeches we just heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley.

As we salute the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the creative arts, I take this opportunity to assure him that if he is unsatisfied that the Government’s measures adequately address the issues that have been raised, we will certainly be on his side. So I encourage him to remain vigilant and to keep the Government’s feet to the fire. In the meantime, we look forward with great interest to what the Minister will say in response to the many questions that have been raised in this debate, in particular about the urgency of this problem.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We have indeed had a very good debate, which once again has identified the significant contribution that the creative and cultural sector makes to our industries and our lives. The Government share your Lordships’ passion for supporting the creative and cultural sectors, and we previously spelled out in detail the significant work we are already doing in this area.

The creative industries and cultural sectors are a distinct part of the wider UK workforce. They have a significantly higher proportion of self-employed individuals, reflecting the sector’s entrepreneurial and freelance nature, which is one of the points that has been well made this evening. In the latest published data, as of 2023, there were 2.4 million filled jobs in the creative industries and 666,000 filled jobs in the cultural sector. Of these jobs, 49.6% in the cultural sector were self-employed, and 27.9% in the creative industries, compared with 14% of UK jobs overall. This reiterates the point that noble Lords have made about the significance of freelancers in the cultural and creative sectors. This flexibility not only drives innovation but supports the more project-driven nature of the creative industries. However, we also know that freelancers’ creative careers, while offering a more flexible and autonomous way of working, can also be precarious and come with lower job security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 167 tabled by my noble friend Lord Freyberg, to which I have added my name. It is a thoughtful, pertinent and probing amendment which—dare I suggest at this late hour—the Government should embrace with enthusiasm.

I say this because we have often heard during what I think has been 13 days of debate on this Bill that the Government want equal workers’ rights to apply across the board, whatever the size of the business or sector and whether it is private or public. Whenever I and others have argued for exemptions, especially for small and micro businesses, there is a proverbial bucket of cold water thrown our way, accompanied by the message “We don’t want a two-tier workforce”. That view appears to be shared by the Liberal Democrats. I respect that, but I do not agree with it as it fails to recognise the multitude of tiers in the workforce that already exist.

This brings me to Amendment 167, which points out that we have several very important groups of workers that do not belong to this single tier, specifically freelancers, the self-employed and sole traders. There are key differences between freelancers and the self-employed, many of whom are sole traders or running their own businesses or partnerships with just one or two contractors. However, they are all treated by HMRC as self-employed and taxed the same way.

As my noble friend pointed out, the overall number we are talking about is 4.3 million and growing; that is approaching 14% of the workforce. Given the current dynamics of the jobs market, with falling vacancies in particular, an increasing number look set to join their ranks—whether or not they want to. That is why it is incumbent on the Government to fix the definitions, understand the numbers and assess how they are being impacted by the provisions in this Bill. The Secretary of State should think through how to recognise and treat freelancers, the self-employed and sole traders.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very important debate about employment status. I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea for his important and thoughtful contribution to the debate. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg, Lord Londesborough and Lord Clement-Jones, for their extremely important contributions.

As my noble friend Lord Moynihan rightly pointed out, the Government in their make work pay document have committed to consulting on a simpler employment framework—one that distinguishes clearly between workers and the genuinely self-employed. However, the reality is that platform workers and the innovative businesses that rely on them remain in the dark. There is no detail, no timeline and no clarity as to when or indeed whether these major reforms to employment status will materialise.

In the meantime, uncertainty reigns, and that uncertainty is not without cost. It risks holding back investment, stifling expansion and deterring new entrants into the UK market. We now hear so often from the Government about making the UK the best place in the world to do business, but a failure to provide clarity on the future of employment status, particularly in the growing platform economy, sends the opposite signal. The Government would therefore do well to heed my noble friend’s intervention. If they are serious about supporting flexibility, entrepreneurship and modern ways of working, then they have got to provide both the sector and the self-employed with confidence and clarity on what exactly lies ahead.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish I had also brought my white hanky to the debate, but sadly I do not have that cop-out. This been a short but focused and interesting debate. I will begin with Amendments 177 and 179, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. The Government are well aware of the importance of accurate occupational categorisation, especially for those in culturally important occupations, and the noble Lord and I have separately discussed this issue and the complexities around it.

More specifically, we understand that some stakeholders feel the four-digit standard occupational classification—SOC—system is not detailed enough for their needs. To address this, in 2023 the ONS published an extended six-digit system that includes more accurate categories for groups like those mentioned by the noble Lord in his amendments. In addition to this, the ONS is now beginning work on the next update to the SOC system, which will be published in 2030.

I am afraid that I do not have some of the details on disaggregation, the levels of qualifications and so on that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, asked about, but I will undertake to write to him with more details. However, I would be very happy to facilitate contact between the noble Lord and the ONS team that is responsible for this work. He has demonstrated great interest and no little expertise in this subject area, and I am sure that they would appreciate his views and detailed analysis on the system, how it could be improved and how it could better reflect the complex ecosystem of craftspeople and other creative workers.

I turn to Amendment 167, again tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, as well as Amendments 183 and 184A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Moynihan, respectively. I hope that the noble Lords are reassured from the debate on the previous group that the Government take the commitment to tackling pressing issues with the existing employment status framework very seriously—and from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think that is the case.

As the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, said, consultation in the fullest sense is imperative on this issue. It will allow us to receive and consider the widest range of views and engage fully with relevant stakeholders, including those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in his amendment. Consulting on employment status was a commitment in the plan to make work pay, and as my noble friend Lady Jones outlined to your Lordships’ House in the debate on the previous group, today we are confirming that we will publish a consultation on this by the end of the year. As the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, we will risk undermining the value of this work if we introduce new definitions without prior consultation.

The noble Lord also mentioned requiring an impact assessment of any legislative proposals brought forward as a result of this consultation. I can reassure your Lordships’ House that, in keeping with our better regulation requirements, we will produce impact assessments alongside any such legislation.

I hope this assures noble Lords that the Government are committed to consulting on employment status and are doing so with the care, focus and full engagement that this important issue requires. On this basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to withdraw Amendment 167.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate my fellow solicitor, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on their amendments.

We are following up on the exchanges that took place at Question Time earlier today, when the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Vallance—offered to give us a reading list so that we could peruse the subject during the vacation, when he explained that, sadly, the Government are not yet able to produce their consultation paper. When the noble Baroness the Minister sums up this debate, can she identify for us what her noble friend had in mind? We are anxious to make sure that we are up to date on these very important subjects.

AI technologies are evolving at pace, touching every corner of the economy, from manufacturing and logistics to retail, healthcare and particularly—as my noble fellow lawyer knows—professional services. In the context of work, AI offers real potential: it can support productivity, streamline processes and free individuals from repetitive and burdensome tasks. It may also, if properly deployed, open up new opportunities for people who have historically faced barriers to employment.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, just reminded us, alongside that, there are real concerns. He instanced a number of them, and they are set out in Amendment 168; they are about fairness, transparency, accountability and, indeed, the role of human oversight in the decisions that affect people’s lives and livelihoods. It is therefore important that we take a balanced, thoughtful approach.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, pointed out, quite rightly, that a number of non-compete agreements are now emerging. We have to be aware that these could so easily stifle innovation, and this must be all about encouraging and stimulating innovation. Therefore, it is very important that we take a balanced, thoughtful approach. But we should not allow technological change to outpace our frameworks for fairness, ethics and employment rights.

In conclusion, AI is not a distant or abstract issue; it is here, evolving and shaping the future of work. I hope we can move forward in a way that is both pro innovation and firmly rooted in the values of fairness, dignity and accountability. We very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on these subjects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the incredible thing about this amendment is that it has signatures and support from the Conservative Benches, the Labour Benches, the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches. It is something the Government should take into account. It is not some weird idea from one part of this House, it is across the House. I applaud the initiative which started with my old friend, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner—if he would allow me to say that. The principle here is to try to stop unintended consequences. The law is as it is, and it cannot be ignored. We have an opportunity to tweak the employment rights legislation to put that right.

We are dealing with young people who are doing voluntary work on the railways. There was an incredible programme on television recently—which I referred to in a previous speech—where the young people were doing all the jobs on this heritage railway, except running the engine, which was dangerous and they were not allowed to do; they were the porters, the inspectors, et cetera. We all gain from it: the young people gain from it and the community gains from it. However, there is a possibility that someone could be prosecuted because the law says what it does.

We are not talking about one small heritage railway. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, there are many; he mentioned the Ffestiniog Railway—if I pronounced that correctly. There is also the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, the Bluebell Railway, the West Somerset Railway, the Middleton Railway, the Spa Valley Railway, and many others. There is a long list.

This is a very understated thing. People have asked me why I signed the amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson; I told them it was because we are dealing with real matters of the moment in the employment rights legislation. This is an opportunity to put right a small error in history. I invite everybody, if we go to a vote, to support this.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay’s amendment, supported as it has been by very effective speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Lord Berkeley and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.

It is a sensible measure that recognises the value of voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways, especially for young people. The current statutory framework treats such activity as though it were employment in a heavy industrial setting, when in reality it is community-based, educational and often intergenerational. These are voluntary efforts undertaken not for profit but for preservation, learning and public enjoyment. To continue to classify this as if it were unsafe or exploitive is to misunderstand both the activity and its value. This amendment corrects that without undermining the original protections of the 1920 Act. My noble friends deserve support, and I hope the Government are about to respond positively.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, it was going so well, then it hit the buffers. I am trying to make that not the last of the rail-related jokes—noble Lords will note the groans from behind me. I thank noble Lords for a stimulating debate—as we had in Committee—and, as several speakers have pointed out, it was a debate on a subject that inspires support from across the House, which is fairly unique in this piece of legislation. It is good to see and is obviously because so many in your Lordships’ House—like those in the rest of the country—enjoy and revel in our industrial heritage, as seen through heritage railways.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for bringing the amendment back for further discussion. I think it was the noble Lord himself who outed me as a bit of a rail nerd in Committee, so noble Lords will know that heritage railways is an issue I am familiar with and fully support. It is an issue close to many hearts here in your Lordships’ house and it is great to see the interest we saw in the impassioned debate—it says here, and I agree—repeated here on Report.

In addition to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, I thank my noble friends Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Berkeley, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I particularly thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for making a little detour from her usual route to call by our station here tonight.

The UK heritage rail sector encompasses more than 170 operational railways, running trains over nearly 600 miles of track and operating between some 460 stations. It creates jobs and greatly supports local economies. I pay tribute to all those who run and maintain those railways; they not only preserve our heritage but contribute greatly to their local tourist economies. I mention this because it is notwithstanding the issues identified by this amendment.

The heritage railways are incredibly successful; they go from strength to strength, notwithstanding the issue the amendment raises about the Heritage Railway Association’s concerns. The benefits to all volunteers cannot be overestimated. However, as many speakers have said, it is particularly good for young people, and I wholeheartedly support efforts to encourage young people to take advantage of the volunteering opportunities that heritage railways offer, with their emphasis on teamwork, communication and helping to bring science and engineering topics to life.

It is vital that any work or volunteering is carried out safely and should be appropriate to the age and experience of the volunteer. It is also important to recognise that additional measures, such as effective supervision, need to be in place for young people, particularly those aged 14 to 16. Health and safety law requires heritage railway operators to protect a young person’s health and safety, taking account of their age, lack of experience and levels of maturity. Of course, not all work is suitable for young people; dangerous or high-risk work activities should not be carried out. Health and safety risk assessments help heritage railway operators to determine what work activity should be carried out and how to make sure it is done safely. After all, we want to preserve and revive heritage railways, not heritage employment practices. While the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road provide general guidance, it is for the Heritage Railway Association to support its operators with detailed guidance about suitable activities for young people.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on this excellent amendment, and I join the thanks to Zelda Perkins and her colleagues for their tireless efforts to bring it to this point. I have a few questions for the Minister about the Government’s intentions, or present thoughts, regarding the secondary legislation. In particular, is it right that employers will not be permitted to suggest confidentiality? Will there be mandatory independent legal advice? Will confidentiality be time limited, or at least have an opt-out? Will the excepted individuals to whom the victim can speak include someone the victim knows, a friend or a relative, not just independent professionals? Will non-disparagement clauses also be caught by this amendment?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a very important debate and I thank the Minister, the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, Lady Goudie and Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions. In particular, I congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, especially for Amendments 95 and 96. They are vital and long overdue, and I support them very strongly indeed. They strike at the very heart of what it means to have a fair, transparent and accountable workplace. Too often, whistleblowers have faced retaliation, dismissal and isolation, not because they have done anything wrong but because they have identified where something has been severely wrong. That is a moral failure in our system, and it is one that this House must now move to correct.

Workplace harassment, abuse, corruption and mismanagement are not minor private inconveniences to be swept under the carpet but serious matters of public interest. It is precisely in the public interest that these amendments redefine what constitutes a protected disclosure and establish an independent office of the whistleblower. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, just pointed out, this new body would be more than just symbolic. It would enforce real standards, offer real protections and provide real redress for those who are brave enough to come forward. It would finally send a clear signal to employers that retaliation is no longer ever going to be tolerated and that burying the truth behind legal threats and non-disclosure agreements has to stop.

It is particularly important that these protections extend to disclosures around violence, harassment and abuse in the workplace. These are areas where silence is too often enforced and where whistleblowing can save others from further harm. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to stand firmly on the side of transparency, accountability and justice.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for our amendment. I assure your Lordships that we will follow it through to full implementation.

The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked a number of specific questions. There will be further consultation on the regulations, but I assure all noble Lords around the House of the Government’s absolute determination to get this and the regulations on to the statute book. I know that noble Lords will hold our feet to the fire; I will be doing that as well, to my own Government. We will deliver on this.

Moving on to Amendments 95 and 96, whistleblowers play an important role in exposing wrongdoing and malpractice in the workplace. It is vital that workers are able to come forward with concerns without suffering adverse treatment by their employer. That is why whistleblowers have been protected from dismissal and detrimental treatment under the Employment Rights Act since reforms were introduced in the UK in 1998 through the Public Interest Disclosure Act. However, some time has passed since these world-leading reforms were introduced. The Government acknowledge concerns from noble Lords and others that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be.

That is why we are taking a range of actions to strengthen the framework. Through the Employment Rights Bill, we are introducing a measure that will expressly make sexual harassment the basis for a protected disclosure. This will provide welcome clarity for workers and have wider benefits, including encouraging more workers to speak up about sexual harassment by using whistleblowing routes. The measure will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment must be treated fairly, as workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment as a result.

Additionally, we have committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. Most recently, the Government amended the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 to allow workers to make protected disclosures to relevant government departments on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing information on financial, transport and other trade sanctions to government and to seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal due to making a protected disclosure.

The amendments proposed in this group would make substantial changes which should be considered as part of a broader assessment of the operation of the whistleblowing framework. For example, the amendment that would create an office for the whistleblower would introduce a significant structural change to that framework. The Government also note that there are differing views among stakeholders about the role of a new body.

However, as an indication of the continued movement in this space by the Government, I am pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing the research report on the whistleblowing framework, which was undertaken by the previous Government. The report provides observations and insights about the operation of the whistleblowing framework, obtained from stakeholder engagement, and a literature review, which will be a positive contribution to debate. The Government look forward to engaging stakeholders about that report and the proposal for reform. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, not to press Amendment 95.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his amendments. I agree very much with the approach my noble friend Lord Ashcombe has taken. We are fully in agreement that workers deserve reasonable notice of shifts. That is a fair and modern expectation. What we cannot accept or support is the way the Government have approached this issue. It is, in effect, vague in definition, burdensome in practice and, yet again, deeply disconnected from the operational realities faced by employers.

The term “reasonable notice” has been left entirely undefined in the legislation. That is not just an oversight; it creates legal uncertainty and leaves both workers and employers unclear about their rights and responsibilities. The result is a framework where expectations are high but there is no guidance; guidance is absent. I hope of course that the Minister will reassure us on this. It would be a very good move on the part of the Government to accept Amendments 10 and 11.

The real concern is how all of this interacts with other government-imposed obligations, especially, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, pointed out, for small businesses, which form the backbone of our economy. The Minister knows this well as he has unrivalled experience in that sector. Let me just spell it out. The current proposals amount to what is virtually a threefold financial cost to the employer in the event of an unavoidable change, such as an employee calling in sick on the day of their shift. First, the employer will be required to pay statutory sick pay from day one—a new obligation introduced without sufficient support or transition for small businesses. Secondly, under these proposed rules, the original shift could not simply be cancelled without consequence. The employer would be expected to pay the sick worker for the shift they can no longer cover, even though it is not worked. Thirdly, and most significant of all, the employer would then need to pay another employee to come in and cover the shift. In effect, the employer is paying twice for the same shift, on top of sick pay. That is not just inconvenient; it is, for many small businesses, financially unviable.

Let us take a common example of a pub with a garden space, with staffing that depends very much on the weather forecast. If rain is expected, the manager may need to scale back staffing. Under these rules, they may be required to pay the original shift, notify the worker within a fixed timeframe and compensate them if notice is too short. These decisions are often necessarily made on the morning of a shift, based on changing conditions. The flexibility that currently exists, therefore, is lost and replaced with what amounts to bureaucratic process and financial risks.

These are not hypothetical scenarios. In hospitality and retail, rotas are often agreed through informal co-operation: workers swapping shifts with each other, or managers responding to customer demand or staff illness in real time. What the Government now propose would stifle that practical environment, replacing it with a rigid system that suits neither party. Yes, we of course support the principle of fair notice, but fairness must apply to both sides. Businesses need clarity, practicality and financial sustainability; workers need predictability and respect. These goals, surely, should not be mutually exclusive. They will be undermined, not advanced, by unclear obligations and rules that are unworkable. That is why we support a clearer, more defined approach to notice periods: one that will give employers confidence, support workers’ rights and reflect the real dynamics of modern shift work.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for their contributions and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for tabling Amendments 10 and 11.

The Bill currently sets out that eligible workers will be entitled to a payment when their shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice. Setting the short notice period for cancellation at 48 hours, as stated in the amendment, would mean that only workers whose shifts are cancelled less than 48 hours prior to starting will receive payments for short notice. Our analysis showed that 2.4 million workers could be eligible for zero-hours contract rights. Furthermore, analysis from the CIPD—the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—suggests that approximately 48% of the UK’s employers do not provide compensation to a worker if they cancel their shift with less than 24 hours’ notice. The Government remain concerned about the impact that this may have on an individual’s ability to plan their life—as we all do—and knowing what money they will have for fundamental things such as housing costs, travel and paying for childcare and commuting.

We intend to set up the period of short notice in regulations following consultation. I recommend that all noble Lords read our road map for implementing this Bill, which sets out exactly what we intend to do. However, we have said in the Bill that “short notice” will not be more than seven days. The Government are committed to continuing to work closely with businesses and trade unions in carefully considering the right approach to this matter. It is right to consult on this in order to fully establish the impact of different proposals. For example, a 48-hour requirement could have the effect of a worker not being entitled to a payment if they found out late on a Friday evening that their Monday morning shift was cancelled. The impact and fairness of different options must be assessed.

We believe that seeking views on this and setting out the position in regulations is the right approach. This will allow the Government to minimise the amount of administrative detail in the Bill, while retaining the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, in the light of the novel nature of this measure, without the need for further primary legislation. This approach also allows the Government to account for other important provisions in the Bill, such as a potential super-short notice period, without pre-empting consultations, so decisions can be taken together.

It is worth emphasising that a short notice cancellation period will only be due when the employer cancels a shift. A payment would not be due if a worker called in sick. Noble Lords should also be aware that there is a power in the Bill to make exceptions under new Section 27BR so, in some circumstances, an employer would not be required to make any payment.

The Government cannot promise to cover all the circumstances that have been raised by noble Lords, as we are keen to further engage with stakeholders before making the final call, but we hope this provides some reassurance. Further, Amendment 10 is not needed, as the Bill already provides that payment is due only where short notice is given, and therefore payment is not due when longer notice is given.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, about business uncertainty, I can safely say to him that we are in regular contact with business representative organisations. Businesses know about our implementation road map, so they know when certain provisions in the Bill will come into force. This particular section of the Bill does not come in until 2027.

I turn to reasonable notice, asked about by the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Hunt. After consultation, we will set in regulations what period of notice should be presumed unreasonable. We will also set out factors for tribunals to take into account when considering whether a notice is reasonable. On this basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

28: Clause 10, page 38, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) in subsection (2), for “four” substitute “two”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment preserves a minimum one-day waiting period for statutory sick pay, by reducing the qualifying threshold from four days to two, rather than introducing a day-one entitlement.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 28 simply asks for a degree of common sense. It would preserve a minimum one-day waiting period for statutory sick pay by lowering the qualifying threshold from four days to two, rather than removing the threshold entirely, as the Government now propose.

We have heard a great deal from the Benches opposite about bad employers, and indeed there are some, but the Government must also acknowledge the other side of the coin. Just as some employers abuse the system, so, too, do some employees. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and undermines the credibility of the entire framework.

In fact, before the Government’s recent and embarrassing U-turn on benefits reform, Ministers rightly spoke about the perverse incentives created by aspects of the welfare system. The logic there was sound, and the same logic applies here. If we remove all barriers to claiming statutory sick pay, even for a single day, and do so without checks or balances, we create a system that is not only vulnerable to abuse but risks becoming a disincentive to return to work.

Let me be absolutely clear. This is not about denying support to people who are genuinely unwell. It is about preserving the integrity of statutory sick pay so that it remains sustainable, trusted and workable for businesses, particularly small ones. A one-day waiting period is a modest safeguard, not a punishment. It would discourage spurious claims, uphold personal responsibility and give smaller employers a fighting chance in a tight and unpredictable labour market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I will start with Amendment 28, which looks at retaining the waiting period for one day. The Government believe that removing the waiting period is essential in ensuring that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover when sick. That is why we committed to it in the manifesto. This is particularly true for employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions, who should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition or prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the one-day waiting period that he was proposing should not be a punishment, but that is exactly what it would be under the proposals before us.

It is also worth saying that 25% of all employees receive only statutory sick pay, and many are forced to choose between their health and the genuine financial hardship during the first three days of sickness absence when they are not paid. Removing the waiting period will make a tangible difference to ensuring that the safety net for sick pay is available to those who need it most.

I understand that the noble Lord is concerned about the wider impacts on businesses of these changes, but, without the removal of the waiting period, many employees will be forced to continue to come into the workplace when they are sick. The pandemic exposed how damaging this can be for businesses and individuals, with WPI economic modelling telling us that presenteeism can lead to up to 12% of the workforce becoming sick from the illness of a single employee. By reducing such presenteeism, businesses may benefit from the overall productivity increase, which can also contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff.

Of course, as we have debated before, employers will need to manage sickness absence, as they do at the moment. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the cultural issues, and, yes, some of the things she identifies are real issues. We are addressing them across government, and she will have heard many of my ministerial colleagues set out how they plan to do that. But that does not alter the fact that, in this Bill, what we are proposing makes good sense for the lowest paid.

I also remind noble Lords that the additional cost to business of the statutory sick pay reforms is about £450 million annually—a relatively modest £15 per employee. It was quite rightly pointed out that these figures were modelled by the DWP, but it does have a reasonable track record of doing such modelling, and I do not think that the figures should be dismissed.

Amendment 29 seeks to exempt employers from having to pay the rate of statutory sick pay outlined in Clause 11 if they already provide a contractual scheme that pays at least 80% of normal weekly earnings. The rate of statutory sick pay is set out in the Bill as the lower of 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings, or £118.75. This already means that no employer will have to pay more than 80% of an employee’s normal weekly earnings. Therefore, an employer already paying 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings would be compliant with the statutory minimum set out in the Bill. As such, I am unclear on the intended impact of this amendment on employees or employers, as it does not appear to change the statutory sick pay entitlement.

I turn to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I appreciate what he said about it being a probing amendment. As I have mentioned, the changes we are making to statutory sick pay will cost businesses around £15 per employee. This relatively modest amount compares with projected costs of up to £600 million a year to government of a rebate for the full amount of statutory sick pay for SMEs. I accept the arguments made by the noble Lord that this cost will of course depend on the size, scope and complexity of a rebate scheme. However, we have experience of administering such schemes. We previously delivered statutory sick pay rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. A review found that the employers underused it and found it was complex and time-consuming to administer. Any rebate system that maximises opportunity for business take-up, which I envisage would be the noble Lord’s intent in this amendment, would collectively be costly for the taxpayer as well, whereas the cost saving for individual employers would be small and a new administrative burden would be placed on them.

Previous statutory sick pay rebate schemes also did not incentivise employers to support their employees back to work or invest in their health and well-being. This, in turn, can affect overall productivity and staff retention. We know that employers have responsibility for paying sick pay, and that helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able. I would also like to add that the Government have asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead the Keep Britain Working review, which will consider recommendations on how employers and the Government can work together to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces. A final report with recommendations is expected in the autumn.

I therefore do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I say that of course we are continuing to have a dialogue with SMEs, and we take their concerns very seriously. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Goddard, not to press their amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for reminding us all that one of the great difficulties we have in debating a subject such as this is the lack of a reliable evidence base, and that is particularly relevant to the debates on these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, quite rightly drew our attention to the unintended cultural issues, which worry us all so much and to which the Minister has just referred.

I remain wholly unconvinced by the Minister’s response when debating the removal of the waiting period for statutory sick pay. To remove any waiting period at all, and to introduce a day one entitlement without qualification, is not just a step too far but an unnecessary one. Having at least one waiting day does not undermine the Government’s stated intention to support those who are genuinely unwell. It is a modest safeguard that reflects the balance they claim to seek, and its removal creates perverse incentives at a time when we should be doing all we can to encourage people back into work.

On the issue of agency work and statutory sick pay, the Minister’s response is equally unconvincing. I did try to outline a scenario where individuals go off sick, claim SSP and then begin new assignments, while continuing to receive sick pay from another employer. I do not believe that the Minister adequately addressed that point. I suggest that perhaps we ought to put our heads together and try to find another solution. Having listened carefully to the debate, a system-wide mechanism, possibly administered by HMRC, to cross-check SSP claims across employers could serve as a much-needed safeguard. Perhaps she might reflect further on that on that idea, because I believe that such a mechanism would not target those with legitimate dual employment. We recognise that some workers genuinely hold more than one job in a given week, but it would introduce a basic layer of validation—a simple tool to distinguish between valid and dishonest claims. Without it, businesses, particularly small and agency employers, would remain exposed to fraudulent or inadvertent overclaims that could cost them thousands of pounds, all in the name of a policy that currently lacks real oversight.

I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for their important probing amendment. It has been a useful and interesting debate, but we still search for the solutions that will meet the problem. I urge the Government, in their phased consultation, to listen to businesses from across the board as they highlight their concerns. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

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.