Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee we tabled several amendments resisting this reduction from 10%, and the reason for doing that was that we think that is the existing and fair threshold. To go to 2% is not being done for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, says, which is about competing unions and getting the one with the lowest threshold, but for a different reason.

When we have had these arguments, in Committee and tonight, the fall-back position of the Ministers and other speakers is, “Well, they don’t have to join a union—they don’t have to be in a union”. I was in the GMB—I do wish people would not list Unite and the other one, and put the GMB third; please put the GMB a bit further up the pecking order next time. But the point of the story that I am trying to tell noble Lords is that although the Minister says that you do not have to join a union, by reducing this to 2% from 10% you are effectively stacking the deck. You are setting them up there. If you believe that trade unions are free to join or not, and there is a threshold and it is 10%, that is your principle, and that has stood for years. Why, then, in employment law do you need to move that down to 2%? What brings you to that number? There is an obvious reason for that number, is there not?

On the unintended consequences again—it becomes a mantra, but I will say it very quickly—in small and medium-sized businesses employing 10, 15 or 20 people, they need only two, three or four people to say, “We want to join a union” for it to become complicated, with HR and all the other unintended consequences. So 10% is a reasonable threshold. The Government have given us no reason why they want to change it from 10% to 2%. They should leave it at 10%; leave the status quo. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, decides to press his amendment tonight, my depleted troops will be supporting him in the Lobby.

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

I thank all noble Lords for the short but focused debate we have had on this set of amendments, moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I particularly pay tribute to my fellow GMB member, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport.

As I set out in Committee, we believe that current thresholds pose too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are, as we know, increasingly fragmented. We want therefore to be able to consider whether the 10% membership threshold on application should be reduced in future. The reason why a range of 2% to 10% has been chosen is that, in 2020, the previous Government reduced the threshold that triggers information and consultation arrangements from 10% to 2% in the workplace, so what the Bill proposes aligns with that. But, to be absolutely clear, we want to consult before making any decisions on whether we should bring forward secondary legislation and by how much the threshold should be varied, if at all. We will consult businesses—including, of course, small and medium-sized businesses—as part of that consultation process.

Should we decide to bring forward secondary legislation in the future, that legislation will be subject to full debate in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We will carry out an impact assessment at that time that will consider impacts on businesses, including, as before, small and medium-sized businesses.

I want to reassure all noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in particular, that, whatever the application percentage in the bargaining unit is or may be, the fact remains that unions would still need to obtain a majority of a bargaining unit in a trade union recognition ballot. That point is fundamental to the misconception that is coming from the Benches opposite about what this part of the Bill does or does not do. To be clear, this is not, to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the “tyranny of the minority”; in fact, it is absolutely contrary to that point. This is ultimately about a trade union having to win a majority.

Experience has shown that this is not easy to achieve. The union will have to make a good case to persuade the majority in the bargaining unit to vote for recognition in a recognition ballot overseen by an independent, qualified person. It is in the trade union’s interest to be confident that it can win a majority in the ballot, otherwise it would still be prevented, as is currently the case, from applying for another statutory recognition ballot in the same bargaining unit for three years. That is why it is highly unlikely that a union will apply for statutory recognition when there is only one worker who is a member of that union. Indeed, if experience tells us anything, it is that it is highly likely that trade unions will continue to focus their efforts on larger workplaces where there is greater bang for the organising buck.

The union recognition process is generally consensual, and that is a good thing. In the nine years from 2017 to 2025, only 375 recognition applications have gone to the CAC. Close to half of the 1,476 recognition applications received since 1999 were withdrawn by unions at various stages of the recognition processes, in many cases because the parties have reached a voluntary agreement for recognition. The confrontation that has been set up by some speakers from the Benches opposite is a chimera; this is not the reality of organised workplaces. Given that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 135.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the context in a bit more detail, but I am afraid I am not entirely persuaded. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

68: Clause 26, page 46, line 14, leave out “and” and insert “to”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 26.

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

My Lords, these government amendments are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They target the application of the clause to a set of restricted variations, to better focus the measures on unscrupulous “fire and rehire” tactics. We have heard many representations from both businesses and trade unions on the effect of this measure, and we have listened to the well-argued points in this House and the other place. We have greatly valued the input and co-operation of groups across industry on this issue, including the CBI, the British Retail Consortium and their members, as well as the TUC, Unite, USDAW, the RMT and many other businesses and trade unions. It is our intention to ban the unscrupulous use of “fire and rehire”, and we were elected on a manifesto commitment to do so. However, we want to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the ability of employers to make essential operational decisions.

Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 mean that fire and rehire will be an automatic unfair dismissal in relation to restricted variations unless the employer is in severe financial difficulties and has no reasonable alternative. These restricted variations are pay, number of hours, leave entitlement and those changes to shift patterns that will be specified in regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that, as we warned when we discussed it in Committee, Clause 26 was, as originally drafted, quite simply unworkable.

As we reminded noble Lords throughout Committee, the clause was far too broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases. That approach was not only impractical but potentially damaging to employers and employees alike. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward amendment that define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation. Although I would not go so far as to say that the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible.

The Minister quoted Unite. May I quote Unite back at him? It has just issued a statement saying that it condemns the Government’s amendments, which in its own way suggests that progress is being made. The Minister would be well placed to consider the rather detailed brief that Unite has delivered, condemning the way in which the Government are now reworking Clause 26. It suggests that progress is being made and all our warnings are coming to fruition. One now has to wonder, I suppose, whether the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government’s own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.

Of course, these amendments, while helpful, have added layers of complexity. Look at what Clause 26 now represents: it is a recipe for going to Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and asking, “What does this mean?” There is so much here that is very difficult to understand; these amendments have added layers of complexity. The fire and rehire provisions are probably slightly more workable now—I say this slightly optimistically—but, my goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government are preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn; that consultation will be crucial.

I quote another major figure: Mike Clancy, the general secretary of Prospect. He has warned that

“the government must be careful it doesn’t inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change”.

Surely that is the risk. Among the restricted variations now listed are reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times, and reductions in leave entitlements. These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make—not recklessly, but to adapt, restructure or just survive during periods of financial strain. So we urge the Government to conduct this consultation with care. The views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-sized businesses must be fully understood. Yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. If we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst but support the best.

As amended, this clause is better, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought for a minute that concord might break out across the House—it did at least partially, but not quite. However, as the short debate we have had today and the debates we had in Committee have shown—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, identified this—there is wide agreement across your Lordships’ House that the unconscionable tactics we saw P&O Ferries use should never be allowed again. We have also heard clear arguments that employers will need to make reasonable operational changes and that this should be permitted.

I begin with Amendments 74 and 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seek to make it clear that, where an employer makes redundancies because they have had to change location, this should not be an automatic unfair dismissal. We agree. If there is no longer a job for the employee at a work location because that location has had to close down, this is unfortunate but is still a redundancy situation. That is why new Section 104I will apply only when the principal reason for the dismissal falls within that section. Where an employee’s place of work is closed, the principal reason for their dismissal is likely to be redundancy. We will set out further detail on this matter in our planned code of practice.

Further, the changes that the Government are making through their amendments will mean that a change to the location at which an employee works is a non-restricted variation. This means that, even in cases where there is no redundancy situation, a dismissal for failing to agree to a new work location will not be automatically unfair. An employer must still follow a fair process when making such dismissals.

Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to limit the protections in the Bill to cases in which fire and rehire was used to reduce pay and benefits. Government Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 will focus the clause’s protections on variations to certain terms—specifically pay, leave, total hours worked and specified shift patterns. Those terms were identified because variations to them would have a significant impact on employees and should not be imposed under the threat of fire and rehire. This is, we believe, in line with the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment.

In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised the comments from Unite and Prospect. I think I am right in saying that they were askance. They show that there is a variety of views within the trade union movement as well as across industry. We understand that Unite would like stricter conditions on fire and rehire. We feel that, having consulted a wide range of trade unions—including, of course, the TUC—and a number of business organisations, as well as businesses themselves and representative business organisations, including the CBI and the BRC, we have struck the right balance in the way we have constructed the clause.

Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, proposes to limit the clause to contract variations that are not one of a list of protected terms and are otherwise minor and non-detrimental. The Government’s amendments, which limit the clause’s automatic unfair dismissal protections to a list of restricted variations, achieve the noble Lord’s intended outcome; he very graciously acknowledged this. They also have the benefit of being specific. For example, the Government’s amendments will not require an employment tribunal to come to a decision about whether a variation should be considered minor on the facts of each case. They also give employers flexibility to make reasonable location changes, which employers have told us is an important operational consideration and which would not be possible under the noble Lord’s amendment.

I therefore beg to move the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not to move Amendment 73.

Amendment 68 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

69: Clause 26, page 46, line 25, after “employment” insert “to make a restricted variation (see subsection (3B))”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other amendments of clause 26 would limit new section 104I(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to cases where the variation of the contract of employment was of a particular kind. This includes reductions in an employee’s pay or time off and changes to the number of hours an employee is required to work.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

76: Clause 26, page 46, line 31, at beginning insert “In the case of an employer that is not a local authority,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 26 at page 46, line 36 and page 47, line 2.

--- Later in debate ---

“Why should that matter?” you might ask, “since surely all the political funds will go to the Labour Party or Labour MPs”. Well, it does not. I have tried to look at union accounts, and I started with the obvious one—Unite. Unfortunately, we cannot see any recent accounts from Unite, as over the last three years it has provided only partial accounts to the Certification Officer, the auditors having refused to sign the full accounts because of the ongoing investigation into corruption in relation to the £112 million hotel deal. So, I was forced to go back to the most recent disclosed, which is the 2019 accounts. Have a look inside Unite’s return to the Certification Officer for 2019 to see where the political fund payments go to—it turns out that they list payments to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign and other organisations. Can that really be what members of Unite want to see their hard-earned wages go to?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I feel that his comments on political funds go a fair way outside the scope of the amendments we are speaking to today. There will be plenty of time to discuss political funds next week on Report.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?

Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.

If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for having raised what is a profoundly important issue, one that deserves very careful consideration by your Lordships’ House.

As my noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us, serious childhood illness places unimaginable strain on families, and it is not just a case of emotional turmoil. There are so many practical challenges as well, including hospital visits, overnight stays, unexpected emergencies and a need for sustained and focused care that no working parent can possibly schedule around.

I am pleased to say that many good employers already recognise this: in the most extreme circumstances, they show compassion and flexibility, ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between caring for a seriously ill child and retaining their job. At the heart of this is not only compassion but continuity. A child battling serious illness often requires a parent at their side, not occasionally but consistently. Without job protection and some form of financial support, the very people whom we would expect to be there—parents—may find themselves unable to be so.

Of course, any new entitlement must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, reminded us, designed carefully, with due attention to cost, clarity and implementation. Whereas on these Benches we do not take a fixed position on the amendment itself, I welcome the fact that it prompts us to engage seriously with a difficult but crucial area of employment and social policy.

I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate, and I hope that the Government will take from it not only a recognition of the challenge but a willingness to explore how it might be best addressed in law.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a powerful debate on Amendment 97, which seeks to introduce financial support and leave for the parents of seriously ill children, and I thank all noble Lords who participated in it. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his painful and very personal story. It is clear that, even after a fair number of not just years but decades, the indelible mark of the pain that he and his partner and the rest of his family went through is still with him. On behalf of the whole House, I thank him for sharing that story.

I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute, as, I am sure, does every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate, to the excellent work done by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis and their charity, It’s Never You, which provides vital support to the parents of seriously ill children. Ceri and Frances set up this charity in memory of their late son, Hugh, who died tragically in 2021 after battling a rare form of cancer. It’s Never You has worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to draft this amendment, and I know that Ceri and Frances have campaigned hard on this proposal to honour the memory of their son Hugh and to provide support to parents who face the same tragic circumstances that they did.

It is of course vital that parents be able to spend time at the bedside of their sick child without the fear of loss of employment or financial difficulties adding to a situation that can already be mentally overwhelming, isolating or physically draining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, set out so well. One can only imagine the trauma of being in such a terrible situation. I say that one can imagine, but perhaps one can never really fully understand unless one is in that situation.

I know that this challenge has been raised previously in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and I want to emphasise that the Government are keen to continue to look at the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and It’s Never You. As the noble Baroness said, I have personally met Ceri and Frances several times already, and I have been struck by their selfless determination and resolve to provide for other parents what they did not have. We intend to continue this engagement. I want to ensure that parents of sick children are not ignored or left behind.

However, we do not believe that incorporating this amendment into the Bill would achieve this end, despite the very best of intentions with which it has been prepared. I will highlight three reasons for this.

First, we are concerned about the approach of amending the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act, which was taken through your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, as she set out a moment ago. Although the amendment rightly seeks to provide much-needed care to older children, it risks unintentionally undermining some fundamental principles of neonatal leave and pay, which were designed with the specific situation of newborns requiring medical care in mind. Much of the eligibility criteria for the leave and pay entitlements in the existing Act, for example, are connected to birth-related forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity, that simply would not apply to parents of other children. Similarly, the specific definition of “neonatal care” in the current Act has been carefully constructed through extensive consultation. Again, this amendment would require that to be overhauled, risking creating a gap in existing support.

Secondly, more detailed analysis is required to fully understand the total cost implications of this proposal. We need to understand how many parents may be eligible for support across England, Wales and Scotland, as well as the estimated take-up, familiarisation and business costs. Initially, external estimates suggest that the cost of this amendment could be in the low millions—the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to that specifically—based on data from England only. However, those figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of all parents who may be eligible for support. The actual cost could be significantly higher, depending on how serious illness and other eligibility criteria are defined. Therefore, the overall financial impact will depend on the final definitions and scope used to determine eligibility.

Thirdly, it is also right that the Government consider other suggestions of support that have been put forward by parents who are put in this incredibly challenging and difficult situation, such as the right to a career break to enable parents to take an extended period of time out of work to provide care for a seriously ill child, as has been highlighted by Conservative MP Mark Francois in the other place and his constituent Christina Harris. It is right that the Government explore all proposals before proceeding to legislate in order to ensure good law—indeed, a workable law—and the very best outcome for parents, which I think we all, across the House, agree is needed.

The Government appreciate that there is a significant challenge to be addressed here, but more work needs to be done to understand the best approach and costs of tackling it. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised GoFundMe and the way successful fundraising campaigns interact with the benefits system. That is undoubtedly an area that needs to be understood.

As the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, said, we need to understand the costs, and to have clarity and full consideration. More work needs to be done to understand the best approach and the costs of tackling this issue and addressing it properly. However, I want to be very clear that we are listening, and I have been moved—as we all have—to hear of the distress caused by the incredibly challenging situation of serious childhood illness and the financial strain that comes with caring for a sick child.

The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for a way forward, and I hope noble Lords will take what I am about to say in the spirit intended. I make a commitment to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to Ceri, Frances and It’s Never You, that we will consult on support for parents of seriously ill children, including the proposal for Hugh’s law, to gain views from all interested parties on the specifics of the support. We are doing this at pace—the consultation will run next year in 2026. We wish to continue working with It’s Never You, the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who are interested—having heard the debate this evening and the strength of opinion across the House—on this extremely important matter, as we further explore this proposal.

It is appropriate that we consult publicly and provide space to hear a range of views to ensure that we arrive at the most appropriate policy outcome. We want to do something that is right. We want to make sure we have a solution that sticks, is workable, and provides the support that so many parents need—indeed, that Ceri and Frances needed but did not have. It is important that we do not rush into it but have a considered approach. I therefore ask, while we undertake this consultation, that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 97.

[Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate this evening and, very specifically, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his deeply personal and moving experience. What we sought to achieve with the amendment has been discussed at length. I appreciate that, but it was over many meetings. We asked several weeks ago for guidance if there were technical concerns. We got a response yesterday, which was very helpful, but I note that there is no indication within it that the amendment is inoperable, nor that these concerns could not be dealt with through the offer of a tidying-up amendment or, potentially, an alternative text at Third Reading. I welcome the opportunity to continue to discuss this and I do not wish to delay the House any further, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a useful debate on Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.

On Amendment 98, the law already provides that when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary and grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative who the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.

As we have heard, and perhaps in response to the critique by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, employers can allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional sports body, partner, spouse or legal representative.

As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway helpfully reminded us, the existing legislative provisions seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces to better ensure that the heat is taken out of the situation and that they are used as conciliatory opportunities to resolve tensions and maintain a good employer-worker relationship. As my noble friend said, this could involve a workmate who knows the context of the situation, understands the employment —and probably both parties to the grievance—and can provide real insight to the situation and focused support.

The inclusion of professional bodies, which may include legal representation in the legislation, may jeopardise the involved parties’ ability to engage in amicable conversation, with the concern that discussion may be significantly restrained as a result, with neither party willing to accept fault. The Government are rightly concerned that this will result in an increased likelihood of a failure to reach a suitable outcome for both the worker and employer. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, we want systems in place that are quicker, cheaper and more effective at reaching resolutions.

However, this in turn, as part of the proposal, would increase the cost of hearings for both parties, as the processes and the meetings themselves become more protracted and reduce the chances of a mutually beneficial outcome. The involvement of legal representatives may be particularly costly for smaller businesses, which may not have legal resources readily available—we have heard much already today, if not in previous debates in Committee and on Report, about that issue. Additionally, the introduction of legal expertise at these hearings may limit the ability of ACAS to mediate an ongoing dispute, as legal arguments may already have been heard during an internal hearing. It is worth noting that an amicable solution between the parties is the fastest way to deliver justice and the amendment may have the inadvertent effect of increasing the likelihood of tribunal claims being made, although of course that is not its intention.

Of course I understand that certain organisations, including those that provide legal services, would benefit. However, as previously noted when discussing similar amendments, an employer already has the existing ability to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers if they set this out in the workers’ terms and conditions. This is a solution in search of a problem. ACAS estimates that there are 1.7 million formal disciplinary cases in UK organisations each year.

It is rare that I ever say this, let alone from the Dispatch Box, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in that the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his amendment would be unduly cumbersome. It would complicate a law that has been in place for over 20 years and, if accepted, will require that the employer checks secondary legislation for every case to see who is a responsible body and whether the individual has been certified as having been trained. These are additional administrative burdens that the Government are keen to avoid. Indeed, the Opposition Front Bench has been keen to point out when they see fault in our proposals in other places—erroneously, I should add.

On Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Government believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. If Amendment 98 was a solution in search of a problem, Amendment 99 is an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to bash a problem, in her view—namely, trade unions.

I am a former trade union official. I have also worked in a number of private sector roles as a manager. Unions are a good part of our industrial landscape, as we have heard across the House. I join with others across the House in saying that it would better if more people were members of trade unions. They are far from perfect, but although the cases that the noble Baroness raises undeniably raise issues about the trade unions she talked about, they do not undermine the day-to-day work of many trade unions and, in particular, of trade union reps. In the workplace, day in, day out and across the country, they work with employees and businesses to make workplaces safer, to ensure that employees are properly educated and skilled, and to help those employees access their rights at work, which we deem fair and necessary.

Trade unions have an important role to play in supporting workers during the process of a disciplinary or grievance hearing. Union officials allowed to accompany a worker, as prescribed in the existing framework, must be certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. By opening this role up to anyone the worker chooses, the amendment risks introducing individuals into the disciplinary and grievance hearings process who are not familiar with the workplace in question or, indeed, with the employment rights framework.

As I noted when speaking to the previous amendment, this is again likely to lead to a reduced likelihood of successful mediation of these disputes. The role of the recognised union representative allows the relationship between the employer and representative to be developed over time, thus increasing the likelihood of an amicable solution that does not go to a full legal process. This amendment could lead to the involvement of a family member or friend in disciplinary grievance proceedings, which may, in practice, cause more problems than solutions, given the sensitive nature of such a personal relationship.

In closing, it is unclear to the Government where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces specifically would benefit. In the consultations we have undertaken in government and prior to being elected, with both businesses and trade unions, the need to expand this right has not featured from either side in the workplace.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I think the Minister may have answered his own question there, because if the consultation was with trade unionists about whether there was any need for non-trade unionists to go in, then they would give you one answer. I want to clarify one thing: it is true that I have never been a trade union official, but I have been a rank and file trade union member for decades. I am not anti-trade union, but I do not think the world stops and starts at trade unions.

I want to ask the Minister whether he understands that, at the moment, the statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official is not in-house. The way the law is phrased is that any trade union official, even one from a union that you have never joined and from a completely unrelated sector, can accompany you—that is the way the law is. I wanted to know whether that is fair or whether that wording could change. What is wrong with, say, a Citizens Advice caseworker or what have you? The numbers of people who are in the trade unions just do not tally for people to be accompanied fairly at the moment. Unless there is an 80% increase in trade union membership, it is obviously two-tier and discriminatory at present.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To respond to the first point the noble Baroness made, perhaps I did not enunciate clearly enough, but I said that in the consultation the demand for change did not come from either trade unions or employers.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

This is the final word. This is not a trade union rights Bill; this is the Employment Rights Bill. It is casually known as the workers’ rights Bill. There are millions of workers who are not in trade unions for a variety of reasons, including your own Minister Angela Rayner, as I just noted. I simply suggest that when you ask employers or trade unionists whether there is a demand for this then rank and file workers are being ignored. I suggest that you acknowledge and empower them.

[Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to put the record straight, because we have heard much about the Deputy Prime Minister not being in a union. She is in a union. She is in the union called UNISON and has been for a number of years. I did not want noble Lords to go home tonight thinking that no one would represent the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady of Nichols of Selby for that helpful clarification. I thought that was the case, but I am glad that she made it. She is in a far better position than I am to talk about UNISON and its membership.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I want to be clear that this issue has not come up in all the consultations we have undertaken, with a wide variety of stakeholders. It is not that I am saying, “We talked to some trade unions and, guess what, they’re quite happy with the status quo”. Genuinely, this issue has not come up. Simply, this is not an issue for workplaces. That is why I described it—

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

Does the Minister understand that there is a two-tier system here? If you are a trade unionist you can have somewhat more professional attendance than somebody who is not a trade unionist. That is what is important.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

To be clear, if there is a recognised trade union or you are a member of a trade union then you can take a trade union representative, but you also have the right to be accompanied by a workmate. If you are a member of a trade union, you do not need to take that trade union representative along; you could have a workmate come along. If responsible employers want to have more flexibility, they can write this into their terms and conditions. There is nothing to stop people doing that. That is why I suggested, to again use the phrase, that the solution to such a problem is not something we really need to respond to in the legislation because it might create unintended consequences and, in terms of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, unfair administrative burdens on employers. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 98.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, we have had some very interesting comments here from various people. I remind noble Lords that all we are saying is that people should have a choice. They could have a trade union representative, fine, but 77.7% of people are in firms that do not have a trade union. But if there was a trade union, that is fine.

The alternative is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, you could have a fellow worker. But the point of the amendment is that we are saying that the workers need to have a trained person to represent them. It can be a trade unionist—that is fine—but, if it is not, it will be like when a person goes to the solicitor at the end of the road and gets him to represent them on a complicated issue: he is the wrong person to represent them on that issue. You have to have someone who has some training. The trade unionists have the training, but they do not represent everybody. We are saying that the person who is seeking help should have someone who is trained.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for what she said; I gather, from having spoken to her, that she will support the amendment in my name. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, I would like to test the feelings of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate. As he has pointed out, the challenge is to strike the right balance. We must protect individuals from being exploited or drawn into extended unpaid roles that are in effect jobs by another name, but we also must avoid placing undue burdens on organisations whose motives are benign and whose placements offer genuine social and developmental value. I welcome the debate that the amendment has prompted, and I hope that as the Bill progresses, the Government will engage closely with stakeholders to ensure that any future regulations achieve the twin goals of fairness for individuals and viability for those offering valuable early opportunities.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate around Amendment 103 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks to prohibit work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. With regret, as he said, the noble Lord was unable to join us in the Chamber in Committee when we debated this amendment, which was moved on his behalf very ably by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I do not believe is in his place at the moment.

The Government have always been clear that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. You need only look at the Government’s track record on the national minimum wage and the provisions in this Bill to see how the Government are delivering on this commitment. I will reiterate what I have said on this issue previously because it is worth emphasising: the existing legislation is clear that aside from a very small number of exemptions, workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage should be paid accordingly. No ifs, no buts. These are the rules that our enforcement body enforces, and these are the rules that we expect businesses to abide by. Of course, the vast majority do, but those that do not undercut the responsible businesses unfairly, and we should all be agreed that this is not behaviour that we should tolerate. This means that an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them. I want to repeat this very important point, not only for your Lordships’ House but for those who are listening to this debate outside: an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them.

If workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage are not being paid what they are due, there are protections in place so that they can receive what they are owed. The Government and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs have raised and continue to raise awareness on workers’ rights, so that no one is left out of pocket. I have previously stated that the Government will be consulting on this issue soon. In fact, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships’ House that this consultation will indeed begin tomorrow with a call for evidence. I do not believe that I am overstating the case when I say that all of us in this House care about this issue, in particular, ensuring that our young people have access to opportunities, regardless of their background, whether they can afford to work for free or where they are based in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke powerfully on that basic right and I think that we are all in agreement with the principle.

This amendment, while well-intentioned, risks creating loopholes, where existing workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage from day one could find themselves working for free for up to four weeks. I am sure that we would all agree that this is not right and not what any of us wants to see. Adopting this amendment could well lead to an influx of four-week roles appearing, with only those who can afford to work for free accessing them. We do not want to lock away valuable opportunities and create unintended consequences by rushing through this amendment. These issues are complex, which is why I reiterate that it is important that the Government consult on this issue first. To make clear, we are standing by our words in Committee. When we said that we would be starting the consultation “soon”, in this case, that means tomorrow. As I stated in our debate in Committee, the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address can be dealt with most effectively outside of this Bill. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 103.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have to hand the number of prosecutions that HMRC has taken under the NMW regulations in this instance? If he does not have that to hand, I would be very happy for him to write.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not have that information to hand. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail. I take the opportunity to point out that the fair work agency that we are creating in this legislation will be responsible for enforcing this aspect of employment rights regulation as well as others. We would expect that work to be taken forward by the fair work agency. I undertake to write to the noble Lord with that detail.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the hour is late, I will not run through them all by name. I am thankful to the Minister for his response. I very much look forward to the consultation tomorrow and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his Amendment 110. What this amendment does is simple but important. It encourages the Secretary of State to ensure that in bringing forward regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, they draw upon existing recognised certifications and industry standards. These standards, developed and refined by responsible actors within the market, offer a ready-made baseline for compliance which the Government can and should use.

There is consensus that regulation of umbrella companies is overdue, but as we take this opportunity, let us ensure that the regulation is done well and in a way that is pragmatic, proportionate and effective. This amendment helps point us in that direction, so I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance that the spirit of the amendment will be reflected in the Government’s approach to umbrella companies.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling Amendment 110, which covers the regulation of umbrella companies. The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to utilise pre-existing industry codes and accreditations as a basis for the regulation of umbrella companies.

We recognise the important role accreditation and trade bodies play in sharing information and best practice with their customers and members. The work of these bodies in the umbrella company industry has had some success in driving up standards. However, this success has been fairly limited, and we would not want to assume that an organisation that is a member of an accreditation or trade body is necessarily compliant with everything. We therefore believe that now is the right time for the Government to step in to protect businesses that already do the right thing and also protect workers.

Many in the umbrella company industry, and those who use umbrella companies, welcome regulation, especially as it will help to level the playing field. This includes public positions taken by the Freelancer & Contractor Services Association, Contractor Calculator, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and several other bodies’ responses to the consultation run under the previous Government.

We have been clear since Clause 34 was introduced to the Bill that the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 will be amended to apply to umbrella companies. The Government recognise that the regulations in their current form are not appropriate to regulate the activities of umbrella companies. That is because the regulations predominantly focus on entities providing work-finding services or supplying individuals to end clients, which, generally, umbrella companies do not do. Where umbrella companies do provide such services, they would indeed already be covered under the regulations.

The Government have a statutory requirement to consult before any changes are made to these regulations, and as referenced in the recent roadmap publication, the consultation on umbrella companies regulation will be published this autumn. As part of the consultation process, the Government are keen to get views from trade unions, workers and industry bodies in the umbrella company sector. This will enable the Government to better shape policy development. Following consultation, an appropriate and proportionate umbrella company regulatory regime will be introduced in 2027. Once those regulations come into force, they will be enforced by the Fair Work Agency, which will take a risk-led and intelligence-led approach to its compliance regime.

I hope this provides some of the reassurance that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, were seeking, and for that reason I ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to withdraw his Amendment 110.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to hear that the consultation is coming in the autumn, and we can only hope that is the early autumn and that following that, perhaps there can be some more pace, and it will not be put out to 2027. We also hope the Minister will consider what happens in the interim for all those businesses currently doing the right thing that are disadvantaged by being in a market where some others are perhaps not operating to the same standards and codes of practice. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

I look forward to hearing the response of the Minister to the cut-and-paste threat which has been put upon him. I hope that there is a satisfactory answer that will make me smile. If it does not, then maybe there is a point to be made somewhere.

I echo the point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about Amendment 209. It has been a promise to this House from many reports—from legislation committees and from the Constitution Committee—that, where there is a matter of seriousness and public interest, the affirmative process should be used to bring these matters before the House. The current arrangement is for a police constable, authorised by a superintendent, but there is an openness for Ministers to extend these powers. You might say that it does not matter to whom they give the powers and, if anybody feels really upset about it, they could pray against the Motion, which is a very rare thing in this House and in the House of Commons. What it means is that the Government are not prepared to allow that public scrutiny to ensure that they have got the matter right.

It would be a sensible approach to follow the pattern that the Lords committee responsible for these matters has laid before us and to change this from a negative to an affirmative procedure when regulations are brought forward to extend the list of people who will have these powers. I also take note of the interesting comment from my noble friend about who in the Home Office will supervise whom about what access anybody can have. I would like to know a little about the chiefs and the Indians if possible, please.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the thoughtful contributions made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord German. Amendments 68, 69 and 209 raise important questions about the scope, application and oversight of the powers in the Bill.

I will address the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, around Clauses 20 to 23 being lifted from the Illegal Migration Act. The noble Lord, Lord German, is smiling already; maybe he anticipates a cracking punchline—but there is not one. It is a simple fact that, clearly, one of the chief intentions of this legislation is to replace the Illegal Migration Act. It was deemed easier in drafting terms to do that and then include certain sections that were deemed worthy of keeping in this Bill, rather than simply have to go back and unpick the Illegal Migration Act in different parts of the Bill. It was felt that this was a cleaner way of doing it. I am not sure if that has made the noble Lord, Lord German, smile; it has not particularly raised a laugh with me, but there we go.

While I recognise the intentions behind each proposal, I will respectfully set out why the Government do not support them. In each case, the current drafting of the Bill is deliberate and proportionate and designed to ensure operational effectiveness, legal clarity and appropriate safeguards.

Amendment 68 seeks to limit Clause 19 by removing what is perceived to be a retrospective effect. I want to be clear that Clause 19(2)(a) does not operate retrospectively in the way suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. The powers in the clause come into effect only after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The clause has been carefully drafted to ensure that powers apply regardless of when an individual entered or arrived in the UK before that date.

This is not retrospective legislation. Individuals who entered the UK without leave did so in breach of immigration laws that were already in place at the time of their entry. The clause does not impose a new penalty for past conduct. Instead, it enables the powers to be used from the moment they come into force, provided that the individual still meets the relevant criteria at that time. This approach ensures that the law can respond effectively to ongoing encounters of individuals who have already arrived illegally in the UK and does not create loopholes that could be exploited by those who may look to take advantage of immigration controls.

The amendment, while well intentioned, would narrow the scope of Clause 19(2)(a) and undermine its operational effectiveness. It would create a two-tier system, in effect, treating individuals differently based on the timing of their entry or whether they are subject to a deportation order, and result in missed opportunities to gain valuable information to stop organised immigration crime groups. In summary, the clause as drafted strikes the right balance: it is not retrospective in its legal effect, and it is forward-looking in its application. It ensures that the Government can act decisively to protect the integrity of UK borders and uphold the rule of law.

I turn now to Amendment 69, which proposes to broaden the definition of a “relevant article” to include any article containing information on the commission of an offence under any of the immigration Acts, as defined in Section 61(2) of the UK Borders Act 2007. While I understand the desire to ensure comprehensive coverage of immigration offences, I must respectfully oppose this amendment too.

The current drafting of Clause 19 is deliberately narrow and targeted. It focuses on offences under Sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971, offences that relate specifically to facilitating unlawful immigration and assisting illegal entry. These are the offences most relevant to the operational intent of this clause: to disrupt organised criminal networks and protect the integrity of our borders. Expanding the definition to include all offences under the immigration Acts risks capturing a wide range of minor or administrative breaches, such as overstaying or failing to comply with conditions, which are not the intended focus of this power. Our concern here is that such a broad approach could undermine the proportionality of the measure and expose it to legal challenge.

Amendment 209 seeks to amend Clause 60 so that regulations made pursuant to Clause 25 are subject to the affirmative procedure, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord German, and recommended by the Lords Constitution Committee. While we fully respect the committee’s role in scrutinising delegated powers, we respectfully disagree with the necessity of this amendment and the affirmative procedure.

Clause 25 does not create new powers; rather, it allows for the extension of existing powers to a broader cohort of authorised officers. The use of the negative procedure in this context is appropriate and proportionate. Moreover, Clause 25(3) provides an important safeguard that the Secretary of State is required to include such safeguards as they consider necessary. This ensures that any extension of powers is accompanied by appropriate checks and balances. The negative procedure is appropriate for this type of technical and operational regulation, which ensures agility without unduly compromising oversight. Regulations made under the negative procedure are still laid before Parliament and subject to annulment, providing a clear route for scrutiny while avoiding unnecessary delay in operational matters. Conversely, requiring the affirmative procedure in this case would introduce unnecessary delay and complexity into what is a targeted and operationally focused provision that must be able to respond agilely to any challenges. The negative procedure strikes the right balance between parliamentary oversight and practical implementation. For these reasons, I urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, seeing the back of the Illegal Migration Act will be a great pleasure. I am with the noble Lord on it being better to have an easy-to-read version of this Bill, including provisions, rather than having to refer back to another piece of legislation. I do not think that is entirely the case throughout the Bill, but there we are.

On the retrospectivity amendment, I am not sure that I have followed the argument, since the wording of the clause is

“whether before or after this section comes into force”.

I thought the Minister was talking about a distinction being made because the clause would need to come into force before it had any effect, but I will have to read what he has to say.

The Minister says that Amendment 209 is not necessary, but I think that depends on your point of view. The checks and balances are better scrutinised through the affirmative procedure than through the negative procedure. I have heard what he has to say and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, our amendments in this group speak to the important principle that, if we are going to do something serious about this issue, we need to make sure those who will be undertaking that vital work are given all the tools they need.

Amendment 72 removes the restriction under Clause 20 that a person may be searched only once. That limitation is both arbitrary and impractical. In the real world, people arriving in the UK illegally may conceal items, documents, electronic devices and false identification, only to reveal or discard them later. Preventing further searches, even when officers have fresh grounds for suspicion, is not a safeguard; it is a gift to traffickers and smugglers. This amendment would correct that mistake and restore operational flexibility where there is lawful cause. Indeed, we need look no further than the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for precedent and recognition of this fact; it permits multiple searches of a person if there are reasonable grounds. This is a commonplace power and we must ensure that it is incorporated in the Bill if we are to effectively tackle this sort of criminality.

Furthermore, Amendment 73 removes the requirement that a person must have been on the premises before a search can take place. Criminal organisations are constantly adapting their tactics, using safe houses, transferring items between locations and avoiding detection by not being physically present. By tying an officer’s hands to whether a suspect was on the premises at a precise moment, we risk losing vital evidence and allowing dangerous networks to evade accountability. This change would ensure that we are not outwitted by legal technicalities.

Furthermore, Amendment 74 removes unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles that require prior authorisation from an inspector and notification to a superintendent for a constable to conduct a search. Amendment 78 applies this principle to the seizure of relevant articles. Of course, oversight is vital, but we must not confuse oversight with obstruction. Our officers already operate within a strict legal framework and we are of the view that adding yet another layer of sign-off, particularly in time-sensitive operations, risks slowing down action, delaying disruption and missing crucial opportunities to intercept criminal activity. Officers need to be able to respond quickly, flexibly and effectively if we are to stand up to those who violate our borders. Indeed, constables are not subject to this requirement to seek permission to conduct a search under Section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and in Section 18 of that Act, police offers are only required to inform an officer of at least the rank of inspector as soon as is practicable after they have conducted a search, not before. This provision to seek permission is therefore unnecessary and not in line with the relevant existing legislation.

These amendments are about restoring operational realism and strengthening our capacity to protect. If we are serious about securing our borders, cracking down on illegal entry and dismantling the networks that exploit vulnerable people for profit, we must give our officers the clear, workable powers they require. These amendments are sensible proposals that would cut back bureaucracy and allow us to get on and deal with this problem more effectively.

Finally, Amendment 91 would remove the requirement that a constable must obtain authorisation from an inspector and that the inspector must notify a super- intendent before accessing, copying or using information from a relevant article seized under Clause 23. We need to be clear on this. Clause 23 deals with information that may relate to the commission of serious immigration offences. In such cases, time is not a luxury. It is often the difference between success and failure—between a dismantled network and a missed opportunity. Indeed, this issue runs through all the amendments that I have spoken to in this group.

The current drafting imposes a two-tier authorisation system before any such information can even begin to be examined. The requirement to obtain inspector-level authorisation for each individual access, and then to escalate that to a superintendent, adds a bureaucratic burden that could hinder fast-moving investigations, especially when such information could reveal links to other suspects, routes and wider criminal infrastructure. Our amendment would ensure that our officers have the practical powers they need in a way that means they can be exercised with urgency and purpose. The constable will still be required to act lawfully, proportionately and within the scope of the clause, but removing these layers of procedural delay would ensure that our enforcement efforts are not undermined by red tape.

We cannot, on the one hand, claim to be taking a tough stance on illegal immigration and organised criminality and, on the other, design a framework that ties the hands of those trying to enforce the law. Amendment 91 works alongside our other amendments in this group to correct that imbalance. It would strengthen our operational capability while retaining the legal and ethical standards we rightly demand. I urge the Committee to support these amendments, and I beg to move.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I rise to speak to the amendments tabled by noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench. As we have heard, Amendment 72 proposes to remove the requirement for an authorised officer to ensure that a person has not previously been searched using these powers. I respectfully but robustly oppose this proposed change. These are intrusive powers that allow for the physical searching of individuals who are not under arrest and could be victims or witnesses. To apply such powers multiple times to the same person without any procedural check not only is disproportionate but risks undermining public confidence in the fairness and proportionality of our system. We must remember that this safeguard was introduced for good reason. It was informed by lessons learned from previous misuse that led to legal challenge. Its inclusion has helped to address legitimate concerns about the potential for abuse of power.

Amendment 73 proposes removing the requirement that the relevant person must have been on the premises when, or immediately before, they were encountered by an authorised officer. We respectfully oppose this change. This safeguard is essential. It ensures that there is a clear and direct link between the individual suspected of possessing a relevant article and the premises being searched. Without it, the power becomes too broad, allowing searches of premises even when there is no reasonable basis to believe the person was ever present. The presence of the individual is often the only factual basis upon which an officer can form reasonable grounds to suspect that a device or article is located there. Removing this requirement risks turning suspicion into speculation.

Amendments 74, 78 and 91 propose removing the requirement for police constables and National Crime Agency officers to obtain authorisation from an inspector or equivalent grade before exercising powers under Clauses 20, 21 and 23. Furthermore, the amendments would remove the requirement that an inspector notifies a superintendent or equivalent grade as soon as reasonably practicable. We strongly oppose these proposed changes. These are significant intrusive powers, and the current authorisation process is not an administrative burden. Rather, it is a vital safeguard to ensure the powers are applied with proportionality, due process and respect to the legal system. It ensures that decisions to use the powers where we are obtaining personal data and privacy are subject to senior oversight and scrutiny, helping to prevent misuse and maintaining public confidence and trust in those who use the powers and in the Government.

Unlike immigration officers, who may use these powers more routinely, police and NCA officers may not exercise them as frequently. That makes the case for retaining oversight stronger, not weaker. Removing this safeguard risks inconsistent application of the powers and undermines the legal and ethical standards we have worked very hard to uphold. Again, we want the system that we are introducing to command confidence across all of society. That means that we have to balance powers given to the authorities with safeguards and proportionality. We must ensure that these powers are used lawfully, proportionately and effectively. Retaining the requirement for senior authorisation is an essential part of achieving that balance.

For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, at the heart of this group of amendments lies the proposition that, if we are to confront the scale and complexity of illegal entry into this country, and indeed the criminal networks that are facilitating it, we must empower those on the front line to act swiftly, decisively and within a framework that reflects operational reality, not burdensome bureaucracy.

We on these Benches have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid that I have heard no compelling justification for why officers should be constrained to a single search, even in circumstances where new evidence arises, nor have we been given assurance that the narrow drafting of the premises clause will not impede investigations where criminal activity is thought to be located. I say to the Minister that those who orchestrate illegal crossings are not bound by procedure or protocol. Current legislation with regard to searches does not require such restrictions, so why should it apply here?

Under the current drafting of Clauses 20 to 23, the Bill proposes the imposition of a procedural bottleneck on our officers, who are working under pressure, often with incomplete information and in fast-moving, high-risk environments. We expect these officers to deliver results. Indeed, the Minister and his Government have staked a huge amount of political capital on these officers delivering results. Therefore, we need to make sure that we take decisions in this place so that those officers are equipped and empowered to get the job done.

These amendments would not lower standards; they would reduce delay and would not undermine safeguards. They would ensure that the law serves those it is meant to protect, not those who seek to exploit its gaps. If we are truly committed to securing our borders, upholding the rule of law and dismantling the infrastructure of exploitation that underpins these crossings, we must match the rhetoric with reality. These amendments certainly speak to our ambition, which is to give the officers the tools they need to do their jobs effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on Amendments 84 and 90, tabled by my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead. These amendments raise a serious and important concern that we believe merits the attention of the Committee. It seeks to ensure that, where personal belongings are retained by the authorities under Clause 23, particularly in the case of potential victims of modern slavery, those items and the information they contain are preserved in a manner that allows them to be relied on as part of a national referral mechanism determination.

For many victims of trafficking, the evidence contained on a mobile phone or similar device may be the only proof they possess of their exploitation, whether that be messages, photographs or location data. To risk the loss, corruption or mishandling of that data would not only undermine the pursuit of justice but could place the individual concerned at even greater risk. We therefore support the principle behind this amendment. These protections are vital.

That said, we also recognise that many of these safeguards may already be provided for under the existing statutory framework, particularly under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which governs how evidence is secured and handled. But I accept what my noble friend said earlier about retention by police in some cases. If the Minister can offer the Committee reassurance that those protections already apply in the context of Clause 23 and that the rights of potential victims are adequately safeguarded in practice, that will be most welcome. This amendment raises a proper, necessary point of clarification and we hope the Government will respond accordingly.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, in addressing Amendments 84 and 90 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady May of Maidenhead, I first take the opportunity to pay tribute to her work in this area, particularly as chair of the Global Commission on Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, and indeed I acknowledge and pay tribute to her continued dedication to protecting vulnerable individuals. However, having said that—there is always a “however”—we feel that the amendments that she has tabled are not entirely necessary.

The amendments seek to introduce a statutory requirement to protect seized or surrendered items so they may later be used as evidence in court or in the national referral mechanism. Although obviously we agree with the intention behind them, we believe that they are unnecessary. The policy objective underpinning this measure is to ensure that the United Kingdom has the necessary powers to search for, seize, retain and use information from electronic devices belonging to irregular entrants or arrivals in relation to facilitation offences. These powers are vital to disrupting the operations of organised crime groups that exploit vulnerable individuals. It is essential that the focus of these powers is not changed and that authorised officers are fully equipped to use them effectively.

First, the current legislative framework already provides robust safeguards for the handling of personal property—notwithstanding the exchange with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Hanson, which I am afraid I was not in the Chamber for, on the operation of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The Bill ensures that any electronic devices seized are treated appropriately and that any data they contain is preserved and processed in accordance with data protection laws, evidentiary standards and human rights obligations.

Safeguards are particularly important in the context of modern slavery and human trafficking, where, as we have heard, victims may be in possession of devices that contain sensitive personal information, indeed evidence of exploitation, or communications with support services. The Bill ensures that such material is handled with care and integrity, protecting both the individual’s privacy and the integrity of any ongoing investigation.

We recognise the importance of timely access to personal devices, particularly for victims of modern slavery, who may rely on them for communication, evidence or support. If we are able to successfully download relevant data from a device, we will return the phone to the individual at the earliest opportunity. If the device is still required for the purposes of investigation, we will retain it for only as long as is reasonably necessary. If the device must be retained, we can provide the victim with any downloaded material they may need to support a national referral mechanism application or to access support services.

As I said, the Bill makes it clear that devices and other personal property will be retained only for as long as necessary. Once they are no longer required for the purpose for which they are seized. they must be returned to the individual as soon as is practicable. This approach, we feel, strikes the right balance between empowering law enforcement to act decisively against organised immigration crime and trafficking networks, while safeguarding the rights and dignity of individuals, particularly those who may be victims of modern slavery. Given that, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness May of Maidenhead (Con)]

My Lords, I am not at all surprised by the response the Minister has given me. I continue to be concerned to make sure that people have access to this information and these articles for their national referral mechanism cases to be considered. I will reflect further on what the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2025

Lord Katz Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

The noble Lord had little choice then.

First, I think it is entirely inappropriate in this discussion, which is fraught enough, to assume you know which side people are on around the Israel-Gaza situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and I disagree wholeheartedly, but I agree with her that there is real concern over this particular issue. Secondly, when you are trying to make a contribution and are heckled, with people standing up and calling out, and you are basically on a minority side, I think it is perfectly respectable for noble Lords to accept that you do not want to take interventions. To draw any other conclusion from that has a really unpleasant, nasty vibe about it.

I am actually shocked. I am generally on the side of the people backing this proscription. At one point, listening to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, I thought maybe people were being proscribed for misinformation. I have got to the point now where I do not know what the terrorist act is. However, I think it is completely wrong to assume that there is cowardice involved in not taking points from other Members.

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

I suggest we take the heat out of this a bit. Interventions are welcome, but noble Lords are not obliged to take them, and they should be brief.

[Lord Harper (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said I was making assumptions about what views people have about Israel or Palestine. I do not think I made any assumptions about that at all. I just happen to think that, in a debate, it is helpful if people take questions and listen to the arguments of others and are prepared to deal with them. That is how in a democratic forum you test arguments. I think it is very helpful, and perfectly reasonable, for people to draw conclusions from the fact that people are not prepared to have their arguments challenged. That is all I was saying.

Let me come to the Minister’s opening remarks. I strongly support the proscription of all three organisations mentioned in this statutory instrument. I am going to limit my remarks to Palestine Action, as that is the subject of the noble Baroness’s regret amendment, and draw attention to and support several things the Minister said.

In part two of the amendment, the noble Baroness talks about the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation and mentions property damage. The Minister made it quite clear that, on multiple occasions, this particular group has been involved not just in property damage. The attack against the Thales factory in Glasgow caused over £1 million pounds-worth of damage and caused panic among the staff, who feared for their safety as pyrotechnics and smoke bombs were thrown into the area to which they were evacuating. When passing custodial sentence for the perpetrators, the sheriff said that throwing pyrotechnics at areas where people are being evacuated to cannot be described as non-violent.

It is very clear that this organisation is careless about the effects of its actions on people. I am not going to draw attention to the specific event that is now the subject of criminal charges, but once you start attacking the defence assets of the United Kingdom—the people and property designed to keep this country safe—you cross a line. That is a line that peaceful protesters do not cross, and it helps support proscription.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the two amendments in this group are to do with expanding two of the offences in the Bill as drafted. The Bill criminalises only the supply or offer to supply articles for use in immigration crime but fails to cover what is often a critical precursor to that act—the possession of such articles with intent to supply. My amendment seeks to address what we say is a clear loophole in the Bill.

If someone is found holding forged documents, counterfeit passports, boat parts or other materials commonly used to facilitate illegal entry with the clear intention of supplying them to others, that is not innocent behaviour; it is preparatory, deliberate and deeply harmful to the integrity of our immigration system. We do not accept this kind of gap in legislation dealing with drug offences or the possession of firearms. Section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for example, criminalises possession with intent to supply controlled drugs. If we do not accept such gaps in other legislation, we should not accept them here.

The Government have talked up their expansion of border security powers, and the Prime Minister has spoken of providing counterterrorism-style powers. If so, all possible loopholes in these offences should be closed. If we are serious about disrupting organised networks and cracking down on those who profit from unlawful immigration, the law must allow us to intervene before the supply takes place, not simply after the fact. Amendment 30 would therefore simply bring the offence in Clause 13 into alignment with other similar offences. It aims to strengthen the clause and close the loophole.

The other amendment I propose to the offences regarding articles for use in immigration crime is Amendment 39. This amendment is intended to help the Government by strengthening the offence in this clause. It looks to close another loophole that could permit smuggling gangs to escape conviction. The effect of this amendment would be to expand the offence of handling articles for use in immigration crime to cover a crucial additional scenario—namely, where a person arranges for one person to receive a relevant article from a third party. That may seem like a small change, but it would address a significant gap.

The current law targets those who receive, arrange to receive, remove or dispose of such articles themselves, or who assist another person to remove or dispose of relevant articles. They are rightly included in the nature of the offence in the Bill. But, as it stands, were a person to arrange for two other people to exchange a relevant article, the person who organised such an exchange could escape liability. Therefore, they would not be liable for criminal penalty, despite clearly being a at the heart of the offence committed.

This is particularly important given that, in the world of organised immigration crime, individuals often seek to insulate themselves by arranging exchanges between others, keeping their own hands clean while remaining the central co-ordinator, and often beneficiary, of criminal activity. This amendment would simply ensure that those who orchestrate these exchanges are held to account just as much as those who carry them out.

If we are to deter and disrupt the criminal networks profiting from illegal migration, we must be prepared to legislate against the full chain of facilitation and not just the visible ends of it. I respectfully submit that the Minister should think carefully now about these kinds of loopholes that the Government risk creating in the legislation, which can be easily identified if a practical operational perspective is taken. I hope he accepts these amendments, and I beg to move.

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

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking to the amendments tabled by him and the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The purpose behind these two amendments is to ensure that those who possess an item believed or suspected to be used in immigration crime, and those who arrange or facilitate the supply of an article for immigration crime, fall into the scope of the offence.

On Amendment 30, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, made some salient points about other offences currently on the statute book. In a spirit of openness and wanting to listen to noble Lords, the Home Office would be happy to take this issue up with operational partners to scope whether it would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill. We are certainly serious about using this legislation, as my noble friend the Minister said, to crack down on smuggling gangs. This could potentially be a helpful addition to the Bill, but for now I request that the amendment be withdrawn, and we will update the House further on the matter later in the Bill’s passage.

We are sympathetic to the motivation behind Amendment 39, but I can confirm that arranging the supply of an article relevant to the proposed offence would fall under the clause as drafted. It might be described as “brokering” or “offering to supply”. Either Clause 13(1)(a) or 14(1)(a) are considered wide enough to cover this activity since, for example, an offer to supply would have been made in the scenario that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, outlined, as the individual would be supplying or offering to supply an item that they knew or suspected was for use in immigration crime. I hope that is clear and, while thanking the noble Lord for tabling the amendments—and indeed agreeing with the sentiment and motivation behind them—I respectfully reject Amendment 39 as unnecessary and ask him to permit further time for Amendment 30 to be considered.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his speech. It has been a long afternoon and I feel that, at the very end of it, I have made a tiny step of progress. I think he agrees that the case is simple, because it is a strong case: we are not asking for anything radical, just for the law to keep pace with the realities of how organised immigration crime actually works. I will say no more about Amendment 30.

On Amendment 39, I just ask the noble Lord, as he has offered, to think about it carefully. It is critical, we say, to cover the organisers, the co-ordinators, those who sit above the exchange itself and arrange for others to carry it out. They often avoid direct handling precisely because they know that the law can be weak when it comes to intermediaries, and we cannot allow them to exploit that weakness. The amendment is grounded in the operational reality of how trafficking and smuggling networks function, but I am very grateful for the indications that he has given and, for those reasons, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment and, frankly, to express a degree of disbelief that such a proposal should have been made. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that this amendment is a serious contribution to the debate on fair pay or responsible corporate governance. It is a piece of performative and ideological showmanship—a throwback to a worldview that sees profit as a vice, wealth as inherently suspect and enterprise as something to be managed, limited or downright punished. The idea that government should impose a legal maximum pay ratio—a flat arbitrary ceiling of 10:1 between the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees in every organisation—is not just unworkable but, I believe, economically illiterate.

First, this proposal would be a gift to bureaucracy and a curse to business. Every company, from high street shops to high-growth tech firms, would have to monitor and police every single form of pay—salary, shares, bonuses, pensions and benefits in kind—just to ensure that they do not cross an artificial line. Do we really want our job creators to spend their time calculating compliance spreadsheets instead of investing, innovating and employing? Secondly, it would actively disincentivise growth and ambition. High-performing individuals—those who drive investment, lead exports and create jobs—would simply leave and take their talent elsewhere.

The noble Baroness mentioned Amazon. I join the Government in welcoming the further investment that Amazon is making. As a matter of record, Amazon employs circa 75,000 people in the UK. No one is on zero hours, and the minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000 a year. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which allow parents, grandparents or carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. It offers paid parental and bereavement leave. Amazon also offers guaranteed hours from day one, and employees have the choice of full-time or part-time contracts. It is important to put the record straight. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64,000 million in the UK, and £12,000 million in the last 12 months, and supports a network of around 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness has given me to put the record straight.

To go back to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it would mean that employers would be forced to avoid hiring lower-paid staff altogether, just to protect the ratio. What would be the result? There would be fewer jobs, less opportunity and more outsourcing—the very opposite of what a fair and inclusive economy should look like, hitting the least well-off, the most vulnerable and those at the margins of the labour market.

My third point is that this is not fairness; it is levelling down. It is virtually saying, “Don’t succeed too much, don’t reward excellence, don’t grow too big or too fast or be too profitable”. That is not fairness—it is anti-growth, anti-aspiration and anti-business. I must tell the noble Baroness that this amendment looks like it would be more appropriate in a Maoist economic manifesto, delivered to his revolutionary cadres, rather than a serious proposal for modern employment legislation. What this amendment reveals is not a serious attempt to solve a policy problem but a mindset that is suspicious of success, dismissive of wealth creation and entirely detached from economic reality. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will agree with mine, that this is an amendment that should not be accepted.

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

My Lords, let accord break out across the Table. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 320. I do not share the disbelief of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in hearing it, but only because I probably have more than the passing acquaintance with bits of the Green Party manifesto that he perhaps does—and that is the only reason for it.

It is right that companies should be sensitive to wider workforce pay when setting pay for those in the boardroom and other senior leadership positions. Company law and wider regulation already address that point. First, the Companies Act requires that UK listed companies must disclose and explain each year the ratio of their CEO’s pay to that of the company’s lower-paid and average-paid employees. Secondly, under the UK Corporate Governance Code, listed companies are asked to review workforce remuneration when setting directors’ pay and engage with employees to explain how executive pay aligns with wider company pay policy. Taken together, these measures provide important transparency and accountability in how UK listed companies deal with pay and incentives across the whole employee base.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for bringing forward this amendment requiring a review of safe homeward transport for workers. I also welcome her back from her brief visit to the Maoist utopia on her last amendment. The safety and well-being of workers, particularly those finishing their shifts late in the evening, is a matter of significant importance. Many sectors operate outside traditional working hours, and the challenges faced by employees in securing safe and affordable transportation home after 11 pm are real and varied.

Understanding these issues is crucial, especially for vulnerable groups, including women and girls, for whom late-night travel can present heightened risks. It is also important to recognise that safe transport arrangements can contribute positively to worker morale and retention and may even play a role in reducing crime or accidents. The review has the potential to shed valuable light on current practices and challenges and provide a basis for informed discussion about how best to support workers who face late-night journeys home. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 321. We recognise the concern underpinning the amendment and agree that workers finishing late at night should be able to travel home safely and affordably. We are aware that for some workers, particularly those in hospitality, healthcare and security, late shifts can pose challenges when public transport options are limited. We also acknowledge and welcome that some employers, including firms in the City of London, have taken proactive steps to support their staff with safe transport home.

While we do not believe that it is appropriate to legislate for a review at this time, I hope I can reassure your Lordships’ House that we are committed to supporting workers’ well-being and safety. That commitment is evident throughout the Bill. For example, as we discussed on the second day of Committee in early May—another opportunity for a history lesson, it seems so long ago—the Bill strengthens the right to request flexible working from day one of employment. This flexible working provision empowers workers and employers to agree working patterns that better suit individual circumstances, including, where appropriate and reasonable, avoiding late finishes. We are also taking steps to improve enforcement of existing rights and to ensure that employers meet their obligations to provide safe working conditions.

Although it is not the subject of this legislation, the Government are also committed to reviving, rejuvenating and investing in public transport, not least through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the creation of GBR, improvements to rail services and the huge amounts being invested across the country, particularly in the north, in new transport projects, all of which will provide a greater level of options and service for not just people working late but those who want to enjoy the night-time economy and to use public transport more generally.

While we cannot support this amendment, we share the underlying concern and will continue to work to ensure that all workers are protected and supported. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to withdraw her Amendment 321.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I thank those who have participated in this brief debate. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and I can agree that there is an issue here and I thank the Minister for his response. I do not think that offering flexible working will really work with a pub or restaurant—that option will not be available. On public transport, for the workers affected, overwhelmingly we are talking not about grand infrastructure projects but local buses, which have been massively decimated over the last decade. None the less, the point has been made and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 247, 248 and 250 would introduce further requirements in relation to trade union ballots, particularly concerning the risk of intimidation, the use of workplace locations and the information that unions must provide to members. While the intention to ensure that ballots are conducted fairly without pressure is understandable, I question whether these proposals are justified. They appear to introduce new procedural barriers for trade unions, with little evidence that safeguards are failing. There is a broader concern that measures of this kind may tilt the balance even further against workers attempting to organise and exercise their rights. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether these amendments are proportionate and necessary, and how they align with the broader approach to employment and industrial relations.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for introducing these amendments tabled by his noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I thought that, with the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, we were starting the history lessons a little early today—early in terms of this being the first group and in going back to the 1830s. I bend to no one in enjoying anecdotes about the Tolpuddle Martyrs, so I thank the noble Lord for his contribution, although I am not sure what it added to the debate.

Amendment 247, although well intentioned, is unnecessary. We all share the concerns outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, about interference in balloting around industrial action. We understand that no worker takes a decision about voting for industrial action lightly—whether it is strike action or action short of a strike—and that they understand the consequences, because if action is voted for, they will be the ones who suffer directly by losing pay. We must ensure that when we talk about this, we talk about both sides of the ledger.

The amendment is well intentioned, but it is unnecessary, because Section 230 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already requires that every person entitled to vote in an industrial action ballot must be allowed to do so without union interference. Furthermore, recognition and de-recognition ballots under Schedule A1 are already subject to provisions prohibiting unfair practices whereby the Central Arbitration Committee can order that a ballot is re-run if an unfair practice claim is found to be well founded. To introduce a new voting method to statutory trade union ballots using Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004, the Government must already consider that the new method would allow the ballot to meet the requirements under Section 54(12). Specifically, the Government must consider that those entitled to vote have an opportunity to do so, that votes are cast in secret and that the risk of any unfairness or malpractice is minimised. Therefore, safeguards are already provided for in Section 54(12)(c) that cover intimidation if it takes place in the workplace or elsewhere. The noble Lord’s amendment is therefore not required.

I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway for reminding us of the outcome of the inquiry by Bruce Carr QC, as he was then, about the absence of intimidation within workplaces. It is important that we bear this in mind. The question was asked. It was tested by independent opinion and the proposition that underlies the spirit of these amendments was found to be wanting.

Amendment 248, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, would prevent the Secretary of State using the power in Section 54 to allow workplace balloting as a new means of voting in trade union ballots and elections. Unfortunately, the amendment fails to take into account the fact that workplace balloting is already an option for statutory trade union recognition and derecognition ballots. The existing legislation permits workplace ballots conducted by independent scrutineers appointed by the CAC. One wonders why this is deemed acceptable by the Front Bench opposite but other sorts of workplace balloting are not.

Furthermore, as I said earlier, any new voting methods introduced under Section 54 of the Employment Relations Act 2004 must enable a ballot to meet the requirements of Section 54(12). The Government are committed to updating our industrial relations framework and aligning it with modern working practices and technology. This includes allowing for modern and secure balloting for statutory trade union ballots.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 288 calls for an impact assessment within 12 months of the Bill’s passage, which is not just sensible; it is, surely, essential. If we are serious about evidence-based policy-making, we must have mechanisms to measure what actually happens on the ground. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, just made the point that we still do not really understand the statistics that are currently being reported. We cannot afford to legislate blindly in sectors as economically and culturally significant as these. I am very much looking forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to these amendments, and I urge him to note the cross-party unanimity on this subject.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for tabling their amendments, all concerning the creative and cultural sectors. I am pleased to be having this debate on how this important sector is being supported by the Government and how workers within the sector will benefit from the Bill. I pay tribute particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for his excellent and long-standing work in this area. I think it is fair to say that he is a creative inspiration to us all in his endeavours to support this very important sector.

The Government share this passion and certainly understand the importance of this sector. I draw attention to the significant work that we are already doing to support it. These sectors—creative and cultural—are a vital source of growth. Creative industries are estimated to have contributed £124 billion in 2023, accounting for 5.2% of UK gross value added, and the cultural sector is estimated to have contributed some further £35 billion in the same year, accounting for 1.5% of UK GVA.

The creative industries and cultural sectors are a distinct part of the wider UK workforce, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, explained. They have a significantly higher proportion of self-employed individuals, reflecting the sector’s entrepreneurial and freelance nature. 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, nearly half, 49.6% in the cultural sector, were self-employed, and 27.9% in the creative industries, compared with 14.5% of UK jobs overall. 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, despite offering a more flexible and autonomous way of working, are often precarious and come with lower job security; many speakers in this debate spoke to that fact. I highlight the contribution made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, setting out the precarious nature of working in this sector.

I turn specifically to Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Through the Bill we are introducing the school support staff negotiating body and introducing a framework for negotiating bodies in the social care sector to help tackle recruitment and retention issues there. The Government recognise that other sectors, such as the arts and culture sector, may well benefit from more formal frameworks for collective bargaining, and we intend to consider other sectors in due course. In the meantime, we want to encourage collective bargaining at the local level in these sectors. It is the Government’s intention that we should learn the lessons from this process in the social care sector first, before considering where it may be appropriate to introduce similar frameworks in other sectors.

I am struck at this point by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. As he said, while the focus of these amendments is to discuss the nature of freelancing in the creative and cultural sectors, freelancers are self-employed but of course there are self-employed workers in many other sectors beyond. It is not a simple thing to analyse, that is for sure.

Regarding Amendments 284 and 288, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, regarding impact assessments, as your Lordships’ Committee will be aware, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments. This analysis is based on the best available evidence on the sectors likely to be affected by these measures, including the arts, entertainment and recreation industries. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, businesses and the economy are considered, and that analysis is published outlining this. That is in section 17 of the summary impact assessment, which assesses the impact on all different sectors, including the creative industries. We already intend to publish further analysis, in the form of both an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet our better regulation requirements. We are also committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, including the sector mentioned in the amendment.

On Amendments 285 and 331 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, we recognise the importance of preserving and supporting the financial sustainability of cultural organisations, including small and independent cultural organisations. However, we want to avoid uncertainty or even unintended negative consequences for cultural workers. We welcome views on the ways that cultural organisations experiencing financial hardship can be supported, including the types of advice that they may require on employment practices. More generally, the Government will continue to work with the creative and cultural sector to understand how this legislation can work with it in its context, while strengthening legal protections for employers. But again, this must not lead to uncertainty or negative consequences for the workforce, which we believe staged implementation, for example, would create. I think the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, will know that both DBT and DCMS have been engaging with sector organisations, including UK Theatre, to have productive conversations to support this sector in understanding and adapting to the new legislation, while considering what additional support we could give to this sector in particular.

Finally, I address Amendments 286 and 287 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, and Amendments 301 and 302 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, regarding freelancers. Freelancers may benefit from the reforms to trade union legislation and improvements in the enforcement system, including the regulation of umbrella companies. We have also committed to additional measures to strengthen protections for the self-employed. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, rightly raised issues facing those who are self-employed, such as action to tackle late payments. We have already announced a package of measures to tackle late payments to small businesses and the self-employed, including a new fair payment code, upcoming legislation requiring large companies to include payment performance in their annual reports and an upcoming consultation on potential measures to go further. Other measures to strengthen protections for the self-employed include the right to a written contract, an extension of health and safety, and blacklisting protections.

On health and safety, my noble friend Lady Caine of Kentish Town raised the honourable campaigning work of the Mark Milsome Foundation, in a speech that showed both passion and insight in this area. It is essential that employers in the creative industries do not use—or rather, abuse—the multifarious employment statuses of those working in the sector to evade their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to health and safety. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, it can indeed be a matter of life and death.

I am pleased that my noble friend Lady Caine acknowledges that this Bill may not be the most appropriate vehicle for the changes that she wishes to secure and that secondary legislation or amendments to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act would perhaps be more appropriate. However, I am happy to take this back to colleagues in DBT and DCMS.

As has been noted, the creative industries have a high proportion of freelance workers, who are crucial to the sector’s success. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, the sector is working to address the recommendations of the Good Work Review, a deep dive into the working practices in the creative industries, which highlighted freelancers’ job quality as a particular concern. My colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport are working with industry to understand government’s role in any solutions that are developed. I and my DCMS colleagues will be happy to continue discussing how best to support freelancers, and the creative industries more widely. It is with this in mind, and the Government’s unwavering support for the creative industries, performing arts and entertainment sectors, that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, to withdraw Amendment 259.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has noticed the strength of feeling across the House in terms of support for some of the freelance amendments. I very much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said earlier. However, across the Benches there is very strong support for further protection for freelancers. Will one of the options in the Good Work Review, which the Minister referred to, be the appointment of a freelance commissioner—with all the other aspects that I have mentioned in terms of definition and duties?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I was certainly happy to reflect that there was cross-party agreement on this. I am unable to recall the exact terms of the Good Work Review here, so I undertake to write to the noble Lord with some more detail if that is acceptable.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

Perhaps the Minister could add another bell or whistle to what he has just said. Will he undertake to meet those with a strong interest in the protection of freelancers on a cross-party basis, to have discussions, before Report?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am always happy to meet with noble Lords on these important matters.

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very helpful answer and all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s very interesting and in-depth discussion that I think we have all valued and benefited from.

I will make a couple of observations. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, made a very powerful point about the lack of government representation from freelancers when he said there was not then and there is not now any clear channel between freelancers and government. I do agree with the points made by many noble Lords about this. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about having a freelance commissioner for advocacy and driving change. We need more work on this, because it is not clear that freelancers are getting the type of direction that the Government need to give on this.

I was struck by the very powerful speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Caine, on the concerns about health and safety in the film industry. Again, a freelance commissioner would be able to look at this in more detail and drive that through. There does not seem to be the same powerful advocate without that, so I hope the Minister will consider how to strengthen that. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, made a powerful speech about the number of freelancers who are going to come into this area; therefore, not to have them represented in this Bill is an oversight.

When I was anticipating what the Minister would say, I had various things down: asking for a carve-out, asking for special treatment for one sector, phased implementation is a slippery slope, oversight already exists through Arts Council England and DCMS, there is not enough evidence to justify these changes and we already have a Minister for Culture. However, as others have rightly said, this is not about a carve-out or an exemption, it is about adaption. The creative workforce is structurally different, highly freelance, project-based and often dependent on public and charitable funding. Our amendments aim to ensure that employment rights can be applied fairly and effectively in this context.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Katz]

That the House do now resume.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House resumes. We will then move on to consider two Foreign Office Statements taken in the other place. In recognition that the Statements have been combined, the usual channels have agreed that the usual time for consideration be extended by 20 minutes, with 40 minutes for Back-Bench questions in total. We will therefore not return to the Employment Rights Bill before 8.38 pm.

Motion agreed.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for their amendments relating to the provision of facilities to trade union officials and representatives, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to them. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for initiating debate on Clause 62, to which I will also speak.

In Amendments 224 to 233, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, he seeks to amend Clause 61 to maintain, as he argues, a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employees. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I take the amendments at face value: they are probing and not wrecking, and the noble Lord is trying to understand the appropriate balance. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, that the clause already seeks a reasonable balance of obligations and responsibilities between employers and employee representatives. The paid time off that trade union representatives receive is often insufficient to fulfil all their trade union duties. Many union representatives use significant amounts of their own time to support workplace relations. Indeed, in some sectors, in some companies, in some firms, their trade union activity is carried out very much on a voluntary basis rather than it being about people having full-time release and doing nothing towards the organisation apart from conducting trade union duties.

The Government want to rebalance obligations and responsibilities by ensuring that union workplace representatives are able to take sufficient paid facility time and have sufficient access to facilities to enable them to fulfil their union representative duties. While the clause grants trade union representatives the right to facility time and accommodation and other facilities from their employers, it does so by having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. The ACAS guidance will help employers to implement these measures and will be updated in partnership and through consultation with both employers and trade unions. It will therefore help to ensure that a balance of obligations and responsibilities is secured, and ACAS is a very appropriate and worthy organisation to undertake that role.

Greater facility time will lead to improved work representation and better industrial relations by giving trade unions and workplace representatives the freedom to organise, represent and negotiate on behalf of their workers. This will result in more mature industrial relations and increased co-operation between employers and unionised workers, leading to beneficial outcomes for businesses and the economy. This is a framework to promote more co-operation and understanding at work, not more scope for conflict.

Amendments 234 to 236 concerning Clause 62, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, require that a performance condition must be met before facility time for equality representatives is provided by public sector employers. This would make the provision of facility time contingent on the employer already meeting certain performance standards, although the amendment is not specific about what those standards are.

We fully recognise the importance of strong public sector performance and accountability. However, linking facility time for equality representatives to performance conditions is both disproportionate and counterproductive, as it would create a barrier to improvement and creating stronger industrial relations. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to certify that a public sector employer is meeting relevant statutory performance standards before facility time can be granted. Together, they would pose heavy administrative burdens on both employers, who would need to apply and provide evidence, and central government, which would have to assess compliance for every employer.

I hesitate in suggesting this, but in speaking to other amendments on the Bill in Committee, those on the Benches opposite have been very quick to point out the administrative burdens that they assume are being placed on employers across all sectors by various measures in the Bill. The kind of burdens that this amendment would place on the public sector would not be tolerated by them on the private sector. More fundamentally, they would risk delaying facility time precisely for those organisations most in need of support and undermine the very purpose of equality representatives. Furthermore, a Secretary of State-led certification process would create legal uncertainty and potential disputes. It could also harm industrial relations in the public sector.

Finally, I turn to the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to Clause 62. This clause inserts new Section 168B into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and requires that an employer must permit an employee who is

“a member of an independent trade union recognised by the employer, and an equality representative of the trade union, to take time off during the employee’s working hours”

for specified purposes. However, this applies only if

“the trade union has given the employer notice in writing that the employee is an equality representative of the union”,

or will be undergoing or has completed training to become an equality representative. Sufficient training is that which is sufficient for fulfilling the purposes of an equality representative role, having regard to a relevant code of practice issued by ACAS or the Secretary of State.

Clause 62 also requires that the employer must permit the employee to take paid time off during working hours to undergo training relevant to their role as an equality representative and, where requested, provide the employee with accommodation and other facilities to enable them to fulfil their role, having regard to the relevant code of practice issued by ACAS. Should an employer fail to permit the employee to take time off or to provide the employee with facilities as required, the employee may present a complaint to an employment tribunal, at which it will be for the employer to show that the amount of time off that the employee proposed was not reasonable. So far on those grounds, it is as for any other recognised rep status.

Trade unions have long fought for equality: from Grunwick to the Bristol bus boycott, to campaigning on Section 28, to recently standing up for retail workers—mostly female—who have to cope with violence in the workplace, particularly from customers. It is important to recognise, as, it is fair to say, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, did in her remarks, that equality reps have a key role in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, gave some specific examples. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in saying that the cases the noble Baroness recounted, of Nurses Jennifer and Peggie, were horrific experiences you would not want to see anyone encounter. However, I am unsure that using that single brush to tar the feathers of the whole equality reps proposal is proportionate. There may be some correlation, but I am not sure that there is causation.

Clause 62 recognises a trade union equality representative as a person appointed or elected in accordance with the trade union rules, in a manner consistent with the Equality Act 2010. I contend that equality reps have a key role to play in raising awareness and promoting equal rights for all members, as well as in developing collective policies and practices that will enable organisations to realise all the benefits of being an equal opportunities employer. It is pure speculation but, had equality reps been in place in local authorities in earlier decades, and had there been more awareness of inequality in women’s pay, those local authorities facing significant equal pay claims today might not be facing them. Who can say?

I am not sure how rhetorical the questions were from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the sort of equality. For the purpose of the clause, it is defined in the Equality Act 2010.

Turning to Amendment 237—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the Minister asked a direct question, I might as well answer it now. I gave individual examples. I am sorry if the personalised examples made it sound as though they are one-off cases. I was simply trying to bring alive trends, not say, “Nurse Peggie”. There are loads of them, but I only had 10 minutes. They are trends, but I have brought them alive, I hope.

I ask the Minister to reflect on two things. As the Equality Act 2010 defines equality, I used the example that many trade unions are saying that they will refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court clarification of what equality means under that very Act. They are going to defy it in the name of equality—trans inclusion and so on. How do you square that circle?

Secondly, the Minister read out the points about training. In part, I was challenging whether the Government care what the content of that training is. My argument was that the training being used in the name of equality is divisive and may not be helpful in the workplace, and is in fact likely to turn worker against worker, rather than the reverse. Do the Government consider any of that, or do they just hand it over to the reps?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will try to address those points now. Of course we care whether reps, when undertaking any role—whether it is health and safety, learning, or workplace negotiation—comply with the law and are trained in a suitable manner. That does not mean we should necessarily be scrutinising every single thing they do, because one would not expect that in the normal way of things.

I certainly did not mean to belittle the examples the noble Baroness gave, and I am sure they are not the only ones. But at the same time, one cannot make the generalisation that this is endemic across all workplaces where there is union representation. I will also speculate —as we are sort of speculating here—that the engagement and involvement of equality reps might prevent the kind of activity the noble Baroness outlined in the case of Nurses Sandie Peggie and Jennifer. That is counterfactual speculation; one cannot say either way, but it is worth positing if we are serious about discussing this.

I should add, without wanting to stray too far from my brief and, indeed, land myself in some kind of legal hot water, that the Government’s expectation is that all organisations will comply with equalities law in every manner while carrying out their duties. Whatever equality law clearly specifies, we expect all organisations, employers and trade unions to follow that.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

May I just ask the Minister a very small question? In business, we already comply with the Equality Act. Most businesses do it because it is mandated, but we would do it anyway because it is a good thing to do. Reflecting on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, my only concern is the cultural sensitivities that may arise from equality reps taking into account, or not taking into account, some communities’ internal machinations regarding how they see certain equality roles.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

For what it is worth, my experience of working in businesses is that most employers, large or small, understand the importance to the nuts and bolts of economic growth and productivity of having harmonious workforces and being respectful employers who listen to the needs of their workforces, however they manifest themselves.

Again—a hypothesis. I think I understand what the noble Baroness is getting at. In a workforce that largely comes from a particular BME community, but that has a management not of that community, the presence of an equality rep from the majority community in the workforce who can make representations concerning sensitivities around religious observance, modes of dress, and modes of communication, could be to the good for that workplace in creating a greater understanding between the management and the workforce. One is only speculating here.

Before the noble Baroness stands up again, as I sense she might, I will say that equality reps are a new idea. They already exist in voluntary organisations, but the Government think that it would be good for workplaces to have more of them in place and that they would promote more harmonious and productive workforces. I observe that having health and safety reps has led to better adherence to health and safety laws and regulations, with fewer issues with health and safety misdemeanours, accidents and the like in workplaces. Similarly, union learning reps have been a fantastic innovation in promoting learning and skills in different workplaces. The notion of promoting equality and cultural sensitivities in different workplaces, as the noble Baroness put it, is a noble aim.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

I thank the Minister, but I think he is going to tie himself in knots on this one, because there are challenges that will not be rightly represented. To indulge the Minister, maybe I could have an offline conversation with him to explain where I am coming from.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy with that and I apologise if I have misunderstood the point that the noble Baroness was trying to make. This has been a fascinating debate but, in the interests of time, I want us to make progress and finish.

Amendment 237 was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government resist this amendment, which unnecessarily asks the Government to conduct a sectoral cost assessment of trade union facility time. We strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers. We have already conducted an impact assessment that covers the measures in the Bill. This assessment noted that the cost of facility time is not likely to be significant for particular employers. Instead, it could benefit business performance in the form of increased worker training and support greater worker retention through a reduction in dismissals and voluntary exits.

It is worth noting that the estimated percentage of public sector pay bills spent on facility time in the first year of reporting regulations that were enforced in 2017-18 was 0.07%, and that, for the 2023-24 reporting year, the figure was 0.06%. That suggests a minimal impact of facility time in the public sector. Before I turn to Amendment 333, it is worth saying that we expect further savings from the Exchequer resulting from more positive industrial relations, which come about through greater facility time. For instance, we expect enhanced facility time to result in a reduction in the number of disputes going to an employment tribunal. This again makes the point that more harmonious workforces are more productive workforces.

Amendment 333 was also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Again, the Government strongly dispute the notion that facility time represents a significant cost to employers and we have already conducted an impact assessment covering the measures in the Bill. The amendment is therefore not necessary and would simply delay the implementation of this clause and the benefits that equality representatives would bring.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, to withdraw Amendment 224 and I hope that noble Lords agree that Clause 62 has a rightful place in the Bill.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Hutton. I will come back to their amendments shortly.

I will speak to Amendments 245, 251B and the question of whether Clause 68 should stand part, which is tabled in my name. On the clause stand part, this clause represents a dangerous step backwards. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, objected to it in the sense that he thought it might introduce a lack of clarity. But the fact is that the clause itself is a step backwards in transparency and democratic accountability that this Committee must not allow to pass unchallenged.

The provisions that Clause 68 seeks to remove, notably subsections (2B) to (2D) of Section 229, are not bureaucratic obstacles but fundamental pillars of informed democratic participation. They require that voting papers should include a summary of the dispute, specify the types of industrial action proposed and indicate when such action is expected to take place. These are not unreasonable burdens. They are the basic information any voter needs to make an informed decision.

Democracy thrives on transparency, not opacity. When we ask working people to vote on whether to take industrial action—a decision that may affect their employment, their families’ livelihoods and their future prospects—surely they are owed the courtesy of clear, comprehensive information about what they might be voting for.

Consider the absurdity of what this clause actually proposes. It is a ballot paper that asks, “Are you prepared to take part in industrial action short of a strike?” without specifying whether this means a work-to-rule, an overtime ban, a refusal to cover additional duties or any combination of actions. How can any reasonable person make an informed choice without knowing what they are agreeing to participate in?

The Government may well argue that these requirements impose administrative burdens on the trade unions, which is an argument we have heard on a couple of groups tonight. But since when did we consider informing voters to be an administrative burden rather than a democratic duty? We would not accept a general election ballot that failed to specify what office candidates were seeking or what their party stood for, so why should we accept industrial action ballots with less information?

Furthermore, these information requirements serve to protect union members themselves. Clear information helps ensure that workers understand not just what they are voting for but the potential consequences of their actions. This protects both their interests and those of their unions by reducing the likelihood of disputes over the course, scope or nature of mandated action.

Turning to Amendment 245, I agree with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I will speak to this amendment, although I must emphasise that my primary concern is not with the amendment itself but the Government’s fundamentally flawed approach to this critical issue. To be absolutely clear, the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots should be maintained. This threshold exists for the very good reason that it ensures that strikes and other industrial actions have genuine democratic legitimacy, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, and that they represent the will of a substantial portion of union membership and not merely an activist minority.

If the Government are determined to weaken these democratic protections, and regrettably it appears that they are, they must not compound this error by hiding behind secondary legislation. Businesses across this nation deserve better. They need to know the regulatory framework within which they will operate—a theme to which we have returned a number of times through the Bill. They cannot plan for investment, assess risk or make employment decisions when fundamental aspects of industrial relations law are left hanging in regulatory limbo. The Government’s approach creates precisely the uncertainty that undermines economic confidence and job creation.

I urge the Government to reconsider entirely and maintain the 50% threshold to provide the certainty that businesses need and the democratic legitimacy that industrial action requires. If the Government insist that they are going to lower the threshold, which we think will be disastrous, it should be in the Bill, so that we can scrutinise it fully, which is what my amendment would ensure. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan pointed out, a 20% threshold could lead to only 10% of a workforce supporting strike action. The House deserves the opportunity to examine and debate such fundamental changes properly and not have them smuggled through in statutory instruments with minimal parliamentary oversight.

I will speak very briefly to Amendment 251A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. I could not agree with him more. It would be a very regrettable error if the Bill were to inadvertently introduce an unintended consequence of potentially swingeing fines for airlines, for reasons that are not really any fault of their own. It is to be supported, and I hope he will return to the theme.

My Amendment 251B proposes a modest but vital extension, from 10 to 14 days, of the notice period required before industrial action can commence in the railway sector, for slightly different reasons. This is not an attempt to restrict workers’ rights but rather a recognition of the unique role that our railway system plays in the economic and social fabric of the nation. The railway network is not just another industry. As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, it is the circulatory system of the economy and it moves millions of passengers and vast quantities of freight every single day. When railway services are disrupted, the effects cascade through every sector of society, from healthcare workers unable to reach hospitals to students missing examinations and businesses losing millions in productivity. The current 10-day notice period that is proposed is simply insufficient for the complexity of railway operations. I could go on, but I think I have said enough on the subject.

Four additional days may seem modest, but, in the context of the operations of the railway and airlines, it represents the difference between chaos and managed disruption. It allows time for proper contingency planning, for negotiations to continue and for the travelling public to make alternative arrangements. With that, I shall wind up, but I hope the Government are paying attention and will at least listen to these carefully considered amendments.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Goddard of Stockport, and my noble friends Lord Hutton of Furness and Lord Hendy for tabling amendments on the subject of industrial action ballot mandates, thresholds and notice. Despite the late hour, I recognise that there is significant interest here. I will try to do justice to all those amendments and to the opposition to certain clauses standing part of the Bill.

Before I go into the detail, I want to make it clear that a lot of what we are discussing relates to the repeal of the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2016, which was a clear manifesto commitment for this Government. I think it is worth framing why that is the context. This does, in a way, speak to a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, mentioned. Far from supporting the economy, the strike legislation in the 2016 Act that we inherited from the then Opposition did not actually prevent strikes. In 2022, we lost more days to strikes than France. In 2023 and 2024, NHS strikes alone cost the taxpayer £1.7 billion.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

The noble Lord and others keep referring to the 2016 Act, but the amendments that we have been addressing in this section are all amendments to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

With respect, there are definitely elements in the group of amendments we are talking about that relate to the 2016 Act. I was simply setting out the context for my remarks. Perhaps the noble Lord will let me make some progress, and, if he is still not satisfied towards the end of the speech, we can spend a bit more time on this.

As I was saying, 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022, and these were the highest annual number of working days lost to strikes since 1989. Put frankly, the 2016 Act did not achieve its objective of reducing strikes—in fact, it made things worse.

Amendment 244, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and Amendment 245, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, both seek, in different ways, to remove the repeal of the 50% industrial action ballot turnout threshold. The Bill as drafted repeals this threshold in its entirety, returning us to the situation pre 2016, where only a simple majority of members voting in favour of strike action was required for industrial action to be deemed lawful.

We want to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and reduces bureaucratic hurdles. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations at a future date, with the intention that it is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. In combination with the delivery of modern, secure workplace balloting, we hope that this will ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support.

I turn to the opposition to Clause 66 standing part. In answer to the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, this clause does indeed seek to amend Section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act to reverse the change made by Section 3 of the Trade Union Act 2016. Section 226 is amended to omit subsections (2A) to (2F), thereby removing the requirement for industrial action ballots in six defined public services—health; fire services; education for those aged under 17; transport; decommissioning of nuclear installations, management of radioactive waste and spent fuel; and border security—to have the support of at least 40% of those entitled to vote for the industrial action in order to be valid.

Alongside Clause 65, which removes the turnout threshold, a trade union will need only a simple majority of those voting in the ballot to vote in favour of industrial action for the industrial action to be deemed lawful. This was the case prior to the Trade Union Act 2016. This clause is a key part of the Government’s agenda. Again, I want to be clear that this is part of our commitment to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.

I turn to Amendment 246, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, and will speak to the opposition to Clause 69 standing part of the Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment seeks to retain the current six-month mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot. The Government want to strike the right balance between ensuring that industrial action is based on a recent vote and reducing the need for re-ballots. Strike action is always a last resort; it is costly to workers as well as employers. For this reason, we consulted on the appropriate length of time before a trade union should re-ballot its members.

In that consultation, trade unions were very keen to have no need to re-ballot for a mandate at all. However, following the consultation, the Government have set the mandate period at 12 months, because the majority of industrial action concludes within that time. This will ensure the appropriate balance between reducing the costs of re-balloting and allowing mandates to continue for longer where they are likely to have continued members’ support, without prolonging disputes or permitting action to be called based on a more than year-old mandate. Retaining the six-month mandate period would prevent the Government delivering on their commitment substantively to repeal the Trade Union Act 2016.

I turn to the opposition to Clause 68 standing part from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The purpose of this clause is to reduce the information that unions are required to include on a voting paper for industrial action, through repealing Section 5 of the Trade Union Act 2016, which introduced additional requirements into Section 229 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Section 5 of the 2016 Act required trade unions to include on the ballot paper a summary of the issues that are in dispute between the employer and the trade union; the type of industrial action that amounts to action short of a strike; and an indication of the time period during which it is expected that those specific types of action are to take place.

Repealing Section 5 will not remove all the information requirements. Under Section 229, the ballot paper will still require unions to ask their members on the ballot paper whether they support industrial action and which type of action they want to take part in, expressed in terms of whether it is strike action or action short of a strike. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, made an analogy with ballot papers not containing details such as the names of candidates or the nature of the election. I respectfully point out that there is a danger in that analogy; I do not think it is fair. After all, noble Lords opposite would not expect democratic elections for elected office to carry the kind of mandate threshold that they are insisting trade union ballots should have. Whether they want to make the analogy that democratic elections are like union ballots or not, there is a bit of a pick and mix going on—

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That is fair enough; I accept the noble Lord’s point when it comes to general elections but, in effect, this is a referendum, which is usually much more clear-cut.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The point remains that there was not a threshold mandate for the few referendums that we have had. I maintain my point that ballots and elections are not really analogous, and there is danger for everyone in trying to compare the two.

The removal of the initial requirements imposed by the 2016 Act will reduce the red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution.

On the opposition to Clause 69, the purpose of the clause is to amend Section 234 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to change the mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot from six months to 12 months without the possibility of extension, which we have already discussed in Amendment 246. Among other things, the clause brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the Trade Union Act 2016 and many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decision of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact.

Amendment 249, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, would require unions to publish results of industrial action ballots on a publicly accessible website, removing the current obligation to notify individual members and employers directly. The Government recognise that the current arrangements can impose a communications burden on trade unions, especially where first-class post is used to provide the notification to members and employers. However, removing the requirement to send direct notification risks reducing the accessibility and certainty of this information to those entitled to receive it. In our view, it undermines transparency and thus confidence in trade unions and the balloting process. Relying solely on a website assumes that members and employers will proactively seek out information, which could lead to disputes over whether that proper notification has occurred. Direct notification ensures clarity and transparency.

To address concerns about the administrative burden associated with these communication standards, the Government intend to update the Code of Practice: Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers to encourage the use of email in place of posts where practicable. This approach preserves the principle of direct communication while reflecting modern methods of engagement and reducing administrative costs. For these reasons, I am afraid the Government do not support this amendment.

Amendment 251, again tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, seeks to simplify requirements on trade unions when issuing notices. While the Government understand the desire to streamline procedures, these notice provisions serve a vital purpose in ensuring that employers have the necessary information to plan for and respond to industrial action. The Government are already reducing the minimum notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 days, and removing the specific requirements that unions must provide in notice for industrial action, such as to disclose the number of employees in each category. This amendment risks removing too much detail, potentially leaving employers unclear on the nature, scale and timing of the action being proposed. Again, I am afraid, this is why the Government do not support my noble friend’s amendment.

The last amendments in this group are Amendments 251A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness, and Amendment 251B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government do not support either of these amendments because our general position is not to make sectoral carve-outs from the limitations and conditions which apply to industrial action. This is consistent with our repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action and ballots in the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act that set further conditions on industrial action in some public services. The same statutory notice period for industrial action across all sectors ensures a simple rule that is clear for all parties involved and that applies in all circumstances. It is then for employers in each sector to manage their industrial relations and their businesses accordingly. However, my noble friend Lord Hutton has some specific concerns around the airline industry and we are happy to meet to understand these concerns further.

The issue of the Clause 71 standing part of the Bill was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Alongside our manifesto commitment to repeal the 2016 Act, the Government are committed to bringing in a new era of partnership that fosters meaningful engagement between government, employers and unions, and this is grounded in co-operation and negotiation. We recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action while also ensuring that employers are able to reasonably prepare for industrial action when, sadly, it has to occur—I should say when workers have voted for it to occur.

Clause 71 makes targeted changes to Section 234A of the 1992 Act to simplify the process by which trade unions provide that notification. Specifically, we are removing one element from the current requirements: the need to specify the number of affected employees in each job category. Employers will continue to receive essential information, including the overall number of employees affected, the categories they belong to, and the workplaces concerned. This strikes a sensible balance between reducing bureaucracy and enabling employers to plan to mitigate the impacts of industrial action.

Clause 71 also reduces the notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 and, consequently, Section 8 of the 2016 Act will be repealed. Moving from a 14-day notice period to a 10-day notice period provides a more flexible, workable approach that reflects modern industrial relations practice.

We acknowledge that some groups argued for a return to the previous seven-day notice period, and that others have called for the current 14-day period to be retained. In our view, 10 days represents a balanced compromise. It is the appropriate balance in allowing employers the ability to plan to mitigate the impact of and reduce the disruption and knock-on impacts of strikes, while respecting the right to strike. It reflects consultation feedback, and allows employers time to prepare, while reducing the burden and uncertainty faced by trade unions. Taken together, these reforms simplify the industrial action framework and reduce unnecessary burdens and legal risk for trade unions.

Finally, Clause 72—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I particularly focused on the NHS. I was not trying to see it as a sector—I was thinking of the categories and the number by category. I appreciate it is late, so if the Minister wants to write to me, I would be happy to receive that.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

For the sake of brevity and time and all of us staying awake, I will undertake to write to the noble Baroness.

Finally, Clause 72 seeks to reverse the effect of Section 10 of the 2016 Act, removing the requirement under Section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other administrative burdens in relation to this supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police.

As the period of disruption that I have already referred to between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions.

However, the Government recognise that regulations regarding picket lines are important. To be clear, the Bill is repealing only those measures introduced by the 2016 Act in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location and must be peaceful, and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when it was working well and was understood by all parties.

In summing up, I hope my justification for these clauses and how they meet the Government’s intentions has been clear to noble Lords, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw Amendment 244.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for tabling this amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, with his perspective from the creative industries, for introducing it so well.

This amendment highlights an important issue: ensuring that work experience opportunities do not become a means to circumvent minimum wage regulations, thereby protecting young people and others seeking to gain valuable experience in the labour market. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, noted, it is important to recognise that many charities, non-profit organisations and others rely to some extent on unpaid work experience placements, partly to deliver their valuable services but also to provide opportunities for individuals who might otherwise struggle to enter the workforce. We must acknowledge that many young people who leave education not knowing what they want to do, as the noble Viscount noted, find them a useful way of testing various sectors. The practical impact of this amendment on such organisations merits careful consideration to ensure that their ability to provide meaningful work experience is not unduly restricted, while maintaining fair treatment for those undertaking such experience.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but focused and interesting debate. I too regret that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, was unable to attend; with my Whip’s hat on, I note that perhaps if we had made better progress on earlier days of Committee then we would have heard from him directly. I pay tribute to him for tabling Amendment 129, which seeks to prohibit unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for stepping into the breach and making a more than worthy understudy in moving the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for contributing to this debate. This is an important issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others are right to raise it. I pay tribute on the record to his previous work campaigning on this issue, not least through his Private Member’s Bill in the 2017-19 Session.

This Government made a commitment to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This includes tackling unfair working practices. As we heard from the noble Viscount, there are examples not simply in the creative sector—although that area of our economy is rife with them—but beyond it. This Government absolutely stand by the national minimum wage, and on 1 April delivered an increase of 16.3% to the 18 to 20 national minimum wage rate to make it £10 an hour—a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, making progress on closing the gap with the national living wage. This is an increase of £2,500 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the NMW. It was the first step in the Government’s plans to remove the discriminatory age bands and ensure that all adults benefit from a genuine living wage, making a real difference to young people.

I think it is worth saying in passing that we welcome, on this side of the House at least, the Conservative Party’s conversion in recent years to supporting the national minimum wage. However, as a member of the party that introduced it in the first place, in the teeth of some quite vehement opposition at the time, I assure noble Lords that this Labour Government are absolutely committed to supporting it and making sure that it applies in all cases where it should.

Work experience or internships can offer individuals, especially younger people, invaluable opportunities and experience. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities, but we do want to ensure that they are open and fair. Most importantly, where workers are due payment, they should be paid the wages they are entitled to, and I have to say that the current legislation already protects them.

As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway—to whose years of campaigning in this area, through the TUC, I pay tribute—said, there is an aspect of this amendment, very well-intentioned though it is, that would create unintended consequences and raises the spectre of, as she put it, rolling internships of four weeks, on and on.

As we know, according to the Department for Education’s 2022 employer skills survey, around 5% of employers had offered internships, either paid or unpaid, in the preceding 12 months, and there were around 200,000 people on internships. The vast majority of these—88%—were of two weeks or more in duration, and nearly 30% were over six months. It is only right that these people should be paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.

As we have heard, the national minimum wage legislation provides for a number of exemptions to recognise the importance of gaining work experience. It is important to recognise that these examples have a strong and firm place in the economy, including students on placements for up to one year, as required as part of a UK course of either further or higher education, pupils below the compulsory school age, participants in certain government programmes to provide training, work experience or temporary work, and—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, made this point—voluntary workers employed by a charity or voluntary organisation, providing they receive no monetary payments, except for expenses.

The Government are committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of an educational or training course. Because of the way legislation is drafted, they are already largely banned. For national minimum wage purposes, the crucial fact is whether someone is considered a worker due to the nature of the work they do. Employers cannot simply call someone an intern or say they are doing work experience and not pay them. What matters is whether the arrangement they have makes them a worker for minimum wage purposes. However, one valid exception is work shadowing, which is where individuals are observing others perform tasks and are not performing any work themselves.

There is a risk that the broad-brush nature of this amendment could create loopholes, leaving interns or individuals on work experience open to abuse. Where an intern is carrying out tasks, they are a worker and therefore entitled to the national minimum wage. Accepting the amendment could mean that these individuals could be recruited for short-term roles and lose their entitlement to the minimum wage, even if they are performing work. The Government will be consulting on this issue soon. We want to engage with businesses and individuals who carry out internships or work experience. This is how we introduce change to ensure that individuals are protected and treated fairly.

We have heard from both the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady that enforcement is the issue here. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked about the number of prosecutions. I am afraid I do not have that number to hand, but I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Viscount. Enforcement of any law is important, and I am sure that part of the consultation will cover issues of enforcement. Creating more laws but not solving the problem of enforcement would not actually get to the heart of the issue, which is making sure that, when people work, they are paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.

In that vein, I hope that we can deal with the issues the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address most effectively outside the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw Amendment 129.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a short but informative debate and I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed. I listened very hard to the comments from both the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on making sure that we enforce the national minimum wage. The national minimum wage has been in force since, I think, 1998. That is a long time for it not to be enforced, and it includes a time when there was a Labour Government. I very much hope that this will be an extra nudge to make sure that it is enforced and HMRC is given very direct instructions to make sure it happens. As the noble Baroness pointed out, the lack of enforcement is very deleterious to getting working class people into work.

On the noble Baroness’s and the Minister’s concern about it creating a revolving door, surely it cannot be beyond the wit of us to work out that, after you have done your four weeks of work experience, you are not allowed to go back or to stay—that is why we have a four-week block. It is useful to carve out a particular role for people who are there just for educational or work experience reasons, which is quite separate from being an intern.

I hope very much that the Minister and the Government will take on board this amendment and these thoughts as they contribute to the effort to stamp out unfair work practices. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all who have contributed to this short debate, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for stepping in very ably. There seems to be a pattern of noble Lords needing to step in during the groups I respond to, but I very much appreciate her moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

We are somewhat repeating the first debate we had today on Amendment 129. Amendment 141 seeks to ensure that persons are paid for the trial shifts they perform in view of potentially being offered a temporary or permanent position. It basically boils down to the same thing: how do we make sure that people are not exploited when they are in a position where they need to be flexible to try to gain work? It is very much the Government’s objective to ensure we can get more people working. However, it is also our objective to ensure we make work fair and make fair work pay.

That is obviously the intention underlying Amendment 141. In that light, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue and for using the case study of Ellen to outline how vulnerable people in vulnerable situations can be exploited by unscrupulous employers. I assure the noble Baroness that that is absolutely not the intention of the Bill nor, indeed, our attitude towards the amendment. However, I will go into detail as to why we are taking our position on this amendment.

As I have said, we are committed to making work pay, and we have been delivering on this promise through the actions we have taken since the Government came into office last year. At the risk of repeating myself, I note that we have delivered an increase in the national minimum wage of 6.7% to £12.21 per hour for eligible workers aged 21 or over. We have also, as I said, delivered a huge uplift for the lower national minimum wage rate for 18 to 20 year-olds, which has increased by 16.3% to £10 an hour. That is a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, and it closes the gap with the national living wage, because, as I have said, a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay.

However, hand in hand with fair pay is the flexibility for workers and employers to decide whether a job is right for the candidate and, indeed, whether the candidate is right for a job. Government guidance sets out helpful and practical information on how the national minimum wage applies in the context of unpaid work trials. The guidance is clear that employers can ask individuals to carry out tasks or trial shifts without payment only if it is a genuine part of the recruitment process.

Short, genuine work trials—such as the DWP scheme that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, referred to—whether paid or unpaid, give employers and individuals an opportunity to test whether the role or the candidate is right for them. They empower individuals to seek out and test whether the role is suited to them and their needs. They allow employers to test whether a candidate can do the job and reduce the risk of taking on someone who might not have the right skills. As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, rightly said, it is about finding the right balance.

Unpaid work trials can also provide a stepping stone for individuals who have been out of work for a long period of time but might want to get back into the workplace, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said. There are also government schemes where individuals in receipt of benefits can participate in an unpaid work trial and continue to receive their benefits. The flexibility of genuine—I stress “genuine”—work trials can benefit workers up and down the country, and the Government feel that an outright ban would see these opportunities for individuals diminish. However, I repeat a point I made earlier because it is worth emphasising: employers cannot rely on unpaid trial shifts for free labour. If someone is carrying out work that goes beyond a short demonstration of their suitability for the role, they are most likely to be entitled to the national minimum wage.

We are committed to protecting workers and will monitor this issue closely. If changes are needed, those issues should be dealt with outside the Bill, so that the national minimum wage legislation can remain clear on how unpaid work trials can be used and ensure workers are protected.

As noble Lords will be aware, HM Revenue & Customs is responsible for enforcing the minimum wage legislation and ensuring that employers meet their legal obligations. Any individual concerned that they have worked on a trial shift or period that does not appear to be part of a genuine recruitment process can and should complain to HMRC, or they can contact the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service for advice.

In the light of the safeguards that already exist in legislation, and despite the fact that we very much agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, we ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 141.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the Minister for his answer. If this amendment is so similar to Amendment 129—I was not in the Chamber during that debate, I am afraid—I wonder why they were not grouped together. That might be something to think about.

The Minister talked about genuine work trials. I argue that “genuine” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there: how on earth do you judge whether something is genuine if you are not monitoring it extremely closely? He also mentioned a “short demonstration”. How long is that? Are there criteria for them? Are they only two hours long, for example? In Ellen’s case, she worked for five hours—that is a fair amount of continuous time to work.

In speaking to this amendment, I am influenced by the fact that, in the Green Party, we are not allowed to take any unpaid work at all. We have no unpaid interns. If we have an intern, we pay them, and we pay them properly. This influences my attitude towards anyone working for nothing if they do not intend to do so voluntarily.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said that there might be fewer opportunities, but workers are still needed and companies still have to find those workers. If companies cannot afford to pay the national minimum wage to somebody on a work trial, they are not solvent businesses, so perhaps they ought to go out of business. I have no sympathy for employers who do not pay for work.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, gave me conditional support, but I am not really sure; perhaps he will on Report.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that an amendment can be written to cover such schemes as the government scheme she mentioned. It does not necessarily exclude paying somebody for genuinely working for five hours continuously.

On balance, this is a good amendment, and I hope that my noble friend will bring it back on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Katz Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

I hardly know where to start.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Give it a go.

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

Certainly, I believe that everybody at work—whatever background they come from and whatever their class, sex, gender or sexuality—should have the right to be treated fairly. I believe that our legal system, our Equality Act, precisely provides that protection for people, but that we can build on it through equality action plans and so on. But I have to say that maybe some noble Lords opposite also need to consider people’s real experience.

I was elected as the first ever woman general secretary of the TUC. Clearly, we were not a movement that rushed things, because it took an awful long time to get to that point. I have enough self-awareness to know that it was not because there were not talented women, black or white, who could have been elected and who had the talent, skills and ability. There was something else going on, and I hope that there would be enough honesty in this House to recognise that black people and women face real barriers that will not be overcome unless we take positive action.

The other point I would just like to reflect on is that, whenever I spoke about seeing more women playing active roles in not just the trade union movement but in public life, including, by the way, lending my support to women who were arguing that we needed more women in the boardroom—I supported that principle—I was always fascinated that, whenever I raised those issues, people, largely men I have to say, would start talking about merit. Well, I have to say, when I look at the upper echelons, I do not always see in those male-dominated and white-dominated ranks people who got there on the basis of merit. I have never seen an advert for a position on a board. I have never known any board member to go through an open recruitment process to get that position. It has very often been a case of a tap on the shoulder.

If we look at how many judges and newspaper editors we have, and specifically at race, sex and gender, yes, the picture has progressed, but we still have a very long way to go. Therefore, I think this amendment is a little disingenuous in trying to suggest that people who have been held back for years because of their class background, race or gender, if given a helping hand and a bit of encouragement to go for it, will somehow cause a meltdown of society.

Achieving what my noble friend said is, quite rightly, part of my history and our history. I hope that it is part of our progress as a country that we value equality. We know that ultimately it is good for all of us, and long may we keep struggling to achieve that goal.