Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to intervene very briefly as well. I have raised numerous times that I worry that small and medium-sized businesses have been completely left out of the debate. I spend all my time speaking to small and medium-sized businesses, and most of them are very unaware and quite nervous when they get to hear that a lot of legislation is coming their way, and they are certainly not prepared for it.

My grandfather, Mr Ujagar Singh, was one of the founders of the Indian Workers’ Association, and he created that with others to ensure that Indian workers had rights in the 1930s. So I understand it when we are standing up for workers’ rights, because at that time many Indian workers were not even protected by the unions that were here at the time. I am always conflicted, because I want to always make sure that we always have the right laws in place for the workforce. But, at the same time, I have been in business for over four decades, I talk to small businesses all the time, and the one thing that makes me incredibly worried and nervous is the absolute lack of consultation that has gone on with this enormous Bill that will actually destroy jobs, because those small businesses will just close up and shut shop.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, likewise, I have spent the last 40 years advising SME businesses—not always with success, but I do not have a bad track record. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s very appropriate and wise amendment. I know that he too has spent many years advising SME companies from a legal perspective, so he, like me, has a relationship and dialogue with them.

I can tell your Lordships that every single SME company that I have spoken to has honestly no idea of what is in Part 4: they have not tuned in to it or focused on it. They have their own worries—business rates, NICs, trade, oil, energy, you name it—so this is not on their radar. We have received representations from a galaxy of their representatives, such as the British Retail Consortium, the Institute of Directors, the CBI even, the family small businesses association, the British Chambers of Commerce—the list goes on—all of which say that there has been no dialogue and no opportunity to make representations to government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I do not have the figure, but I will find it out and write to her.

The Bill will, of course, continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. We will also be conducting further public consultation on certain parts of Part 4 where there is detail to be set out in secondary legislation or codes of practice. Further consultation of the kind envisaged by these amendments before Part 4 can come into force is therefore not required.

These amendments run counter to the Government’s manifesto commitments, as I said earlier. They seek to delay the commencement of essential parts of the Employment Rights Bill with no valid justification and would hinder the delivery of improved workers’ rights. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Will the Minister clarify something? In relation to the jolly reception he went to on the Terrace where the delegates were rapturously applauding the introduction of the Bill—in fact, going further—did he say that they were all from B Corp companies, with all the ramifications that brings?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I would not say all, but most of them were members of B Corporations.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

I look forward to that degree of clarity in Conservative Party funding. We could all be enlightened by the explanation that I believe is about to come. We are talking about an amount of—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

We had an excellent debate 10 years ago. With great respect, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said that the transparency and clarity of donations to the Conservative Party leave something to be desired. Can he please be specific about this?

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

I will not be specific about it because I do not want to generally insult people, but over the years, there has been some dodgy funding of the Conservative Party. Maybe something has been done about it; maybe it has not. The noble Lord will tell us in a moment, I am sure.

I will say something about the amount of money we are talking about, which the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, touched on. In 2016, when I was much more au fait with this debate than I probably am today, the contribution that the union member made to the Labour Party was not much more than the price of a pint of beer. It has gone up a little bit if it is 10 quid now, but it was a modest amount. Comparisons with financial services, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has made, are wrong, because the sums of money we are talking about there are much greater, and refunds, and all the rest of it. The kind of administrative fee that would be required for that amount of donation seems ridiculous.

On this side, we very much see this as an attempt to restore some Labour Party funding streams. I do, anyway—I will not speak for the Front Bench. I think it is important that the Labour Party gets the funding that it requires. I believe that going back to 1945, 1946 and so on is the right way to go, so I support the Government and the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments and congratulate the speakers today—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I recall the debate some 10 years ago. I declare—although it has been declared for me—that I am senior treasurer of the Conservative Party and have been so for very many years.

The last time we had this debate, it was, shall we say, feisty. I was intervened on 12 times in one speech, which might be a bit of a record. It was a constructive debate, and I believe a solution was agreed. The noble Lord, Lord Monks, says it is a get out of jail for the unions. We wanted more and for it not just to be new members—we wanted it to be existing members—but a compromise was agreed that everybody felt was fair. I hope that in the spirit of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, reflects on his remarks and finds an opportunity to withdraw any suggestion that there is anything dodgy or not clear about political donations to our party—I would not make the same allegations about his party—because it is not the case. There is strict legislation on declaring donations and we are very careful to abide by it.

The world is an upside-down sort of world, is it not? In actual fact, the single largest donation to the Labour Party is not from unions—it is from an individual person who came to this country, made a lot of money and chose personally to give a large sum of money to the Labour Party. Good luck to him. To echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, we should commend and thank those people who wish to contribute politically to this country in whatever form they choose to do so, either going up and down streets waving leaflets and delivering them or choosing to give financially. Such people are good citizens to whom we owe a debt of gratitude.

The other upside-down world, of course, is the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, about shareholders. Public companies have an opt-in system. Every year, not every 10 years, shareholders have to vote for donations to be made to a political party if their company wishes to do it. So there is an opt-in for public companies, not that many public companies make donations to any political party—although I noticed in today’s submissions to the Electoral Commission that companies have chosen to give to the Labour Party, and good luck to them.

The history lesson that we have had is appropriate and relevant, because there is an element of toing and froing. The Burns report highlighted problems that had been in existence before the 2016 Act. It is worth reminding ourselves of those problems, because one would not want to see them again.

The Burns committee was told that the deal that existed between the Thatcher Government and the TUC had not been fulfilled, and that too many unions had failed to ensure that all union members were always aware of the fact that they did not need to contribute to the political fund. The then Government submitted written evidence that added that

“many unions that have a political fund are not transparent with members on their membership subscription forms about the existence of a political fund”,

and that

“their choice to opt-out of contributing to the fund; or the level of the member’s contribution towards the fund”

was not made clear. It stated that, of the 25 unions that had political funds in those days, 12 did not mention, on the subscription form,

“the existence of a political fund. Of the 11 unions that do reference a political fund … 5 do not make it clear that a member has a choice to opt-out”.

That was then, and that is not a situation that anyone, I think, would want to see come back—but there is a danger of that with this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and other noble Lords feel that I have explained—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Can the Minister clarify—to be absolutely crystal clear—that, by removing Section 32ZB, union members will have absolutely no idea where campaign money is being spent?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thought I answered that: the information on the expenditure of the political fund will still have to be given to the certification officer.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With great respect, I asked whether union members would have clarity as to where their money was being spent.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am absolutely confident that unions’ accounts, which will include the political funds, will be available to all members in the usual way. I am sure that is a requirement.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

I can inform the noble Lord that unions have to produce an executive report for the membership every year. That is available to all the membership; it is on the union’s website. In most unions, by the rulebook, the executive report is the first thing debated at conference. All the union’s activities and expenditure are described and explained to the membership in that report, including the amount of the political fund and the expenditure of the political fund. It is the same with the international fund and the campaigning fund. This is a requirement, as part of unions’ democratic processes, to make the executive accountable to the membership, and the information will be contained in the executive report.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I am grateful for that. I am sure that the Minister will agree that, if that is true—and it certainly was not pre-2016—there can be no resistance to it being included—

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

It was true pre-2016.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

It was certainly not disclosed in the political fund accounts, which are not the same as the union accounts; they are separate accounts. Those political fund accounts did not specify where the campaign funds were spent.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

The noble Lord asked where the members would get the information. That is the question to which I have replied. He is now saying that they are not disclosed in another place, but that was not the question I was answering.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I urge the Government to accept these amendments in the spirit in which they are offered—not to weaken protections but to ensure that they are practicable, proportionate and sustainable. Let us ensure that the noble intention of safeguarding workers’ rights does not become a pyrrhic victory whereby the cost of implementation undermines the very stability and jobs that the law is designed to uphold. For those reasons, I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s remarks. I agree with every word.

I vividly recall the change in this country, in 1979, when union power was such that people were frightened of starting businesses or to go to work. Murdoch took a brave stance to take the unions head on and, after 1979, the country emerged with much greater strength, economic certainty and prosperity. As a result, people like me chose to start a business in this country. That was because of the economic prosperity created by Thatcher’s Cabinet and team. Any attempt to go backwards rather than forwards is very depressing and disappointing.

My noble friend Lord Jackson is of course right that Clause 55 is the kernel of the Bill. It is an important clause that reveals why the Bill is so inappropriate and badly drafted, and it needs amendment or, if not, not to stand part.

I refer to the British Chambers of Commerce, an independent organisation which, as we know from Second Reading, criticised the Bill because of its lack of consultation, because of its greater restriction and penalties for firms that want to make workforce changes but, most importantly, because of the greater responsibilities, costs and complexity for employers. The Bill includes some of the most significant and widest range of changes to employment laws for decades.

The Government’s own assessment suggests that the legislation will cost businesses almost £5 billion a year, and that the SME sector will be impacted most. This is at a time when, just in the last couple of months, businesses have come to terms with the dreadful, unnecessary and wholly growth-destroying national insurance increase. It is literally putting businesses out of business. Your Lordships do not have to believe me; just look at the last insolvency statistics, which show record figures of insolvency, particularly for CVLs—creditors’ voluntary liquidations. People are throwing in the towel; they are not prepared to carry on business when they are faced with these increased costs for employing people and for properties and business rates, which the Bill imposes on all businesses.

My particular concern is with the SME sector. We debated this at Second Reading, and I complimented the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on starting a small business. He therefore knows and understands this, but many people on the Front Bench of the Labour Party do not have that experience and expertise and are not aware of the damage this will do. These amendments are vital, particularly to try to exempt small businesses—and, if not small businesses, micro-businesses—from these onerous requirements.

To take it to the point of absurdity, and to declare an interest, I personally employ one person—do I have to give that one person a piece of paper when they join? It looks like I do. Will I then be told by the Government that I have to give that person a statement “at other prescribed times”? What does that mean? It means that when the unions are short of members, as they invariably are, and they need to raise more money —we know where that money largely ends up—they will say to employers, “Right, you’d better give all your staff a statement to tell them that they have the right to join a union”, and encourage them so to do. It is on the point of absurdity.

The BCC goes on to say:

“the scale and scope of the changes is huge, with many feeling they are being rushed through at breakneck speed … Firms are particularly concerned about the lack of detailed consultation on the Trade Union changes, especially when the Government’s own assessment was so vague about the impact”.

It rightly points out that:

“Overall, there is a lot in the Employment Rights Bill that reinforces much of what good businesses already do. But the fear remains that certain elements could create huge costs for firms and damage the UK’s ambitions for growth”.

I repeat the request made to the Government Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to cite businesses—SME businesses in particular, but actually any businesses—that are in support. Richer Sounds is not a good example. Julian Richer sold Richer Sounds to an EOT—it is a co-operative. One of the firms mentioned last time was Nationwide. That is not an SME, and the Co-op is certainly not. So where is the support for this? Please can we exclude this extremely vague “at other prescribed times”, which is without any limitation or cap? If it said “annually”, that might be a start. Can we also exclude both SMEs and micro-companies from these onerous requirements?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that seek to mitigate the impact of Clause 55, which amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by inserting a new section with a

“Statement of trade union rights”.


I support, in particular, Amendment 205 by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would apply the statement only to larger companies. We have heard very good arguments as to why this should happen. I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would leave open to employers the option to decide whether to apply the statement under the new Section 136A. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would mean it does not apply to smaller employers and those with fewer than 10 employees, as well as her amendment that probes why such a statement should be given at times other than the start of the job. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, put forward some good potential reasons.

This a very bad clause. I oppose it for two reasons. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on the Front Bench, who has stated that it should not be part of a Bill, certainly not in 2025. Such obligations interfere with the professional balance of duties and responsibilities in a business between employer and employee. The employer must promote the best interests of the business and, with the directors of the company, employers are bound to do so.

Employers are also bound under employment law. The 1992 Act, which this clause amends, already strikes a balance between the role of trade unions in the workplace and the employer. It sets out that the employer or business recognise trade unions that meet certain criteria, engage in collective bargaining, provide information to the unions and respect those engaged in lawful industrial action. We already have recognition of the responsibilities of employers to trade unions in the workplace; a balance has been struck, and it has worked, by and large, very well.

The interests of the business will also involve treating all workers not only legally but fairly and professionally. It should not involve employers being obliged, as the new Section 136A stipulates, to give a written statement that the employee has the right to join a trade union at the start of the job and at other prescribed times. It should also not be left to politicians, as the new section states—the Secretary of State at the time—to prescribe what information is included, what form the statement takes, in what manner it should be given, and whether regulations prescribing anything for the purpose of this section may make different provision for different purposes.

Are we making the law or are we leaving it to some executive authority to make something up on the back of an envelope and prescribe it through his or her officials in government? This is not lawmaking, and this Parliament should challenge this sort of power being given to a Secretary of State to do what he or she may like. This not only adds a layer of bureaucracy but brings uncertainty to businesses and adds costs, from which smaller businesses at least should be spared.

The individual choices that employees make should not be anticipated by presuming that union membership is an assumption that both employer and employee make. That undermines the freedom of both parties to have a non-politicised atmosphere and implies that a business will be run in an atmosphere of expected confrontation instead. It suggests that freedom is being undermined. Yes, it does not require an employee to join the union, but if an employer presents a new employee with this statement, what on earth is the employee to think except that this is what should be done in order to get on in this business?

The second ground for objection, however, is more general. Obliging businesses to make such a statement politicises the internal arrangements of business. Trade union membership may or may not be something individuals choose, but we must recognise that trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party; they founded the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be dominated by former union members—or perhaps continuing union members. At certain times of Britain’s history, trade unions have dominated many workplaces and paralysed public services. Indeed, we see that continuing this year in Birmingham, with the paralysis in relation to bins and the failure of the council to deal with the Unite union. They have stopped the productive activities of the British people in industry and in business, undermining the economic success of the whole country and the ability of people to earn a decent wage or salary.

I am afraid they have undermined freedoms and have undermined the democratic decision by the people of this country to live without fear—fear that their child’s school will be closed by strikes, fear that their university lectures may be cancelled because the union has called a strike, and the fear of many working people that they cannot get to work and earn their money because the railways are strike-bound. This clause should not be in the Bill. It undermines the freedoms that were fought hard for by Conservative Governments since 1979 to restore freedom in the workplace, with a fair balance between trade unions and working people.

When I first came to this country in 1979 as a student, one of the members of staff of my college told me, “I am the sole earner in my family now. My husband had to join a union because of the closed shop. He couldn’t get a job without joining a union. Now that he has joined the union, he has been told he can’t work. This is why I, for the first time in my life, am voting for the Conservative Party and Mrs Thatcher”. Conservative Governments have successfully and successively restored order to the economy, allowed this country to prosper, allowed people to get jobs, helped entrepreneurship and growth, and helped Britain to no longer be the sick man of Europe. People voted for that. We should not turn the clock back to a day when we are chipping away bit by bit at those rights, so that people will not have the freedom to earn and this country will not be able to pay its way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I agree with my noble friend. I have tried to get deposited in the Library, or sent through some other form of communication to all Peers, a response I have received from the Secretary of State on this matter. By the way, I have still not received a reply from the Cabinet Secretary, who is supposed to uphold Cabinet Office guidelines. In essence, the answer came back: “We’ll do a full impact assessment once the Bill is completed”. We know that industry is looking for that. We have no idea when these regulations will be introduced; I assume that they could already have started the consultation. It is important that the Secretary of State—I am trying to remember; I do not have a photographic memory—basically said, “We haven’t really changed that much”. That is where we are. I will continue to make the point. My noble friend is right and reminds me to chase the Cabinet Secretary.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Perhaps I can help my noble friend by explaining that Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 allows an employee to claim compensation of between two and four weeks’ pay. Does she think this will lead to ducks-and-drakes people trying to seek such compensation?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I expect the bigger employers, if they know about this legislation—although we are hearing from a lot of the employers’ representatives that a lot of their members had not even heard about the day one rights until very recently—will probably put their HR departments and lawyers on it. I am concerned about the smaller ones, which is why I am sympathetic to the amendments in this group on micro employers and small employers. Otherwise, this could start to become a very expensive business. It is yet another reason why the Government generally do not seem to understand the chilling effect that not only their economic policies but legislation such as this will have on the recruitment of people to jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support Amendments 212 and 213 in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I agree that a 24-hour notice period is necessary, particularly for small businesses, because access to the workplace by third parties can be disruptive. Visitors calling unannounced can disrupt a carefully organised schedule between an employer and his or her employees. The 24-hour notice period would allow employers to prepare for a visit and to reschedule certain tasks. I support exempting smaller businesses from some of these arrangements, because it is very hard to organise smaller businesses with third-party interruptions.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and others. This clause strikes horror in my heart. The idea that someone could come into my business, access my premises with no notice—good luck with that, because I sit in a room on my own—or even worse, access my systems and my server, which are all heavily password-protected because I am regulated, strikes horror not just in my heart. I can assure the Minister, who says that she has consulted business groups, that she will see surveys coming out in the very near future that show the fear, horror and dislike that small businesses have of this Bill, and in particular the clauses we have been debating tonight. I hope she will have the opportunity to meet again with business representatives and listen to what they are saying.

The draftsman on this Bill is working in another era. What does physical access to a business mean? I like the clauses restricting this for smaller businesses, because most small businesses do not have a physical presence. In many businesses, literally tens of thousands of them, the employees work from home. They might have a WeWork office where they meet every now and then, but it is meaningless to give right of access to most small businesses. If we then go to right of access to digital communications, that implies, from the wording I have read, that a trade union official would have to be given the passwords to enter the systems.

What protection is there? What indemnities are there to ensure that this is not abused? We know that abuse happens, particularly in these days of cyber fraud, where someone who has accessed the system could take advantage. Obviously, I am not suggesting that that is going to be prevalent or happen in the majority of cases by any means, but I do not see any protection for small businesses should that happen.

It seems to me that the whole concept of access is misconceived. I would quite understand it if the legislation were drafted to require an employer of any size to pass messages to an employee—I would understand that; it would be reasonable—but can the Minister explain to us why she is demanding access to both physical and digital assets of small businesses?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in particular to the amendments regarding communication with workers. I think it was Amendment 207 but, whichever one it is, I think noble Lords will know. The reason I bring this up is that my noble friend has just referred to aspects of cybersecurity. By the way, I am not suggesting that any trade union would be seeking to cause this havoc, but we know this is a particular challenge. I am struggling to understand how, under wider confidentiality, how anybody would have access to this or be expected to. It may be that the employer is required to pass on an email, I do not know.

I am also struggling to find the justification for this. In introducing the Bill, the Government did not make any reference to digital communication or this other communication; they referred only to physical access. I cannot find any justification put forward by the Minister for this. I cannot find the amendment in Committee, and I am struggling to find the amendment on Report, in the Bill documents on the parliamentary website. I am sure they are there; I am just struggling to find them. I certainly cannot find any reference by the Minister in the other place to why this is deemed necessary. I appreciate that it is not necessarily the job of the Government to do my research for me, but that would be very useful to hear, because it certainly was not in the Bill introduced to the Commons.

I would be grateful if the Minister could give this House a justification, because one of the things that is causing concern among employers’ representatives is this sort of process. It is fairly well established that trade unions are often invited in; that is all part of good industrial relations. The legislation talks about being able to organise. I think the Minister in the other place talked about using it as an opportunity to recruit new trade union members, to organise, to have meetings and so forth. I want to clarify something. The Bill states, in line 15 on page 75, that

“the access purposes do not include organising industrial action”,

so I would be grateful to understand this better. How is the Minister in the other place saying that you can organise different from organising industrial action?

I am genuinely concerned that anyone can just be told, “Please email all your employees with this material”. Fortunately, at the moment, it does not seem that we have prescription that the Secretary of State will write the words that need to be said—I expect they would not be writing on behalf of the trade union—but, again, I am trying to understand why employers would need to allow that to happen. On that, I will draw my comments to a conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I assume my civil servants understand that I probably know the answer to that question—they might be right, or they may be wrong. To cast my mind to the inner workings of Committee in the other place, the reference in the Bill, as I understand it, is to communication with workers rather than explicitly to digital communication. I sometimes feel that I cannot speak for the way we examine Bills in Committee in this place, let alone in the other place.

We now have the opportunity to discuss, as we are doing, the fact that in the modern day, in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful. Were we seriously to say, not to trade unions but to employees—to workers—that the only way that they could receive a message from a trade union or from an employee representative or, to turn it on its head, from an employer was on a piece of paper or in a one-to-one verbal communication, then I think we would all regard that as fanciful. There is a little bit of sophistry—

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Just to expand on this a little further, we are not arguing that unions should not have the right to communicate digitally with workers. That is not the issue; the issue is the right of access. The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer—let us imagine that it is an SME business, possibly run on only one computer, which may contain highly sensitive information; in my case, that would be market-sensitive information— without any controls, references or parameters. I invite the Minister to commit that, before Report, further consideration is made of what such right of access means and the limitations on that right of access. We are not trying to exclude communication to workers; we are just trying to find out the channels and protect SMEs from intrusive activities.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more detail, but this is one of things that will be set out in regulation following extensive consultation. I go back to the original point of principle that I made about levels of granularity in setting out specific channels: if we specify channels A, B and C, as soon as the Bill is published we risk finding that employers are actually using channels E, F and G, because that is the pace of technology as it develops, so we have to retain flexibility.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. My noble friend and I worked on the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act, which I am pleased has provided good use here on in. Of course, she has a most distinguished business career, not just, as we all know, in very large financial services companies but as my president at the Institute of Chartered Accountants, where she interacted with many small and medium-sized businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and I spent the turn of the year discussing the Bill and its ramifications.

I speak as someone who takes a particular interest in SMEs, for reasons I will explain. I am, of course, in full support of this small group of amendments—as are, I think, all business representative bodies. The FSB, which is the UK’s largest employer group, has said that this will

“wreak havoc on our already fragile economy”.

We have had survey after survey: 1,270 companies were surveyed. Two-thirds of them said that they will curb hiring, and one-third said that they would reduce staff as a result of this Bill. The aforementioned Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development discovered that 25% of its members will be considering lay-offs as a direct result of this Bill. The Institute of Directors called it

“a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

As I mentioned, I am particularly close to the SME sector, not least because, in 1989, I started a small business with one partner and one assistant. I should therefore declare an interest that I still own a chunk of shares in that small business, which, when we started, was called Cavendish Corporate Finance and is now Cavendish plc. At this point I normally take a pot-shot at the Labour Front Bench as not having any business experience to talk of—certainly not in the other place—but I have to be much more deferential in this Chamber, not least because the noble Lord, Lord Leong, two years after I started Cavendish Corporate Finance, started Cavendish Publishing, except, of course, that he had much greater success than me. According to Wikipedia, in his first year made £250,000 profit, which is very impressive, because in my first year I lost money, so I have to be suitably deferential. None the less, I am sure the noble Lord will remember those formative years of starting a business, when one was focused on nothing else but that business. Clearly, we desperately need people to do the same as the noble Lord and me: to take the risk, start a business, have a go and then employ people.

The decision to employ a person is a very big one. It is the toughest decision for the first person, but it is still tough for the second, third, fourth and fifth. As it happens, we now have 220 people employed at Cavendish, but it took a long time to get there and we had to merge with a number of other companies so to do. For many years my small business would have been covered by my noble friend Lady Noakes’s exemption, and it would need it because, to take on people in a small business, you are recruiting someone not just to do a job of work but to join your culture and your aspirations, and to fit in. Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not, and when it does not you have to make difficult decisions to make changes. The fact that we are now allowed to let people go relatively easily encourages people such as me to take a chance and employ someone where I would not otherwise do so.

I am very worried that this Bill will lead to a reduction in business growth and, in particular, in employment. Its main burdens will be borne by small businesses. I think the Minister cited five companies that she said were broadly supportive of the Bill. All but one were larger companies, and one was actually the Co-op—I am not sure that entirely counts. Another was IKEA, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could cite the support from IKEA, because I cannot find it. The SME sector realises that the financial burden that the Bill imposes of some £5 billion will largely fall on it, and it is very worried. So the first issue is financial.

The second issue is operational. SMEs do not have an HR department. They simply do not have the facility to wade through this enormous amount of legislation about how they are supposed to treat their staff. The only way round it is, of course, to deploy an agency at great expense to advise and consult every time there is any HR issue, and it is just another cost for businesses which are, for the most part, feeling pretty fragile, and much more fragile after the horrendous NIC increases that are being imposed on them.

The third hammer blow is that those business just will not hire. They just will not take the risk of hiring new employees, which will, of course, restrict their growth, because the only way a business can grow is to recruit new people with fresh blood, fresh ideas and fresh reach. It is impossible for a business to grow without making hires.

Fourthly, the Bill will make businesses risk averse. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has specifically said that this will make businesses risk averse in all their decisions, because of the extra risks that are imposed on those businesses by the Bill because of the costs and burdens they have to undertake.

Lastly, the fifth problem with the Bill is the lack of consultation. It has been rushed through to meet the 100-day deadline and, as a result, there has not been proper consultation and we are wading through a vast number of amendments that we are trying to get our heads round.

For all those reasons, one accepts that the Bill is in the manifesto and that it has to happen—it is in, in many ways appropriate that it does—but please can we leave out the SME businesses that will struggle with this Bill? Maybe we can bring it in later, suitably amended, but not now.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Government would do themselves a great deal of good if they made special arrangements for small business. They are well precedented: we have the VAT threshold, the employment allowance and the small business audit, and it would be a powerful addition to their forthcoming White Paper or Green Paper on small businesses.

Everyone knows that I often speak in favour of small business and have very good relations with the Federation of Small Businesses, so I obviously support the expert trio of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who we should listen to. To put it simply, either we need some special arrangements for small businesses, or—and it might be even better—we need changes to the Bill to remove the bureaucratic provisions that are going to get in the way of success; to look at the lack of flexibility and remedy it; and to avoid the inevitable huge increase in tribunal cases and the overuse of delegated powers. I encourage the Minister to think creatively in this important area.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, asked about IKEA. IKEA is very supportive of the Government’s plan to make work pay. It issued a statement on 1 April this year supporting the increase to the national minimum wage, as part of the Government’s agenda to make work pay. This underscores business’s support for the Government’s approach. There are obviously clear evidence-based benefits from tackling such issues.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

With respect, the statement that was issued on April Fools’ Day seems to be in support of the minimum wage, not of the specific clauses in the Bill.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but IKEA is pretty supportive of the overall intention of the Bill and of the national minimum wage, which is obviously outside the scope of the Bill, such as what we are doing on zero-hours contracts, other short-term contracts and all that. I will write to the noble Lord with further details on the various clauses that it supports.

Various noble Lords asked about the impact assessment. The benefits of the Bill that were published by the TUC show that even modest gains from reforms to workers’ rights will benefit the UK economy by some £13 billion. Opposing this, the impact assessment says that the costs to business would be some £5 billion or 0.4% of employment costs. The benefit is huge, and economists have done research on this.

I cannot agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, who says that start-ups and scale-ups definitely generate employment. It is absolutely right that we have to support them and I strongly believe that the Bill does support them.

Various noble Lords mentioned day-one rights and difficulty in recruiting employees. Remember that, when you run a small business, yes, it is very competitive to employ your first employee: sometimes you have to compete with the big companies in matching salaries or even benefits. I believe passionately that the Bill puts SMEs on a level playing field with large companies, where they can offer the basic benefits in the Bill.

Sometimes we asked: why are we excluding SMEs because it is so difficult for employers to recruit, and why should employees in SMEs not get day-one rights? My answer is: why not? Why should they not get day-one rights? As I said, they are the people who work for the owners, for the owners to make the profit. Without them, the owners will not have a business, so it is very important that they are supported and I believe strongly that good businesses provide fantastic support to their employees.