Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 251C through to Amendment 252, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. These amendments would introduce a wide range of limitations to the new right not to suffer detriment for participating in protected industrial action. The amendments seek to define and restrict the scope of protection, introducing exclusions based on business continuity, public safety, union membership status and compliance with employer instructions. They propose new requirements around compensation, such as proof of financial loss, statutory severity bans and caps on awards.

Although I understand the desire to ensure clarity and prevent misuse of these protections, I am concerned that, taken together, these amendments risk hollowing out the underlying right. They would place significant hurdles in the way of workers seeking redress and could undermine confidence in the fairness and accessibility of the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether the Government support this overall direction of travel and how they intend to ensure that the core principle of protection from unfair treatment during lawful industrial action is preserved in practice.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling these amendments. I ask noble Lords to bear with me as I respond to each of them.

I want to be clear about why this clause is required. Clause 73 inserts new Sections 236A to 236D into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. New Section 236A is required because the Supreme Court ruled in April 2024 that Section 146 of the 1992 Act is incompatible with Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

Amendments 251C, 251F, 251H and 251J are unnecessary as their purpose is already covered in existing legislation. In the case of Amendment 251C, Clause 73 already requires a ballot compliant with Section 226, as specified in Section 219(4) of the 1992 Act, and makes it clear that protection is limited to cases where the action is compliant. Furthermore, in the case of Amendment 251J, secondary action is already prohibited under Section 224 of the 1992 Act, and the new protection of Section 236A will not apply where the industrial action was unlawful secondary action.

With regard to Amendments 251F and 251H, Section 240 of the 1992 Act allows for criminal prosecution of those who intentionally and maliciously endanger life or cause serious injury to a person by going on strike. Furthermore, if an act of an employer is motivated primarily by health and safety concerns, not for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the employee from taking protected industrial action or penalising them, they have a defence from detriment claims, and the tribunals will consider whether the employer’s act or failure to act constitutes detriment.

Amendments 251D and 252 seek to prejudge a full and open consultation on this issue by setting out circumstances in which the detriment protection will not apply. We will prescribe detriments in secondary legislation only once we have conducted a comprehensive consultation seeking views across the public, including those of workers, employers, trade unions and all other stakeholders.

With reference to Amendment 252, that protection from prescribed detriment applies only where the sole or main purpose of subjecting the worker to detriment is to prevent, deter or penalise the worker from taking protected industrial action; for example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely or mainly because they have harassed or bullied non-striking workers, the protection will not apply. I can be clear that criminal law will continue to apply to pickets.

Amendment 251E would be an unnecessary limitation on the protections from detriment. The prohibitions that new Section 236A places on an employer are clear: the sole or main purpose of the action must be to deter or penalise industrial action, which would not apply in the case of genuine maintenance of critical operations. Amendment 251G would be an unreasonable restriction to apply to detriment protections. Non-union members have the right to participate in official protected industrial action and, where that is the case, must be afforded the same protections from detriment as union members.

Amendments 251L and 251N would place a burden on individuals to prove that they had suffered financial or economic loss as a result of detriment, and would limit the circumstances where they were eligible for compensation. These hurdles and limits would potentially deter them from engaging in industrial action, limiting compliance with the Supreme Court ruling and Article 11.

Amendments 251M and 251P seek to restrict compensation with regard to business deeds. I want to be clear that an employer’s action or failure to act in relation to prescribed detriments will be a legal obligation that cannot be breached proportionately, and there is no legitimate business interest defence for seeking to deter or penalise an employee for taking protected industrial action.

Amendment 251K seeks to establish bands of detriment severity of “minor”, “serious” and “extreme”, and would require the Secretary of State to specify maximum compensation limits for each, which tribunals would have to comply with. New Section 236D is already clear that employment tribunals must have regard to any loss sustained by a claimant that is attributable to the actions of, or failures to take action by, an employer. Therefore, tribunals will award compensation based on what the tribunal considers to be just and equitable and will be able to proportionately determine the amount of compensation, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 251C.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for his very comprehensive answer, and also to the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her comments. I will have to read Hansard very carefully, because there is quite a lot of detail in the Minister’s answer, but I will say that for months we have listened to Ministers speak at considerable length about the urgent need to address bad actors in our workplaces. On a number of occasions, they have painted fairly vivid pictures of unscrupulous employers who exploit workers, flout employment law and engage in practices that undermine good industrial relations. However, having been presented with clear evidence of equally concerning bad actors within the trade union movement, the Government’s response has been, in effect, to stay silent. I repeated those Unite comments, and I will repeat them again here, that

“the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated not a friend to be convinced”.

To use a word that came up in the last group, that is not “constructive” or collaborative; that is very hostile in intent.

Without going into enormous detail, Amendment 251L, for example, would require proof of actual financial loss, which is a basic principle that would prevent speculative claims. I do not see how that would deter anyone with a legitimate claim from engaging in industrial relations, so how would their Article 11 rights be infringed, as I believe the Minister outlined?

We will have to come back to these amendments because, as I say, there was a good deal of detail in there. Once again, the Minister is relying on the mythical consultation; I would like to know when that consultation on these aspects of these amendments will take place. Of course, that also calls into question when he expects all this to be implemented—a subject to which I am quite sure we will return on a number of occasions this evening. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, for describing this amendment to us. It is simple and easy to understand but founded on a very difficult and testing industrial dispute. Looking back over my time as a parliamentarian, I often found that facts get distorted, beliefs underpinned and positions entrenched. The last thing that should ever happen is an overt change in the law. I do not believe that is necessary. Let me explain why.

The Minister should not support this amendment, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, explained, seeks to extend Section 145A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to cover the exclusion or omission of a worker from an offer on grounds related to trade union membership or activity. While the noble Lord presented this amendment as a measure to strengthen workers’ rights and reinforce freedom of association, in reality, on reflection, as he virtually admitted when he introduced it, it is poorly drafted, conceptually flawed, legally confusing and potentially deeply damaging to the legitimate and practical functioning of workplace relations.

At its core, the amendment misunderstands the balance that needs to be struck between protecting the rights of trade union members and preserving the autonomy of employers to make operational decisions in good faith. The current law already provides robust protections against unlawful inducements that seek to undermine collective bargaining. I recall, because I was in government at the time, that Sections 145A and 145B were carefully crafted to target deliberate attempts by employers to bypass or undermine collective agreements. This amendment goes significantly beyond that, seeking to introduce for the first time in statute a wholly ambiguous and legally unstable concept—exclusion from an offer—without providing any meaningful guidance or definition as to what such exclusion means, how it is to be assessed and in what contexts it is to be deemed unlawful.

An offer, by its very nature, is made on the basis of specific criteria—sometimes economic, sometimes strategic and sometimes tied to an individual’s performance or to business need. To say that a worker has a right not to be omitted from any offer and to link any such omission to trade union membership or activity would place an intolerable burden on employers. It would open the door to speculative claims and second-guessing of decisions that may have been made for entirely legitimate and neutral reasons, relying on an inference of motive in the absence of solid evidence. Effectively, it demands that employers should treat all workers identically in every instance of any offer—whether it is financial, procedural or preferential—or face litigation and the reversal of the burden of proof. Let me explain.

The amendment proposes that in any case brought under the new Section 145A(1A), it will fall to the employer to demonstrate the grounds upon which the worker was excluded. That is a fundamental reversal of the ordinary legal principle that a claimant must prove their case. It turns routine management discretion into presumed unlawful conduct unless proven otherwise. Such a reversal may be appropriate in narrow cases where discrimination is clearly alleged and supported by a pattern of conduct, but to write it into statute so broadly and in such general terms is not only disproportionate, it is potentially destructive to employer-employee trust and clarity. No employer, however well intentioned, will be able to manage negotiations or individual agreements with confidence under such a regime.

Furthermore, the amendment also risks creating legal confusion by overlapping with other provisions already in place to protect against victimisation or unfair treatment. Section 146 already protects against detriment related to trade union activities. Section 145A already prohibits inducements that would bypass collective bargaining. If the goal is to ensure fair treatment of trade union members, the proper route is through targeted enforcement of those provisions, not through the introduction of vague and speculative new rights that overlap and conflict with existing law.

The amendment is also unbalanced in its approach. It fails to consider that there are many reasons why an individual might not be included in an offer that are entirely unconnected to trade union status. It might be on account of their role, their location, the timing of their employment or performance-based factors. Yet under the proposed amendment, a worker could simply allege that their omission was because of trade union membership or activity, and the burden would shift entirely to the employer to justify its actions. That is not just an invitation to abuse; it is a structural distortion of fairness in employment law.

It must also be acknowledged that this amendment could have chilling effects on legitimate collective bargaining. Employers may feel compelled to make across-the-board offers rather than engaging in more flexible, targeted negotiations that take into account differences in role, responsibility or need. That could undermine not only business efficiency but also the ability of unions themselves to secure advantageous outcomes for specific groups of members. The very act of negotiating special terms for one group might now trigger complaints from others, citing this amendment as grounds for a claim of exclusion.

In conclusion, let me be absolutely clear: freedom of association is a vital right and must be protected. I do not believe, however, it would be served by new laws that are unclear, that burden employers without cause or that generate more confusion than clarity. This amendment—despite its rhetorical appeal to equality and fairness—will in practice be a blunt and imprecise instrument, increasing litigation, reducing operational flexibility and contributing little, if anything, to the genuine promotion of union rights. I hope the Minister will agree with that.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his lengthy contribution. All he had to say was, “I do not support the amendment”. I thank and appreciate my noble friend Lord Prentis of Leeds for tabling Amendment 253A, which sets out that workers have a right not to be omitted from an offer by their employer because, among other reasons, they are trade union members. This amendment has been laid in response to a particular matter regarding the housing association Livv Housing Group, which last year reportedly made a pay offer to only those members of its workforce who confirmed that they were not trade union members. I am pleased that this matter has now been positively resolved in the workplace, as set out by noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her contribution and I will endeavour to respond to her amendments. However, I will not respond to Amendment 256, because it is not in this group; it is in group 6.

I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. Trade unions do not cause chaos in this country. They are fighting for the better pay of their members. This Bill will update the UK’s outdated employment laws and turn the page on an economy blighted by insecurity, poor productivity and low pay. We will raise the floor on workplace rights to deliver a stronger, fairer and brighter future for the world of work in the UK.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that we must be conscious of how the reforms will impact SMEs, and I will come back to that later.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 254 and 255, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for Amendment 258, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. On Amendments 254 and 255, our impact assessment of the repeal of the strikes Act was published on 21 October 2024 and is available for all to read. I remind all noble Lords that repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 is a manifesto commitment. The Act received Royal Assent in July 2023, but, since then, 2.7 million working days were lost to strikes in 2023—up from 2.5 million in 2022. Therefore, the Act has not proved to be effective, even though it has had a short lifespan. It has not prevented a single day of industrial action but has contributed to industrial unrest. Before the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, most industrial action was consulted on, and voluntary agreements were put in place for minimum service levels in the interests of security. The system worked perfectly, so I do not see why this Act should be in place. There is nothing new to add to that assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendments; they are measured, necessary and principled amendments to Clause 85, which rightly restore a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that had been quietly eroded in the original draft of the Bill. As we stated at Second Reading, there are 173 delegated powers in the Bill, which is unacceptable—not just to those the legislation will impact, but to the House.

In the Minister’s contributions on similar legislation in the past, she expressed her strong reservations about the use of delegated powers. I recall well her interventions, which were made with clarity and conviction, as she tabled amendments recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. But we now find ourselves considering a clause that does precisely what she once warned against because it carves out certain sensitive and constitutionally significant areas and exposes them only to selective scrutiny.

The original version of Clause 85 created a two-tier system. Some regulations would require affirmative approval from this House, while others—no less consequential—would not. This piecemeal approach to oversight is not only undesirable but unnecessary. Regulations made under Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act are not merely technical: they pertain to fundamental matters, such as the rights of trade unions, the balance of power between employers and employees, and the protections afforded to those who take lawful industrial action. It is therefore only right and proper that all regulations made under this section should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure: they should be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

My noble friend’s amendment achieves this. It does so with economy of language, but with significant constitutional consequence. It removes the artificial distinction introduced by subsection (5), and instead applies a uniform standard of scrutiny to the entirety of Section 293.

Since the Government took office, many of us across these Benches have expressed concern about the growing use of skeleton Bills, Henry VIII clauses and broad enabling powers that allow Ministers to legislate without adequate consultation or scrutiny. This amendment is a quiet but firm step in the other direction back towards balance, principle and the proper functioning of Parliament.

Again, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendment, and I hope the Government will not merely accept it but embrace it to show their commitment to transparency and to the constitutional propriety of this House.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. I remember standing before him during the PRaM Bill and we discussed this very matter. Some of this negative resolution is required because not only does it save parliamentary time but it is technical. Anyway, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendments 257B and 257C, which would make all the powers under Clause 56 subject to the affirmative procedure, as well as existing regulation-making powers that are currently covered by the negative procedure, by virtue of current Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

It is worth noting that most of the access regulations are already subject to the affirmative procedure. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, only four of the 12 delegated powers are subject to the negative procedure. Given the technical nature of those delegated powers, and to save parliamentary time, the Government are of the position that making them subject to the affirmative procedure would not be appropriate.

Further to this, as mentioned in previous debates, all regulations under Clause 57 will be consulted on via public consultation, the outcome of which will be published for all to see. This is an important process, which will help ensure that our policy development is informed by the practical experience and needs of trade unions, businesses and stakeholders.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will have noted in previous debates in this place that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that

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

the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned 173—it had

“only found four on which to raise concerns”.

Clause 56 was not one of those. Therefore, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw Amendment 257B.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. Undoubtedly, in the last decade, this House has started to move to have far more under the affirmative procedure, so it gets a level of scrutiny, although I appreciate your Lordships’ House does not vote against them. That is how to make sure legislation is properly considered, recognising it will be put to debate, which is certainly not the case with many regulations considered in the negative way. With that, I beg to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment to ask for an impact assessment that details the number of days lost to strikes in the 12 months since the Act was passed and in the previous 12 months. He spoke about the repeal of elements of the 2016 Act and about the ONS statistics.

Part of the reason why we need an impact assessment on the number of days lost to strikes is because, as my noble friend said, we have no evidence. This Bill, in particular aspects of Part 4, is likely to increase the number of strike days. I say that because the main problem with many of these clauses is that they undermine the balance between the employer and the employee, which my noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about as both a public sector and private sector employer. They remove the arrangements on a number of accounts which allow for a balance to be struck between the interests of employer and employee, and for agreement to be reached.

The clauses also remove the inducements and encouragements to avoid industrial action. We spoke earlier about Clause 73, on protection against detriment for taking industrial action: new Section 236A gives workers the right not to be subject to detriment as a result of official and protected industrial action and stipulates that an employer may not take action, and may not refrain from an action, to prevent the employee engaging in legitimate industrial or protected action. Yet excluding the employer’s ability to give inducements to workers for not taking protected industrial action where others do, is in fact prohibiting actions by the employer to hold back or to encourage workers not to take such action. One example might be to offer a bonus or withhold some extra benefit.

There are very good reasons to avoid strikes, not least for the good of the whole economy and the good of this country. Employers and employees should be given a level playing field, and many of the measures taken by the previous Government since 2016 and before then, all of which are in the 1992 Act, allow for that level balance to be struck between both parties. But many of these measures will encourage industrial action, which is not to the good of workers, employers or to the country at large. An impact assessment would at least provide the evidence that the country so badly needs if we are to start putting pressure on the Government to restore the balance in this delicate arrangement between both parties.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions. I will be brief; I do not want to stand between noble Lords and their dinner break.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his Amendment 262. We have already debated impact assessments at great length and I will not repeat the same arguments. Any industrial action is regrettable and all parties have a duty to seek a resolution to such disputes. Failure to do so is basically a lack of management and leadership by all. We have also debated the repeal of the 2016 Act in previous debates. I will not mention that either. Furthermore, it is a manifesto commitment.

Despite its good intentions, the amendment would impose a review procedure that in effect repeats what the Government already intend to do. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, business and the economy are considered, and that analysis assessing these impacts is published. Our impact assessment also outlines a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation.

As noble Lords will see from the impact assessment, our Employment Rights Bill could have a positive direct impact on economic growth, helping to support the Government’s mission for growth and ensuring that we raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. The Bill is expected to benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country by saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work.

To conclude, I reassure your Lordships that we already have robust plans in place to assess and review the Bill’s impacts, including on industrial action. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to discuss the impact assessment further still stands. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 262.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his answer, but I am, of course, disappointed. I must say to him that of course he could not repeat the argument about the impact assessment because it is manifestly inadequate and overreliant on the word “could”, which he just used again.

So it is with a sense of frustration that I close this debate on Amendment 262 because, let us be blunt, the Regulatory Policy Committee has already deemed the Government’s own analysis inadequate. It found that the assessment underpinning this Bill failed to consider important variables, lacked robust modelling of strike-related costs and omitted any real evaluation of how the repeal of the 2016 Act provisions might drive up the number of working days lost to industrial action. That is criticism born not of political bias but of technical expert judgment, but the Government persist in asserting that an independent stocktake of actual strike days would be superfluous.

During the Bill’s passage, no fewer than 160 government amendments were tabled on Report, some of the most consequential of which would fundamentally alter the trade union landscape: changes to ballot thresholds, as my noble friend Lord Fuller explained; adjustments to picketing rules; and alterations to facility time arrangements. Many came late, with scant time for meaningful consultation and no accompanying update to the impact assessment. In effect, we are being asked to sign off on a statute the final shape of which was revealed only in piecemeal fashion and for which no comprehensive evaluation has ever been produced. There is more flesh on the skeleton now, but it still makes for a pretty unsavoury sight.

The consequences of this are already evident. Businesses stand in limbo. They are unsure how to prepare—again, the lack of an implementation plan. HR directors, legal advisers and finance teams are all left guessing which rules will apply. If the Government can point to a single one who is not, could they please say so, because we have spoken to very many and cannot find a single one who is not left guessing? They require clarity, not uncertainty. They need to know, for instance, whether a union ballot will again require a 50% turnout, or whether the conduct of pickets will be governed by new or old prescriptions. In their absence, investment decisions are deferred, retention and, especially, recruitment strategies are on hold and the workforce, unsure of its rights and obligations, faces unnecessary anxiety.

To deny acceptance of this amendment is to deny the very notion that policy should be tested against outcomes and treats legislation as unchallengeable, rather than a living instrument whose impacts must be monitored, and it tells employers, workers and the public alike that we legislate in the dark. So I regret deeply that the Government have chosen to reject the amendment. Doing so signals a reluctance to subject themselves to the discipline of evidence, shirks the responsibility to measure the real-world consequences of their own handiwork, and turns a blind eye to the limbo in which businesses and the public languish. That is not acceptable. If the Government’s reforms truly will deliver better industrial relations, they should welcome the chance to prove it. If Ministers are as confident as they claim to be, let them fast-track the assessment. Let them demonstrate that strike days are falling, that workplaces are more harmonious and that public services are protected. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Corporate Liquidations

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the reasons for the reported rise in corporate liquidations in the year to 31 March 2025.

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

My Lords, in the year to 31 March 2025, total corporate liquidations rose by 8%. This increase was driven by a 36% jump in solvent liquidations, while insolvent liquidations fell by 3%. The current corporation insolvency rate remains less than half what it was during the 2008-09 recession. Businesses go into liquidation for various reasons—tight cash flow, falling sales and loss of market share to online rivals—but no single factor dominates. Compulsory liquidations have increased mainly due to the increase in winding-up petitions from creditors, mainly from HMRC.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

The Minister is right: in fact, more than 2,000 businesses have faced winding-up petitions this year, the highest rate since 2012. Today, we learn that the number of payrolled employees has fallen by 274,000 over the past year, and most worryingly by 109,000 just this month past. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has predicted that eye-watering costs to business, particularly tax costs, will lead to more job losses. Does the Minister agree with me that as every single Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than when—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, of course these are disappointing figures, but six months after launching Get Britain Working we are seeing real results, with economic activity at a record high, half a million more people in jobs since we took office and real wages having grown more since July than at any other time in the last decade. It is also worth noting that the latest GDP figures tell a very different story, up 7% in Q1 of this year, showing the UK economy’s resilience and potential. These indicators suggest a labour market that remains robust and responsive, not one that is being held back.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that what was worrying about the liquidation numbers in 2024 was the increase in compulsory liquidations? That came ahead of the NICs increases, so it is a real red flag. The businesses that I speak to are desperately depending on the industrial strategy to restore their prospects. Can the Minister assure the House that the IS will include a focus on small businesses, including opportunities for government procurement? Will the Government reverse their policy of demanding that SMEs cede ownership of their intellectual property if they enter into even a small government contract?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we will publish our industrial strategy very soon, and it will definitely cover SMEs. As I mentioned earlier, compulsory liquidation is not something new. Companies go bust. We have seen big companies fail. Failure is a reality of business. Even major firms such as Ted Baker, The Body Shop and Wilko have collapsed. We should be thinking about how to support these corporate failures. We must have a more robust system, whether it is the credit system that needs reforming or even British banks. We must incorporate the American culture. Yes, we have to address failures, but more important is how we get up, dust ourselves down and get on to the business market again.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that some of these business closures, particularly for SMEs—where payroll is their largest expense—were triggered not only by the scheduled increase in NICs but by the steep hikes in the national minimum wage? As the noble Lord pointed out, this was demonstrated by the very disturbing falls in payrolled staff and vacancies reported by the ONS. The resulting squeeze on their cash flow may cause a further spike in the rate of liquidations through Q2 and Q3. How does this sit with the Government’s claim to have “restored economic stability”?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an interesting observation that I do not share. First, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that NICs or business rates changes are primary reasons for any of these closures in the UK. I can give examples of businesses that are doing very well. Let us look at the hospitality business. I just looked at the latest results for JD Wetherspoon, which had revenue of £2.2 billion and EBITDA of £19.28 million. Stonegate, one of the largest pub companies in the UK, had revenue of £1.75 billion and EBITDA of £394 million. These are not companies that are in trouble. The picture is mixed. Yes, we have some contraction in the business sector, but businesses are thriving. Do not listen to me. Listen to people such as the president of Blackstone, who this week said:

“I would give the UK Government a lot of credit for embracing business”.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that under the last Government we nearly had bankruptcy in the economy, we had very low levels of growth and we had poverty wages? Is it not time for them to have a period of silence?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. All I can say is that in my long years of business I have learned one thing. Turnover is vanity; profit is sanity. If companies keep chasing turnover without the support of working capital, they will be on the first and pretty fast step to failure.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, first, does the Minister accept that the spike in voluntary closures is directly linked to the Government’s decision to hike the entrepreneurs’ exit tax from 10% to 14%—soon to go up to 18%—as well as increases in capital gains tax, which are prompting many owners to race for the exit?

Separately, in answering a question earlier he relied heavily on GDP figures, which will be small comfort to those people who have lost their jobs, but I think I heard him say 7% growth. I do not think that is right—would he care to correct the record?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Apologies; it is 0.7% growth. I thank the noble Lord for that. At the end of the day, what is really important is that we have to support businesses, and the Government are supporting businesses. Capital gains tax is still the lowest in Europe. In the G7, only the US and Japan are lower than us. Frankly, most employers go into business to create businesses. Sometimes they exit business, and some of our tax reliefs are still better than those of many other countries in Europe.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, several of the corporate collapses that the Minister referred to earlier were associated with private equity ownership and high levels of debt. Moody’s reports that default rates have been twice as high for private equity-owned firms as for others. The Financial Times leading article on 6 June noted that, with exit activity from private equity funds slumping to a historically low level, some private equity firms

“are resorting to … risky … methods of generating liquidity”.

Are the Government concerned about private equity’s impact through these means on both the real economy and financial stability?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, private equity plays an important role in business support in this country. We have seen private equity companies that have acquired businesses and actually grown them as well. Yes, their track record is not great, but there is definitely a role for private equity in business in this country. Do not listen to the Government. Listen to people in the private equity business. Jamie Dimon said:

“I’ve always been a believer in the UK’s … strengths as a place to do business and there’s much to like about the new government’s pro-growth agenda”.


Yesterday, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued that the UK was in the “Goldilocks” zone with great universities, a good start-up culture and the third-largest amount of investment in AI companies globally outside the US and China.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the 2024-25 financial year, the Insolvency Service disqualified more than 1,000 company directors? Of those, a significant proportion—736—were banned for abusing the Covid-19 Bounce Back Loan Scheme. Additionally, there were 131 individuals subject to bankruptcy restriction orders, with 87 of them also linked to the misuse of Covid-19 loans. How many businesses had to wind up because of those facts?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. Yes, those figures are quite high. It is right that the full force of the law should come down on company directors who are found to be trading insolvently. Basically, there are different forms of liquidation, from creditors’ voluntary liquidation to compulsory liquidation, which I mentioned earlier, which has increased mainly because of HMRC prosecution. HMRC, Companies House and insolvency practices target abuses such as tax evasion and this whole area of phoenixism with tougher enforcement, personal liability for directors and upfront tax demand. That should be the way.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for tabling Amendment 143.

The Government agree that employers should not be able to deliberately ignore their obligations, and it should never be financially beneficial to do so. However, this amendment would offer a disproportionate response to address the issue. First, employment tribunals have jurisdiction over the majority of employment matters, including the enforcement of protective awards in cases of collective redundancy. It would not be appropriate to amend this jurisdiction solely for collective redundancy cases and it would lead to a disparity within the legal structure governing employment rights and their enforcement.

Furthermore, Section 15 of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 already offers routes for affected individuals to pursue unpaid employment tribunal awards via the county courts, for England and Wales, and the sheriff courts, for Scotland. Finally, the amendment may have the unintended consequence of an increase in scenarios where employers are forced to become insolvent in response to both paying a protective award and requiring the reinstatement of affected employees.

Responsible employers across the country already go further than the current obligations to consult collectively. They agree with the Government that collective consultation with their workforce is a valuable tool in finding solutions to some of the challenging situations that employers find themselves in. Clause 29 closes a loophole in our collective redundancy legislation which meant that P&O Ferries could not be prosecuted when it dismissed people without warning, including because they worked abroad on foreign-registered ships. This goes some way to addressing the ILO’s concerns about the lack of an effective remedy. Our measure to confer powers on Ministers to create a mandatory seafarers’ charter will also help to create a level playing field in the sector and prevent such events happening again. A couple of amendments in subsequent groups will address that issue.

Doubling the protected period means that employees who were not afforded any consultation when being made redundant will now be awarded up to 180 days’ pay. Employment tribunals can award a further uplift of up to 25% where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the code of practice on dismissal and re-engagement. Taken together, these measures increase the potential statutory payout per person far beyond that which P&O Ferries offered to dismissed employees. This clause will provide a balanced approach that gives certainty to employers, employees and tribunals, and will provide an increased deterrence against deliberate breaches of the collective redundancy requirements, without disproportionately penalising employers which attempt to comply with their obligations.

I hope that this provides some assurance to my noble friend, and I therefore ask that his amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies for his support. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. In response to him, I note that the proposal is not that employment tribunals should make a declaration that a dismissal was void and of no effect. Instead, the idea is that the High Court will make a declaration based on another declaration already made by the employment tribunal that the employer has breached the law by failing to consult—or by failing to consult properly.

The remedy I am proposing, since it is going to be in the hands of a High Court judge, will not be granted for technical or administrative errors; it will be for only the most egregious breaches.

On the point that an injunction might be granted months later, that cannot be so because delay will always defeat an injunction. Injunctions are only ever granted if the application is brought in a timely fashion, and whatever the court orders can be fulfilled.

I am grateful for the Minister’s very full response. I am not sure that the measure I propose is disproportionate —it is intended only for the most egregious breaches of the duty to consult—or that it distorts the remedies available for employment matters. As my noble friend pointed out, employment tribunal awards already have to be enforced in the civil courts and not by tribunals themselves. I am not sure about the unintended consequences. I know everything he says about The Seafarers’ Charter; my concern is with those on land. I have heard everything he says with sympathy, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. Before I turn to the amendments, may I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, a speedy recovery? I am just sorry that he was not cast in the next “Mission: Impossible”. I wish him a speedy recovery and return to the Committee, as we miss him here as well.

I turn to Amendments 132 and 137. Amendment 132, tabled by my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town, seeks to expand the scope of independent advisers who can advise individuals entering into settlement agreements. Settlement agreements in this context are a way in which employers and workers can settle potential claims. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, had such a great experience with his trade union rep and got a really fair settlement. I hope he was pleased with that experience.

However, it is important that individuals understand the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and its effect on their ability to pursue claims in an employment tribunal. That is why legislation requires individuals to receive advice from a relevant independent adviser. Legislation outlines a range of advisers that can be used, including qualified lawyers and authorised officers of an independent trade union.

My noble friend’s amendment would expand the list of relevant independent advisers to include a certified member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, an association of human resources professionals. This amendment would also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to include other professional bodies whose members would also be capable of giving advice.

While I understand that my noble friend has put forward this amendment on behalf of the CIPD, we believe current arrangements are working well and strike the right balance. I appreciate my noble friend’s passion and thank him for his contribution to this debate. We are happy to engage further on this issue at another time, but we do not think this amendment is required.

I now turn to Amendment 137, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, which seeks to expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings, as supported by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe. The law already provides that, when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary or 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 that the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion in disciplinary or grievance hearings. Employers can now allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed earlier —for instance, a professional support body, a partner, a spouse or a legal representative.

The current law seeks to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces, given that they are one of the initial steps in resolving tensions in a worker-employer relationship. Expanding the types of organisations that could be involved in representing workers at disciplinary and grievance meetings could lead to these hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer. This would therefore increase the costs of these hearings and reduce the chances of an amicable outcome. In addition to introducing legal expertise at these hearings, it could also reduce the likelihood of ACAS conciliation or mediation as the next step to resolve a dispute, as legal arguments will have already been made during an internal hearing. This could increase the likelihood of a tribunal claim being made. An amicable solution is, therefore, the fastest way to justice, as set out by my noble friend Lord Barber.

It is unclear where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces would benefit. There are, of course, certain organisations, such as those that provide casework and legal services, that would benefit. But, as I have already set out, should an employer wish to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers, they can set this out in the terms and conditions of their workplace.

I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw Amendment 132.

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important debate. I appreciate that my amendment may seem controversial to some, not to mention unfeasibly long, but I believe it is vital that the voices of all in the workplace are heard. I am pleased that they have been today. I emphasise that small employers are just as committed to their workforce as larger firms, and they want to attract and retain the best people too. This Bill is, in my view, both pro-worker and pro-business, and we should keep all sides in mind when we shape its final form.

I particularly appreciate the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale. I reassure him that I do not raise this amendment in the spirit of confrontation, as I am sure he knows, and I am sure these are conversations that we will continue. I know that we both want to achieve the best for all workers. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

The debate we just had was demoralising because I thought this Bill was an employment Bill. Clearly, for the Government, it is an employment Bill as long as it is done their way. People who are not in trade unions should have representation, and this Government should be big enough to acknowledge that. We shall support this amendment. I hope that the Government will at least commit to giving us a measurement, a review, so that we can see just what is going on.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened to every noble Lord’s concerns. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Defra and my fellow ministerial colleagues at Defra, I should say that they are in regular contact with the farming community and farmers. The Secretary of State has recently spoken at the National Farmers’ Union conference. My noble friend Lady Hayman comes from a farming community and understands the problems that noble Lords have raised.

I turn to Amendment 133, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As I have repeated multiple times throughout the debate in this place, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments, based on the best available evidence, on the workers likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment of the economic impacts of the Bill, including impacts on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. We intend to publish further analysis in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and, as I have said previously, further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet Better Regulation requirements. The 23 amendments on impact assessments tabled by the Opposition would pre-empt work that the Government are already planning to undertake.

It should also be mentioned that this Government are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry. It is why we will invest £5 billion into farming over the next two years, the largest amount ever directed to sustainable food production in our country.

It is with immense sadness that we hear about suicides in the farming community, and I agree with noble Lords that we need to have accurate and timely data. I promise noble Lords that I will speak to my ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS as far as their request is concerned.

It will be no surprise to the noble Lord that we oppose Amendment 133 and ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Roborough for their expertise, which I think noble Lords around the Committee will agree shed great light on this tricky subject. I also greatly appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what is a very modest amendment, and I am therefore disappointed with the Minister’s response, although pleased that he will consult Defra further.

On the subject of inheritance tax, the noble Lord asserted that Defra has been steadfast in its support for the farming community, but it is not clear that the farming community has recognised that steadfastness, because over a dozen leading farming organisations, including the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, have condemned the Government for a lack of transparency. Those groups have written directly to the Treasury demanding the release of modelling and evidence behind the policy.

When pressed to explain why they rejected the fairer clawback option for inheritance tax reforms, Treasury Ministers offered nothing more than vague assertions—no consultation, no published impact assessment—and when challenged under freedom of information laws, the Treasury responded by saying that it was

“not in the public interest”

to disclose this analysis. How can the Government possibly claim this is not in the public interest? Are they really arguing that the means of food production and all that pertains to it are not in the public interest? We are talking about reforms that could rip through the foundations of multigenerational farms, force land sales and strip the viability from small rural businesses.

If this Government’s approach so far was not reckless enough, a fresh report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has added yet more weight to the call for caution and transparency. The cross-party group of MPs has urged the Government to delay its proposed reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief for two years, pushing back the implementation date from April 2026 to April 2027, with any final decisions postponed until October 2026. That is because the reforms are intended to tighten inheritance tax reliefs on farms and agricultural businesses and were introduced without adequate consultation or any formal impact assessment. The committee highlighted that rushing ahead without proper analysis risks serious consequences, including impacts on land values, tenant farmers, family farms and food production, and it warned that this could disrupt the food supply chain, potentially driving up supermarket prices and hitting consumers across the UK. Noble Lords should take seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s warning about food shortages and what it does to government popularity.

What is particularly striking is the committee’s citation of a March 2025 survey which found that 70% of farmers were optimistic about their rural businesses before the Autumn Budget, but that figure plummeted to just 12% afterwards. That collapse in confidence speaks volumes about the uncertainty and fear that these policies have created within rural communities, and the same attitude is now evident in this Employment Rights Bill. Once again, we are seeing major legislative changes with profound economic impacts pushed through without proper consultation, without proper published impact assessments and without any serious recognition of the realities facing British farmers, and that is precisely why this modest amendment is so important.

At the bare minimum, before further damage is done, we should demand an independent, published assessment of how these employment law changes will affect UK farm businesses—not months after the fact and not hidden behind opaque Treasury memos. It is in the public interest, so it should be within 12 months of this Act passing. That is a modest, proportionate and entirely reasonable request. I will withdraw the amendment on this occasion but reserve the right to return to it. Again, I refer to my noble friend Lord Deben’s suggestion, or perhaps warning: 9 million people are watching.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing us to a fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put us in touch with the real world, and then my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Ashcombe reminded us about what happens in real life. I suppose I have immediately to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. My phrase, which I always used to share with Albert Blighton, was that I was available 168/52. The number 168 is 24 times seven. So you quickly appreciate that, as a solicitor, you have to be available all the time.

When I won the contract to represent cricket with the England and Wales Cricket Board, they wanted to know whether I would be available on a Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match, and I said, “Yes, of course I would”. So it is very much up to the individual to make themselves available.

When I was asked to join the Front Bench in the House of Commons in 1977, I do not think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an Adjournment debate, even though it might have been at 3 am, which it was on one occasion. Therefore, you set your working parameter in the way in which you develop your own workaholic tendencies, but you should not expect it of everyone, and I think that is what the amendment is all about.

Do you have the right to disconnect? Although I am sympathetic to the idea that you should be able to switch off, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, put in context, when the Bill is already introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around shift notice periods, payment for cancelled shifts and wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, we have to be very cautious about layering on yet another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation.

The noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal, giving workers a right not to respond to emails or calls outside their contracted hours, but in reality, as the Government have quickly realised, despite what they may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions. What does “working hours” mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, in customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, and in businesses operating across time zones?

Employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs. This would add yet another administrative requirement. There would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect, a consultation process, enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims. So, we must ask: is this really the right moment to introduce such sweeping regulation?

The Bill already creates new rights and obligations that will take time to bed in. There is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effect of this amendment would be to increase that uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly. A blanket legislative approach risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught, especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 141B, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

We firmly recognise the vital importance of achieving a healthy work/life balance. The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, can be confident that we will indeed introduce a right to switch off. We understand that, in today’s fast-paced world, it is more important than ever to ensure that individuals and families are able to manage the demands of their work alongside their responsibilities and needs at home.

Our close consultation with businesses and civil society since the election has shown how important it is that we develop this policy in collaboration with those who will be affected: workers and the firms who employ them. The right to switch off must account for the full diversity in types of employment and sectors that exist in our modern economy. It represents a substantial shift in the way some businesses operate. This amendment does not account for that diversity and the need for collaboration. That is why we have decided to take a careful and considered approach to introducing the right to switch off, as was alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe.

The focus for now is the Employment Rights Bill, which contains decisive and immediate action, such as reforms to flexible working that will make it easier to strike a better work/life balance. These reforms are not just policies; they are practical steps to support everyday lives and help people to draw clearer boundaries between their work and personal lives.

To add this amendment to the Bill would not do the right to switch off any justice. As drafted, it could create unnecessary burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Significant new requirements in proposed new subsection (3)(a) to (d) would force all employers, no matter their size, to produce written disconnection policies and specify new technological and organisational measures and protocols, while also establishing reporting systems for any violations. These new rules would be onerous and inflexible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this really quite interesting clause. I have carefully read Hansard from the other place in trying to understand what it is really putting in place. I am concerned by aspects of the comments made by the Minister at the other end, Justin Madders. He said that it really means only that businesses have to consult on their location and only with trade union representatives, and that, “By the way, these things get sorted in legal debate in the courts, and we hope the courts will understand”. That is not good enough when we are writing primary legislation.

In thinking this through, it is important for the Committee to consider what is happening here. Why is this needed? It has apparently been done to reduce the pressure on people with a vulnerability. Let us take the example of a pub chain, which has quite a big estate and has decided that it is going to reduce its number of hours. That could be a consequence of some of the other measures being brought in by the Government or just a trend that is happening. So it starts to think about what it is prepared to do in terms of how many people it employs in its pubs. It may not want to do that straight away; it may want to think about it in different sections and to leave that discretion to local managers. The man or woman in the street would think that that is perfectly sensible.

However, the businesses that gave oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee are worried—which the Minister recognised in saying that they should not worry—because that is exactly what the legislation is saying they will have to do. They could be undertaking consultation at huge expense, right across the country, while recognising that some of those situations could be very localised.

We already have sensible measures in place. When there are going to be significant redundancies across the country, it is already a legal requirement for them to go before Ministers, whether from the Department for Business and Trade or the Department for Work and Pensions, who can then mobilise local jobcentres and the like to prepare for those redundancies. Imagine going back to the business considering the impact of that on what can be quite localised operations. The Explanatory Notes are silent, frankly, which is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons.

I am concerned and would be grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach and how, despite the uncertainty still left in this legislation, the Government want this to be in place. Instead, they should accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt to make sure that these situations are well considered and that we do not end up in a situation where, despite the primary legislation, we have to go to an employment tribunal again and again. For that reason, I hope the Minister accepts my noble friend’s amendments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for tabling these amendments. We have been listening to feedback from businesses on the clause as introduced. It requires collective consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies are proposed to be made across an employer’s organisation. Businesses told us that this would put them in a constant state of consultation. That is why we have made amendments in Clause 27 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; they aim to limit the burdens on employers while still expanding protections for employees, by ensuring that collective consultation is triggered when a threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across an entire organisation.

The purpose of Clause 27 is to strengthen collective redundancy rights. The Government worked with stakeholders, including businesses, to address their concerns, which include not counting employees who are already being consulted on redundancy. We will set an appropriate threshold number in due course, via secondary legislation, following further engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. We will look to balance the interests of both employers and employees when setting this threshold. Business stake- holders have welcomed the Government’s engagement on this clause and the opportunity to input to the threshold number via a public consultation.

Amendment 141BA seeks to exclude employers going through insolvency proceedings from the scope of a new trigger for collective consultation. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, about how one expects an employer which is going insolvent to consult employees across the entire organisation. The Government believe that collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. The benefits of consultations are felt by both. I heard what the noble Lord said, and I must say that employees are an important part of the organisation, as are the suppliers and the whole supply chain. Whatever is due to them should be paid, as is the same for other creditors.

The law already recognises that consultation may not always be fully practical in insolvency situations. That is why Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a special circumstances defence for employers to depart from the collective redundancy obligations where it is genuinely justified and they have shown that they have taken all practical steps to comply. That flexibility should be applied on a case-by-case basis, not by removing that duty altogether.

Amendment 141C seeks to ensure that obligations are triggered only where redundancies are linked to a connected reason. We recognise that collective consultation will be most productive when workers and employers are focused on a common issue. However, employers and unions have told us that they believe it is not possible to define what is connected or “common reasons” in a suitable, clear way and that this could lead to more litigation. They tell us that attempting to restrict these new rights to connected redundancies in this way would create further burdens, rather than relieving them.

Amendment 141D seeks to exclude seasonal workers or those on fixed-term contracts from the scope of collective redundancy measures in the Bill. First, it may reassure the noble Lord to know that the expiry of a fixed-term contract at the end of its term does not trigger collective consultation obligations. Therefore, any fixed-term contract expiring at the end of its term will not add to the running total for the new threshold introduced for collective redundancies. We will consider further how employees on fixed-term contracts should be counted for the purposes of calculating an employer’s overall workforce that might be needed for the purposes of a national trigger for collective redundancies.

Amendment 141E aims to avoid an obligation to combine consultation by inserting two new subsections into Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but new subsection (2A) already strikes the right balance here. Employers will be well placed to determine how to divide consultations appropriately where the national threshold has been met. We agree that each group should receive meaningful collective consultation and intend to set up guidance on this point in a new code of practice.

On Amendment 141F, it is already the case that where collective consultation on redundancies has already begun those redundancies will not be counted when determining whether subsequent new redundancies reach the threshold for collective consultation. We do not believe that this should be extended to exclude employees who have been individually consulted, as individual redundancy consultations have a different character and purpose from collective consultations.

On Amendment 142, we agree with the noble Lord that the threshold number that will trigger collective consultation should be proportionate and not overly and unnecessarily burdensome on employers. However, this amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to address this issue.

On Amendment 142A, the term “establishment” has already been settled and is well understood in employment law. It works well in practice, so we consider that attempts to change the definition here would create confusion and lead to more litigation with very few clear benefits in return.

Finally, Amendment 142B would undo the Government’s extension of the protective award period to 180 days. This change was made following a full public consultation in October 2024 and has been carefully considered. It makes it harder for unscrupulous employers to price in non-compliance with their collective consultation obligations, as we saw in the case of P&O Ferries. The Government are committed to strengthening employment rights in this landmark legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 141BA.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The Minister started off by referring to government amendments. I just wonder which amendments he is referring to, because I am not aware that any other government amendments to Clause 57 are planned.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I apologise. I can be much clearer. I said the amendments tabled in the other place which are now under Clause 27.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

This has been a very valuable debate on a very important clause, Clause 27. I am very grateful to my noble friends Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, Lady Lawlor and Lady Coffey, who gave some practical examples, particularly of the unintended consequences of previous legislation. A lot of questions have been raised by the Minister. I do not want to prolong this debate now, so I summarise by saying that there are many questions that we still want to ask and we will be returning to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her very thoughtful amendments in this group. I acknowledge the valuable contributions from all noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing her amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing his amendments and, perhaps more importantly, reminding the House of the Conservative-led coalition Government’s work in this area—although I note that he did not heap praise on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.

We fully recognise and support the intention behind these proposals, which is to strengthen support for families and in particular to enhance the role of paternity leave in allowing fathers to spend essential early time with their children. This is a laudable aim that clearly finds broad sympathy across the House.

However, while the objective is clear and commendable, we must also consider the practical implications of how such policies are implemented, particularly in relation to the impact on businesses. Many employers, large and small, continue to face significant challenges in the current economic climate, as we have discussed at length this evening. The introduction of new requirements, even when limited to large employers, must be approached with caution and care, and I acknowledge that my noble friend Lady Penn addressed many of those concerns directly in her speech.

As for the reporting obligations set out in Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend, these would apply to businesses with 250 employees or more. While this threshold helps to focus the requirement on larger organisations, we should still be mindful of the potential administrative and financial burdens such reporting could entail. Even within that category, resources vary significantly, and not all may be equally equipped to take on new reporting functions—a point that was addressed by my noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Ashcombe. That said, transparency and data collection can play a valuable role in shaping effective policy. If it can be clearly demonstrated that these measures would bring mutual benefits, improving employee well-being and retention, for example, without imposing disproportionate costs or complexity on employers, it is certainly something that we should be prepared to consider further.

Ultimately, we have to strike the right balance, ensuring meaningful support for families while safeguarding the viability and flexibility of the businesses that employ them. That is the lens through which we should view not just this amendment but the broader provisions of the Bill.

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

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging, informative and very exciting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his four month-old son. I begin by recognising the key role that parental leave plays in supporting families—I wish it had been available when I became a father, at a much older age, some 18 years ago. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for sharing his story about the difficult time he had during the birth of his children.

This Government understand that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is the most transformative time in a family’s life. We understand that the current parental leave system needs changing so that it better supports working families. We have committed to do this and we are taking action in a number of different ways. Through this Bill, the Government are making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of the intent to take leave from the first day of employment. I hope that many noble Lords will welcome this position. This brings such leave in line with maternity and adoption leave, so simplifying the system.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The Minister said that this brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave, but for maternity leave, the right to pay is also a day-one right. Does he acknowledge that the Bill does not create alignment between maternity and paternity?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. I just said that the leave is the same as maternity leave, not the pay. This brings paternity leave in line with maternity leave and adoption leave, thereby simplifying the system. We are removing the restriction preventing paternity leave and pay being taken after shared parental leave and pay, to further support working parents in assessing the entitlements available to them. Separate from the Bill, planning work is under way for the parental leave review, which will explore how well the current system supports working families and what improvements could be made.

Amendments 127, 80, 138 and 139 seek to make changes to paternity leave and pay. Amendments 127 and 139 are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Amendment 127 seeks to extend statutory paternity leave and pay from two weeks to six weeks and to increase the rate of pay to the lower of 90% or national median pay—although the drafting relates specifically to pay. Amendment 139 seeks to make statutory paternity pay a day-one right for all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has laid two similar amendments, Amendments 80 and 138. Amendment 80 would increase the minimum length of paternity leave from two to six weeks and require regulations to introduce the ability to take paternity leave at any time in at least the first year following birth or adoption. Amendment 138 calls for the existing flat rate of statutory parental payments to be increased, by doubling the rate from £184.03 to £368.06.

I hope to reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, in part by highlighting several reforms to paternity leave and pay which took effect in April last year. These changes now allow eligible parents to take their leave and pay in two non-consecutive weeks; to take their leave and pay at any point in the first year after the birth or adoption of their child, rather than only within the first eight weeks, as was previously the case; and to give shorter notice for each period of leave. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, will therefore agree that, while well-intentioned, Amendment 80 is not necessary in relation to when paternity leave is taken, for the reasons I have just explained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Will the noble Lord clarify whether he just said that there are no day-one rights to parental pay, including for maternity?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will read it again. Amendment 139 would make statutory paternity pay a day-one right. Currently, no parental pay entitlements are available from day one, including maternity pay.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Does the noble Lord acknowledge that maternity allowance is available from day one, at the same rate of pay as statutory paternity pay?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: maternity allowances are available from day one.

Parental pay entitlements require employees to meet an average earnings test. Calculating whether newly employed parents have met this threshold would present a significant challenge to their new employers who administer parental payments.

Amendments 127, 138 and 139 would introduce a cost burden to the Exchequer at a time when public finances are under pressure. When considering calls to increase the level of parental pay generally, any changes will need to take account of the economic situation, the financial impact on employers and the needs of parents, and be made in consultation with businesses and stakeholders. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is required by law to undertake an annual review of benefits and state pensions, including statutory payments. This is based on a review of trends in prices and earnings growth in the preceding year. Generally, as with other benefits, parental payments are increased in line with CPI. For example, statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay and statutory adoption pay will all increase by 1.7% in April 2025, in line with the September 2024 CPI figure.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Does the noble Lord acknowledge that, in linking the payments to CPI, what is actually happening is that we are seeing a bigger gap between statutory payments and people’s salaries, as the national minimum wage is increasing by a greater degree? The process that the noble Lord has laid out is increasing the problem that we have of payments not coming anywhere close to replacing wages.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. That is the situation as it is now. Until and unless things change, that is what is happening.

Depending on individual circumstances, additional financial support will be available to parents. For example, universal credit, child benefit and the Sure Start maternity grant may be available alongside statutory parental pay.

I turn to the issue of shared parental leave. Where fathers and partners want a longer period of leave and pay, shared parental leave and pay is already available. Shared parental leave and pay offers up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay, which can be created for parents to share from maternity entitlements that the mother does not intend to use. Parents can use the scheme to take leave together for nearly six months, or intersperse periods of leave with periods of work.

I turn to Amendment 136, again laid by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, which calls for individuals who are self-employed or contractors to have access to statutory adoption pay within six months of the passage of the Bill. It would also require the terms “self-employed” and “contractors” to be defined in regulations, to set out a clear description of who would qualify for statutory adoption pay under this extended eligibility.

I want to reiterate my appreciation and gratitude towards all adoptive parents, who provide loving and stable homes to children who are unable to live with their birth parents. Currently, parental leave and pay entitlements are generally not available to the self-employed. This focus on providing parental leave and pay to employees is rooted in the understanding that employees often have less flexibility and control over their working conditions than those who are self-employed. There is of course the exception of maternity allowance, which is available to self-employed mothers as an important health and safety provision. It makes sure that mothers can take time away from having to work to recover from childbirth, bond with the child and establish breastfeeding if they wish to do so. For parents who do not qualify for adoption pay—for example, those who are self-employed or contractors—statutory adoption guidance advises local authorities to consider making a payment similar to maternity allowance.

In November 2024, the Government published Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive, in which we allocated £49 million to the adoption and special guardianship support fund for this financial year. This will enable local authorities and regional adoption agencies to offer a wide range of tailored support, including psychotherapy, family therapy and creative therapies, to adoptive families. These services are available following a locally conducted assessment of the adoptive family’s needs.

Amendment 128, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would commit the Government to introducing regulations requiring organisations which employ more than 250 people to publish information about their parental leave and pay policies. It is true that parental leave and pay policies are not extras. They are essential policies that allow people to manage their professional and personal responsibilities and play a huge role in addressing wider social and economic issues.

The Bill contains a number of measures which will improve the support working families receive, most notably by: putting in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return—except in specific circumstances; making flexible working the default, except where not reasonably feasible; and the requirement that large employers produce equality action plans. We feel that we are already striking the right balance between doing more to help working families and ensuring that these changes are manageable for employers to respond and adapt to. Therefore, we do not believe this is the right time to legislate to require publication of parental policies.

Amendment 76, tabled by my noble friend Lady Lister, would make it a legal requirement for the Secretary of State to begin a review of paid parental leave within six months of Royal Assent and to lay the review before Parliament within 18 months. I share the desire of all the noble Lords and Baronesses who have tabled these amendments today: I too want to see change made to the parental leave system to better support families, and I thank them for their clear dedication to improving the lives of parents and children. I recognise their concerns that the current system reinforces outdated gender roles. The responsibility for childcare remains, for many families, with the mother. For many, this will be through choice, but it is also reflective of a system that grants fathers and partners a short period of time off to be with their partner and child during this first year of life. Shared parental leave is available to qualifying fathers and partners who wish to take a longer period, but take-up remains low.

Family life has changed radically since the 1970s, when the then Labour Government passed the Employment Protection Act, which established the right to maternity leave for working mothers. We all agree that improvement needs to be made, and this Government have already begun that work by making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights through this Bill. This removes a layer of complexity and makes the system more accessible. More needs to be done, and I recognise the fair point raised by my noble friend Lady Lister in Amendment 76 that a review needs to address the disparities in the current system.

The plan to make work pay—a manifesto commitment —committed to a review of the parental leave system within the first year of a Labour Government to ensure that it best supports working families. Planning is under way, and we hope to provide further detail soon.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government will meet that manifesto commitment to start the review within the first year, and can he give a timescale not just for when the review will start but for when it will be completed?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I can give the commitment that we will do this within the first year of the Labour Government.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Is that to start the review?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We are planning and conducting the review within the first year of the Labour Government.

It would be premature to make further legislation in this space before the parental leave review has taken place. We will, however, take my noble friend’s ideas and concerns into consideration, and I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on the review.

Before I conclude, we understand the concerns raised by—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister exits the review, it clearly reflects on a number of the issues in the Bill. It would make an awful lot of sense, if the Government are going to do this within the first year—which, by the way, is not very much longer—to be able to present us with the findings of that review so that we can reflect them in what we bring back on Report.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I will speak to my officials and write to all noble Lords accordingly regarding the review.

We understand the concerns raised by micro and small businesses around proposed day-one rights to paternity leave. Those employers often work with very lean teams and tight margins, so any perceived increase in entitlement can raise questions about costs and continuity. Introducing day-one rights is about fairness and consistency. It ensures that all fathers, regardless of tenure, have the opportunity to support their families at a critical time.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again. He has just talked about the importance of a day-one right to paternity leave, giving fathers the ability to take that leave, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, unless it is paid, swathes of dads will not be able to afford to take it. If the Government recognise the importance of this, why will they not make it paid?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. As I said in my previous paragraph, we are making day-one rights such as this and consulting, and the review will look at all the issues that the noble Baroness has brought forward. Until we get the review done, I really cannot commit to anything at this stage.

For businesses, this kind of support fosters loyalty and improved retention in a competitive hiring environment. Demonstrating a commitment to family-friendly practices helps attract and keep skilled employees. We also encourage proactive workforce planning. Cross-training and flexible staffing arrangements can mitigate disruption during short absences. Many small employers already manage similar situations around holiday leave or illness, so this policy is not about adding burden but about building a workplace culture where staff feel valued from the very start. We are committed to working with small businesses to ensure that the transition is smooth, supported and sustainable.

I hope I have reassured all noble Lords of the Government’s commitment to parental leave and respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I, first, just make an observation? Having listened to him reading from his brief, I wondered how many members of the team who prepared the brief have themselves ever been able to take paternity leave, because it certainly did not sound like they had. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said in her intervention, she was very happy with the support from across the House for paternity leave being changed, and quickly. Those of us in the House who are in front of and to the side of the Minister were able to witness the body language of his Back-Benchers. Having seen that, I will say only that I suggest that going and sitting down with them as a group between now and Report might be helpful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, and I will probably take up his idea.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group with his Amendment 21A. I could not agree with him more that flexibility is a key part of an efficient economy. That deserves to be written in stone. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lady Noakes for their support for various amendments in this group and to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his positive comments.

I shall speak to Amendments 22, 24 and 28 in my name. There are many circumstances in which an employer has no choice but to make a request or cancel a shift on short notice—my noble friend Lady Lawlor gave us some very useful examples of that. But to go on a bit, for example, if a colleague calls in sick, which is something that is likely to increase in frequency with changes to statutory sick pay governed in other areas of this Bill, or if events beyond the employer’s control intervene, such as local flooding or public disturbances, payment for unworked cancelled shifts becomes an additional financial burden at precisely the time when a business is already experiencing a downturn. It is not simply about inconvenience; it is actually about viability.

To give another particular example, we have heard from the hospitality industry that the proposed rights around notice and cancellation of shifts could severely undermine existing staffing practices. For instance, in the case of pubs, which as we know are under pressure anyway, those with outdoor garden spaces in particular operate in a highly unpredictable environment. One representative of the sector made it very clear to us when he said:

“The new right to notice of shift allocation and cancellation could undermine a pub’s ability to offer voluntary overtime”.


During the course of the discussion, the examples were magnified to some extent—and to some extent the example that I am about to give is the flipside of the one that my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted with regard to restaurants in a previous group, and the fact that they are pre-charging for tables. The representative of the industry pointed out to us that in many cases, for example, offering food in a pub Monday to Wednesday is a highly marginal business, and they often let their staff go early, and so on. He is of the opinion that, as a result of the Bill, much of that work will simply disappear; they will not bother to open, because it will be too complicated to administer. Not the least of it is that it is not just the administration but the costs of offering the compensation that is governed by this clause. That would obviously not be very good for consumer choice, plus of course there are implications for tax receipts and a whole host of other areas as well.

In practice, these businesses rely heavily on flexibility, which includes voluntary shift swaps and short-notice availability. As we have discussed on numerous occasions, if the weather turns—and in Britain, let us be honest, that is not a small variable—a pub expecting a busy day may suddenly find itself very overstaffed. Under the Bill, cancelling those shifts could result in mandatory compensation.

I turn to Amendment 24. Another flaw identified in the Bill is that it presumes that, in every instance, a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift entitles the employee to compensation. This rigidity, however, does not account for the unforeseen events which, as noble Lords across the House will know, are a common occurrence throughout the working world. We have heard many examples of those. The assumption that the employer is always somehow at fault does not reflect the realities of working life. Our amendment therefore seeks to clarify and incorporate a degree of flexibility into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, we are proposing that the conditions that govern this entitlement to compensation should be subject to regulation in this case. There is a strong case to be made for this exception to our general principled dislike of the amount of regulation on which the Bill relies. As defined by the Secretary of State, this could be nuanced to ensure greater parity in the employer/employee relationship.

It is vital that we remember throughout these debates that we are discussing a piece of legislation that will profoundly affect workers and employers across the country. I am concerned that, in certain elements of this Bill, an ideological assumption is made about the relationship between the worker and the employer, which leads to absolute positions—another point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised in a previous group. We all have a duty to ensure that the Bill meets the practical demands of the real workplace and does not just speak to such assumptions. This amendment would balance the relationship between the employer and the employee and would make sure that those who provide the work are protected, alongside those who undertake it. There is an essential symbiosis that needs to be maintained in order for us to have a thriving economy, with good jobs available for workers. We cannot fall prey to inflexible, absolute stances that upset this relationship. Our amendment seeks to correct this mistake in the text of the Bill.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes in particular for her support for Amendment 28, because she raised unarguable points. The reasonable belief test outlined in the Bill raises several concerns. One of the most substantial is that the term “reasonable” is incredibly broad and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both workers and employers. As noble Lords across the House will know, this part of the Bill is designed to make working entitlements clearer and provide greater clarity and certainty to workers about the shifts they are working and the sort of income they can therefore expect to receive. However, the text in its current form is wide open to a massive range of interpretations and fails to provide clarity or protection for either workers or employers. How is either party to know what constitutes a reasonable expectation? Redefining this element of the Bill so that a formal confirmation of a shift is required for entitlement to compensation will provide clarity for both parties and will create a mutual responsibility between the worker and the employer to make expectations and duties clear.

It is my understanding that the Government intend this section of the Bill to place an obligation on the employer to clearly communicate shift assignments to workers in order to avoid misunderstanding. We agree that this should be the case, although the current text of the Bill uses language that is far too vague. If the Government want to promote the clear communication of shift assignments, surely providing for a formal commitment of work, rather than the belief of being needed, is the way to make sure that that obligation is met. Our proposal of a formal confirmation requirement would mean that both employer and employee know where they stand and what is expected of them and would address the shortcoming in the text as it stands.

I will say just a few brief words on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Forty-eight hours seems to us a perfectly reasonable notice period regarding the time before a shift is due to start. A survey from the Association of Convenience Stores found that 90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice. Unless a reasonable notice period is reflected in the new requirements, it is likely to lead to a cautious approach to staffing by many hospitality and retail businesses. This would mean restricting operating hours and/or staff numbers during periods of uncertain footfall, rather than offering shifts that may ultimately be surplus to operational needs on the day, thus incurring compensation costs for late cancellations.

Moreover, there is a notable asymmetry in the Bill as drafted, because there are no reciprocal requirements for employees to provide notice when they are unable to work at a scheduled shift. That gap will have significant implications. One of the biggest challenges for employers, particularly in retail, is managing last-minute cancellations by employees due to illness, childcare needs or other issues. When employers must find cover at short notice, how are they to meet the same reasonable notice requirements that they themselves are held to?

We need common sense in this legislation, so I urge the Government to accept my and other amendments, or to be honest about why they will not.

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

My Lords, before I address the amendments in this group, I take this opportunity to refer to the letter I wrote regarding the algebraic formula. There are existing formulae in employment rights legislation—for instance, in relation to the calculation of the amount payable to an agency worker as calculated in Section 57ZH of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so this is not something new. We will, however, publish full and comprehensive guidance in due course, which I am sure many noble Lords will find fascinating.

This has been a very useful debate, and I am very grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. We have covered several areas in this debate related to the amendments tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 21A, is seeking to make changes to the period of notice deemed reasonable for cancellation of or change to a shift for agency workers. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, in Amendment 22, is seeking to make changes to the right to reasonable notice of shifts for directly engaged workers. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard of Stockport, are seeking to make changes to the right to payment for short-notice shift cancellations, movements and curtailments in Amendments 24, 27, 28 and 29.

Before I address each of these amendments in turn, let me share some analysis that the Living Wage Foundation did in 2023. It suggested that 59% of workers whose hours vary from week to week, which includes zero-hours and low-hour workers, receive less than a week’s notice of shifts, with 13% receiving less than 24 hours’ notice. The vast majority of respondents—90%—stated that they do not receive full payment when their shifts are cancelled unexpectedly, 74% receive less than half, 51% receive less than a quarter and 26% receive no payment. Further analysis, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, suggests that approximately 33% of UK employers who use zero-hour contracts compensate workers for shifts that are cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice, with 48% of employers responding that they do not.

I turn first to Amendment 21A. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, says in his explanatory statement that this amendment

“seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation”,

which

“will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations”.

The noble Lord seeks to achieve this by providing that the period of what is presumed to be reasonable notice for agency workers must be no greater than 24 hours. This would mean that it would be presumed reasonable if an agency worker receives 24 hours’ notice, but unreasonable if they receive less, so only in those latter situations would the agency or hirer have to prove that the period of notice was still reasonable in the circumstances.

I am not clear how this amendment would achieve this. The amendment would be made to Clause 2, concerning rights to reasonable notice for directly engaged workers, and appears to prevent workers being given more than 24 hours’ notice of cancellation or change to a shift. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill provides for periods of notice “presumed reasonable” to be set in regulations for directly engaged workers and agency workers, as well as the factors that should be taken into consideration in individual cases.

Following consultation, it may be that the “presumed reasonable” periods of notice and the factors that should be taken into consideration will be different for agency workers and directly engaged workers. We intend to consult on what period is presumed reasonable, because it varies from case to case. Setting a period of reasonable notice in primary legislation would thus pre-empt consultation and not allow us to take into account stakeholders’ views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

These are probing amendments; they are designed not for us to tell the Government what we think, but for them to tell us what they think. Simply knocking our argument down does not really achieve that objective. Secondly, as I predicted in a sense, the Government have set up a consultation process, but they have already ruled out the offer of 24 hours from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and disparaged 48 hours. What other things have they ruled out before the consultation has been completed?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

To a certain extent, we are not ruling anything in or out. We are basically saying that we will be consulting with all stakeholders. I take the noble Lord’s point—yes, the amendment says that, and I am responding to the amendment by saying that we will be undertaking further consultation and bringing forward regulations in due course.

I believe the noble Lord wishes instead to provide that a right to short-notice payment will arise only where the worker has received formal confirmation that they will work the shift from their employer, or, in the case of agency workers, hirer or work-finding agency. The Government’s view is that it would be overly prescriptive to specify that the right to short-notice payments arises only in cases where formal confirmation has been provided. While in many cases, a reasonable belief will arise only where the worker has received confirmation in writing from the employer that they will work the shift, different businesses have different practices when arranging shifts, and it would not be appropriate to adopt a universal, one-size-fits-all approach.

For example, when a worker agrees to work the shift after being contacted individually to work it, they would likely reasonably believe that their agreement corresponds to them being needed to work the shift, if it is standard practice that they will be needed to work despite additional confirmation not being provided. So, it is fair that the worker in this scenario should receive a payment if the shift is then cancelled, as they expected to work it and may have incurred costs preparing to do so. It would also be overly burdensome for the employers to have to provide confirmation where this would not otherwise be needed in order to be confident that they will have staff for that particular shift.

The Government believe that, in most cases, it will be clear to both the worker and the employer, or the agency worker and the agency or hirer, whether the worker was expected to work a shift. The Government will also publish guidance to help with interpretation. As a last resort, where disputes cannot be settled, employment tribunals will be able to determine whether a worker had a reasonable belief that they were needed to work a shift with a result that is fair. We wish to retain this flexibility to allow for the broad range of circumstances that may arise.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I apologise for intervening again. That is a really helpful response, because it confirms my fears. The less specific the supporting documentation is around what is reasonable, the more likely it is that this is going to go to a tribunal in order to define what is reasonable. We all know that this will take a great deal of time and a lot of money, and it will leave uncertainty probably for years before such time as a case is heard. Do the Government accept that, by being more specific in the first place, they can avoid this greater, costly uncertainty?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am not sure about that. Basically, we do not want to be too prescriptive and define what reasonableness is, because it varies from case to case and company to company. There needs to be that flexibility there.

Amendment 29 is a probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which seeks to add a power into the Bill to make regulations setting out factors that determine whether a worker reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. The Government tabled an amendment during Commons Report stage to ensure that a worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift unless at some point prior to that they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. This is considered appropriate because it is only where a person reasonably believes that they will work a shift that it is reasonable for them to prepare to work and incur costs as a result.

This amendment was necessary to eliminate the risk of workers taking cases to tribunals and making claims for shifts they did not reasonably believe they needed to work. This is particularly important in situations where an employer offers a shift out to multiple people, for example if they organise shifts through a large WhatsApp group. In cases like this, we want to be clear that people should receive cancellation payments when they are told they are not needed at short notice only if they reasonably believed they would work the shift in the first place.

For example, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, if there is an established practice of “first come, first served”, and an individual says they will work a shift after they have seen that another individual has already done so, they should probably not expect to work that shift. Even where a shift is offered only to one worker, they should still reasonably believe they will work it in order to be eligible for a short-notice payment. For example, if an employer offered a shift four weeks in advance, and the worker accepted the shift only two hours before the shift, it seems less likely they should expect actually to work that shift.

These are the kind of scenarios the Government considered when making the amendment; however, there are other scenarios where issues about this may arise. The Government wish to avoid being overly prescriptive by setting out factors in regulations, given the range of scenarios where this may be relevant. Instead, the Government consider it more appropriate to leave it to tribunals to determine on a case-by-case basis and we want to ensure that tribunals maintain flexibility to do so as they consider appropriate.

Before I conclude, I will answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about reasons outside of employers’ control. With better planning, employers need not cancel as many shifts, but it is not right that, when there is uncertainty, the entire financial risk rests with the workers. We really need to have a fair balance, and the Bill offers exemptions as a possibility for that. We will consult on that; however, any exemptions are likely to be narrow, as we do not believe that workers should take the whole financial hit.

I hope that I have been able to persuade all noble Lords and provide assurances on the Government’s wider commitment to consult with stakeholders and businesses. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Is the Minister really saying that the points that we were making are related only to employers’ bad planning? How on earth are they supposed to plan for natural disasters, floods and so on? Secondly, I apologise for using the wrong reference to the Bill, as the Minister helpfully pointed out. He also helpfully pointed out that much of the Bill is being written on the hoof, so I would be very grateful if he would commit to stop producing new iterations of the Bill, which are ever expanding.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will be happy to hear that I will consult with everybody as widely as possible, including him. We can have further conversations to explain the purpose of the Bill and why we are doing it. We are not doing this in isolation. I believe that the Bill is pro-business and pro-worker, and we need to get that message across to him and other noble Lords.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

On a number of occasions, the Minister set out that the Government are consulting. What is the timetable for that consultation, and when can we expect the results from it?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Although the noble Lord expects me to give him a specific timeframe, I cannot do so now. I will consult with my officials and come back to him.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

On the first day in Committee, we already discussed the implementation plan of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. We then moved on to discuss the draft implementation plan, and the noble Baroness gave us a commitment. Can the the noble Lord, Lord Leong, update that commitment? By when will we see the draft implementation plan?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I give the noble Lord my commitment that it is very much a work in progress.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I want the Minister to explain something. He has refused to set the definite hours in which this needs to be done. He said that that would be prescriptive and that the tribunal will determine whether the matter is reasonable. Is it not quite odd to rely on the tribunal to execute what noble Lords are trying to suggest in their amendments? Should not the Bill itself include those hours? If you do not want to be prescriptive, you can say, “Up to 24 hours”, or, “Up to 48 hours”, which means that they do not have to go all that way—that is slightly less prescriptive. I am baffled that the Minister wants the tribunals to enter into these matters. He and I know that they take a long time and cost a lot of money. Why is he legislating to open a door in this area to tribunals, which everybody should try to avoid?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention. I can say only that I thought we were all agreed that flexibility is a good thing, and I am sure we do not want anything in the Bill that would restrict either an employee or an employer from making a reasonable judgment on a case-by-case basis. On that, I rest my case.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his analysis of my amendment. I certainly do not intend to press it today, but I very much look forward to taking up the issues when we sit down with the team to discuss lumpiness.

On the noble Lord’s preference for keeping “reasonable” broad, I can see the attractiveness of that. If a business is wiped out by a flood, postponing employees’ work for the next day at zero notice but saying, “We’ll want you in the day afterwards so you can start the clean-up” would presumably be reasonable. At the same time, giving very little notice when it is obvious that more notice could have been given would obviously be unreasonable. But allowing the whole pattern of this to be developed slowly through individual cases in tribunals does not seem to be the right way of going about it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

23: Clause 3, page 22, line 32, after “description” insert “that requires the employer to make some work available to the worker”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is being made to bring the amended provision into line with other provisions in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

25: Clause 3, page 23, line 20, leave out from “given” to end of line 25 and insert “—
(i) less than a specified amount of time before the earlier of when the shift would have started (if the shift had not been moved, or moved and curtailed) and when the shift is due to start (having been moved, or moved and curtailed);(ii) on or after the start of the shift;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 3 that expands the meaning of the movement of a shift.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

30: Clause 3, page 26, leave out lines 19 to 25 and insert—
“(6) The duty in subsection (2) is to be taken not to have applied if—(a) the employer pays to the worker an amount in relation to a number of hours that is at least equal to the amount of the payment that the employer would have been required to make to the worker under section 27BP(1) in relation to the same number of hours but for regulations made under subsection (1)(c), and(b) the payment is made on or before the day on which the payment under section 27BP(1) would have had to be made if the employer had been required to make it.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the date by which a payment must be made in order for the duty to give a notice under proposed section 27BR(2) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be disapplied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, which seek to clarify the framework governing agency workers, and I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this matter. It seems to me that a third person looking into this process will see the Labour Party trying to protect employees and give them 100% rights and the Conservatives trying to ensure that small and other businesses have a level playing field to employ, create jobs and grow the economy, which I thought was the Government’s objective. I wonder why, with this employment Bill, we cannot get a little closer to dealing with the mechanics.

The answer that the Minister gave to my probing amendment baffled me. I wanted to get up to ask him to explain what he said to me. Millions of people who listened to it or who read Hansard tomorrow will not have a clue. As my lumpy noble friend has said in previous debates, we seek clarity before the Act comes into power. We need to know these things. I spent four years on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The watchword on that committee was quite clear: do not give Ministers unfettered powers. What is in the tin of a Bill is what it says on the front of the tin of a Bill. I wonder whether this tin will say “tomatoes” but when you open it, you will have carrots—a problem for somebody that does not eat carrots.

Running through this group of amendments, we on these Benches are trying to bring the parties together to understand that it is a two-way thing. I have been a committed trade unionist for 25 years. I have also run a business and employed 20 people. Those two things are compatible, but they are complicated, because you have different pressures from a different standpoint. As with all legislation, we try to move it through by being sensible and finding common ground for what the trade union movement wants, what the Government want and what employers want. I had guests in yesterday who were asking about the Bill. I roughly outlined it, and they could not believe it. They employ 30 people. They said, “We can’t afford HR, we can’t afford lawyers, we can’t afford for people to take us to tribunals. We just want to employ people, make a small profit and grow the business”. I cannot understand how this has become so complicated.

On Amendment 33, concerning the interpretation of “reasonable notice” when shifts are offered to agency workers, the aim appears to be to require agencies to make offers promptly once details are confirmed by the hirer and all the checks have been completed. While this may be an attempt to bring greater clarity, I question whether that proposal and that language fully address the practical realities of agency work. The intention may be sound, but there is a risk of replacing one form of ambiguity with another. That said, for agency workers some degree of predictability and transparency is important and long overdue.

Amendment 36 introduces the idea of joint liability between work-finding agencies and hirers when a shift is cancelled or curtailed at short notice. There is merit in exploring whether a shared responsibility could lead to fairer outcomes, particularly when neither party should be able to shift all risk on to the other. Equally, it is important to consider how such provision would work in practice and whether it risks disincentivising the use of agency labour altogether.

Amendment 37 proposes that compensation should be triggered only when a shift has been formally confirmed, rather than relying on the more subjective “reasonable belief” test. I appreciate the effort to bring objectivity to a murky area, but workers should not be left guessing whether an assurance from an agency amounts to a genuine commitment. We need to understand how this might interact with the fast-moving nature of some temporary staffing such as seasonal work or that connected with the weather. Ambiguity in the current framework serves no one, least of all the workers.

Finally, Amendment 38 provides that the agency would not be liable to pay compensation where the hirer fails to give appropriate cancellation notice. This is arguably a fairer allocation of risk, as agencies should not be penalised for the failure of others. However, it must be clear that such changes would not weaken the overall protections intended for the worker.

While these amendments raise important issues around the treatment of agency workers, I am not yet convinced that they strike the right balance in all aspects. There is a risk that in seeking to impose clearer structures, we introduce new complexities and unintended burdens. I think that this is what the Government are trying to say. Nevertheless, the underlying objectives—clarity, fairness and accountability—are ones that we should continue to pursue. Any changes to the framework must support clearer obligations and deliver fairer outcomes, for the workers and for the agencies and hirers. If these amendments highlight anything, it is the pressing need for the Government to offer clarity and consistency in this area.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Goddard, for their contributions, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling the amendments in this group, covering Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.

Before I speak to these, I reassure all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the Government respect and appreciate all the amendments tabled by noble Lords. The whole purpose of this is to address individual amendments and see where the Government are coming from and how we can find a way forward. There are some things in noble Lords’ amendments that may not be required because the Bill already covers them elsewhere. We are trying our very best to address every amendment and we welcome noble Lords’ scrutiny of the Bill. I reassure noble Lords that we are not being flippant about any of these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Fox and Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Stowell, for their contributions, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 62 and 63. These amendments cover the impact of the Bill’s zero-hour contracts provisions on the employment tribunal system and on specific sectors.

Let me place on record that the Government recognise the vast contribution that the hospitality, retail and health and social care sectors make to the nation’s economy, and that they employ millions of people. I will give some examples. The hospitality sector currently employs 330,000 people on zero-hours contracts, which makes up 28.9% of the workforce. The retail and wholesale sector employs close to 90,000 people, equating to 7.8% of the workforce. The health and social care sector employs 190,000 people, contributing 16.5% of the workforce.

Zero-hours contracts offer flexibility for some workers, but evidence indicates that they have been exploited by certain UK companies, leading to job insecurity and limited work rights. This pro-business, pro-worker Bill aims to address these issues by effective enforcement and by closing the loopholes, to ensure fair treatment for all workers so that we can grow our economy.

Amendment 63 seeks to insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the impact of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill on specific sectors of the economy within six months of the passage of the Bill. As the Committee will know, the Government have already published a very comprehensive set of 27 impact assessments, spanning close to 1,000 pages. These are based on the best available evidence of the sectors likely to be affected by these measures. As mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, the RPC’s opinions refer to the evidence and analysis presented in the impact assessment and not to the policy itself. Our impact assessments provide initial analysis of the impacts that could follow. We will therefore be updating and refining them as we further develop the policy and continue consultation and engagement.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Can the noble Lord respond to the red rating which the RPC has given the Government’s impact assessment? Are the Government continuing discussions with the Regulatory Policy Committee to try to reverse that red rating, to meet the necessary requirements that the Regulatory Policy Committee imposes on all Governments? When will we see an end to the red rating and an acceptance that the Government have learned from the experience and judgment of the RPC?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. This impact assessment will continue. I will be mentioning later in my speech that there will be further impact assessments. Regarding his specific point about the RPC’s rating, I will write to him.

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. We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of 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. In addition, we are committed to consulting with businesses and workers ahead of setting out secondary legislation, as we have said on previous groups, including those from the sectors listed in the amendment.

Amendment 62 would insert a new clause to require the Secretary of State to undertake and publish a review of the impact on employment tribunals of the zero-hours provisions in the Bill. The detailed package of analysis, to which I referred a moment ago, also includes an illustrative impact assessment of the Bill’s measures on employment tribunal cases. We intend to refine this over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. We recognise the importance of assessing the impact of these policies on the enforcement system and have worked in partnership with these organisations throughout policy development.

We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations, as I mentioned earlier. In the meantime, the Government are taking various steps to increase capacity within the employment tribunal system. For example, ACAS currently provides information to employees and employers on employment law, and early conciliation for potential employment tribunal claims. It also offers post-claim conciliation. The Government have taken various steps to increase capacity, such as the deployment of legal caseworkers and recruitment of additional judges.

HMCTS continues to invest in improving tribunal productivity through the deployment of legal officers to actively manage cases, the development of modern case management systems and the use of remote hearing technology. We are committed to looking at what more we can do in this area, working with the Ministry of Justice and wider stakeholders such as ACAS, as I just mentioned. We are already helping many employers and workers to reach settlement before they need to go on to a further hearing.

Our work will also include looking at opportunities for the fair work agency to take on enforcement, where that would help both workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to an employment tribunal.

I refer to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about gaps in the Bill. The Bill does not have any gaps. Some elements of the Bill await engagement or future engagement and consultation with stakeholders, so that we can ensure that the policies work for all involved.

I hope I have reassured your Lordships and that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will withdraw his amendment.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I am delighted that consultations are occurring but, as legislators, we are asked to vote on a Bill without having seen the consultations. The Minister can tell me that there are no gaps because it will all be done for us. I do not know why we do not sack ourselves; what are we doing, sitting here, reading through line by line in Committee and discussing a Bill that we are told not to worry our little heads about? Those are the gaps.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

First, I did not say “little heads”. It is important that we continue to have conversations with stakeholders. Most noble Lords know, and I am sure the noble Baroness knows, that employment law includes a lot of regulations. Previous employment legislation puts further regulations in place. It is important and right that we speak to a wide group of stakeholders, businesses, workers, trade unions and everybody involved in this, so that we get it right.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

One last thing: to be frank, I want the Government to speak to wider groups of stakeholders than the official bodies that represent people. It is simply that it should have been done before the Bill was brought to us. I want it to be noted on the record that wide consultation work should have been done, but the Government should not have brought legislation that could have unintended consequences that damage workers’ rights, while they proclaim that it will save workers’ rights. If they had not done the consultations, they should never have brought it to Parliament to be discussed.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness has said. The Bill has gone through the other House and been scrutinised line by line. We have also taken the point on board here and we will continue with further consultation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

When I talked about taking the Bill on a holiday, I was not joking; I was serious, and it would be quite nice if the Minister would take it seriously and respond.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. At the rate the Bill is going, we may reach recess before we come back again to discuss it further.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, that was a very significant admission by the Minister, for which we thank him. We will need the recess to rethink quite a lot of the Bill.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that this is a gap-filled Bill. I know that the Minister is told in his brief to say there are no gaps, but there are gaps. Wherever you look in the Bill, there is further work to be done before the Government will say what they will do. It takes huge powers—Henry VIII powers—to amend primary legislation through statutory instruments. That is a hugely significant step, and we as a reasonably sensible Chamber cannot possibly allow the Government to get away with that.

You cannot get away with saying to Parliament, “We’re not going to give you the detail of what we’re going to do. Indeed, we’re not going to tell you what we’re going to do, because we’re going to consult and then we will do it by statutory instrument”. That is not the way to legislate. The contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has been very helpful. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for reminding us about the creative industry—the gig industry.

As the noble Baroness reminded us, we have to have a relevant impact assessment so that Parliament can see what effect the Bill will have on a rapidly changing workforce. The workforce has changed dramatically over the last 15 to 20 years and the modern landscape has changed substantially.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I appreciate what he has said. We are all for parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill—we welcome it. We welcome every single amendment and clause being scrutinised. The Government believe that the delegated powers in the Bill are necessary. I am pleased, as the noble Lord will have noted, that the DPRRC found it

“heartening that in a Bill with so many … powers it has only found four on which to raise concerns”.

The Government will respond formally in due course to the DPRRC.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I just happen to have the report of the DPRRC here, and it does raise serious concerns. One of the concerns it has constantly raised about all Governments is that they should not amend primary legislation by secondary legislation. They should be upfront about what they are going to do, and change.

It may well be that the Minister will take great comfort in the fact that there are only 18 black lines of criticism—18. I hope that he will take the advantage that has been given to him on all sides to take the Bill away and try to find a better solution.

We must not forget that the Bill I originally saw at Second Reading in the House of Commons has changed substantially: 160 amendments were tabled on Report in the Commons. They were not scrutinised line by line—they could not be, because they were produced at the last moment.

The Government have to recognise that, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said, it may well be that the Bill is going to disincentivise a whole range of employment situations, which is going to have a massive impact on the whole employment scene. It may well be that my noble friend is right that it is going to create more problems. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already got a major concession concerning the utilisation of the recess, but we need to pause and say to the Government, can we now see the overall impact assessment and, in particular, have an undertaking that they will continue to scrutinise carefully the effect of all this legislation on the employment market before it is too late?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I just want to clarify that we are still sticking to seven days, and the recess I mean is the Whitsun Recess at the end of this month. It will come back.

Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the legislation establishing the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority will account for the principle of separation of powers regarding its standards-setting and enforcement functions by having independent committees for each area.

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

My Lords, as announced in the King’s Speech, the Government intend to publish the draft audit reform and corporate governance Bill in due course. The Government’s aim is to modernise the Financial Reporting Council’s framework for standard-setting and to uphold the principle of the separation of powers in the establishment of the audit, reporting and governance authority. It would not be appropriate to anticipate the contents of the Bill in advance of its publication. However, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that transparency and due process should be at the forefront of standard-setting processes.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I thank the Minister—I think that his answer was yes. The Takeover Panel had to separate itself as a result of the Human Rights Act 1998, and it is long overdue in the field of audit and accounting. Will it be clear in the legislation that the enforcement side should not rely on the same historic legal advice as the standards side on a “true and fair” view? The FRC has relied on controversial legacy legal opinions on a “true and fair” view that were obtained when the big four had significant sway over the FRC and elsewhere. We need to know that ARGA should mean the end of systemic vested interests, including benign vested interests and groupthink, and marking its own homework.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the Financial Reporting Council has put in place transparent procedures which ensure a separation between decision-making on standards and enforcement. The draft Bill will continue the transition of the FRC into a revamped regulator—ARGA—with powers for the setting of standards, including on accounting, reporting and audit. Decisions to open an investigation under FRC enforcement schemes are taken by the Conduct Committee. Once an investigation has opened, case decisions are taken by the FRC executive council or its deputies based on the recommendation from the independent case examiner, which plays no part in standard-setting.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fundamentally wrong that a body funded and populated by corporate and audit industry interests makes the rules which affect distribution of income and risks. Its cognitive capture means that Whitehall reforms are neglected. To take just one example, the audit partner of PwC spent just two hours on the audit of BHS. There are still no disclosures about the audit time budgets, composition of audit teams or lists of questions asked by auditors. Why is the Minister not willing to seek the immediate disclosure of these facts?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. As we know, the UK has certain accounting standards, such as GAAP and the international financial reporting standards. These standards are non-mandatory. However, the Companies Act is very clear that a true and fair view of the accounts must be stated. That is a very high standard, but it is up to the individual or the committee of the company as to what should be reported in the accounts. This new Bill will set much higher standards for companies to abide by.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, can the Government provide assurances that the powers granted to ARGA will not create an overly burdensome regulatory environment that discourages investment in the UK?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. At the end of the day, we would like any regulator to perform the work but not to overburden SMEs or, for that matter, to stifle growth, which is the Government’s number one priority.

[Lord Lemos (Lab)]

My Lords, the creation of a new auditing authority was first mooted in 2018 under the last Government. Despite numerous statements that this is a priority, firm after firm has collapsed, raising new concerns about the adequacy of the UK’s auditing arrangements. While it is of course important that we get this right, can my noble friend reassure your Lordships’ House that we will not have to wait another seven years before we make progress?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out the length of time that it has taken to reach this point. Let us not forget that the collapse of BHS and Carillion caused havoc in the country. It was a wake-up call, when 11,000 people lost their jobs in BHS and 30,000 people lost their jobs in Carillion. Improving auditing standards is an important step, not least to better inform lending and investment decisions. I hope my noble friend will take heart from the fact that this was included in our manifesto commitment and in our first King’s Speech. We look forward to the proposals receiving pre-legislative scrutiny in due course.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration of interests. I thank my noble friend for his answers to the questions, but my heart sinks when he talks about presenting the Bill “in due course” and when he will not even tell us what is actually going to be in it. One area that may be covered in the Bill is the regulation of the actuarial profession. At the moment, we have planning blight. Will he please expedite the process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question and for all the work he has done in the actuarial sector itself. Let us not get ahead of ourselves. The Government are committed to publishing a draft Bill in this Session of Parliament. Until such time, it is important that we do not pre-empt the contents of the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Chancellor has written to other regulators encouraging them to look at ways to help the economy to grow and be more competitive. What are the plans in this area for encouraging growth and competitiveness?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point. It is important that, whichever regulator we have, it is effective. Currently, the regulator has some weaknesses in its powers; the new regulator will, I hope, address those weaknesses. It is important that, when anyone looks at the accounts, investors have confidence to make investment decisions. That will drive business and growth.

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, late last year, the chief executive of the Financial Reporting Council said of the transition to an audit, reporting and governance authority:

“It’s long overdue. It’s the right thing to do. It may sound a bit boring and bureaucratic, but it’s really important”.


Given the highly technical nature of this area, publishing a draft Bill makes sense. However, can the Minister confirm that this process is being used for genuine scrutiny and not to kick proposals into the long grass?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. It is true that these reforms are long overdue, which is why this Government are working on them at pace. My noble friend will understand that I cannot pre-empt any pre-legislative scrutiny process for either the content of the draft Bill or the timing of its introduction. However, we are fully committed to delivering these changes and doing so in a way that ensures that parliamentarians, businesses and wider stakeholders are part of the journey.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister set out some of the recent scandals that have occurred. Can he tell us how many people have gone to jail over those scandals and whether the proposed legislation will hold these people to account?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. I do not know whether anyone has been sent to jail, but I will find out and write to him. It is important that noble Lords recognise that the current regulator has limited powers. The new regulator will have additional powers to ensure that directors are held responsible for their fiduciary duties. It is important that we get it right and that we consult widely, but, at the same time, we do not want to overburden SMEs and other businesses with the new regulator. We are taking our time to make sure that we get it right.

Overseas Companies: UK-registered Subsidiaries

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they provide support or advice to companies domiciled overseas who have set up a UK-registered subsidiary through which to bid for public sector work.

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

My Lords, before answering the noble Lord’s Question, I wish everyone celebrating a happy St Valentine’s day—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Wrong day. I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s day.

The Government provide guidance on GOV.UK to companies seeking to engage in public sector work, including those domiciled overseas which establish a UK-registered company. Additionally, the Government encourage open and fair competition in public procurement, and UK-registered subsidiaries of foreign companies are treated in the same manner as domestic businesses.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. I agree that it is essential that transparency is key to all of this, especially in the defence and security sectors, where I am sure the Minister would agree that a level playing field is absolutely necessary. However, are the Government aware that some non-UK enterprises with only a token presence in the UK seek defence and security work here, and that some of those firms are domiciled in foreign states which actively exclude British companies from competing for contracts under that state’s control? What assurances can the Minister give that British contractors are not the victims of such unacceptable commercial discrimination?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. The UK’s international obligations require us to treat suppliers from other countries on an equal footing with UK suppliers in procurements which are covered by trade agreements with those countries and under WTO arrangements. The requirement for fair and open competition is a two-way street, as it gives UK suppliers access to public procurement opportunities overseas, which is worth close to £1.3 trillion. If the noble Lord has a particular case in mind, perhaps he could speak to me, and I will refer it to officials in the department.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that, when the Covid pandemic broke out, the contract for setting up local testing services was given to two multinational companies, one of which had its headquarters in Miami. Not surprisingly, it put an awful lot of the local testing sites in the wrong places because it had no local knowledge. In awarding public contracts, can the Government be sure that they take issues like that into account? Can they ensure that companies which have most of their work overseas have a proper presence and pay the appropriate level of tax in this country?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. If we have a free trade agreement with a particular country then we have to follow international obligations by allowing foreign companies which have got an office registered in the UK access to public procurement. Obviously, following Covid, the Government are committed to using every means possible to recoup public money lost in pandemic-related fraud and contracts that have not been delivered. The Government are determined to ensure that we go after any contracts that have been committed to under some kind of fraud case. The Government have appointed Tom Hayhoe to be the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner, and he will use every lever to go after any such fraudulent contracts.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from the initial Question, what assistance can Ministers give to British-registered SMEs in procuring public sector contracts?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. It is important that SMEs have fair access to public contracts, which drives economic growth and the strength of public supply chain requirements. All central government departments, including executive agencies and departmental bodies, must set a three-year target for direct spend on SMEs from 1 April this year and a two-year target of direct spend for voluntary, community and social enterprises from 1 April 2026, and they have to report this annually. This is good news for SMEs.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, further to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, as the Minister knows, I have raised on a number of occasions the question of what action is being taken by the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner to recover money from those people who defrauded the Government during the Covid epidemic by providing equipment and other supplies that were not used, and particularly those who used the VIP lane. Members of Parliament and Members of this House were involved in that. We need action quickly; what action has been taken?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, the Government have appointed Tom Hayhoe as the Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner. He will work across all government departments and will draw on the expertise of the Public Sector Fraud Authority, the Government Commercial Function and the Department for Health and Social Care, and will use every means possible to recoup public money lost in pandemic-related fraud and contracts that have not been delivered.

There is evidence to suggest that our standing within international public procurement has been diminished because of what happened during Covid. I assure my noble friend that the Procurement Act 2023 has improved and strengthened public procurement and will prevent all VIP lanes in the future. Section 42 of the Act will ensure that public contracts awarded via direct award will be for only a limited time.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, on the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about value, for any country that we have an FTA with, regardless of how restrictive its domestic procurement laws are, we have to afford it full access under our liberalised procurement laws. This is a concern. The Minister said he would be very happy to look at this, and I am glad he would. I had an amendment to the then Procurement Bill under the previous Government to try to prevent this, but it was knocked back by the previous Government. If the Minister has an open mind on how to resolve the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, could it include looking again at the amendment I tried to persuade the previous Government to adopt?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

What a question. I am afraid I was not in the House when what is now the Procurement Act was going through. Nevertheless, we will bring the noble Lord’s concern to officials in my department.

[The Earl of Courtown (Con)]

My Lords, following my noble friend’s Question, does the Minister’s department have a list of countries in which UK companies are not allowed to bid for public procurement projects? What conversations are the Government having with these countries’ Governments?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that point. The Procurement Act 2023 allows, for the first time ever, the Government to have a list of companies that are debarred from submitting bids for any public contracts. That said, there has always been an exclusion list of companies that have committed fraud or anti-competitive practices. This is done by each individual department. Companies bidding for this will be told that they will not be successful because they are excluded from contracts. We have come a long way from exclusion to debarment, and this list is now in the early stages of being compiled.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the criteria deployed in having companies available to tender for public sector work, bearing in mind the failure of a number of leading companies over a number of years that appear to still be available to tender on the Government’s list?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

That was probably before the Procurement Act. Under the Act, companies that have been excluded will not be allowed to bid for any government contracts. Any companies found to be bid rigging will be debarred from bidding for any public contracts. We have come a long way. The Act has just come into force. Let us allow the Act to take its place and ensure that, whoever bids for the contract, they do so with the value for money that the Government are looking for.

[Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)]

My Lords, is the issue of companies domiciled overseas which have set up a UK-registered subsidiary likely to feature in the upcoming potential trade talks with the United States of America? If so, what will the UK Government’s position be?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As I said in my earlier answer, if there is a free trade agreement with a particular country and it is a member of the WTO, we cannot prevent any other companies that are domiciled overseas with a registered company bidding for public contracts. Likewise, we would not want British companies to be debarred from bidding for international contracts, which amount to around £1.3 trillion.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, why is Fujitsu still being allowed to bid for government contracts when it has made no substantial contribution towards the costs and hardship that it caused as a result of the Horizon scandal?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is trying to tempt me to answer a question that is beyond the scope of this Question. The contract that was awarded to Fujitsu is not a new contract but a continuation of a contract. I do not have the details before me, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, this Bill affects the whole of the United Kingdom. We have been engaging constructively with the devolved Governments throughout its passage. Although their consent has not yet been provided, we are hopeful of securing legislative consent from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is not unusual for issues related to legislative consent to be resolved in the second House, and we hope to be able to have more to say in the other place—we will of course keep noble Lords updated on this.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation. It creates a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces, supporting businesses and protecting consumers. It grants necessary powers to adapt to modern-day safety issues and technological innovation, and to safeguard businesses and consumers from emerging risks.

This Bill is not the same one that entered this House. We have listened carefully to the concerns of all Peers and have proactively made changes in relation to consultation and the use of the affirmative procedure and Henry VIII powers. We have also provided further clarity on definitions in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory controls in place to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and evidence based.

It is fair to say that the Bill has given rise to some interesting debates, passionately and expertly argued by noble Lords across the House. Particularly, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose support during these debates has been invaluable; the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his forthright scrutiny of the Bill, made with his customary charm and good humour; and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his extensive engagement on the Bill. He, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have been crucial in getting the Bill to where it is today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his engagement on the Bill, particularly on standard essential patents. I am glad I have been able to reassure him.

I thank the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, past and present, for their reporting on the Bill, as well as the thorough grilling they gave me and Minister Justin Madders in October last year. I extend my gratitude to the Bill team and the officials supporting the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff and those in my private office, who are instrumental in the continued smooth running of this House.

As we send the Bill to the other place, I believe we do so having fulfilled our role as a scrutinising Chamber with diligence and care. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Frost, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson and Lord Lansley for all their contributions and for raising very important issues throughout the discussions on the Bill. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their openness, collaborative approach and humour—it was very much appreciated.

On these Benches, we take pride in having pushed not only the Government but even the Liberal Democrats —yes, even them—to acknowledge the importance of protecting the pint. Although they were initially resistant, they eventually recognised its value, and we have ensured that the pint will remain untouched.

As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, noted, the Government made some welcome concessions on this Bill, such as the introduction of a requirement for consultation—a very welcome step. However, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, this remains a skeleton Bill. We think it grants excessive power to the Executive with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Whether it is the affirmative procedure or, as once proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the super-affirmative procedure, we will still advocate for greater parliamentary oversight.

The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical. When my noble friend Lord Frost raised the issue, the Government could not rule out as a fact that the Bill could lead to dynamic alignment with the EU.

We still do not think this is a good Bill, but it is much improved. It not only allows for alignment with the EU but risks overregulation, and we confidently suspect that the lawyers will be busy for a while. But it would be churlish to finish on that note, so I once again thank noble Lords opposite for their incredible work on the Bill. I also thank their officials, who often go unremarked in these matters, and our research team led by Henry Mitson, and in particular the indefatigable Abid Hussain, for their enthusiastic and extensive help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have just contributed, and I thank my noble friend for his friendly advice. We have taken the Bill from its early state to where it is today, and obviously it will now go to the other place. I am sure that the noble Lord is right: there will be further deliberation on the Bill, and hopefully we will get it to a better place.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons with amendments.

India and Southeast Asia: Free Trade Agreements

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I am pleased to respond to this QSD. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on securing this debate and thank all noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. I will aim to respond to as many points raised as I can and, if I do not, I promise to write to noble Lords on their unanswered questions.

First, I want to briefly touch on the close relationship between the UK and India. The UK and India have a deep and vibrant relationship, building on the living bridge between our two countries. Some 1.7 million people with Indian heritage call the UK their home, including many of our colleagues in this House and my wife. Our two countries are deeply interwoven through our shared values as democracies committed to the rules-based international order, our cultural ties and—it would be remiss of me not to mention—our shared love of curry and cricket. Our relationship also includes the millions in India who follow the Premier League and the huge market for Bollywood movies in the UK, which I and my wife enjoy most weekends and whose music we occasionally dance to.

Of course, these ties are also visible in our mutual championing of trade—free and fair trade, and investment —which is what we are here to discuss today. This Government’s core mission is to deliver economic growth. Boosting trade abroad is essential to delivering growth at home. That is why this Government are committed to negotiating a comprehensive free trade agreement and bilateral investment treaty with India—one of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

Securing a deal with India is a top priority for this Government and it is easy to see why. India is expected to be the third-largest economy in 2028, with 60 million middle-class consumers by 2030. But UK exporters currently face substantial tariffs, including a 150% tariff on whisky, as one noble Lord mentioned earlier.

Our trading relationship with India was worth £41 billion last year. Our investment relationship already supports close to 600,000 jobs across both economies, with Indian FDI projects in the UK creating more than 7,500 jobs in 2023-24. But there is more that we can do. That is why, on 24 February, my right honourable friend the Business and Trade Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, travelled to India to relaunch negotiations towards a free trade agreement. The bilateral investment treaty that liberalises the trade of goods and services between our countries upholds the UK’s high food safety and environmental standards and protections, and facilitates easier temporary movement of businesspeople to provide their expertise. I am pleased to say that good progress was made and negotiations continue to move forward at pace towards a deal that delivers on our mutual ambitions of economic growth.

I will touch on a couple of points raised by noble Lords before I move on to the issue of trade with south-east Asia. We are aware of India’s ongoing talks with the EU and their stated ambition on a timeline. Although our focus is on delivering a quality agreement rather than any agreement that may be achieved at pace, securing a deal is a top priority for this Government, as it is for India, so we are pleased that progress was achieved in the Secretary of State’s recent visit towards our shared commitment to progress these negotiations at pace.

I hope Members of this House will appreciate that, in order to secure the best deal, I cannot compromise the UK’s negotiating position by getting into the specifics of a live negotiation. In any trade agreement, one of the main ambitions is to reduce the tariffs that UK exporters face. This is particularly important when Indian tariffs can exceed 100% on goods such as whisky, as I mentioned.

On visas, which several noble Lords mentioned, our negotiations consider only business mobility, so they cover only relevant business visas, which are, by their nature, limited, temporary and for specific purposes. This is also beneficial to UK exporters delivering services abroad. Student visas are not part of the trade deals.

The Government have made clear that we are willing to negotiate at pace towards a deal in the best interests of the UK. Although I recognise and agree that we would all like this deal to be speedily signed, the Government can sign only once we have secured the right deal for the UK, so we will prioritise the quality of the deal rather than the haste with which we can secure it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether there are any red lines and, if so, what they are. To achieve the best possible deal for the UK, we need to protect our negotiating positions. That is why we cannot go into details of live negotiations. What I can say is that this Government will seek a deal that drives economic growth for the UK as a whole while respecting key UK sensitivities, such as those in the NHS, our food, and health and safety agreements, which will not change under this or any UK free trade agreement. Any free trade agreement will not undermine the UK’s high sanitary standards, which are not and will not be decided in any trade agreements. The Government are firmly committed to upholding these high standards.

On post-study work visas, which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Loomba, mentioned, I remind all noble Lords that this Government’s position on net migration has not changed, and I make a plea for them to wait for the government White Paper on migration. I am not going to be drawn on this at this stage.

We remain committed to the protection of universal human rights. When we have concerns, they are raised directly with partner Governments, including at ministerial level. This engagement is undertaken separately from negotiations of any free trade agreements, although they are part of building on open and trusting relationships with important partners.

On the issue of CBAM, we will not compromise our high food standards, as I said earlier. We will also not undermine the effectiveness of our CBAM when we are implementing any trade deals.

The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about trade envoys to India. The UK-India trade relationship is a top priority, as I mentioned. The Government will consider the noble Lord’s suggestion. I put on record that we currently have an excellent UK trade commissioner to India, and he is doing a fantastic job.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about ISDS. The Government consider ISDS on a case-by-case basis, and I am not going to pre-empt the outcome of any further negotiations. The noble Baroness also asked about the environment and labour. We cannot use an FTA to change a partner’s domestic legislation, but an FTA builds on a closer relationship to have honest conversations. On intellectual property, I will have to write to the noble Baroness, as that touches on some very complex areas.

I turn to the issue of trade with south-east Asia. I was born and grew up in Malaysia, in the ASEAN region, which has 10 member states with something close to 670 million people and a combined GDP of some £3.6 trillion, and is growing at a rate of 5% annually. It is a big market and we should consider it. The UK recognises the importance of south-east Asian markets to UK businesses and to the global economy. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is right: more Ministers should visit the region, and I encourage my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Business and Trade to consider visiting Malaysia, Singapore and the wider region. I am really pleased that the Minister, Catherine West, is visiting Malaysia this week.

Total trade between the UK and south-east Asian markets is worth about £50 billion, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I want to place on record my thanks for all the work he has done as chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council. He has done a fantastic job.

South-east Asia can be a valuable source of investment and growth for the UK. As we have seen recently, the Malaysian company YTL announced £4 billion-worth of investment in the UK over the next five years, including transforming the Greater Bristol area and delivering something like 30,000 jobs across the UK. The UK has secured bilateral free trade agreements with Singapore and Vietnam through the CPTPP, as mentioned, and it secured an agreement with Brunei and Malaysia for the first time. In February 2022, the UK and Singapore signed a digital economy agreement.

Outside of the formal free trade agreements, the UK has strong trading relationships with south-east Asian countries. The Department for Business and Trade has regular trade and economic dialogues with Singapore, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Malaysia. The UK and Thailand recently signed a UK-Thailand enhanced trade partnership. The UK engages regularly with ASEAN as a dialogue partner, and I think we are the first European dialogue partner to ASEAN. The UK and Indonesia will work towards a new Indonesian-UK economic growth partnership, which is normally the precursor to any formal conversations on a free trade agreement.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about trade diversion. The Government carefully consider the impact on the wider region when negotiating a free trade agreement, and will do so as part of any deal.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about Indonesia and the potential for economic growth. Recognising the importance of Indonesia to the global economy, the Prime Minister and President Prabowo agreed to work towards a new Indonesian-UK economic growth partnership, as I mentioned earlier. The UK values projects such as those that the noble Baroness mentioned, and transnational education is one of the fastest growing sectors for this country.

The noble Lords, Lord Vaizey and Lord Sharpe, asked about future trade agreements. While we cannot currently commit to seeking new FTAs with partners in south-east Asia, it is important that we find ways to enhance our bilateral co-operation and economic ties, and to maintain our trade relationships into the future. That is what we have been doing with enhanced partnerships.

In conclusion, the Indo-Pacific region remains a key and ongoing area of interest for the UK. Its dynamic and developing economies represent opportunities for the UK. I am pleased to see strong progress in our discussions with key partners in this region, ensuring that our future relationships remain mutually beneficial, forward-looking, and supportive of prosperity and economic security.

House adjourned at 5.44 pm.