Employment Rights Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those colleagues who have added their names to Amendment 76 and to the Fatherhood Institute for its help.

I welcome the Bill’s improvements to paternity and parental leave, but they only scratch the surface of a policy that is letting fathers down badly. Moreover, it is disappointing to discover that paternity pay will not be a day one right—an issue addressed by Amendment 139 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which I support. Could my noble friend the Minister explain in her summing up why it will not be?

The amendment calls for a review of parental leave, which was required for drafting purposes, although I know that, in the Commons, the Minister reaffirmed an earlier welcome commitment to a review. The purpose now is to ensure that the review covers a number of key issues relating to fathers’ entitlement to paid leave in their baby’s first year, namely measures designed to improve fathers’ take-up of parental leave, including a “use it or lose it” period and adequate payment, taking account of international examples of best practice; the inclusion of self-employed fathers, who are currently excluded, and others currently ineligible for statutory support; the protection through full employment rights of fathers who take the leave; and the commitment to publish adequate take-up data in future years.

The aim is a simple one, on which I hope we will all agree: to strengthen the rights of fathers/“second parents” to be active parents, which, as I will argue, would thereby also strengthen mothers and prospective mothers’ labour market position. In doing so, it would further the Government’s own aspiration to achieve greater gender equality.

The current situation is pretty woeful as far as fathers are concerned. This has practical and cultural, symbolic effects: it is, in effect, saying that fatherhood is of lesser importance to family life and that, in so far as the labour market accommodates responsibilities for childcare, it need do so only for mothers. If we want to surround boys with positive symbolic messages about masculinity, what better place to start than to give their fathers the time they need to build strong relationships in infancy that last a lifetime, thereby showing that fatherhood is valued?

I do not have the time to give details of what fathers are entitled to compared with mothers, but suffice it to quote the Fatherhood Institute’s evidence to the Women and Equalities Committee’s current inquiry into the issue:

“As well as offering one of the least generous statutory paternity offers in the OECD … the UK is an outlier, especially among higher income countries, in the huge gap (50 weeks) between mothers’ and fathers’ entitlements to leave in the baby’s first year. By 2022 most countries in western Europe had a gap of 12 weeks or less”.


The partial extension of day-one rights does not touch the sides when it comes to the current shoddy treatment of fathers, which has resulted in low paternal take-up of paternity and shared parental leave. Paternity leave is dealt with by the other amendments in this group, so I will focus just on shared parental leave.

Take-up among fathers of the shared parental leave scheme, introduced 10 years ago, is a pitiful 5% of eligible fathers, according to a 2023 government report. The scheme is also skewed against lower-income families, with just 5% of the tiny population of SPL users coming from the bottom 50% of earners. Shared parental leave does not constitute an independent right for fathers: it depends on an entitled mother transferring part of her leave. The Government were warned at the time that this was going to fail in the aim of encouraging fathers to take the leave, and it did. This is in part because of the way the scheme is constructed, in part because the low rate of payment means that many fathers cannot afford to take it, and in part because some, such as self-employed fathers, are excluded altogether.

This matters for fathers, mothers, children and family life, as well as for the Government’s number one priority of economic growth. It matters for fathers because it makes it very difficult for them to play an equal, hands-on role in the upbringing of their infant children, which, increasingly, fathers wish to do. It matters for mothers because, to quote the Women’s Budget Group, of which I am a member:

“Unpaid care is the root cause of women’s economic inequality”.


So long as women carry so much of the responsibility for childcare in the private sphere, they enter the public sphere of the labour market with one hand tied behind their back. Too many women’s careers fall off a cliff when they become mothers. As the Women and Equalities Committee’s call for evidence states:

“Unequal division of childcaring responsibilities is a key driver of … gender inequality and the gender pay gap”.


It matters for children in two-parent families, not just for their relationship with their fathers but also, the evidence suggests, for their educational and cognitive development and overall family relationships. Research indicates that paternal engagement during the first year can foster ongoing engagement until a child is aged at least 11 and that this positive effect builds over time. It matters for families, as it can affect family well-being and stability.

It matters, too, for economic growth. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Centre for Progressive Policy calculate that more generous provision for fathers, earmarked for six weeks, could deliver nearly £2.7 billion net to the wider economy as a result of strengthening mothers’ labour market position.

The amendment requires a review to take account of international examples of best practice, because we have so much to learn from the many countries that are way ahead of us on this issue. In particular, the experience of the Nordic countries and some others, which have for some years included a reserved period of parental leave for fathers on a use-it-or-lose-it basis in their schemes, suggests that this model, together with adequate payment—I emphasise that—is the best way of ensuring fathers take up the leave, leading to a more equitable division of childcare responsibility between parents and enabling mothers to participate in the labour market on more equal terms.

Most see this as a better and more effective model than extending paternity leave, because it separates out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave and, after the first two weeks, it signals clearly that the father can take it at a later date, ideally on his own, helping more mothers resume their employment earlier. As the Fatherhood Institute notes:

“Reserved parental leave for fathers is seen as key to reducing both the gender wage gap and the gendered gap in men’s and women’s participation in paid employment – both of which act as an impediment to economic growth”.


In a book I wrote many years ago on feminist approaches to citizenship, I identified such schemes as a key social policy lever for promoting greater gender equality and recognising the importance of care to men as well as women and to wider society.

Much as I would like to see this as one result of the review, I should stress that the amendment in no way ties the Government’s hands as to this or any other outcome, apart from the provision of adequate take-up data. It could be seen as the soft-cop amendment to the hard-cop amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which would require action now—I do have some sympathy for those, but we are where we are. That said, if the review fails adequately to consider the issues that Amendment 76 raises, then I fear it will be met with widespread derision.

I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to accept the amendment, in this or some other form, as a signal of intent. If not, at the very least, I would ask her to make clear on the record the Government’s acceptance that the current situation disadvantages farmers unfairly and that it must be a clear and explicit aim of the review to create a system that properly supports fathers and other second parents to play a full role in their children’s lives.

At Second Reading, my noble friend she expressed respect for the points that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, made about parental leave and the desire to go further. However, she said that

“we must strike the right balance, while continuing to ensure that this remains a pro-worker, pro-business Bill”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; cols. 1925-26.]

But the current situation is totally unbalanced as between the rights of fathers and mothers. Moreover, workers are gendered beings, and thorough reform of parental leave is in no way anti-business. Indeed, it would help ensure business can benefit fully from the contribution of female as well as male workers and would, as I have said, thereby contribute to economic growth.

Thus, on gender justice and pragmatic economic grounds, I hope the Government will accept the amendment and send a strong symbolic message to male workers that their role as fathers is fully recognised and valued. I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 80 and 136 in my name. These purely clarify an entitlement to paternity leave and really follow on from the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on Amendment 76. Amendment 80 would extend statutory paternity leave to six weeks and allow new fathers to take this leave at any point within the first year after their child’s birth, rather than being restricted to the current 56-day window. At present, eligible fathers are entitled to just two weeks of leave, paid at a rate of less than half of full-time earnings at minimum wage. Take-up remains low and affordability is a major factor; 62% of fathers say they would take more leave if statutory paternity pay was higher.

Greater equality in parenting is essential to achieving greater equality in the workplace. At present, the unequal distribution of caring responsibilities is a major driver of the gender pay gap. On average, a woman’s earnings fall by approximately 40% following the birth of her first child and often do not recover. By contrast, men’s earnings remain largely unaffected.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute to this important Second Reading today. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I acknowledge that this Bill contains several provisions that, if implemented properly, could have a significant positive impact on many individuals. However, as we deliberate, I am mindful that the Bill presents both promise and areas of concern. In particular, I shall focus my remarks on the challenges faced by carers, an often-overlooked but integral part of our society. As the Bill progresses, their needs must be not only considered but prioritised. I shall rely on my noble friend Lord Fox to deal with many aspects of the Bill other than the bits that I am stressing.

First, I turn to paid carer’s leave. While the Government have committed to reviewing the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, I question why we delay a measure that is both necessary and beneficial. The Government recognise that carers’ inability to work costs the economy £37 billion annually. In light of this, paid carer’s leave should be a priority, not an afterthought. This is not an expensive proposal. Carers UK estimates that introducing paid carer’s leave would cost between £5.5 million and £32 million per year, depending on the level of compensation. In return, more than 2 million working carers would benefit, businesses would save billions through improved staff retention and workforce participation would increase. Given these clear advantages, why have the Government excluded this measure? During the passage of what became the Carer’s Leave Act, Members of the now-Government challenged this omission. It is striking that they have not prioritised it themselves. Will the Government commit to including paid carer’s leave in this Bill? To neglect this opportunity would fail both carers and the economy.

Beyond paid leave, employers should be required to consider employees with caring responsibilities in their equality action plans, alongside commitments to closing the gender pay gap and supporting employees experiencing menopause. If we are serious about workplace equality, we must acknowledge the specific challenges that carers face. Furthermore, the Government must prevent discrimination against carers. One solution would be adding caring as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. Many carers face workplace marginalisation and are penalised for their responsibilities. Will the Government explore this reform? Every year, 200,000 people leave the workforce to take on caring responsibilities, costing the economy £8 billion annually. By failing to support carers properly, we harm their well-being and weaken economic potential. Paid carer’s leave would help carers stay in work, strengthening both the labour market and the economy.

Another issue is the recognition of kinship carers. I recently heard of a couple caring for their grandchildren out of love and duty, yet they receive none of the employment rights or support given to foster carers. Is this not an injustice? The Government must consider extending employment rights to kinship carers.

Additionally, I support the Bill’s provisions on third-party harassment in the workplace. I have heard from young women in retail and hospitality who feel sick with anxiety knowing that they will face harassment during their shifts. Their employers must have a duty to protect them. While the Bill takes steps in the right direction—I acknowledge that—stronger action is needed to prevent non-disclosure agreements silencing victims.

I now turn to probationary periods. A balanced approach is needed to protect both employees and employers from unnecessary tribunal costs. I note what the Minister said on statutory sick pay, but will the Government consider a standardised probationary period of, say, three to nine months to provide greater certainty?

We must ask whether this Bill will genuinely drive economic growth. We can judge that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, thinks that it will not, but I would say there is a possibility. Economic growth is one the Government’s cornerstone ambitions. Business leaders and HR professionals I have consulted welcome the Bill’s aims, but question whether it strikes the right balance between employee rights and employer obligations. It must not stifle economic activity, but nor should it miss opportunities for meaningful reform.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the number of amendments in the other place, and I will not repeat those remarks, but I think there were 200 government amendments on Report, which shows a certain amount of indecision, if nothing else.

I agree that this Bill is driven by noble intentions, but it risks becoming a tangled quagmire of complex employment bureaucracy, with uncertainty over whether it will genuinely recalibrate the balance between employers and employees in a way that promotes fair and productive employment. A Member in the other place—I like this—likened it to Snow White’s apple: appealing in appearance but ultimately sending the economy into a slumber. Let us ensure that this Bill is not a missed opportunity but a transformative step forward for carers, families and our nation’s economic future.

Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for their comments. I agree entirely with all that they said. We on these Benches support the Bill in its limited objectives. It simply provides financial power to the Secretary of State for expenditure on the compensation scheme and, as the Minister said, removes the deadline of 7 August to give people more time to claim, as recommended by the statutory inquiry. It also allows expenditure on other compensation schemes. The design of those schemes is not, unfortunately, within the remit of the Bill. We urgently need the Minister to confirm, as he suggested when he spoke earlier, that these matters will happen speedily. There is no reason to delay.

There needs to be a new rule and, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, postmasters and postmistresses should be presumed innocent and all convictions, past or present, should be overturned. She used the word “exoneration” and mentioned other elements. If someone committed an offence and gets through because these convictions are quashed, that is a price that we hope will not be needed, but should be paid.

There have been lots of accusations in the Tory-controlled press seeking to make political capital out of personal disasters to postmasters and postmistresses. Let it be clear that no Minister of any party could have been expected to disbelieve the appalling—the word used by the Minister—lies and misinformation they received from senior civil servants and senior Post Office executives. There have been multiple Ministers—a long list—over this period. None of them deserves to be accused of anything other than believing the lies told to them by people they should have had the right to rely on.

The noble Baroness talked about Fujitsu. I understand that Fujitsu had always said that the only people who had access to these accounts were the postmasters and postmistresses, and therefore, if there was any error, it was the postmasters and postmistresses; it could not be Fujitsu. But we now find that at its headquarters, Fujitsu had the ability to access those accounts and to make alterations—maybe for the best of reasons and to iron out bugs—and was doing so. That is what happens with computer systems, but its interference may well have created a lot of these problems.

I practise as an FCA and had a long career as a partner in firms of chartered accountants. It would not be unusual for a client to say to me, “Monroe, we have a wonderful new system we are going to introduce for our accounting” or financials. I would look at the system and say, “Well, it looks all right”. But I would always say—and I imagine that all qualified accountants would say—that you should run the old system in tandem, in parallel with the new system for a period of six months or so, to see if there are any glitches in the new system. You have not burned all your bridges: they are still there.

The latest technology may be all singing and dancing, but you should still be looking at, in this case, keeping the paper-based system. Only when no sizeable discrepancies emerge could the old system be jettisoned, and that did not happen. This is elementary accountancy. This is not high-blown computer stuff. Can the Minister say whether senior civil servants and Post Office employees had any grounding in such mundane knowledge and experience? I believe that they may have been highly qualified, but I am of the opinion that their accountancy knowledge was pretty limited. Can the Minister confirm that in future—because we have got to look at the future now—the Government will not put all its eggs in one computer basket?

Also, since we are talking not just about the compensation Bill but the background to it, can he tell the House what auditing took place? Surely there would have been internal audits at the Post Office and at departmental level. There are audits all over the place, but do we hear anything about them? What was the role, or lack of role, of the National Audit Office? Surely we have a right to look to them as well. It is no defence from these auditors that certain bodies were outside their jurisdiction. I have had the honour to be the chairman of the audit committee of a Tory borough, the London Borough of Barnet, for eight years. The audit committee dealt with all the activities of the various departments. What we have is like a traffic-light signal—was it red, was it orange, was it green? If it was red or orange, I required the manager of each department to come to the committee and explain why there was this error, why there was this poor report, and to say what they are going to do in the future. That worked pretty well, but then there was a glitch—a glitch that is very relevant to the system which we are talking about now. The officers said, “Oh, that wasn’t our officers; we outsourced it”. In this case, in the London Borough of Barnet, it was to Capita, the computer company. Therefore, “We can’t tell you about that because Capita did it”. I said that the directors of Capita had to come to the London Borough of Barnet audit committee and explain why it was wrong and how they were going to justify it. They objected, saying, “Well, we’re not part of your organisation; we are outside”, as we are talking about in this instance. However, I insisted that they came, justified, put right and acknowledged the problems that were there.

Can we have less, please, of the party-political posturing and more of a look at how IT, without a knowledge of accountancy, can be a dangerous animal? The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, used the words, “an appalling scandal”. It is an appalling scandal. We cannot stop it being an appalling scandal, but we must make sure that the postmasters and postmistresses are absolved, whether they might be guilty or not guilty. I am assuming that they are not guilty but, assuming even that somebody gets through who might have been guilty, I still feel that they all should be absolved because they were part of the system which was deficient at the maximum because it did not do what any basic qualified accountant would have done.

From these Benches we support this Bill, but we hope that the Minister will take aboard our comments about the future.

Horizon: Compensation and Convictions

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrat Benches.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, following on from what the Minister said, could he explain the role of the audit committees, at any level, and the National Audit Office? Where were they in this scandal? There are audit committees and they had a role to play. The elementary precaution used by all firms of accountants is that, when a new system is put in place, you run a parallel system for a few months to make sure there are no errors. Why was that not done?

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to raise these points. This is what the Williams inquiry will be looking at in fine detail. My understanding of the situation is that there was no shortage of committees all over this terrible saga, but there was a shortage of good judgment, inquiring minds, sympathy and common sense. These questions will all be answered. They need to be run through the Williams committee, and we need to know the answers to all of these. I know that he will do his work in great detail.

Workers’ Rights

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

I agree with the noble Earl’s comments about the importance of self-employed individuals, who are the backbone of this country—I have been one myself in the past. That is why, in what I thought was a fabulous Autumn Statement, designed to power this economy forward into the future, the Government and the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday cut various sections of national insurance contributions for self-employed people, not simply allowing them to keep more hard-earned money from their work but making their lives easier, which is a fundamental principle of this Conservative Government.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, the Government made a commitment not to reduce the standards of workers’ rights when EU law was retained. If new EU law improved the standards of workers, what would the Government’s reaction be?

[Lord Johnson of Lainston (Con)]

The Government have rightly maintained a whole series of sections of EU law that allow workers to be properly treated. We are also consulting on a range of other areas where we can ensure that workers’ rights are protected—but, I am pleased to say, under British rather than European law.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (The Earl of Minto) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 13 September 2023. This statutory instrument will help ensure that so-called live-in domestic workers will be paid at least the national minimum wage for the time that they are working. The live-in domestic worker exemption was part of the National Minimum Wage Regulations and provides that work done by a worker residing in the employer’s family home and treated as a member of the family is not work for the purposes of the national minimum wage and therefore does not have to be paid the national minimum wage. The exemption was originally created mainly to cater for au pairs, so that they should gain experience of cultural exchange through living and being a part of a family in the UK, although the legislation covers other types of domestic workers as well.

Currently, the National Minimum Wage Regulations state that workers do not need to be paid the minimum wage if they live with their employer and are genuinely treated as part of the family. Such treatment is particularly expressed in the provision of living accommodation and meals, sharing of tasks and leisure activities. The exemption is not compatible with most jobs, and it is hard to prove whether someone is or is not being treated as a family member. The removal of the exemption will remove the inequality facing these workers, who are more likely to be migrant workers and women.

In 2016, an employment tribunal judgment considered whether the exemption indirectly discriminates against women, as such workers tend to be women. The employment tribunal found the exemption had given rise to unjustified indirect discrimination, and thus the exemption was disapplied in this case. After the employment tribunal judgment on live-in domestic workers was published, the Government asked the Low Pay Commission to research low-paid live-in domestic workers.

In 2021, the Low Pay Commission published research into the live-in domestic worker exemption. During the gathering of this research, the commissioners came to a consensus conclusion that the exemption should be removed. The Low Pay Commission heard evidence of employers using the exemption to exploit domestic workers, often non-British nationals, who were required to work long hours and were not fully treated as members of the family. They found examples of domestic workers suffering abuse, including physical abuse, with little recourse for enforcing their employment rights. The commission found that the exemption is rarely being used for its intended main purpose, as in practice there are now few au pairs in the UK.

The Low Pay Commission’s extensive evidence in 2021 on this issue provided a clear recommendation to government that the exemption should be removed. The Government accepted the Low Pay Commission recommendations and announced that the live-in domestic worker exemption would be removed in March 2022. During this period, the employment tribunal decision was appealed, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreed earlier this year that the exemption should be disapplied. These decisions established the removal of the exemption as a matter of case law.

Taking into account the existing case law and other more general legislation, live-in domestic workers have reasonable arguments that they are entitled to be paid the national minimum wage. However, this is not a matter of certainty, and therefore with the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations we are putting the matter beyond doubt by amending our regulations to remove the exemption from the date that the amendment comes into force. In the meantime, we recommend that live-in domestic workers are paid the national minimum wage in this short interim period.

These amendment regulations remove uncertainty and the risk of accidental national minimum wage non-compliance within this workforce. These regulations need to be put forward to make sure that the workers, and the families that hire these workers, are able to clearly understand the national minimum wage laws for live-in domestic workers. These amendment regulations will ensure that live-in domestic workers are paid at least the relevant minimum wage rate, providing protection from exploitative low pay.

HMRC will enforce the national living and minimum wage for this group, in line with other sectors. HMRC enforces the national minimum wage in line with the law and policy set by DBT. HMRC follows up on every worker complaint it receives, even those which are anonymous. This includes complaints made to the ACAS helpline, via its online complaint form and those received from other sources.

The policy will ensure that all work is treated fairly and will end the misuse of the exemption to exploit workers, particularly migrant women. The overwhelming majority of workers covered by this exemption are employed by families, not by businesses. The impact on businesses will therefore be negligible. However, many vulnerable workers will now enjoy the same protections that almost all other employees receive.

As live-in domestic workers will be entitled to the national living and minimum wage, I would like to remind the House of the achievements of the national living and minimum wage. The Government remain committed to their ambitious target for the national living wage to equal two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, provided that economic conditions allow. We look forward to announcing the 2024 rates in due course. The national living wage, which applies to those aged 23 and over, increased to £10.42 an hour in April 2023. As a result of this increase, a full-time worker on the national living wage has seen their annual pay increase in excess of £1,600 per annum. This increase ensured that our national living wage rate remains one of the highest in the world.

These regulations will provide clarity to live-in domestic workers and the families who employ these workers. With this exemption removed in legislation, there will be no ambiguity between what is in case law and the statute book. Through the national minimum wage and the national living wage the Government protect the lowest paid within our society. It is right that we ensure that the lowest paid are fairly rewarded for their contribution to the economy, and ensuring live-in domestic workers are entitled to the national living wage is vital to achieving this. Protecting workers’ rights, especially those of vulnerable workers, is a priority for this Government and therefore we have taken action to remove this exemption.

This does not remove the right to have a live-in domestic worker, such as an au pair or other domestic staff; it just removes the right to pay them less than the national minimum wage. This is the right thing to do to help protect these vulnerable workers and make it clear that our legislation reflects the case law on this issue.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I thank the noble Earl for his comprehensive introduction to this SI, which deals with regulations as to work in a family household, and rightly seeks to protect such workers by acknowledging their rights as workers and not as some inferior being. On my Benches, we support this new regulation.

The Minister expanded beyond this SI, for which I am grateful, so can I use the opportunity to say to the Minister that this is only one such unfair anomaly? Could I also call attention for the need of the abolition of the separate apprenticeship wage? I had a briefing from the End Child Poverty coalition, which talked about how this is a barrier to young people from less well-off backgrounds going into apprenticeships, because they are not sustainable.

Could I also ask for an assessment on the policy of having different wages for different ages? Is this the right thing to do? The cost of living is the same no matter how old you are, and it is hugely ignorant of the Government to assume that young people will be able to have support from their families.

Finally, unfairness goes right through the system. Could the Minister comment on the policy of paying under 25s less universal credit? This is punitive, particularly for young parents and care leavers. Again, we cannot assume that parents can or will give financial support to their adult children.

I welcomed the Minister’s expansion on this SI, and what the Government are doing, but I have tried to point out that there are still some gaps, which I hope the Government will remove in ensuing legislation and statutory instruments.

Employers: Fire and Rehire Tactics

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

As I said, when we look at the standards of employment law against our competitors in Europe, we have a strong labour market, a strong rate of employment and a long-established suite of protections for all our workers, employees and self-employed people.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, what is the assessment of the Minister’s department of how much compensation would have been received if the proposed guidance had been in force when P&O sacked hundreds of its employees? As another noble Lord said, 25% of nothing is nothing; it is all smoke and mirrors.

[Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising that rather infamous case. What P&O did was illegal. It was not fire and rehire but dismiss and replace. It would remain illegal whether or not the code had been in place, and P&O has received considerable censure as a result. The code, which will come through in the spring, will give real guidance and protection to both employers and workers.

Workers (Predictable Terms and Conditions) Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Bill but it is flawed. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, and as the mover said, it is a step on the way, with limited use. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, for bringing it to this House for us to discuss.

The Bill establishes a new statutory right for more predictable working patterns, but the person has to have been with the same employer for a set amount of time. Can the Minister say what the Government understand to be the length of that time?

I would like to think that all sides of this House would agree that insecure work is deplorable, and the Bill is a small step towards alleviating that problem. Do the Government support it? It is a Private Member’s Bill which passed through the Commons, but what is the Government’s position on it now?

Can the Minister explain how the Bill affects flexible working? There was a consultation on workers’ rights to reasonable hours and what happens if shifts are cancelled. How is that affected by the Bill’s being passed in this House? As was said by other noble Lords, almost 4 million people are in insecure work: agency workers, casual workers and seasonal workers. Can the Minister say whether work has been done in identifying those paid less than the national living wage? Can he also say whether it is correct that over 1 million workers are on zero-hours contracts?

There are extensive grounds for employers to reject applications, even with the Bill we have before us: costs; not being able to satisfy customers; recruitment; harming business—the list goes on. The Bill is a veritable minefield for the employee who we are aiming to protect. It is a step on the way but it is a minefield. Is a complaint to a tribunal a feasible remedy? I recently spoke, as did the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the flexible working Bill. Can the Minister say how the two Bills interact, because there are two Bills?

What is required is that people have secure jobs with proper rights and fair pay. This Bill is part, but only part, of that requirement. Changes in technology and the nature of employment have outgrown the existing system of employment rights and protections. The aim is to make work pay and ensure that there are good and well-paid jobs available for people to do. This is for the benefit of workers, employers and the wider community.

There is a need to establish an independent review to consult on how to get a genuine living wage across all sectors. This living wage should be paid in all central government departments and their agencies, while other sector employers are to be encouraged to do the same. We would establish a powerful new worker protection employment authority to protect those in precarious work and change the law so that flexible working, which we refer to again and again, is open to all from day one in the job, with employers required to advertise jobs accordingly, unless there are significant business reasons why that is not possible.

We need to modernise employment rights to make them fit for the age of the gig economy, so we would establish a new dependent contractor employment status, between employment and self-employment, with entitlements to basic rights, minimum earnings levels, sick pay and holiday entitlement. We also need to review the tax and national insurance status of employees, dependent contractors and freelancers to ensure fair and comparable treatment, perhaps setting a 20% higher minimum wage for people on zero-hours contracts at times of normal demand to compensate them for the uncertainty of their fluctuating hours of work. Giving on request a fixed-hours contract to zero hours and agency workers after 12 months should not be unreasonably refused. We also need to shift the burden of proof in employment tribunals regarding employment status from the individual to the employer.

Although I welcome the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said before me, there are lots of gaps that need to be filled. We seem to be nibbling around the edges, with a Bill last week or the week before and now this Bill today. These are very welcome, but we need to hear some comprehensive reply from the Minister as to how workers are really going to be protected.

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, very much for so comprehensively introducing the Bill. We on these Benches support the Bill, which in my view should have been a government Bill in government time, it is so important. However, we welcome the Government’s support for it. As has been made clear by all previous speakers, the Bill makes provision in relation to the rights of employees and other workers to request variations in terms and conditions of employment, including working hours, times and locations. This will benefit not only the employee but the employer.

I was particularly impressed by the submissions we received on behalf of people with MS, which were mentioned in passing by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and I will dwell on a bit longer. Flexible working can help people with MS better to manage their symptoms and stay in work longer. This could include later starting times, condensed hours and working from home.

People such as those with MS should have more confidence that they can work flexibly. As a legal default, everyone should have the flexible option from day one of employment. The onus should be on the employer to show that flexible working is not possible. I would appreciate the Minister’s assurance on this. We have been forced to adopt new ways of working during Covid. How can these new ways of working be embedded in our normal ways of working? If it is in any way practical, we should move to flexible working. The noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, mentioned very much that it should be in force from day one. I would like the Minister’s assurance on that. Also, when employers and employees are wondering about flexible working, they should explore the alternatives. There can be alternatives, and they should be explored.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, in a very wide-ranging speech, said that academics had said that there would be no effect on productivity. That is an important part of why some people are against flexible working—they believe it will have an effect. However, in practice the problem is almost the other way. Many people who are flexibly working, from home or in any other workplace, very often work harder than if they were working from nine to five. The problem is stopping people working in their leisure hours. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made an important point about interns, who can be made to work harder than if they were just a normal employee. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, went to my heart when she referred to one of my mentors, Baroness Nancy Seear, a wonderful parliamentarian and person, whom I was glad to count as a friend in all my years in the Liberal Party and the Liberal Democrats.

The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Holmes, spoke about consultation being important. This is not a confrontation matter, but a matter of consultation between employer, employee and those advising them. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke about how flexible the law should be, and that is really what we are talking about now. It should also be employee-led. The employer should not be leading on this, and there should be no unreasonable demands by the employers.

There is always the problem that I describe as “talking around the water cooler”. I have always thought that the real benefit of working in one place is that you can often deal with the problems by the watercooler, rather than by having formal meetings. In fact, we have moved so far from that now, because so much is done on the telephone and the computer, the internet, Zoom and whatever, that perhaps watercoolers are out of use.

Will the Government review the wider implications of home working on different groups of home workers, so that we have the best possible understanding of the economic impact of this shift in working practices? From these Benches, we heartily support the Bill. It is a move very much in the right direction and I hope that the Government will fully support it.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Johnson of Lainston) (Con)]

My Lords, the purpose of these regulations, which were laid before the House on 30 January 2023, is to raise the national living wage and the national minimum wage rates on 1 April 2023.

The strength of the UK labour market remains something to be proud of. Unemployment is low, the number of employees on payrolls is 1 million above pre-pandemic levels and demand for workers remains close to record levels. The Government’s overarching priority is to achieve sustained economic growth. Our commitment to a high-skilled, high-productivity, high-wage economy will further address cost of living pressures, as well as levelling up every part of the UK and hastening the transition to net zero.

However, we recognise the impact of inflation for people right across the country, which is why this Government have continued to take robust action. This year sees the largest cash increase in the history of the minimum wage, and, once these measures come into force, the national living wage will have risen more than twice as fast as inflation since its introduction in 2015. Furthermore, benefit payments and the state pension will increase by 10.1% in April, in line with September’s CPI inflation rate. We have also delivered a package of measures, including the energy price guarantee, which has saved a typical UK household around £900 across the winter, and hundreds of pounds-worth of support in the form of cost of living payments targeted towards the vulnerable households that need it most.

I turn to the detail of the national living wage and national minimum wage regulations, which will come into force on 1 April. Following a comprehensive impact assessment prepared and published by the Government, we estimate that 2.9 million workers will receive a pay rise across the United Kingdom. I am pleased to confirm that the Government have accepted all the rate recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission in October 2022. The Low Pay Commission is an independent body which conducts expert research and analysis and brings together input from representatives of business and workers. I thank it for its tireless efforts.

The Government remain committed to their ambitious target for the national living wage to equal two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, provided that economic conditions allow. This will have the effect of ending low pay in the UK in line with the OECD definition, and this year’s increases keep us on course to achieve that target. Under the new regulations, the national living wage, which applies to those aged 23 and over, will increase to £10.42 an hour. This is an increase of 9.7% or 92p. As a result, a full-time worker on the national living wage will see their annual pay before tax rise from £17,300 to over £18,900—an increase in excess of £1,600. This also ensures our national living wage rate remains one of the highest in the world. According to the Low Pay Commission, as of the start of 2022 the UK had the fourth highest minimum wage rate in Europe.

These regulations will also increase the national minimum wage rates for younger workers and apprentices, as well as the accommodation offset. Workers aged 21 and 22 will be entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £10.18, representing an increase of £1 or 10.9%. This narrows the gap with the 23 and over rate and keeps this group on course to receive the full entitlement to the full national living wage by 2024—another ambitious target set by this Government. Those aged between 18 and 20 will be entitled to a minimum rate of £7.49 an hour, an extra 66p, while those aged under 18 will be entitled to a minimum rate of £5.28 an hour, an extra 47p. Both these changes represent an increase of 9.7%. Apprentices under 19 or those in the first year of their apprenticeship will also receive an increase of 9.7%, as their rate rises from £4.81 to £5.28.

Finally, on the detail of the regulations, the accommodation offset will also be increasing. This is the maximum daily amount that an employer can charge a worker for accommodation without it affecting their pay for minimum wage purposes; it will be rising by 4.6% from £8.70 to £9.10. The Low Pay Commission has made recommendations about the future of the accommodation offset in its recent report. The Government are continuing to consider them carefully and will issue a full response in due course.

These regulations aim to reward the lowest paid workers in every sector and in every part of the country for their contribution to our economy. We are aware of cost of living pressures and will continue to closely monitor all the impacts of increases to the national living wage and national minimum wage rates. To that end, the Government will shortly publish this year’s remit to the Low Pay Commission and ask it to provide recommendations for the rates which will apply from April 2024.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the report on this statutory instrument. I note that, only a few minutes ago in the Chamber, the Minister answered an Oral Question and gave a lot of information related to what we are discussing here. I thank him for that information as well. He said that we do things in bits to get them through. In a sense, it is not very clear when you are doing it “in bits” what the whole picture is.

The increases in minimum wage must be welcomed; of course, we welcome them. But they are not that generous, as £10.42 per hour times, say, 35 hours over a seven-day week is only £364. I wonder if we really consider that anybody can manage on that sort of sum in our large conurbations—£364, if you manage to do 35 hours. It should be more.

The Minister kindly gave us the detail that in October 2022, five months ago, these were considered to be the increases that ought to happen. The question I ask him to consider, because we are doing this five months later, is how up to date those figures are. Should they be more generous? As a start, perhaps we should consider an independent review to consult on how to set a genuine living wage across all sectors. For instance, we could pay the living wage in all central government departments and their agencies and encourage other public sector bodies to do likewise. It is important to set minimum wages at appropriate levels, including setting a 20% higher minimum wage for those on zero-hours contracts at a time of normal demand to compensate for the fluctuations in their hours of work. This statutory instrument takes no account of that.