Employment Rights Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, for introducing this amendment. I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the very powerful personal testimony he has given in this House. It is never easy; there is nothing more difficult for any parent than to walk the pathway of the serious illness or death of a child. In fact, at best it is often a very lonely pathway that lasts not simply until the time of the child’s passing, but for many years after.

This is a very compassionate amendment, and I trust that the House will support it. I am happy to support it if the noble Baroness puts it to a vote.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I speak for these Benches in support of Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Noble Lords will remember that it was regrouped, and I referred to it in an earlier debate, as so many of these issues are interlinked. Rightly, it introduces a right for parents to take paid leave

“to care for a child between the ages of 29 days and 16 years who is receiving … specified types of medical or palliative care”.

The amendment is a valuable addition that recognises the significant demands placed on families caring for seriously ill children. I was amazed when I discovered that our laws provide only for parents of babies under 28 days via the neonatal care Act.

I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, very moving, and I thank him for sharing that sad history with us. This is a sad history, and we are just trying to put right the problems in some way. It has been referred to as Hugh’s law, after the child diagnosed with cancer, and I think that is how many of us will remember it.

Amendment 97 would close the gap and create a stand-alone entitlement, modelled on neonatal leave, to ensure that no parent is forced to choose between their child and their livelihood. The proposal, according to figures I have, would cost between just £6 million and £7 million a year, yet the difference it would make to families in crisis is immeasurable. It is targeted and reasonable, and it is a compassionate step forward to protect some of the most vulnerable working families in the UK. It is a positive and complementary amendment, and I commend it to the House.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

98: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to be accompanied by a certified professional companion(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert— “(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a professional body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(8) In this section, “professional body” means any organisation which is authorised by regulations made by statutory instrument.”.(4) In section 42 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (orders and regulations), after “3,” insert “10(8),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. It would also give the Secretary of State the power to authorise such bodies by regulation, subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring parliamentary oversight.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, currently only a fully certified trade union representative or a colleague has the statutory right to accompany an employee to a hearing. In practice, this leaves the vast majority of workers in the UK—77.7%—to navigate proceedings alone or, worse, to be accompanied by an inappropriate companion, who may frustrate the process or cause inadvertent detriment to the worker’s case.

We all receive briefings from numerous organisations, which contribute to our debate. The last one I received today was on this issue, so I read it to see how I could incorporate it in my speech. It was from the TUC and said that only the trade unions could possibly represent people, which confirms my words and adds weight to this amendment. An amendment to the Bill is desperately needed to guarantee that all workers, regardless of their membership of a trade union, enjoy the right to be accompanied by a dedicated and trained companion during workplace disputes. This would ensure transparency, fairness and due process, as trained companions ensure that both employees and employers have a robust safeguard against unfair treatment and misunderstanding.

This sensible amendment would give rights to people who are very often not in a trade union-recognised organisation. The trade unions can still represent, but they do not have to be the only people to represent. This amendment, I feel, fills that gap. I beg to move.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, Amendment 99 seeks to remove the restriction that only trade union representatives or a work colleague may accompany an employee to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Londesborough, for supporting what is a modest and practical but important change to employment law. It would give workers the right to be accompanied to a hearing by someone they trust, somebody of their choosing—perhaps a family friend, a carer or a person from the relevant industry. It is about fair play and equal treatment, ends a one-size-fits-all effective union monopoly and is simply empowering and modernising.

My amendment is similar to Amendment 98 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which would expand the list of those who could accompany workers to include trained and certified companions. I support the principle behind the noble Lord’s proposal but fear that its certification regime is unnecessarily complicated, could result in delays and inconsistencies and could create bureaucratic barriers, especially for staff cohorts such as young employees unfamiliar with the bureaucratic paraphernalia of such procedures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

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

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend. In my view, these proposals are long overdue. When my children were born in the 1990s, paternity leave was not even part of the conversation. Much has changed but the statutory provision for paternity leave, currently just two weeks, still reflects a significant imbalance in the pursuit of gender equality. I am fortunate to work for the same employer— Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker—as I did at that time. It now offers 16 weeks’ paternity leave, to be taken within the first year after the child’s birth.

We have heard that the UK ranking in international standards is low. For many fathers, especially as household costs rise, taking time off is simply not financially viable, even if permitted. Better paternity leave benefits everyone: fathers; mothers; the child; the other children, if there are any; and, in the long term, the economy, as we have heard.

Although I recognise that the four months offered by my company may not be realistic for all, particularly SMEs, we must aim for a fair balance between the business realities and family needs. Research shows that around six weeks of leave is the point at which the broadest benefits are achieved, as proposed in Amendment 100. I believe that this is a reasonable balance and would make paternity leave viable for most fathers.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I have signed this amendment in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I will not add to what many noble Lords have said, but I want to deal with one point.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, talked about being too prescriptive. We need such prescription to help new fathers. The idea that this is mind-boggling is ridiculous. It would extend paternity leave from two weeks to six weeks, at 90% of pay. We are not talking about a revolution. We are talking about a modest increase to make some connection between fathers and their children in their very early years. It is needed, because the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. It is good for fathers, bonding and mental health. It supports mothers, with a more equal division of care, and it is good for children’s development. It supports business, because employees will be happier, more contented and not stressed with trying to get back to the family home and their young children. This is not revolutionary. This is a modest step forward. I was delighted to be able to sign the amendment of the noble Baroness Penn, which we on these Benches support.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Penn for bringing forward this amendment, which raises matters of genuine importance to families, working parents and, frankly, society as a whole.

The arguments that my noble friend has made for extending non-transferable paid leave for fathers and second parents is a serious and well-intentioned one. A more balanced system of leave can play a role in promoting gender equality, increasing participation in the labour market and supporting children in their earliest years. As my noble friend explained, it is therefore good for fathers, mothers and children.

I wholeheartedly agree that we should continue to review and refine our parental leave system so that it remains fit for the realities of modern working life. The commitment in proposed new subsection (1) to a comprehensive review is, in itself, a sensible and comprehensive step. I note that this was a manifesto commitment that should have been completed by now, yet the Government are only just starting it. Given the Government’s enthusiasm for consultation, that seems curious to say the least.

We must recognise and acknowledge the broader context in which we find ourselves. The Employment Rights Bill, as it stands, already promises to impose significant new obligations on businesses, at a time when many are still struggling with the increase to employer national insurance contributions, the Government’s constant U-turns, inflation and ongoing global economic uncertainty. Frankly, the Government have asked a great deal of British businesses in the last year—too much, in the view of many—and the effect of these measures has been entirely negative, undermining growth, reducing our competitiveness and rapidly stifling job creation, especially at the margins. If the Government were to think again and accept some of our perfectly reasonable amendments—on the right to request an unfair dismissal, for example—it would be easier to argue in favour of amendments such as this, which could be implemented after careful consultation with business.

While the intentions behind this amendment are commendable and there is certainly room for discussion about the long-term evolution of paternity and shared parental leave, without wider changes from the Government to their most damning plans, this is not the time, nor the Bill, in which to make these commitments. However, I hope the Government will continue to engage seriously with the questions and the comprehensive arguments advanced by my noble friend, and that we will revisit them in a context that allows for a comprehensive economic and perhaps demographic evaluation, along with genuine and meaningful consultation with businesses of all sizes and shapes, and indeed wider society as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

104: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Statutory carer’s leave pay(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After Part 12ZE insert—“Part 12ZFStatutory carer’s leave pay171ZZ25 Entitlement(1) Any person who satisfies the conditions in subsection (2) and any condition prescribed under subsection (3) is entitled in accordance with the following provisions of this Part to payments to be known as “carer’s leave pay”.(2) The pay conditions are—(a) that the person satisfies prescribed conditions as to carer’s leave;(b) that the person has been in employed earner’s employment with an employer.(3) Regulations may provide that a person is not entitled to pay in respect of carer’s leave unless, at the beginning of that period of leave, the person is in employed earner’s employment with the employer by reference to whom the condition in subsection (2)(b) is satisfied.(4) For the purposes of this Part “carer’s leave” means carer’s leave under section 80J of the Employment Rights Act 1996.171ZZ26 Entitlement supplementary(1) A person is entitled to payments of statutory carer’s leave pay in respect of any relevant period only if the person gives notice to whoever is liable to make the payments stating the days or half days in respect of which they are to be made.(2) Regulations may provide for the time by which notice under subsection (1) must be given.(3) The notice must be in writing if the person who is liable to pay the statutory carer’s leave pay so requests.(4) Regulations may set out the definition, type and manner of leave to be taken. (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) provide for amounts earned by a person under separate contracts of service with the same employer to be aggregated for the purposes of section 171ZZ25;(b) provide that—(i) the amount of a person’s earnings for any period, or(ii) the amount of the person’s earnings to be treated as comprised in any payment made to the person for the person’s benefit,is to be calculated or estimated for the purposes of section 171ZZ25 in such a manner and on such a basis as may be prescribed, and that for that purpose payments of a particular class or description made or falling to be made to or by a person shall, to such extent as may be prescribed, be disregarded or, as the case may be, deducted from the amount of a person’s earnings.(6) Where an employee is entitled to leave under this section the employee is entitled to leave during any period within 12 months, for which statutory carer’s leave pay is payable.171ZZ27 Liability to make payments(1) The liability to make payments of statutory carer’s leave pay under section 171ZZ25 is a liability of any person of whom the person entitled to the payments has been an employee as mentioned in subsections (2)(b) and (3) of that section.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision as to a former employer’s liability to pay statutory carer’s leave pay to a former employee in any case where the employee’s contract of service with the employer has been brought to an end by the employer solely, or mainly, for the purpose of avoiding liability for carer’s leave pay.(3) The Secretary of State may, with the concurrence of the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, by regulations specify circumstances in which, notwithstanding this section, liability to make payments of statutory carer’s leave pay is to be a liability of the Commissioners.171ZZ28 Rates and periods of pay(1) Statutory carer’s leave pay is payable at such a fixed or earnings-related rate as may be prescribed by regulations.(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend the fixed or earnings-related rate of pay as prescribed by regulations in subsection (1) above.(3) Statutory carer’s leave pay is payable in respect of—(a) such a day or half day within the qualifying period, or(b) such number of days or half days not exceeding the prescribed number of days or half days,as the person entitled may choose in accordance with regulations.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(b) must secure that the prescribed number of days is not less than half a day.(5) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) may permit a person entitled to receive statutory carer’s leave pay to choose to receive such pay in respect of non-consecutive periods.(6) Regulations may make provision where, for any purpose of this Part or of regulations, it is necessary to calculate the daily rate or half-daily rate of statutory carer’s leave pay.171ZZ29 Restrictions on contracting out(1) An agreement is void to the extent that it purports— (a) to exclude, limit or otherwise modify any provision of this Part, or(b) to require a person to contribute (whether directly or indirectly) towards any costs incurred by that person’s employer or former employer under this Part.(2) An agreement between an employer and an employee authorising any deductions from statutory carer’s leave pay which the employer is liable to pay to the employee in respect of any period is not void by virtue of subsection (1)(a) if the employer—(a) is authorised by that or another agreement to make the same deductions from any contractual remuneration which the employer is liable to pay in respect of the same period, or(b) would be so authorised if the employer were liable to pay contractual remuneration in respect of that period.171ZZ30 Relationship with contractual remuneration(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), any entitlement to statutory carer’s leave pay does not affect any right of a person in relation to remuneration under any contract of service (“contractual remuneration”).(2) Subject to subsection (3)—(a) any contractual remuneration paid to a person by an employer of that person in respect of any period is to go towards discharging any liability of that employer to pay statutory carer’s leave pay to that person in respect of that period, and(b) any statutory carer’s leave pay paid by an employer to a person who is an employee of that employer in respect of any period is to go towards discharging any liability of that employer to pay contractual remuneration to that person in respect of that period.(3) Regulations may make provision as to payments which are, and those which are not, to be treated as contractual remuneration for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).171ZZ31 SupplementaryIn this Part—“employer” in relation to a person who is an employee, means a person who—(a) under section 6 is liable to pay secondary Class 1 contributions in relation to any of the earnings of the person who is an employee, or(b) would be liable to pay such contributions but for(i) the condition in section 6(1)(b), or(ii) the employee being under the age of 16;“employee” means a person who is gainfully employed in Great Britain either under a contract of service or in an office (including elective office) with earnings;“earnings” and “relevant period” have the meanings given to them by regulations;“carer’s leave” has the meaning given by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and the Carer’s Leave 2024 regulations.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for a statutory entitlement to carer’s leave pay, including eligibility, rates of pay, employer liability, and the relationship with contractual pay. It seeks to make the length of paid entitlement equivalent to the unpaid entitlement provided for by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, many noble Lords get up and say that they will make a short speech; mine will indeed be very short, because all I wish to say is that we debated this matter at length on a previous day. The amendment would establish paid carer’s leave as a statutory entitlement. I hope that this support for carers will have the support of this House, as these Benches will indeed be supporting Amendment 105, which talks about seasonal workers. They should both be supported. I would like to test the feeling of the House.

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

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, like others, I had not really intended to speak in this debate, but unfortunately, I have listened at times—while I respect other views—with incredulity at some of the remarks that have been made. This House rightly has a reputation for a wide range of expertise on almost every aspect of public life we can think of. It is often a pleasure to come here and listen to Members who have such in-depth knowledge on a great range of subjects; it is a true education in that regard. But I say, perhaps humbly, that I come from the part of the United Kingdom that has suffered most from terrorism throughout our lives. Sadly, for those of us from Northern Ireland, if there is one thing we have gained knowledge of through our lived experience, it is to know a terrorist organisation and to recognise one whenever we see it.

The Minister is absolutely right: we judge terrorism not by ideology but by actions. There are many organisations whose views I disagree with. There are many organisations out there whose views I find repugnant. All three of these organisations are ones whose ideology I would not find any particular favour with, but that is not a reason to ban them. We judge them by their actions, by their violent conduct, by their disregard for or indeed targeting of human life, by their intimidation, by the damage they cause. This is not just, as was indicated by some, a one-off incident carried out by a few rogue members; we have seen from the information the Minister gave that all these organisations have systematically organised over a long period a wide range of activities which collectively meet the threshold of terrorism.

Rightly, we defend the right to protest and to peacefully protest. Freedom of expression and the opportunity to voice very unpopular views are rightly ones that we should cherish. But when you move towards violent systematic attacks on society, as has been done by all three of these organisations, you cross the line into terrorism. For me, terrorism is terrorism. We go down a dangerous path if we start creating gradations of terrorism and, for example, we see some terrorists as “real terrorists”, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, with the implication that some are lesser terrorists, mild terrorists or terrorists with whom we have some sympathies for their ideological position.

If the argument being made is that the threshold has not been met, what is the threshold? Do we wait until incidents happen in this country that result in a string of dead bodies? Is that really the test we are putting forward? The only solution is that once you have crossed the line, this House and this Government rightly need to show zero tolerance towards terrorism. That is the approach that we as a House should unite around. I therefore strongly support the actions of the Government on all three organisations.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I compliment the Minister for summarising the situation, because no one has done so yet. The question seems to be, as has been so ably put by so many people, the difference between criminal activity and terrorism. There is a general acceptance that the actions of Palestine Action are criminal in all cases. The question we are really asking is, does it cross over into terrorism? I think it does, although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about the things that follow from such a proscription, which is something we need to be careful about.

The issue I raise, following on from other noble Lords, is the actions against businesses that had no reason to be acted against. In May this year, Palestine Action claimed responsibility for an attack on a Jewish-owned business in north London. The glass front of the building was smashed and the floor defaced with red paint and slogans including “Drop Elbit”—Elbit being a defence manufacturer. The attack can be classified as antisemitic under the IHRA definition as the business is solely Jewish, as I am. It has no links to Elbit or to Israel, and the actions suggest that Palestine Action held the owners responsible for Israel’s actions.

This is where the difference between purely criminal actions and terrorism starts. Palestine Action is a recruiting agent for the actions that have happened. I defend to the end anyone’s right to belong to any organisation supporting Palestine, the Palestinians, Israel or anybody. That is their right, and in our democracy, we have the right to give that support. For anyone who is currently a supporter of Palestine Action, if it is proscribed, there are plenty of other organisations they can join to push their points that are not points of violence. It is the violence that pushes it into terrorism, and I support the Government on this issue.

[Lord Turnberg (Lab)]

My Lords, the suggestion that Palestine Action is somehow helping the cause of the Palestinians is, I am afraid, rather nonsensical. The sort of damaging activity in which it is engaged serves only to further damage the cause of the Palestinians.

I speak here as a Zionist, but as a Zionist who supports the Palestinian cause and who does so in a very practical way. My wife and I run a charity that supports young medical researchers from Israel, Palestine and Gaza. I have met many of the Gazan students we have supported over the years, and they value that support. So, I am a Zionist who supports the Palestinians.

I think that if Palestine Action could do something supportive of the Palestinians instead of the destructive activities in which it engages, it would do much better. For that reason, I support the Minister’s view.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Swire (Con)]

My Lords, as somebody who does business from time to time and tries to encourage business, not least through my deputy chairmanship of the Commonwealth Enterprise and Investment Council, which is trying to grow business right across the Commonwealth, it strikes me that the Bill comes at an unfortunate time. Of course, we should always look at regulation, and there will always be an argument about what is over-regulation and what is under-regulation. But at a time when so many jobs are threatened by AI, we should surely be looking at a low regulatory framework. I urge the Government to take this into consideration during any impact assessment.

The Minister knows about business. He is a businessman and has a successful business, and I too suspect that he identifies with many of the points we are raising, although he cannot say it. But it strikes me that, just at a time when people are very fearful about their future and the uncertainty of having a job at all, let alone when they get older, so they can raise a family, have a mortgage and so forth, we should be looking at ways to encourage businesses to employ more people. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he saw every good reason not to employ more people. That is really bad news. If businesses are now saying it is simply not worth the candle, that will contribute to the unemployment that will surely follow as many of these jobs are replaced by AI anyway. So I urge the Government to look at that.

Equally, at a time when many countries around the world, not least in Asia, are spending much more money, time and effort on advanced mathematics and the other things you need nowadays for coding and so forth, we in this country seem to be lowering the standards, particularly in mathematics—dumbing down at a time when we should be raising up. So by all means, let us properly protect our workers, but let us not overregulate to the extent that we do not have any workers to look after or to regulate.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will address Amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319, which collectively seek greater transparency on the economic consequences of this legislation.

Although I am afraid that I take no firm view on the amendments themselves, which were explained in great detail by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and spoken to by other noble Lords, who expressed reservations—obviously, there are reservations—I welcome the principle that they reflect: that we must remain vigilant as to how new laws affect businesses, wages and productivity. No one else has said this, but I appreciate that the Government are already undertaking much of this work, and I would welcome an update from the Minister on how that work is progressing and informing policy development.

Amendment 310 raises a valuable and timely question about how new and small businesses might fare under the Bill. As the noble Lord knows, and as I know from a working lifetime as a chartered accountant, these enterprises often lack the resources, legal support and regulatory expertise of larger firms. It is only right that we ask whether the framework we are putting in place enables them to enter the market, grow and succeed on fair terms.

If the Government are serious about delivering long-term economic growth, they must pay close attention to the conditions facing new business entrants and small start-ups. These businesses, as I hope the noble Lord will agree, are not only a vital source of innovation and competition but key to job creation, skills development and regional regeneration. The barriers they face—and there are increasing barriers—whether through opaque processes or disproportionate compliance costs, can limit their contribution to the economy. By reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and ensuring a fair and accessible regulatory environment, we can help unlock their potential.

Growth will not come from productivity targets or ministerial ambition alone; it will depend on everyday decisions, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, mentioned, made by entrepreneurs and small business owners around the country. We should support them accordingly. As mentioned previously, I do not readily back these amendments themselves—I do not think I agree with them—but I hope the Government will take careful note of the arguments they raise, particularly the point made in Amendment 310 about the effect on new and small businesses, which deserves further attention and consideration.

There are going to be economic consequences of this part of the Bill, and the Government should tell us how they view the impact of those. Noble Lords have spoken about increased costs. We all know—anyone who has been involved with business knows—that there will obviously be increased costs. Laws that we have put in over the years have added to those costs, but most businesses have managed to increase efficiency to try and mitigate them and make more profits. You have to adjust to what is happening in the world.

These amendments, and this part of the Bill, are about impact assessments and regulatory burdens. Are we putting too many burdens on people, or are those regulatory burdens helpful to the economics of this country? We must do things which increase productivity, and that is part of what the amendments are about. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that he had run businesses, and many of us in this Chamber have run businesses or advised them. I hope that he is going to be proved wrong—he asked to be proved wrong. I await the Government’s answer to the comments that he made in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

317: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance for small businesses(1) The Secretary of State must publish a document containing statutory guidance for businesses with fewer than 50 employees on their employment and legal obligations under this Act.(2) The document must include, in particular— (a) an overview of the relevant legal duties placed on employers under this Act, (b) a practical framework outlining how such businesses can meet those duties, and(c) guidance on best practice suitable to businesses of this size.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance for small businesses in adhering to the employment and legal requirements of this Act.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking to this group of amendments I note the sorry absence of my noble friend Lord Fox, whose contributions on these matters have always been thoughtful and constructive. Unfortunately, the Committee has me instead. I will focus in particular on Amendments 317 and 329, both tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, which aim to provide much-needed clarity and certainty to small businesses as they seek to understand and comply with the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment 317 would require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance to support small businesses in meeting the employment and legal obligations introduced by this legislation. This is a modest and reasonable ask that would have a significant practical benefit. For many small businesses, compliance is a question not of good will but capacity. Unlike larger firms, they do not have in-house legal departments or external consultants on retainer. They need clear, accessible, authoritative guidance that they can rely on from day one. This amendment is not about watering down the law, nor is it about shielding firms from responsibility. It is about enabling small businesses to do the right thing without having to second-guess the detail or bear disproportionate cost in trying to interpret it.

Amendment 329 would build on that principle by making the commencement of the Act contingent on the publication and parliamentary approval of such guidance. It is important to say that we on these Benches understand the mandate that the Government won at the last election, and we have no intention of delaying the Bill beyond our duty to scrutinise it. However, this amendment reflects a deep concern about the real-world impact that the legislation may have on small businesses if clarity is not in place from the outset.

It is not necessarily about the measures in the Bill itself but about how they are communicated and implemented. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that well-intentioned businesses will fall foul of the law through no fault of their own. These amendments offer the Government a constructive route to avoid that outcome. I hope that Ministers will engage with them in that spirit. We are just trying to make it so that businesses, like the Minister, would know what they have to do. They need it to be set out. I hope that the Government will feel this is a possibility that they will consider before Report. I beg to move.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 326 in this group. I begin by saying again how gracious it was of the Minister to meet me to discuss my amendments in advance a couple of weeks or so ago. My Amendment 326 is on the same theme of the need for impact assessments before provisions are brought into force. It provides that:

“Regulations which would amend primary legislation may not be laid … unless an assessment of the impact … has been laid before Parliament and three months has elapsed”


from that date.

Delegated powers that can amend primary legislation are, of course, known as Henry VIII powers. This derives from the Statute of Proclamations in 1539 when Henry VIII persuaded the Commons to include a provision in a Bill that would permit him to issue decrees having the same effect as an Act of Parliament and thereby bypass the normal parliamentary process.

Henry VIII powers can be draconian and raise real questions as regards compliance with the rule of law. This is not just my view. In his much-lauded Bingham lecture on 14 October 2024, entitled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, was obviously right when he said that excessive reliance on delegated powers, including Henry VIII clauses

“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law ... but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”—

issues that

“raise real questions about how we are governed”.

These are wise words indeed and very welcome, but I find it difficult to reconcile them with our Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out at Second Reading, there are around 163 delegated powers in our Bill and 12 Henry VIII powers. As he powerfully put it:

“Ministers are, in effect, asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide to do, whenever they decide to do it”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1845.]


The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report of 24 April, described various Henry VIII powers in the Bill as, “overly broad”, “inadequately justified”, and an

“inappropriate use of the … affirmative process”.

As it said, Henry VIII powers are subject to far less scrutiny than primary legislation.

And this is the heart of the problem. Much of the legislation needed is yet to come, but it will not be capable of being scrutinised as it should be because of the reliance on Henry VIII clauses. It is a symptom of a rushed agenda but also, more worryingly, of a growing acceptance that Henry VIII powers are okay. They are becoming the default option.

The Select Committee on the Constitution, in its report, points out that Clause 24, “Dismissal during pregnancy”, and Clause 25, “Dismissal following period of statutory family leave”, both

“contain and extend Henry VIII powers that … act as placeholders while the Government consults further on the specifics of the measures to be implemented”.

This can mean only that

“substantive policy decisions have not yet been taken”

on those issues. But it also means a lack of certainty about how the provisions will operate in practice, which the Select Committee-considered to be “particularly concerning”, given that the provisions enable primary legislation to be modified.

In addition, Schedule 7 contains a list of extensive legislative powers in connection with labour market enforcement, under Part 5, which are passing to the Secretary of State. Paragraph 35 confers on the Secretary of State a Henry VIII power to add by regulations any enactment which affects the rights of employees, trade unions and the duties of employers.

These extensive enforcement powers in Part 5 also need to be considered alongside Clauses 151 and 153. These clauses contain a power to make any consequential provision, which may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify

“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same session as … this Act ... and may make different provision for different purposes or … areas”

or

“contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision”.

The Government may respond that the power to make consequential provision is confined to what is purely consequential. That is true, but what is purely consequential turns on the scope of the provisions they are said to be in consequence of. Combining these consequential powers with the wide powers in Part 5, for example, would seem to give the Secretary of State the power to confer on his enforcement officers even wider powers when entering offices to search and seize documents, if they are in some way connected with the operation. I think even Henry VIII would have been impressed. His 1539 Statute of Proclamations allowed him to amend legislation by decree, but even he was not permitted to prejudice

“any person’s offices, liberties, goods”

or “chattels”.

Then there is the power to make provision for different purposes or different areas. What is the need for that power? When I was in government as a lawyer, parliamentary counsel would probe closely as to why we needed this power, and we would have to justify it. My amendment is therefore designed to bring some transparency and due diligence to the use of these Henry VIII powers before they are laid and debated. It would simply provide that, before such regulations could be laid, there would need to be an impact assessment laid before Parliament for three months to enable a bit more parliamentary scrutiny. This would give time for reflection and, if the Government decided to proceed with laying the regulations, it would serve to enhance the level of parliamentary debates on the regulations that subsequently take place under the affirmative procedure.

I give the last word to the great Lord Judge, who spoke strongly against such clauses when he was Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. He said:

“You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. ‘Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty’”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

It is tempting, but I can assure the noble Lord that it will be published very, very, very soon. How is that?

Like I said, this is the last time I will speak in this Committee. I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their extensive engagement and the robust way in which we have debated this stage of the Bill’s passage. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and to the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Palmer, for standing in so ably for him. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, well in his recovery and look forward to welcoming him back.

Let me be clear: this Government welcome scrutiny—that is the purpose of this House—but scrutiny must be grounded in the present and focus on the issues at hand, not lost in the echoes of decades-old political arguments. Some contributions, regretfully, seem to have been more intent on reviving grievances from the 1970s than addressing the needs of today’s Britain.

This Bill delivers on a clear manifesto promise. It is part of our plan for change, built not on rhetoric but on the practical need to provide security for working people and long-term renewal for the country. This is where our focus lies—not on refighting the past but on fixing the future. We continue to welcome serious challenge, and we expect debates to be robust, but we also expect them to be proportionate, honest and forward-looking.

As we approach the end of Committee this evening, we on this side look forward to constructive and collaborative meetings and engagement with all noble Lords ahead of Report. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 317.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Fox, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support, which was so eloquently put. I also thank the Minister for his detailed reply.

When the Minister started speaking, I thought he would use his valedictory remarks to say that he was actually going to agree with something. There was great promise that he would agree to the amendments—these reasonable amendments—as all they would do is give guidance to small businesses to show them what the legislation is. Then, I lost: he will step down without going out on a positive note, which is very sad. His argument was that all the amendment would do is delay things. Sometimes, delay is good. Delay can be good if you get it right. Too often things are done precipitately, and delay is the better alternative.

What is the answer from the Minister? We shall have more statutory instruments. I have dealt with statutory instruments in the 15 years I have been in this House. Quite honestly, we discuss them, but we never vote. There has been no vote that I can remember, and statutory instruments are a means for the Government to tell us what they are going to do, and we have to nod in agreement.

Where do small businesses stand in all this, without any real guidance? They are left in a morass. The Minister has gone off in a cloud of glory, but I still do not have an answer as to whether anything will be implemented. Sadly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment of my noble friend Lord Fox.

Amendment 317 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

I therefore strongly support the intention behind this amendment, and I hope that the Minister will, on behalf of the Government, take the opportunity that this debate presents to turn awareness into action and disparity into progress. I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 131, 297 and 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, so movingly introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.

Each of these amendments seeks to address long-standing inequalities that disabled people continue to face, particularly in the context of work and access to goods and services. Amendment 131 raises the important principle that workers should not be compelled to contribute to the development or sale of products that are knowingly inaccessible—which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised. I hope that the Government, through the Department for Business and Trade, will publish clear guidance on what constitutes inaccessible products and services. Such guidance is needed. It would be invaluable in informing decision-making for businesses and helping workers recognise when they may be asked to contribute to the creation or sale of goods that fail to meet accessibility standards.

Amendment 297, meanwhile, calls for a royal commission. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, I veer towards saying that we do need something formal such as a royal commission to investigate the persistently low employment levels among blind and sight-impaired people, a disparity that deserves serious attention. The questions that these amendments raise are valid and warrant a considered response from the Government.

I am also interested in the reasoning behind Amendment 314, which calls for a programme and timeline to develop an action plan aimed at closing the disability gap. Recent research from the TUC revealed that the disability gap stood at a staggering 17.2% in 2024, which was an increase on the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from 2023. The same figures do not reoccur every year—they are going up—and these figures show that. The amendment represents a measured and practical approach, reflecting a growing consensus on the need for greater transparency and accountability in tackling workplace inequality.

Even if the Government are, unsurprisingly, not minded to accept the amendments in their current form, I hope that Ministers will consider how their intent may be taken forward through alternative means—and there can be alternative means. These are not radical demands but thoughtful suggestions for achieving progress in areas where it is long overdue. I hope that the Government’s heart will be in favour of the reasoning behind these amendments, and that we can all work together towards bringing the legislation into line with what our conscience is saying.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his amendments in this group, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for introducing them on his behalf. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his contribution.

There is no doubt that those with disabilities, including blind and partially sighted people, face different challenges in the workplace, and the more we can do to increase awareness and representation in the workplace for these people and these groups, the better. We must also recognise that for many disabled people, the challenges begin long before a job interview. Structural barriers, from education and training to transport and technology, can compound over time and create a labour market that is harder to enter and harder to stay in. If legislation can help remove those barriers and create conditions for more equitable access to work, it is our responsibility to act.

It is also important that employers are supported and not penalised, so legislation should provide clarity and encourage inclusive practices. It should offer the right incentives and should not raise the cost or the perceived risk of hiring somebody who may already face disadvantage. Unfortunately, some elements of current legislation do just that.

I hope that the Government and the Minister listened to the concerns that were so well articulated by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. These are not radical demands, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, and I hope the Government will address them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 132 as a probing amendment to highlight some of the concerns from the perspective of small businesses. Amendment 137, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, may perhaps be a different side of the same coin. I refer the House to my register of interests.

The intention behind the amendment is to explore the scope of possible options for better supporting both employees and employers, particularly small employers, who often lack access to in-house HR support, legal expertise or representation from trade unions. This legislation rightly seeks to strengthen workplace protections, and with that comes the need to ensure that small employers are equipped to meet their responsibilities fairly and confidently without being overwhelmed.

A one-size-fits-all approach risks overlooking the structural disadvantages that many small businesses face in navigating employment disputes or resolving workplace issues informally. One concern in this context is the potential for so-called ambulance chasing. I use the phrase cautiously, but it reflects a genuine anxiety among small employers. In the absence of good advice or proper guidance, a small employer may feel compelled to settle a claim, not based on merit, but because the cost, stress and complexity of the legal process makes fighting it feel simply unviable. That can undermine confidence in the system for everyone.

The aim behind the amendment is to consider how we might increase the availability of qualified independent advisers—professionals who can support employees in entering into a settlement agreement with full confidence and understanding, but in a way that is accessible, affordable and proportionate for small businesses too. This could help reduce the number of cases that unnecessarily escalate into formal litigation.

The presence of a well-informed independent adviser can give both parties clarity and reassurance. In such circumstances, access to credible professionals of the kind that organisations like the CIPD can recommend or help bring forward would seem both helpful and sensible. I fully acknowledge the concerns raised by colleagues on these Benches, particularly the risk of diluting the role of unions, especially in larger workplaces, where collective representation plays such an essential role. I value constructive conversations with colleagues and recognise the importance of safeguarding that voice and that function.

At the same time, I believe it important that the voice of business, particularly small business, is heard clearly from these Benches. Too often, the debate around employment rights can polarise into assumptions of employer versus employee or big business versus organised labour. But many of us bring experience from the front lines of running businesses that are small, community based and deeply invested in treating their staff fairly. It is essential that these perspectives are represented not to dilute rights but to ensure that they are designed in a way that is practical and sustainable and that supports good employment outcomes for all.

I also welcome the Government’s broad commitment to improving the enforcement system, including through proposals for the fair work agency and reforms to the tribunal process. These are important developments, and I hope that they lead to a more accessible and efficient workplace landscape for all parties.

Nevertheless, I believe that the specific issues raised here, particularly those that affect small and micro-businesses, merit further reflection. We know that many small employers genuinely want to do the right thing but, without access to the right structures or advice, they may find themselves exposed. That can have an effect on not just the business owner but employees, who may not get the resolution they deserve. Just as we rightly ensure that employees feel heard and protected, those of us with business experience also want to ensure that employers’ concerns are reflected, especially where they lack the infrastructure to manage complex processes alone.

I am happy to withdraw the amendment following the debate and the Minister’s response, but I hope that the reflections it prompts will help shape the implementation of the Bill in ways that are proportionate, inclusive and fair to businesses of all sizes, as well as to the people they employ. I beg to move.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 137 which, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, said, is probably the other side of the same coin.

My amendment seeks to expand the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. As it stands, the law allows workers to be accompanied by only a fellow employee or trade union representative. My Amendment 137—the other side of the coin—would broaden that right to include individuals certified by a recognised professional body as having relevant experience and training in supporting workers through such processes. It also provides for the Secretary of State to regulate which organisations may be authorised as professional bodies for this purpose to ensure that a proper standard is maintained.

At the heart of any disciplinary process is the need for transparency, fairness and due process. This is especially true in the workplace, where livelihoods and the professional reputations of individuals are at stake. Workers should never have to undergo the difficult procedures of disciplinary or grievance hearings alone. The presence of a colleague, union representative or other chosen companion ensures that employees not only are supported but have a safeguard against any unfair treatment or misunderstandings during the process. Not every individual is able to cope with this on their own. Some may well do, but they will need some help.

In fact, the presence of a properly trained professional companion is often the difference between an employee being able to make their case cogently or being denied a fair hearing. The law currently goes some way towards recognising this, but I am afraid that it is increasingly inadequate for the 21st century.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to express a view that I did not think I would be expressing in your Lordships’ House. I am utterly appalled by this proposition and the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who, lest there were any doubt, has given the clearest possible indication of her political journey from the extreme left to the extreme right, which is there for all to see.

It is an absolute disgrace to suggest that to seek to help women in the workplace gain equality is somehow to treat them as victims. I did my university dissertation in 1974 on the Equal Pay Act, when the gap between men and women was 25%. Half a century later, it is down to something like 7% or 8%. Yes, that is a huge improvement, but the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and others who have spoken have said, “Well, that’s okay. We can leave it there. We don’t want to push it any further, because it’s going to burden industry with costs”. What about the women who are burdened with wages lower than they are entitled to get for the job they do on a day-to-day basis?

It is well known that inclusivity in the workforce increases levels of production, is good for problem solving and enhances job retention. I am talking not just about gender issues but wider diversity. The speech that the noble Baroness made and others have echoed will be cheered to the rafters by Nigel Farage and Donald Trump, because it is exactly the sort of thing they have been saying, and I think it is a very dangerous line for Members of this House to push. It is a perfectly legitimate expectation in a Bill such as this that an equality action plan is something that employers should be expected to have. Many already do—they do not need to be told. Good employers have one in place and are benefiting from the standard of output they are getting from employees who are more satisfied because they are clearly better valued. To suggest that we just leave it there is absolute nonsense.

I will not talk about the menopause, but I just could not believe what I heard—that, somehow, women are being painted as victims. As a man, it is difficult for me to comment, but there is a broad spread of opinion that the issue has to be dealt with by employers. To be perfectly fair, some employers do, but others do not, and there should at least be the opportunity for women who want to take advantage of this to be able to do so. To try to slam that door in their faces is an absolute disgrace.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, what a relief to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Watson—I thought I was going to be on my own with the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. They were prophets of doom and living in another world.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

77: After Clause 17, insert the following new Clause—
“Foster carer’s leave(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) In the title of Part 8B, for “CARER’S LEAVE” substitute “CARER’S LEAVE AND FOSTER CARER’S LEAVE”. (3) After section 80J (Carer’s leave) insert—“80JA Foster carer’s leave(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations entitling an employee to be absent from work on leave under this section in order to undertake activities as a result of being a local authority foster parent.(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “local authority foster parent” is defined in accordance with section 105 of The Children’s Act 1989.(3) The regulations must include provision for determining—(a) the extent of an employee’s entitlement to leave under this section;(b) when leave under this section may be taken.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(a) must secure that where an employee is entitled to leave under this section the employee is entitled to at least a week’s leave during any period of 12 months.(5) The regulations may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken (including by providing for it to be taken non-continuously).(6) The regulations may provide that particular activities are, or are not, to be treated as providing or arranging care for the purposes of this Part.”(4) In section 80K—(a) in subsection (1), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(b) in subsection (2), after “80J” in both places it occurs insert “and 80JA”,(c) in subsection (4), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”, and(d) in subsection (5), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”.(5) In subsection (1) of section 80L, after “80J” insert “and 80JA”.(6) In section 80M—(a) In subsection (1)—(i) in the opening words, after “80J” insert “80JA”,(ii) in paragraph (e), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(iii) in paragraph (f), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(iv) in paragraph (g), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”,(v) in paragraph (h), after “80J” insert “and 80JA,(b) In subsection (2), after “80J” insert “and 80JA”, and(c) In subsection (3), after “80J(4)” insert “and 80JA(4)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause ensures local authority foster parents are entitled to at least one extra week’s leave every 12 months.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

In moving my Amendment 77, I shall speak to Amendments 78, 79, 135 and 144 in my name. Amendment 77 seeks to extend to foster carers the leave given to carers, and I hope that noble Lords will see this as a necessary clarification, which is all that it is. Amendments 78 and 79 focus specifically on kinship carers and would require larger employers—those with over 250 staff—to review the support they offer to unpaid carers. Amendments 78 and 79 seek to address a significant gap in employment rights for kinship carers by introducing a new entitlement to kinship care leave. Amendment 78 proposes a provision to establish this right, while Amendment 79 links the proposed entitlement to the broader provisions of the Bill.

These amendments respond to a pressing social need. Over 130,000 children across the UK are currently being raised in kinship care arrangements—more than three times the number in foster care. Despite the critical role that kinship carers play, often stepping in during times of crisis to prevent children entering the care system, they receive far less support, including in the workplace. Introducing a specific entitlement to kinship care leave would provide families with much-needed time and space to adjust, to make the necessary arrangements and to ensure the child’s well-being during what is often a traumatic transition. Not only would this improve outcomes for children and families but it would help relieve pressure on the formal care system, where costs are often excessive and the emotional toll on children is, I am sure, significant. In enabling kinship carers to remain in employment while fulfilling their caregiving responsibilities, these amendments recognise the long-term social value of keeping children within loving, familiar, family environments.

Amendments 78 and 79 would introduce a right to kinship care leave and link it to broader employment provisions. As I say, 130,000 children in the UK are in kinship care, which is more than three times the number in foster care. Kinship carers often step in during family crises, preventing children entering state care, yet they lack formal workplace protections. These amendments would provide time for families to adjust and to support a child’s transition—especially vital in sudden or emergency situations. I maintain that supporting kinship care is cost-effective and reduces reliance on costly private care providers that profit from family meltdown. This is about reshaping workplace culture to reflect the reality of modern families and ensure that children can remain in loving, stable homes. These proposals align with broader efforts to reform the care system and should be viewed as part of a compassionate, pragmatic approach to child welfare.

Amendment 135 would make carer’s leave a paid entitlement. I do not really need to add more than that.

Amendment 144 would require employers with more than 250 employees to consider what support they offer to unpaid carers within their workforce when publishing their gender equality action plans. This is a modest but important step towards recognising the hidden pressures faced by most employees, most often women, who juggle paid work with unpaid caring responsibilities.

Unpaid carers are the backbone of our social care system—where would we be without them? Yet their contribution is routinely overlooked in workplace policies and gender pay gap reporting. By including consideration of unpaid carers in gender equality action plans, we would acknowledge the real-life factors that contribute to disparities in career progression, earnings and job security. Employers cannot meaningfully address gender equality without recognising the care burden that disproportionately falls on women. This amendment is a practical and proportionate way in which to ensure that unpaid carers are no longer invisible in workplace policies.

When drafting my words for today, I did not realise how important kinship care was. One talks about the mothers and fathers, but very often it is the aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandpas—other people who are kin to the child—who are not recognised in our system as producing the support that our system requires. I hope that noble Lords will support the amendment in my name, which I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

It will not come as a surprise to my noble friend that we cannot accept the amendment in front of us today. However, I am very happy to work with him to ensure that your Lordships’ House can consider this most important issue again on Report. So I respectfully ask him not to move this amendment and ask that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I feel humbled by this debate. It started off for me with the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and the right reverend Prelate and it went on in the same vein, right across the House: the feeling that there was this Bill, the Employment Rights Bill, and that we recognise that within employment rights there are carers who have been ignored and need to be paid for what they are doing, for people and for the system that they underwrite.

The Government have not really replied in positive enough terms on this, but we will come back to this on Report with specific amendments. By that time, I hope that Government Ministers will go back to their colleagues in the other place and say that across the House, from all parts of this House, there was a feeling that unpaid carers need to be recognised in the Employment Rights Bill, and that kinship carers, who have not been recognised before, need to be recognised. We hope the Government have heard this and we look forward to a positive response by Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 77 withdrawn.