Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We will maintain our SPS standards, as I have consistently said. I remind noble Lords that the EU remains the UK’s largest trading partner for agri-food and vice versa, so there are huge benefits in maintaining or re-establishing a lot of those European trading partners, which will benefit our farmers and consumers as well.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will develop a theme that was started by my noble friend in his supplementary question. Given that the UK is ahead of the EU in developing a proportionate regulatory framework for gene editing and that the sector has attracted significant inward investment positioning Britain as a potential global leader, will the Minister confirm that an exemption will be secured for gene editing in any SPS agreement?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

That issue will be discussed as part of these agreements; it is not specific to the discussions that we are having at the moment. I remind noble Lords that we see ourselves as a global trading partner: the fact that we already have deals with India and the US and are now developing them with the EU will ensure that we can provide food on a cheaper basis for consumers while maintaining our own established food standards. That is the way that we should go in the future.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise, I hope for the last time, as temporary spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, as my noble friend Lord Fox’s spectre has arrived behind me—and he is a sight to behold.

I begin by thanking various Ministers—the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, to name but three of many—for the time and patience given to me and our team. They always made time and effort to help me understand not only the process but the logic and reasoning behind the objectives of the Bill, and I genuinely thank them for it. I also thank our political adviser Adam Bull, who had the almost impossible task of turning a helpful Back-Bencher supporting my noble friend Lord Fox and his team into an overnight Front-Bench spokesperson leading our group following my noble friend’s accident. I have no idea how he pulled it off, but somehow he convinced me it was possible and we gave it our best shot, along with my noble friends Lord Palmer, Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Kramer, attempting to be reasonable and proportionate throughout the passage of the Bill.

We on these Benches broadly support the Bill and have said on many occasions that it was long overdue, and we acknowledge the Government’s mandate for this legislation. However, we believe that it could and should be refined to work better for workers and for industry, and urge the Government not to disregard the changes that have been proposed, passed and sent back to the other House without extensive consideration and consultation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I also express my gratitude to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their excellent contributions throughout our deliberations on this Bill. Their expertise, knowledge and careful scrutiny have been invaluable. I also thank the Ministers for the briefings and meetings, and indeed for the extensive correspondence by letter, that they provided during the course of these proceedings. I also thank the Bill team and the Ministers’ private offices. Further, I place on record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for its diligent work on amendments and to all the staff in your Lordships’ House who, as the Minister said, enabled our debates to continue sometimes late into the night with such professionalism. I also extend my thanks to our researchers on these Benches, Abid and Henry, who have been fantastic throughout.

We take a slightly different view as to the Bill. We think it is a terrible Bill. It is terrible for workers, businesses—particularly small businesses—and the economy as a whole. There is no support from anywhere in the business community for this legislation. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that the worst is yet to come. Unemployment has risen every single month under this Government. The latest figures show that the rate is now set to reach 5%, which is the highest since the pandemic. That is not a blip—it is a trend. It is the direct result of misguided economic choices, and if this Bill proceeds, the situation will only deteriorate further.

The Chancellor has deepened the difficulties. Long-term borrowing costs have surged to their highest levels since 1998, undermining stability and confidence. The spending plans are incoherent; when set alongside the provisions of this Bill, the picture is nothing short of a looming economic disaster.

The Bill imposes nothing new except new costs and burdens on business. A recent survey conducted by Peninsula, the UK’s largest HR and employment law consultancy, revealed that 68% of respondents believe that this legislation will have a negative impact on business. More than half expressed concern about the increased likelihood of tribunal claims—an inevitability under these provisions, with so-called day one rights and the ill-thought-out restrictions on workplace culture. Even the Government’s own impact assessment confirms those risks.

The noble Lord, Lord Katz, confirmed by letter that the Government are funding provision for some 33,900 tribunal sitting days, yet the backlog already exceeds 50,000 cases. It does not take a genius to calculate that it would take a year and a half simply to clear the existing caseload before even beginning to address the new claims that will inevitably arise as a result of this legislation. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment accepts that the introduction of the so-called day one dismissal rights will increase claims by around 15%. So, while I commend the Government’s actions in recruiting new judges, the Bill still piles more pressure on to a system that is already creaking, creating delay and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton tells me that the Free Speech Union has a belief discrimination case before the employment tribunal that has been given a hearing date of July 2027.

One cannot help but observe that the Bill appears designed less to support workers or employers and more to resuscitate the relevance of trade unions. We have already seen the damaging consequences of the Government’s approach in the handling of the junior doctors’ dispute. By also reducing the threshold for workplace recognition to potentially as little as 2%, they are preparing the ground for a surge in unionisation, leaving small businesses, many of which have no experience of dealing with unions, completely unprepared.

We should be mindful of the darker history that accompanies union power. In the 1970s and 1980s, communities were torn apart by the toxic culture of so-called scabbing. Workers who chose, for reasons of conscience or necessity, to cross a picket line were branded as traitors and subjected to intimidation and ostracism. That tyranny of the minority silenced individual choice and left lasting scars on families, workplaces and entire towns. It is precisely that environment which this Bill risks rekindling, where the decision of a small fraction can dictate the livelihoods of the many and where those who simply wish to work are punished for it. One can only admire the courage of the union barons opposite for their own act of scabbing today in crossing the PCS picket line to be here.

At the same time, the Government’s own impact assessment is clear that the central economic challenge is productivity, yet what Ministers fail to acknowledge is that poor productivity is overwhelmingly found in the public sector, where entrenched union practices have eroded efficiency and soured industrial relations. Instead of addressing that, the Government now seek to import those very problems into the private sector through this legislation. That will undermine competitiveness, discourage investment and damage growth.

The Bill also takes a regressive step with regard to political funds. The Government propose that contributions to a union’s political fund should once again be made on an opt-out basis rather than an opt-in. This undermines the principle of genuine consent. It also raises serious questions of accountability and transparency. I note that the certification officer requires unions to disclose payments above a de minimis threshold of £2,000, and that many unions are already making only two or three such payments a year. Those transactions, one assumes, are recorded in their internal accounts, so it should be no more than a simple matter of cut and paste to include them in the statutory return. Why, then, was this described by the Minister in her exchange with my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley as a “notable administrative requirement”? Is this to be the His Majesty’s Government’s standard position on disclosure requirements for other organisations in future?

Reference has been made to practices prior to 2016, when opacity prevailed. Yet rather than strengthening transparency, the Government seem intent on encouraging concealment. That is an approach that stands in stark contrast to the regime applied to companies, which must provide full disclosure of political donations. Ministers argue that members can access the information through the usual democratic means of a voluntary organisation, but there is in truth no such process. There is no requirement for unions to provide this information to their members at all. If the Government are serious about transparency, they should be insisting on openness, not enabling the reverse.

I feel that I should also inform the House that, for reasons best known to itself, an organisation called the General Federation of Trades Unions has invited me to various events at the Trades Union Congress conference. The programme contains, among other things, a session on what is described as “Employment Rights Bill #2”. Some might say that such a Bill would administer the coup de grâce after the firing squad of this Bill. It also features a session entitled, “¡Viva La Solidaridad! Stand with Latin America Against Trump”. I confess that I laughed when I read that. That is not serious politics; that is infantile and pathetic. If the TUC truly wished to offer international lessons, it might instead examine the havoc that socialist leaders and their trade union counterparts have wreaked on Latin American economies, particularly where solidarity has too often meant shared poverty, collapsing currencies and vanishing investment. We on these Benches are rightly focused on the future of British businesses and their employees, and the TUC should do the same.

I would also like to highlight Clause 30, concerning the right to be accompanied, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has reminded me of what I have been missing while I was in a hospital bed in agony. Can I remind him that the Companion says:

“Any remarks should be brief and should not … reopen debates at previous stages of the bill”?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is back in his place. It is always a pleasure to be on the receiving end of his wit and repartee. He will be very pleased to know that I am winding up. Also, I am complimenting one of his colleagues—he ought to have waited.

Clause 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, was agreed on Report with cross-party support. Like other noble Lords across the House, we urge the Government to keep this provision in the Bill. It offers greater choice and protection for workers. To remove it would be a backward step that would disproportionately harm vulnerable groups, including disabled workers, young people and members of some ethnic minorities. That would be anti employment rights. I trust that Ministers will not seek to undo it.

For all its faults, I am glad that we have been able to make some improvements to this Bill as it leaves your Lordships’ House: retaining the 50% threshold for strike ballots to protect workplace democracy; introducing a right to request guaranteed hours; and ensuring clarity by setting out a clear probationary period and reference period for workplace dismissals, giving employers the certainty that they need. We hope that the Government will consider these amendments carefully in the other place and even take this opportunity to rethink the entirety of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that was a fascinating debate. I am not a lawyer either, but I was very taken by the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, which I thought were quite superb, by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. I thought my noble friend Lord Murray displayed exemplary moderation—I think that was his word—in his delivery. I cannot improve on the legal arguments made by the lawyers, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, my noble and learned friend and my noble friend. For a moment I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, had—to use my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s phrase—subsumed his legal personality to be a creature of the state for a moment. He seemed to come back fighting, so I applaud him for that.

Frankly, Clause 113 is one of the most chilling and illiberal proposals in the entire Bill, and there is competition for that accolade.

Let us also consider somebody who has not been considered in this particular debate so far: employers. What sort of message does it send to them? Your employees’ silence cannot be taken as peace or resolution, but rather as a vacuum that the state may fill with litigation. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has a rather more touching faith in the state than I do. How does that promote trust or fair resolution in the workplace? I cannot see how it does. It would fuel paranoia, it invites conflict and it certainly undermines mediation. If a worker feels intimidated by their employer, as has been claimed before in these debates, do they really imagine that an employee will feel less intimidated by the prospect of a Secretary of State marching into their dispute, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, stated, without any liability and then turning it into a tribunal case in their name? That is not empowerment; it is political theatre at the expense of personal agency. We should not accept or normalise that.

I have a question to those who have been pushing the argument about anonymity. I am not a defendant—or rather, I am not a lawyer; I may be a defendant—so I may have phrased this slightly incorrectly, but the defendant presumably will be known in these cases, and if the defendant is known, it is not especially difficult to find out who the plaintiff is. I think that is the correct terminology. So how on earth would granting an individual anonymity achieve the purpose that is desired? I do not get that—somebody would have to explain it to me.

This clause represents a fundamentally dystopian instinct that the state can somehow supplant the will of the individual and act on their behalf without their active participation or consent. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that this is paternalism being taken to an authoritarian extreme.

In this debate we have heard “ridiculous”, “manifestly absurd”, “ludicrous” and “bonkers”—which I think won on a split decision. But there is one last point. The tone of this debate has been to invite both horror and ridicule in equal measure. Is that really what the Government want to achieve with this piece of legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I was a bound apprentice for four years, from when I was 17 or 18 on a council estate outside Greater Manchester. Apprenticeships are a little jewel in the employment Bill that have somehow been missed. We need to advocate the opportunities for apprentices and the pride that apprenticeships give to young people, especially NEETs, and there should be no one better to do that than a Labour Government who are trying to generate income, prosperity and jobs. There is a little place there and, with more consultation—I have spoken to Ministers, who are mindful to be supportive of that—if we can get this right for apprentices and take away the obstacles to creating apprenticeships, more people will take them on.

Apprentices tend to stay with a company. If you are an apprentice and you have been trained for three or four years, you will tend to stay with that company and repay the loyalty they have given you in giving you a skill that will carry you through your life. So we support the sentiment and hope that the Government will say some kind words tonight, at least to stop the noble Lord disappearing at midnight and looking for Cinderella’s glass slipper.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there is really very little to say, but obviously I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for bringing forward this very thoughtful and necessary amendment. She is right that apprenticeships represent one of the most important pathways into skilled employment and a vital investment in our nation’s future workforce. I agreed with everything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, and I wish the noble Lord well. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, gets the reassurance that she needs and, if she does not, she should probably test the opinion of the House.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Good try.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. On behalf of these Benches, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, all the best for his forthcoming retirement, which is not today; it will be on 31 August. We wish him well and he will definitely be sorely missed in this House.

I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. Amendment 181 proposes to insert a provision in the Bill to require that the Government give due consideration to the impacts on apprenticeships during consultation. Amendment 182 proposes a review process specifically on the impact on apprenticeships. Although these amendments rightly raise the importance of apprenticeships, they effectively duplicate what we are, and will already be, doing.

We know that our country’s greatest asset is its people, and apprenticeships are one of the most powerful ways, as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that we can invest in that potential. They open doors, build confidence and provide a ladder of opportunity for those who might otherwise be left behind. Whether it is a young person taking their first step into the world of work or someone retraining for a new career, apprenticeships offer a route to success that is both practical and aspirational.

We are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy, giving learners and employers more flexibility. This will fund shorter apprenticeships and open up more tailored, responsive training options compared with the current system, where apprenticeships must run for at least 12 months. When we launch the consultations as described in the road map, every effort will be made to ensure that the consultations reach a wide audience. The Government are keen to hear from employers of all sizes and their representative organisations, as well as workers and their representative bodies, in order to understand the distinct perspective of these different stakeholders. They will play a crucial role in policy development. In developing options in our consultations, the Government will consider their potential impacts. The options analysts will, as is standard, consider the impacts on the labour market for different groups of workers and micro, small and medium businesses.

In addition, the road map shows that full implementation of the Bill will take years, so seeking to publish a review too early would prevent meaningful assessment of its effects, especially on young people.

The Government value apprenticeship, as I said earlier, and apprentices. We want to continue to engage with businesses that offer apprenticeship and encourage their contributions to forthcoming consultations, including on employment status, under the Bill. We will be happy to continue to engage with and meet the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, to that end, and to listen to all young people and apprentices themselves.

These amendments are unnecessary and duplicative. Supporting young people and small businesses will already be at the forefront of our minds as we work to implement our reforms. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 181.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, we are dancing on the head of a pin with these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is right that these are welcome amendments that begin to address something I never knew anything about, which is that support staff have never had a baseline figure. That should be addressed.

I spoke to the Minister the day before yesterday or today—time flies—and the fact is that there are 520,000 of them. That is 52% of everybody employed at schools. That is more than teachers. Those support staff have a whole range of duties and the majority are tailored to their specific needs, as other speakers have said. Government Amendment 114 provides that, where an SSSNB

“has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the Secretary of State makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations”.

We agree with that.

All that the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would change is that it would prevent

“the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions”,

provided that they meet the standards of minimum support. What we are trying to say here is, where they cannot come to a negotiation, the Government can step in by regulation, if that is what they want to do, but, where a body comes to an arrangement, why should you stop somebody wanting to offer more, above the floor and above the base—there is no argument about that; we all agree to the base—and say, actually, why would an SSSNB want to block some employer offering an employee better terms? If the Government reject this amendment, that is the alternative to what we are arguing.

If somebody wants to pay somebody more, above the base, that is surely better for the employee. Surely that is better than somebody saying, “Well, you can’t”, which is what the Government might do. The difference is quite subtle. Sooner or later, somebody will have to work out the maths for 520,000 people and then go to all those local authorities, academies and private schools, all of a sudden, as I have said before, there are bound to be winners and losers, unless you make set the level at a sufficiently high so there are no winners and losers. I cannot imagine what that number will be, because it will be a high number.

If this is about empowering people and lifting society, I am all for that. But, again, there is a level of detail. This is not a small group of people; it is an enormous number of people. It is more than the number of teachers. The teachers have had pay, and more pay, and are now going on strike for more money. Support staff do not do that. Support staff are vulnerable. They do not have that power to take industrial action to fight their corner. They negotiate their terms individually with local authorities and academies and, by and large, none of these people is paid below the minimum wage or the living wage. So, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I get the principle. I understand that there has been no base figure, and that should be addressed. But, if the Government are addressing that, and it is a philosophical Labour belief, they must put a price tag on it, because people need to know what the costs are, not only for their local authority but for every local authority and every academy in the country. If the noble Baroness is willing to push this to a vote—I do not know whether she will or will not—we on these Benches will support her.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I agree with pretty much all that he said. I thank my noble friend Lady Barran for her amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for his interesting and timely perspective, and I salute the teaching assistant whom he mentioned.

Amendment 111B would ensure that the establishment of national frameworks does not, by accident or design, limit the ability of employers to go further in improving conditions for their staff. It makes it clear that, while national terms may set the floor, they must not become the ceiling.

As we have heard, we must leave space for innovation and ambition at the local level, particularly for those schools, academies and trusts that are actively seeking to lead in areas such as flexible working, staff well-being or enhanced support for recruitment and retention. This amendment does not undermine the national framework. On the contrary, it reinforces it, because it allows it to act as a strong foundation on which more can be built, where employers have the capacity and willingness to do so.

We should not inadvertently create a situation where the national body becomes a constraint rather than a support. I therefore welcome the clarity that this amendment brings. I commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and, if she decides to press it to a vote, we will support her.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendments 112 to 116. The school support staff negotiating body will recognise the essential roles and responsibilities of over 800,000 support staff working in our schools, supporting our children to achieve and thrive. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I very much pay tribute to the teaching assistant whom the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, mentioned. We all know examples of support staff who have played significant interventionist roles in helping to run a school—roles that are often underrewarded and unrecognised. It is about time we put them and their pay and conditions on a proper footing.

It is right that we have a mechanism for employer and employee representatives to come together to negotiate and to agree pay and conditions that reflect the varied and vital role that support staff undertake. We have heard arguments made across the House that we must make the legislation itself clearer, that the SSSNB will not mandate a one-size-fits-all approach and that individual employees will be protected from any moves to their detriment as a result of the SSSNB process. We have listened to noble Lords on this issue and, while we have always been clear that this is the Government’s intent and can be achieved through existing provisions, we have decided to amend the SSSNB provisions to ensure that both principles are established in primary legislation.

This change will mean that all school support staff will benefit from a minimum offer—or floor—for pay and conditions, and that there will be no ceiling to prevent employers offering better pay or conditions. This protects individual employees and allows employers to go beyond agreements reached, should they choose to do so in response to their local circumstances. That was the argument made in Committee. A number of noble Lords argued that, particularly in academies, employers want to pay more and provide better conditions. We are making it clear that that is absolutely the right thing to do, and our amendments will deliver that.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Amendment 111A would change the SSSNB’s remit for academies so that academy employers would be required to have regard only to the framework. As outlined in response to this amendment in Committee, it would be wrong to create a two-tier system for support staff. Since roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, it is right that academies are included in the SSSNB’s statutory remit in the same way as maintained schools. There is no need to take a different approach for academies when there will be ample room for innovation for all schools, irrespective of their structure.

I hope the noble Baroness understands and agrees that all school support staff deserve to know what they can expect as a minimum for pay and conditions, and that they can continue to benefit from more favourable terms where employers offer them. However, her amendment risks creating a two-tier system that undermines the role of the new negotiating body in establishing minimum standards which will work for all schools and recognise the vital roles that support staff undertake.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

125: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to opt out of collective agreements(1) A worker who is not a member of a trade union may elect, in writing, to opt out of the terms of a collective agreement that would otherwise apply to them under this Act. (2) In such a case, the worker shall be entitled to rely on the statutory rights conferred by this Act without reference to the collective agreement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides non-union workers with the right to opt out of collective agreements, reinforcing individual freedom of contract and protecting access to statutory entitlements.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 125 in my name speaks to a fundamental principle that we should run through every piece of employment legislation that we consider, and that it is the right of the individual to determine their own path.

Too much of the Bill rests on an implicit and rather patronising assumption that workers are somehow incapable of managing their own affairs—that they must be corralled, collectively represented, spoken for and ultimately told what is best for them. This amendment challenges that assumption head on. It affirms the right of a worker who is not a union member to say that they wish to stand on their own two feet and do not wish to be bound by collective agreements that they had no part in negotiating and no say in accepting. That is not anti-union; it is pro-choice and pro-individual. If we believe in personal responsibility then we must also believe in personal freedom. Some workers are independent-minded individuals, who want to make their own decisions about their pay and their terms and conditions.

We have to be clear: statutory rights remain in place. This amendment would do nothing to undermine minimum standards; it would simply allow the worker to rely on those rights without being bound by a collectivist framework that they never opted into. That is not a threat to fairness but the definition of fairness.

The Government treat workers as a monolith. They are defined not by merit or initiative but by membership and conformity. This proposed clause offers a quiet but powerful alternative: that the individual workers matter, that their preferences matter, and that freedom of contract is not some abstract legal concept but a cornerstone of liberty. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 127, I will say a few words about Amendment 125, from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. He and other noble Lords on that side of the House often accuse those on this side of ignorance of business, but his amendment shows ignorance of what happens in industrial relations on the ground.

I will make three points. First, there is nothing in the law to prevent an employer and an individual employee agreeing an improvement to terms and conditions on an existing collective agreement, save in exceptional circumstances such as that illustrated by the case of Wilson and Palmer v the United Kingdom, where the employer offered to pay workers a higher rate of pay if they surrendered their union membership. That principle would also apply to prevent the penalisation of workers on the grounds of any other protected characteristic. However, as a general principle, workers and employers can agree to improve on an existing collective agreement.

Secondly, why would an individual employee agree to detrimental terms worse than an existing collective agreement—lower wages, longer hours, fewer holidays, fewer breaks, and worse terms and conditions? There can be no reason why a worker would wish not to abide by the existing collective agreement. Employees need protection against bad employers who might otherwise exploit the proposed loophole by saying to an individual employee, “I want you to opt out of the collective agreement”, hence undermining it.

Thirdly, collective agreements are not dictated by the trade unions but are agreed by an employer and, usually, by a vote of the employees. We need more negotiation and less litigation.

With that, I turn to my Amendment 127, which is intended to provide my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State with a mechanism to promote and encourage collective bargaining on a sector-wide basis without prescribing in detail the model to be deployed. It would be used when needed and would not compel the Government to put it into operation. I will not repeat the arguments about collective bargaining that I developed in Committee over the course of three speeches, but I think I may be permitted to summarise the gist of those arguments in six points.

First, the Bill makes commendable reforms to the legal machinery to establish collective bargaining between trade unions and a single employer, but there is no mechanism in the Bill or anywhere else for multi-employer collective agreements or sector-wide collective agreements.

Secondly, sectoral collective bargaining was the norm for the United Kingdom from 1918 until 1990. It established a coverage of over 80% of British workers between 1945 and the late 1980s. The percentage of workers covered by collective agreement has now declined to 25%. That means that three-quarters of our workforce are employed on “take it or leave it” terms, without any possibility of negotiating anything better than that which the employer offers.

Thirdly, 80% collective bargaining coverage is curiously—or coincidentally—the level now set for the 27 member states of the European Union, after two decades during which the EU undermined sectoral collective bargaining. That policy was reversed in 2024 by means of a directive. Collective bargaining is now advocated by the OECD, since 2017, the IMF and, of course, the ILO.

Fourthly, Labour’s Green Paper, A New Deal for Working People; its subsequent publication on making work pay, implementing the new deal for working people; Labour’s election manifesto; and the King’s Speech all endorsed the extension of collective bargaining.

Fifthly, I come to the benefits of sectoral collective bargaining, which need spelling out again. There are at least eight benefits, as I identify them. The first is that sectoral collective bargaining increases wages. Let us recall that the real value of wages has risen only 0.5% in the past 20 years. Secondly, a rise in wages increases demand in the economy—demand for the goods and services produced by employers. Thirdly, collective bargaining contracts the differentials that have emerged: the gender pay gap, the ethnic-minority pay gap, the disability pay gap and so on. Fourthly, by increasing wages, collective bargaining diminishes the need for state benefits by way of subsidy to low wages. Let us not forget that 31% of those in receipt of universal credit are in work, which gives an indication of the lowness of wages in this country. Fifthly, increasing wages increases the Government’s tax take, which diminishes the need to find money elsewhere. Sixthly, sectoral collective bargaining prevents employers undercutting each other on labour costs. Seventhly, the other side of that coin is that it encourages employers to compete on productivity, investment, efficiency and innovation. Eighthly—this is an important point—it achieves a form of democracy at work. It gives workers a say in the terms and conditions on which they work.

I said there were six points, and the sixth and final point is one of particular interest to me as a lawyer. It is the observation that the rule of law plays a part here. The rule of law, Lord Bingham’s eighth principle, is that states must abide by the treaties they have ratified. That principle has been endorsed in almost every speech I have heard my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer KC, the Attorney-General, give since his appointment to that office. This is significant because International Labour Organization Convention No. 98 and Article 6.2 of the European Social Charter 1961 impose the duty on ratifying states, which includes the United Kingdom, not just to permit collective bargaining but to promote and encourage it. The Bill was the opportunity to promote and encourage collective bargaining at sectoral level, but it does nothing to do so in any sector of the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke—my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady O’Grady, Lord Monks and Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, tabled Amendment 125, which seeks to give workers the right to opt out of collective agreements. Workers are free to join or not to join a trade union. It is their choice. They are not compelled to pay any union subscriptions, or any part thereof, where a union is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes—so they do not need to pay any union subscription or join a union.

Many employers choose to recognise a union voluntarily. One advantage of trade union recognition is that this enables the employer to negotiate collective agreements, the terms of which may apply to all workers in a workplace. My noble friend Lord Hendy explained so clearly the principles of collective agreements—he said all that I needed to say.

The application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends, in any event, on incorporation of those terms into the workers’ contracts, either expressly or by implication. That is the normal position. But providing some individual workers with a new statutory right to withdraw from the provisions agreed under a collective agreement, even where they can rely on statutory entitlements, would create an unnecessary risk of a multi-tier system, with workers on different terms and conditions of employment. We believe that this would not be beneficial to employers as it would likely create more red tape and confusion. We cannot, therefore, support this amendment.

Amendment 127 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. We welcome any support for sectoral collective bargaining and we appreciate the informed and wide-ranging debate we had in Committee on these points. We are demonstrating our commitment to sectoral collective bargaining with the social care and school support staff sectors, as was debated on the earlier group.

We believe that bespoke primary legislation will be required to allow such bodies to operate as effectively as possible. This will allow Parliament to fully consider any such sectors and scrutinise the frameworks for the new bargaining processes. We welcome all representation regarding next steps on sectoral collective bargaining, and we are working hard to consider the groundwork required for future models. However, before this work is done, we do not seek the sweeping powers that my noble friend’s amendment aims to give the Secretary of State without a sufficiently clear purpose or plan.

I say to my noble friend Lord Hendy that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining where appropriate, and we recognise the positive contribution it can make to Britain’s economy. However, different sectors will have different needs, so we need to ensure that any legislation on collective bargaining is fit for purpose for each of the specific sectors. Developing the legislation in collaboration with the sector and workers will be key to success. I hope this offers my noble friend some comfort and that he will not go further with this amendment.

I referred to my noble friend Lady O’Grady, and I will ensure that I mention this to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, the Cabinet Office Minister, so that she can organise meetings for her with officials in the department. I totally agree with the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, about ethnic minority business. Most businesses are good businesses. What this Bill does is go after those minority unscrupulous businesses that exploit workers. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 125.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate. I confess that I will have to go back and bone up on my Stanley Baldwin history—I was not expecting that. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, accused me of ignorance of industrial relations. He asked why anyone would agree to detrimental terms, but that is missing the point, I fear. We are saying that they should be allowed to agree to different terms. Why should a worker not be allowed to trade some holiday entitlement for extra pay, for example?

We agree that we need significantly less litigation. We have been discussing that throughout the passage of the Bill. Unfortunately, as we have also discussed, so much of the Bill is likely to lead to rather more. I was very interested in the noble Lord’s comments about the workforce up until 1990, but my noble friend Lady Verma hit the nail on the head when she talked about small businesses. The fact is that the workplace has changed so dramatically in the last 35 years that I do not think that necessarily remains a valid comparison.

We have argued that free negotiation between employers and employees must be the foundation of any fair and modern employment framework. But we regret that what we see here is a model rooted in uniformity and prescription. That is flawed not just in detail but in principle, because a one-size-fits-all approach flattens the complexity and diversity of real working life and ignores the dignity and agency of the individual. Having said that, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, carefully and, on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 125.

Amendment 125 withdrawn.

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to the Government’s Statement and the accompanying Green Paper, Future of Post Office. This marks the first comprehensive review of the network in over 15 years—one that, I must say at the outset, raises as many questions as it seeks to answer. We on these Benches recognise, as I believe all noble Lords do, the vital social and economic role of the Post Office in every corner of our country. Whether it serves as the last shop in a rural village, a banking hub for the digitally excluded or a trusted lifeline for elderly customers, the Post Office is far more than just a delivery counter; it is part of the national fabric. Yet as we examine this Green Paper, we are confronted with proposals that suggest the Government are focused more on loosening their obligations than on strengthening the network’s future.

I begin with the most glaring concern: the proposed removal of the long-standing requirement for 11,500 branches. The Government say that this figure is arbitrary, yet it is one that has long underpinned public and parliamentary confidence in the reach of the Post Office network. So I ask the Minister directly: will the Government replace this minimum with a new commitment? The Green Paper claims that some branches exist solely to meet the 11,500 target, rather than community need. If that is the case, how many such branches are there and where are they? These are not academic questions; they go to the heart of rural and community access. Does the Minister expect that the current network access criteria will be changed within the timeframe of this Parliament? Do the Government accept that we have to ask these questions, otherwise there may be the suspicion that we are entering a phase of managed decline by stealth?

The Government also assure us that 99% of the population will remain within three miles of a branch. How will that promise be maintained without a firm floor on the number of branches? Is the Minister suggesting that we should accept consolidation in urban centres at the cost of village branches? We do not feel that we should replace geographic equity with mere spreadsheet logic.

The Government’s preferred path for the future ownership of the Post Office appears to be mutualisation—a model that has long had appeal—but the fine print of the Green Paper tells a different story. It seems that mutualisation has been pushed well beyond the current Parliament and will not be delivered before 2030, and then only after a further three years of implementation, if it happens at all. For many postmasters who have already endured over a decade of uncertainty and the profound trauma of the Horizon scandal, the proposed timeline may well feel like a further deferral—an important reform pushed into the distant future rather than a commitment delivered in the present. Moreover, the Green Paper offers no clarity on what constitutes financial and operational stability. What are the benchmarks for profitability or branch sustainability that would trigger mutualisation? Can the Minister please provide a definition?

We are told that the Post Office must modernise to embrace technological change, and indeed a major and welcome focus of the Green Paper is on future-proofing—quite so—but after the Horizon scandal, no one in this House needs reminding that technology alone does not ensure progress, particularly when its implementation is opaque and accountability is absent. In the wake of the Horizon scandal, it is vital that any new technologies introduced across the Post Office network are subject to rigorous, independent testing and transparent auditing. Staff and postmasters must be assured of clear, protected channels to raise concerns, free from fear or reprisal. We cannot afford the emergence of another Horizon.

There is also the curious matter of Royal Mail. The Green Paper mentions the possibility of closer working, but says that currently

“a re-merger is not under consideration”.

Is it off the table entirely or merely on pause?

The Green Paper calls itself the start of “an honest conversation”. We are happy to believe that, but, if it is so, then the Government must begin by answering the questions that we have put before them today. We on these Benches will continue to hold Ministers to account on the future of access, ownership, technological governance and the true role of the Post Office in national life. After everything the postmasters have endured and all that the Horizon scandal laid bare, this moment must not be about withdrawing responsibility but restoring trust. I urge the Government to match any consultation with clarity, ambition and integrity.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has spoken about the Green Paper, but I understood that we were responding only to the Post Office Horizon inquiry’s first report. I apologise if we are meant to cover the Green Paper, but, having had that instruction, I have rewritten my speech accordingly.

We need time to consider the inquiry’s first report. The Statement expresses many of the sentiments that we often hear at the Dispatch Box: admiration for the fearless and diligent work of Sir Wyn Williams, the bravery of the postmasters, and descriptions of what the Post Office, and through it, Governments, have done over a number of years. All that is true, but the problem is that, once again, a judge leading an inquiry has had to call out the lack of delivery and transparency, and, frankly, the re-victimisation of the postmasters and their families. It is just unacceptable. It is close to the old-fashioned saying about cheques: “words and figures do not agree”.

My first question to the Minister is: will the Government review all Sir Wyn’s recommendations, and, as importantly, the evidence of poor delivery in the compensation scheme that he cites, and report back to Parliament in three months? This cannot go on. Some postmasters are dying; until all have realistic offers of compensation, they remain in a financial limbo created by the Post Office and Whitehall.

To give the House an example from the report, page 48 sets out the design of the scheme, which was meant to be “user friendly”. Sir Wyn says that it was so chaotically delivered that, as described in paragraph 4.23, a postmaster’s eligibility criteria were

“determined by employees of the Post Office”

and not by people independent of it. Employees then decided whether the postmaster had suffered a shortfall. Assessors from the Post Office’s solicitors would value that and then write a recommendation for the independent panel. The independent panel’s overriding priority, set by the Post Office, was speed and to assess via its terms of reference, created by the Post Office.

That is just one example from Sir Wyn’s excellent report, but it demonstrates once again why such compensation schemes must be run truly independently from the body that caused the damage. He recommends a truly independent body and not one at arm’s length like the Infected Blood Compensation Authority, because not even that is truly independent. Are the Government going to consider this seriously? From what was said in the Statement, it does not sound like it.

I ask the Minister what it will take to change this. We now have or have had problems with the Post Office Horizon scheme, the Windrush scheme and the IBCA scheme. The government approach to redress and remedy, regardless of the Government, fails time and again; even worse, the problems last longer because there is no real desire to change.

Then there is the issue of Fujitsu. Sir Wyn says that the Post Office and the Government must start discussions with Fujitsu on its contribution to this scheme. Will the Minister provide a timetable for those discussions? There is also another Fujitsu issue: it is now clear from the evidence heard at the public inquiry that it was complicit at the very least, and proactive at worst, in helping the Post Office in its cases in court against postmasters over many years. We know the police are now investigating this, including for perjury and other very serious crimes.

There is a further question. Why does government continue to recontract Fujitsu in other areas? Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are completely confident that Fujitsu meets the high standard of probity required of large IT contracts?

It is good that it is proposed that the family members of postmasters who suffered because of the scandal will receive redress. But before the Government copy the arrangements for the infected blood scandal, will they please look at the very large problems that the affected victims’ scheme already has? It still has 18 months before it offers its first compensation.

In opposition, Labour repeatedly promised that a duty of candour would be one of its priorities to ensure that discussions start at an early stage as it becomes clear that there are problems somewhere. But the Government have delayed the introduction of the Bill. Can the Minister say when that legislation will be presented to Parliament?

From these Lib Dem Benches, we believe that is not enough. It is essential that whistleblowers have a safe place to air their concerns. We believe that, given the repeated slapping down of anyone expressing concerns—which, by the way, delayed so many truths coming out—an independent office of the whistleblower must be set up. The decades of wrongdoing are a shameful episode in this country’s history. We need mechanisms in place to ensure that this never happens again.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who very powerfully made the case for Amendment 48. I am going to focus on Amendment 47. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, has already made the case for that very powerfully, but I will add one very recent set of statistics to it.

The noble Baroness mentioned unions and, just last week, Unite put out a study that polled women across the 19 sectors of work that it covers. It found—these figures are truly shocking—that a quarter of respondents said that they had been sexually assaulted at work, in a workplace-related environment or on the way to and from work. Some 8% said that they had been a victim of sexual coercion at work. This is the sort of situation that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

People are in insecure employment and zero-hours contracts, which the Government are doing something about—perhaps not quite enough but something. If you are in a situation where you desperately need those hours and the supervisor decides where on the rota you are and how many hours you will get, that puts the supervisor in an incredible position of power, which can and clearly is being abused.

What is really telling is that 56% of respondents said they had heard a sexually offensive joke at work and 55% had experienced unwanted gestures or sexual remarks. I am sure the government response will be to tell us that they are taking measures to react, but, crucially, Amendment 47 sets out a responsibility to prevent it happening.

This really needs to be regarded as a public health measure. We hear often in your Lordships’ Chamber about the issues around mental health and well-being and the problems we have in our society. If you are forced to keep going into a workplace that is actively hostile to you, with gender harassment and abuse, then that will be very bad for you and for the company. As a society, we should not tolerate it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for introducing it. We must, of course, recognise that violence and harassment in the workplace are unacceptable in any form. It is also important to acknowledge that women, particularly in certain sectors, are often at greater risk and may face additional barriers to speaking out or seeking redress.

This amendment raises serious and pressing concerns about how we ensure that all workplaces are safe, inclusive and free from abuse. The call for more proactive duties on employers and greater involvement from the Health and Safety Executive is one approach to addressing these challenges. However, as with any proposed legislative change, it is right that we consider carefully the potential implications, including how such duties would be enforced, the capacity of the Health and Safety Executive, and how we balance existing legal protections with any new obligations we would place on employers. I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this point, particularly with regard to how the Government see the role of regulation, guidance and support in preventing workplace violence and harassment.

In Amendment 47, my interest was piqued by subsection (3C) to be inserted by the proposed new clause, which refers to

“gender identities, including women and girls”.

That seems to me to stray dangerously on to Supreme Court territory, which, as I understand it, we have yet to hear the EHRC’s guidance on. It strikes me as a tad premature, but I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say on it.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes—I apologise if I have mispronounced that—for tabling these amendments. I reassure her that the Government are fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment, in particular gender-based violence and harassment.

The current strong regulatory framework ensures that workers are protected from such risks. Employers currently have a clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks under the long-established Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the statutory provisions made under it. That includes taking action to prevent workplace violence. They are required to assess those risks and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce them.

As part of this existing regulatory framework, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess risks that arise from work activity, including the potential for violence, and take suitable action to reduce or eliminate those risks. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and its associated regulations cannot be used for issues that arise outside of work activity, as that would result in the Health and Safety Executive operating ultra vires.

The HSE and local authorities, which are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, take both proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers are complying with their duties. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate measures to protect their workers and anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence.

The HSE has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations. In the noble Baroness’s proposal, there is a request for the HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. However, this framework already exists as employers have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to ensure they have sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety risks arising out of work activity, including violence and aggression. Where an employer is found to have breached health and safety law, the HSE does not have powers to issue fines. When a significant breach is identified and the case meets the threshold for prosecution under the Code for Crown Prosecutors, the HSE brings employers to account through the criminal justice system. It is then for the courts to decide the penalties subsequently imposed if an employer is found guilty of such offences, and any fine imposed by the courts goes directly to His Majesty’s Treasury.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

If the low-hours contract threshold is set at the right level, this section of the Bill can and will succeed. It can end potentially exploitative zero-hours contracts without taking a wrecking ball to the employment practices that work well for our economy, for our businesses and, most importantly, for millions of hard-working people in the United Kingdom. It is in that spirit that I commend this amendment to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who speaks with genuine authority and deep experience on this important subject.

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. I shall start with Amendment 2, about which we have just heard, which is also signed by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. Clause 1 requires employers to offer guaranteed-hours contracts to low-hours workers after a reference period, but, as we have heard, the Government still have not defined what low hours actually means. That is not a minor technicality, because at this stage it makes the policy unworkable.

We are hearing that the Government prefer to define low hours as 16 hours per week, but we have also heard that is too high. We saw some different data. According to the British Retail Consortium, only 5.5% of retail workers are on below eight-hour contracts, while nearly 20% work between eight and 16. Raising the threshold to 16 hours would mean that employers are forced to repeatedly make contractual offers to one in five workers, most of whom are in regular, stable, part-time work. It is a dramatic expansion, with, as we have heard, very major consequences. As we have also heard, some of those consequences are higher employment costs, increased complexity, particularly for small businesses, and, inevitably, job losses.

Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will respond rationally to risk. That means fewer short shift roles, fewer flexible contracts and less tolerance for marginal labour hours. Some will restructure and some will reduce headcount, but others—especially small businesses—will just close. If the Government define low hours at 16, they will directly accelerate redundancies and reduce employment opportunities for those with caring responsibilities, students and others who depend on part-time jobs. We have also just heard very powerfully about the effect on entry-level employment, illustrated with some very stark statistics.

This is not speculation; it is how businesses operate. A badly defined threshold forces risk-averse behaviour and the effect will be the opposite of what is intended. An eight-hour threshold would limit the burden to genuinely casual contracts. That is a workable, proportionate and sensible approach. Anything beyond that is unmanageable and would be economically reckless. The Government need to listen.

On Amendments 3, 4 and 5, the Government have indicated that they are considering setting the reference period for guaranteed hours at 12 weeks. During Committee on 29 April, I asked the Minister which businesses support a 12-week reference period; at that time, she was unable to name a single business. It is now nearly two and a half months later, and I am confident that she will still be unable to provide an answer as to how many businesses, particularly small businesses, support a 12-week reference period.

The reality is that no meaningful business sector has endorsed this 12-week period. It is simply out of touch with the realities of running a business, especially in sectors such as retail, hospitality and leisure, where work patterns fluctuate widely with the seasons, weather and customer demand.

A 26-week reference period is far more practical. It would better capture seasonal cycles, provide clarity and stability for employers and employees alike and significantly reduce the administrative burden of constantly reassessing guaranteed hours. Without a longer reference period, employers will simply reduce hiring on 12-week contracts to avoid triggering this costly and complex obligation. That will not protect workers; it will diminish their opportunities and increase their precarious nature. I therefore urge the House to support the amendments put forward by me and my noble friends. We have set the reference period at 26 weeks. This is sensible, it is a workable compromise, and it will protect workers’ rights while respecting the operational realities of businesses.

To turn lastly to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I were happy to sign, it makes no sense to require employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees who do not want them. The Government appear to misunderstand or simply disregard the autonomy of the individual worker. Imposing this administrative burden, especially on small employers, to calculate and offer guaranteed hours where they are neither wanted nor needed is an unnecessary and unavoidable cost. We therefore strongly support the right to request amendment proposed by the noble Lord, which better respects worker choice and employer flexibility.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this first group, but I shall speak briefly to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which, as she explained, is an amendment to the Government’s Amendment 8, and Amendment 22. I want to interrogate the wording of the Government’s Amendment 8. We have a 309-page Bill. There is a lot of concern outside, at the coal face, from businesses about definitions and what the Bill means. This is a good example:

“In exercising the power under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to … the desirability of preventing this Chapter from having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances”.


Can the Minister explain how these exceptional circumstances are defined, and how significant does the adverse effect need to be for it to be regarded by the Secretary of State?

I ask that mindful of the latest survey from the Federation of Small Businesses, just a couple of days ago, which surely signals significant adverse effects for the majority of small and micro-businesses. For the first time in its history, the FSB reports that more UK small firms expect to shrink, sell up or shut down over the next 12 months than anticipate growth. The FSB’s Q2 small business index shows that 27% of small businesses expect to contract, close or be sold, outstripping the 25% which are planning for growth, and it marks the first time that the balance has tipped towards pessimism since the index began. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, points out in her amendment, there is no need to layer “exceptional circumstances” on to already significant adverse effects on employers. It would be far neater, of course, to exempt small and micro-businesses from Clause 1, as I and many others argued throughout Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

24: Clause 5, page 31, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Chapter, references to a “relevant collective agreement” shall be treated as including an agreement in writing between an employer and an employee representative body or staff association that—(a) has been formally established for the purposes of consultation or negotiation with the employer,(b) represents either a defined group of the employer’s workers or the workforce generally, and(c) operates independently of the employer in its decision-making.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, for the purposes of this Chapter, agreements made with independent employee representative bodies or staff associations — where formally constituted and independent — may be treated as equivalent to collective agreements.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 24 and 25 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. As we highlighted in Committee, the Government appear to hold an implicit bias in favour of the trade unions, as though they are the only legitimate bodies capable of making rational decisions on behalf of workers. That is clearly not the case. One needs only to look at the chaos of the Birmingham bin strikes to see that unions are not always acting in the best interests of employees, and nor are they always representative of them.

In Committee, during the debate on Clause 5, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, remarked that

“the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people”.—[Official Report, 8/5/25; col. 1744.]

If that is so, surely workers should be free to choose whether to be represented by a union or by another independent body—choice is the essence of workplace democracy. If the noble Baroness and the Government are so committed to democratic representation, I wonder whether she also supports the Government’s proposal to remove the 50% ballot threshold for strike action—a move that clearly undermines democratic standards rather than upholding them.

On Amendment 25, the law must have no gaps, no shadows and no hiding places where the old habits of industrial bullying can take root and flourish. Every loophole we leave open becomes a wound in the body politic of free employment. Every ambiguity we permit becomes a tool for those who would turn the noble art of collective bargaining into a weapon of exclusion. That is why I speak in support of this amendment and why I urge the Government not to dismiss it on the tired ground that closed shops are already unlawful.

Yes, closed shops are illegal on paper, but we are not here to legislate for the perfect world of statutory textbooks; we are here to legislate for the real world and, in the real world, pressure to join a union can exist. This amendment simply states what most of us would regard as common sense: that no worker should be treated differently under a collective agreement based solely on their union membership status. It would prohibit making membership a condition for the agreement’s terms to apply. It would ban imposing any disadvantage on non-members and prevent contract terms being automatically imported purely because someone happens to hold a union card. In other words, it restores balance. It would ensure that collective agreements function as they ought to—as negotiated protections for the workforce—not as a gatekeeping tool for union organisers. It does not therefore weaken unions; it strengthens fairness. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I reiterate his key point that the imperative is to make it clear that the closed shop is not coming back and that the Government are committed to free but fair bargaining.

Let us remember that the closed shop has never actually been that popular. In the United States, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed the closed shop, and in the UK—even before I was born—in 1964 Rookes v Barnard involving the British Overseas Airways Corporation began the fightback against the closed shop when that organisation sacked a worker who refused to join a trade union. As noble Lords will know, in effect the closed shop was made illegal by the Employment Act 1990 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The fact that we accept that the closed shop is damaging and an anachronism is, as much as anything, a reflection of the different working regimes in which the 40-odd million working people, or potentially working people, in this country exist. The closed shop was very much of a time when heavy manufacturing, manual labour and a heavily unionised workforce were prevalent, and that is now different. The working environment of young people particularly is a much more modern, diverse, dynamic and disaggregated labour market where the closed shop is a throwback and an anachronism.

There are good reasons why it is important to put in primary legislation that even this Government—who are legislating in a very negative way, which will cost jobs and opportunities and force people not to hire workers—will not go back to the bad old days of the 1970s and institute a closed shop. Labour market flexibility is reduced by the closed shop because the capacity of employers to employ the best-qualified candidates—regardless of union membership—is reduced. That inevitably leads to a misallocation of labour resources, higher business costs, higher prices and, ipso facto, a lower number of jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his explanation for Amendments 24 and 25, and note that these are similar to the amendments he tabled in Committee, but with some of the safeguards and requirements removed. While I respect the noble Lord’s views in this area, I feel this is going in the wrong direction. Staff associations and employee representative bodies can of course be a very positive way for staff and employers to engage. However, we are not convinced they are the suitable vehicle for deciding whether to modify or opt out of statutory employment rights. While many maintain a good balance between positive engagement and constructive challenge, we are not persuaded that they will, in all cases, argue as robustly as a trade union on behalf of workers. In addition, without a trade union representing them, workers will not have as many protections if their employer does not deliver promised benefits.

This is nothing to do with a closed shop or industrial bullying. Under our proposals, employees will continue to have the right to be, or not to be, a member of a trade union. The issue here is the right to be represented by a body that is truly independent. We remain of the view that agreements of this type are best made by trade unions which have been through all the steps to become listed and certified as independent. I would encourage any staff association or employee representative body that wants to negotiate on behalf of its members to register as a trade union and go through the steps to obtain a certificate of independence from the certification officer.

The second part of the noble Lord’s amendment sets out that a relevant collective agreement shall not be treated as valid if it meets conditions such as imposing detriment or disadvantage on a worker who is not a member of a trade union and terms being incorporated into a worker’s contract solely by reason of union membership status. We believe that these provisions are unnecessary. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already provides sufficient protection by ensuring that workers cannot be subject to detriment for the purpose of compelling them to join a trade union. Furthermore, the application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends on incorporation of them into their contracts, either expressly or by implication, in line with well-established contract law, rather than on the basis of a trade union membership.

I turn to Amendments 26 and 27 in my name. Currently, when the terms of a collective agreement cease to be incorporated, the worker’s initial reference period and initial information period recommence the next day. However, in some cases, there could be quite a gap between these terms ceasing to be in force and the worker next being employed by the employer to work. We heard the strength of feeling around business burden in Committee and, where it is possible to make tweaks, we will do so. In this case, we believe it makes more sense for the reference period to start the next time the worker is employed by the employer. This avoids businesses having to consider making a guaranteed-hours offer before it is sensible and necessary to do so.

We are also tabling a minor and technical amendment to new Section 27BY(8) to reflect that the duty relating to the information right in the existing provisions will be on agencies to inform potential eligible agency workers about the right to guaranteed hours in any relevant information period.

Finally, Amendment 27 ensures that the zero-hours measures in the Bill apply as appropriate to special categories of workers. This follows a long-standing precedent that these categories of workers should be treated as distinct, as they do not have a typical employment relationship or undertake a unique type of work. In line with this precedent, the amendment ensures that House of Commons and House of Lords staff, Crown employees and mariners benefit from the crucial protections the Bill provides on zero hours. It also ensures that duties made under provisions in the Bill do not apply where this would not be appropriate; namely, in relation to service personnel in the Armed Forces and police officers. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 24 and commend Amendments 26 and 27.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I first thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor for their comments. Employee representation must be plural and not monopolised by trade unions. There are many workplaces across the country where independent staff associations or employee bodies are trusted, respected and effective. These organisations are not lesser simply because they are not unions. In fact, they are often more in tune with their colleagues’ needs, less politicised and more flexible in resolving workplace issues—yet disappointingly, the Minister says they are not “suitable”.

The idea that only a union can be trusted to negotiate terms is a fiction—we just have to look at Birmingham to see the results of that belief. This amendment simply recognises reality: that employee voices come in many forms and the law should not shut out legitimate and independent associations.

Secondly and just as crucially, we cannot allow this legislation to leave space for any form of closed shop, not in name or in practice. It is true of course that compulsory union membership is already unlawful, as the Minister pointed out, but this amendment would ensure that there were no back doors. We do not think the law should have any ambiguity on this. No agreement should ever impose a detriment on a worker simply because they choose not to join a union, and as my noble friend Lady Lawlor pointed out, the majority choose not to—in fact, in the private sector, I think that the proportion who choose not to join a union is 87.7%. No terms should be granted only by virtue of membership. That is not freedom; that is coercion.

We therefore say again that collective bargaining should not become collective exclusion. These amendments would uphold freedom of association in both directions: the right to join and the right not to, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lord Palmer, to which I too have added my name, I must apologise that I have been unable to speak at earlier stages of the Bill. I also strongly support Amendments 31 and 32 regarding kinship carers. I have spent a lot of time on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, where we have spent a lot of time talking about the importance of kinship care. We need to see join-up between that Bill and this Bill, so that kinship carers, who play such a critical role, get the support they need.

On Amendment 104 and the proposal for paid carer’s leave, which was set out admirably by my noble friend Lord Palmer, it is clear that it is both a modest proposition and incredibly important to unpaid carers trying to juggle work and caring. As we have heard, it would, in effect, turn the current provision—normally up to five days leave within 12 months, as set out in the Carer’s Leave Act and so already a clearly defined right—into a statutory pay entitlement. If you have supported a relative who needs care and worked at the same time, which many of us have, including me, you will know how time poor you are, that it is an incredible juggling act, and that paid carer’s leave can make a real difference.

I have spoken directly to carers who do not have paid carer’s leave in the workplace. They say that taking annual leave is exhausting and they never get a proper holiday. Unpaid leave was a useful step forward and it is right and important, but the unpaid nature of the leave can be challenging. As we have heard, a number of employers have already voluntarily embraced paid carer’s leave because they understand the beneficial impact it has, particularly on productivity and staff retention.

There are all sorts of examples of good employer practice. We have already heard about Centrica. The Phoenix Group offers two weeks of paid carer’s leave and recently added five days of unpaid leave. Some 6% of colleagues took up the offer, with an average rate of 2.64 days. We are not talking about an open cheque here. The employer said: “We have had extremely positive feedback from our colleagues and there have only been benefits to the business as a whole”. Paid carer’s leave would support workers of all ages, from young carers to adult carers and older workers. It would be a positive all-age and all-gender policy, but the reality is that women are more likely to be carers and at risk of working part-time with lower incomes in retirement, so paid carer’s leave is a positive equalities policy.

The final point I want to make is about what is happening internationally. There is a move to deliver more paid carer’s leave support, recognising ageing societies, a greater proportion of retired population to workers and the imperative for people to work for longer. Australia and Germany have 10 days of paid carer’s leave, and Germany has longer-term provisions as well. It is seen in those countries as an important strand of reducing economic inactivity, something we badly need to do here, as the Treasury quite rightly reminds us. With a shortage of social care and carers taking on more hours of care, there is a huge need to ensure that unpaid carers are supported to juggle work and caring responsibilities. It is not a “nice to have”; it is essential.

I will finish with the real-life example of Michelle White from the TSB, who was happy to have her name quoted. She said, “Paid carer’s leave provides a vital lifeline in my ability to care for my sister, often at short notice, and we would both struggle without it. This important measure allows me to provide support during an emergency. I can be there when it matters, with peace of mind that my career will not be jeopardised simply because I am a carer. I cannot speak highly enough about paid carer’s leave and the need for all carers to be supported in this way. Working for a business like TSB that recognises carers and offers this type of support is priceless”.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his thoughtful introduction. These amendments raise an issue of deep humanity, that of kinship carers—family members, friends or relatives who step up, often at short notice and with immense personal sacrifice, to care for a child who cannot remain with their parents. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that kinship carers perform a vital role, and often without the financial or legal support that accompanies formal fostering or adoption. These proposals seek to address that gap through the creation of a statutory kinship care leave entitlement, mirroring in some respects existing entitlements such as maternity or adoption leave. It is a serious and thoughtful contribution to the long-standing challenge of how we support informal family networks caring for vulnerable children and this is a cause worthy of respect and policy consideration. However, although the underlying issue is important, we must also take account of practicality and timing. We have similar concerns to those expressed by others about the cumulative burdens placed on businesses by this Government, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

We are debating these amendments in a broader context in which the Government have already imposed or are proposing to impose a series of costly new obligations on employers. We were talking in the last group about day-one rights to statutory sick pay and compensated cancelled shifts with undefined notice periods, and now we are talking about potentially a new category of leave which may extend up to 52 weeks with full employment protections and return-to-work guarantees. Each of these measures in isolation may be defensible and even commendable, but taken together, they represent a heavy financial and administrative load, particularly for small businesses in the retail, hospitality and service sectors, many of which are still struggling in the wake of the pandemic with ongoing and increasing cost pressures. In the case of kinship care leave, the details are vague and defer to regulation, leaving employers in the dark about how it will work in practice. What counts as evidence of an eligible arrangement? Will the leave be paid and, if so, by whom? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse? These questions must be answered before we can impose another legal obligation on employers.

We also have to be honest about timing. The economic climate remains fragile. Many small businesses operate on margins of just a few per cent. For a family-run corner shop or a café with six staff, the unexpected loss of one employee for several months could be devastating, particularly if there is no clear mechanism for support or to backfill that position. We respect and admire the intent behind these amendments, but we must weigh them against the real-world pressures facing employers. This is not the right time to impose new, poorly defined and potentially costly statutory entitlements, especially without clarity on how they will be funded or implemented. We need to support kinship carers, but let us do so in a way that is targeted, workable and fair to employers as well as families.

On government Amendment 34, my noble friend Lady Coffey has raised some important questions and I am looking forward to the answers. Does this amendment cover just termination on grounds of foetal anomaly or for medical reasons? Or is the rest of the subject taken in by that rather catch-all phrase,

“pregnancy loss of a specified kind”?

Can the Minister give us some information as to what he thinks the meaning of “a specified kind” is?

Finally, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has asked for details about the review, citing a paucity of information. Having been present throughout all these debates, I know that “paucity of information” is a recurring theme with regard to this Bill. I am also keen to hear what the Minister has to say in due course.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Lister, and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Turning first to Amendments 31 and 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on the important topic of kinship care leave, I begin by giving my thanks to the right honourable Sir Ed Davey MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has powerfully shared his personal experiences of kinship care and of being a carer himself. This has brought much-needed attention to the importance of kinship care and of supporting caregivers across the United Kingdom. It is important for me to address that.

The Government greatly appreciate the role that kinship carers play by offering loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. I am sure your Lordships’ House shares these sentiments. We also know the current system needs improvement, because it does not support working families as well as it could. This is why we have already begun work to improve the system of kinship carers, starting with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which will create a legal definition of kinship care to ensure consistency in how local authorities identify and support kinship families. That is why we have to work across government in this area.

I am pleased to say that the Government have announced a £40 million package to pilot a new kinship allowance, which is due to commence later this year. This is the single biggest investment made by government in kinship care to date. The Government’s recently launched parental leave review also presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the whole system of parental leave and pay. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Tyler, also asked about the terms of reference and how long this review will be. The terms of reference are published online, and the review is expected to last 18 months so that we can speak to stakeholders and various charities and come to some form of decision at a much later stage.

All current and upcoming parental care and pay entitlements will be within scope of the review. It will also consider the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers. Creating an entitlement for kinship carers would pre-empt the review before it had had a chance to consider support for kinship carers in the context of wider parental leave and the pay landscape.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, if he pushes this to a vote, for a number of reasons, eloquently given by a number of speakers. It comes back to how we value people, whether they are volunteers, kinship people or carers, and where they sit in society. I listened to a couple of the speeches about the days of yore, when the policemen just wandered around the streets, cuffed young boys around the ear and sent them back to school. Those days are gone now, and these special constables are just as much at risk as any other police officer on duty. The people who are coming out and causing trouble, whether they are on drugs or whatever, have no idea, conception or care whether it is a real policeman or a special constable.

Why we are debating the right to time off and reasonable expense is beyond me. Certain things should be blindingly obvious, and this is one of them. Way back in the mid-1990s when I was vice-chair of the Greater Manchester Police Authority, some of the things I saw and heard about what happened to police officers did not always make the press. Special constables and community officers bring the cohesion and bring communities together, and the more that we can get that togetherness without vast expense to the police budget that the Government are trying to control, the better and more settled our society will be. It is a small price to pay for a lot of benefits for a lot of people.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing forward this amendment. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow for his very kind words. I strongly support the amendment, which would provide a clear statutory right for special constables to take time off from their regular employment to fulfil their duties under the direction of a chief officer of police.

This amendment would provide a modest but crucial right, protected time off to serve. It would bring special constables in line with other categories of public service, recognised under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, such as magistrates and school governors. At a time when police forces are under sustained pressure and when public trust in law enforcement depends on a strong and visible local presence, supporting the contribution of special constables is not just the right thing to do but essential. We rely on these volunteers to keep our communities safe; the least we can do is to ensure that they are not penalised in their day jobs for answering that call.

I hope that the Government have heard the strength of feeling around the House on this issue. I think all speakers spoke favourably about this amendment and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friends Lord Remnant and Lord Bailey made some excellent points, albeit slightly different. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked an incredibly good question, and I am very keen to hear the answer, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, I am not sure that context is particularly necessary in the case of the specials, because of course they already exist, so they operate in their own context already. However, I am interested in the homeland security dimension, not least because I might even volunteer.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling Amendment 42, which seeks to permit a special constable to request reasonable unpaid time off from their employer to perform their public duty. In so doing, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his service, as well as to many other noble Lords, whose service we were either aware of or not so aware of—not just the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, who had some interesting tales of his truncheon, and from across the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, himself.

The Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe, as very ably described by a number of noble Lords in the debate, not just the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, but the noble Lords, Lord Remnant, Lord Goddard and Lord Bailey of Paddington.

--- Later in debate ---

I also reiterate a crucial question raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, who has stopped falling off the Alps and has now almost recovered. In Committee, he asked for Members of this House to have sight of the draft regulations under this section, and a clear explanation of how the guidelines will function alongside regulations. Without that transparency, it is difficult to fully understand how the Government intend for these provisions to work and to be assured that the rights of workers will be properly safeguarded.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lord Holmes of Richmond for their amendments in this group. I join the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, in his remarks about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in particular, which addresses an important point about the employment opportunities for blind and sight-impaired people. Unfortunately, the measures in the Bill make it significantly more costly to hire all individuals, and this will hit those on the margins of the labour market the hardest.

My noble friend Lord Young has made some very compelling points in Committee and now on Report on Clause 20, and this is where the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I differ. If the Government do not accept my noble friend’s amendments, we must consider the logical—and potentially absurd—consequences of allowing unqualified liability for indirect harassment.

Imagine for a moment that the same principle was applied here in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just did, while making some very good points. Suppose for example a guest in the Public Gallery was to lean over and whisper something mildly controversial—perhaps a pointed remark about constitutional reform. A doorkeeper standing nearby happens to overhear it and finds it offensive. Under the logic of indirect third-party harassment liability, would the Lord Speaker be expected to issue a formal apology? Would Black Rod be required to eject the offender and impose mandatory sensitivity training on all future guests? What would the “banter consultant” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, say about that?

This illustrates the unworkability and overreach of the current drafting. No one would expect Members of this House to be held responsible for the spontaneous and overheard utterances of strangers in the Gallery, and nor should we expect publicans, shopkeepers or venue managers to be so, either.

As to Amendment 193 standing in my name, the Government have already decided to delay many of the measures in the Bill. Originally, we were told that these measures would come into effect by 2026, but the Government’s decision to postpone parts of the Bill is, I believe, an implicit admission that their consultation process was inadequate.

The Government have now begun to recognise the very real and unintended consequences that could follow from some of these provisions. Clause 20, which seeks to impose liability on employers for third-party harassment, is one such provision that warrants further scrutiny and, at the very least, a longer lead-in time. This clause, while we accept it is well-intentioned in its aim to protect employees, risks, as we have discussed, casting too wide a net. It opens the door to legal uncertainty and potentially frivolous claims based on subjective interpretations of overheard remarks or perceived offence. Therefore, the Government must reconsider how such a broad definition of harassment could be interpreted in real-world settings, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, where employees regularly interact with members of the public.

As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton pointed out, recent warnings from the British Beer and Pub Association, which has announced that Britain is now losing a pub every day, should be heeded. This is not simply a matter of economics; it is a cultural and social loss, as my noble friend pointed out. Pubs are part of the lifeblood of our national identity. They are centres of community, debate and tradition, yet now, in addition to facing tax increases, rising costs and staff shortages, pub landlords are being told they may be held legally responsible for comments made by their patrons, even if those comments are not directed at staff. To quote again from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, this is not made-up nonsense; this is factual.

I urge the Government to take this opportunity to reflect, to consult more widely and to ensure that they do not impose a law which may undermine business, stifle free expression and expose employers to unfair liability.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government have provided assurances to your Lordships’ House throughout these debates, time and again, that Clause 20 will not have the chilling effect on free speech that is being claimed today. Therefore, we will resist Amendments 43, 44 and 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in relation to third-party harassment.

I make it absolutely clear at the outset that this clause is about addressing harassment, not about banter. We have overarching legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998 which guarantees freedom of expression in a way that is legally and constitutionally stronger than any amendment the noble Lord could make to the current Employment Rights Bill. Therefore, we do not accept the argument that carve-outs are required or that new concepts should be introduced that would complicate the law unnecessarily.

Employers are already obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to protect employees from harassment in the workplace. That has obviously not led to “banter bouncers” in the workplace. Therefore, employers already have an understanding of how to apply these protections in practice. Our aim is not to burden employers or prevent free speech; it is to deliver on our commitment to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.

The question was raised as to whether cases would go to a tribunal for people being oversensitive. It is important to note that in an employment tribunal claim for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual’s situation must always be considered. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. In addition, there is a seriousness threshold. Conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet that definition of harassment.

The protection we have proposed is welcomed by a recent nationally representative survey of 5,000 people by the TUC, which found that eight out of 10 people—

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 323E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is a curious but important proposal, addressing a very real challenge in the evolving world of work. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, pointed this out, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy.

The amendment seeks to clarify that substitution clauses in app-based platform work, such as food delivery, courier services and private hire transport, are valid only where the right to substitute is genuine, viable and actually used in practice. As many of us will know, much of our employment legislation was developed in an era when the labour market looked very different. The rise of app-based platforms and the gig economy has created new forms of work that do not always fit into the traditional categories of employment or self-employment, as has been said by previous speakers.

This amendment seeks to clarify one such grey area: the use of substitution clauses in platform work. It rightly asks whether these clauses are, in practice, genuine and workable, or whether they are being used to deny individuals the worker status that they would otherwise be entitled to. The noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Hendy, and others have explained in detail how that works in practice.

The broader point is that the Government must ensure that our workers’ rights framework is not stuck in the past. It must be up-to-date and dynamic enough to reflect the modern patterns of work and provide reasonable security for those engaged in them.

Too often, the flexibility of gig work is celebrated without enough attention being paid to the insecurity that can come with it: uncertain hours, low pay—which has been mentioned, including lower pay than the normal driver—and limited recourse to rights. Ensuring that the legal definitions we rely on are not open to exploitation is a vital step in protecting workers and maintaining fairness in the labour market. As other noble Lords said, this amendment may not be the final word on the matter, but it makes an important contribution to a conversation—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, used the word “discussion”.

I give my compliments to the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others for this conversation—or discussion. I hope that the Minister and the Government will see that there is a gap in employment legislation that needs to be looked at. We ought to deal with people, such as couriers and drivers, who are substituting to people paid even lower wages—and then scooting in front of you at the traffic lights, trying to push up the number of deliveries or collections they are making—in primary legislation, not in a statutory instrument somewhere down the line. I hope that the Government will look at this before we get to Report.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, with whom I agree pretty much entirely.

This has been a much more fascinating debate than I was anticipating, and that says a lot more about me than it does about the debate. I was particularly struck by the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy; I had no idea that such practices had been accepted by the courts. That seems to be one of the cases, as we discussed in an earlier group, where the gig economy workplace is evolving rather faster than the law. That clearly needs to be looked at, otherwise we will end up with what seem to me, as a lay man, relatively perverse situations.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that the thought of a peanut butter and pineapple pizza sends a rather nasty shiver down the spine. Do people really eat that? I would seriously hope not.

The gig economy and platform-based work are obviously integral parts of the modern labour market. We should not forget that the sector offers flexibility that many workers value, because it allows people to choose when, where, how much and how they work. For some, that flexibility is vital; it means they can balance their work with other commitments or supplement their income in ways that traditional employment models do not allow.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, who introduced his amendment so eloquently, that there seems to be an incentive to come to this country. If we were able to control this, there would be an opportunity to help at least stem the flow of the boats, which is something that used to occupy a lot of my time.

On the amendment before us, which seeks to regulate the substitution clauses and redefine certain worker classifications, at this stage, we approach it with some caution, while acknowledging that it is clearly a subject to which we should all return and which demands further consideration. The intention to protect gig economy workers is commendable, but we should not make regulatory changes that unintentionally undermine the entire industry. With that in mind, I look forward to the Minister’s comments, but I do not believe that this subject will go away any time soon.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for tabling Amendment 323E and everyone who contributed to this short but important debate on the issue of substitution clauses.

To be absolutely clear, the Government are very alert to the risks that my noble friends Lord Berkeley and Lord Hendy and the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, all raised on substitution. We recognise that substitution in the platform economy is an issue, and we share the concerns about the impact that it can have on working conditions and the prevalence of illegal working.

Some of the critiques that my noble friend Lord Berkeley made about e-bikes and e-scooters, and some of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, fall a little outside what we are talking about tonight. One only has to be in the Chamber at Oral Questions on a regular basis to understand that noble Lords across the whole House share concerns about the impact that e-bikes and e-scooters are having on general society, as well as their attitudes towards the noble pursuits of cycling, walking and sharing public spaces.

There is growing awareness of substitution clauses and their use to deny workers core protections, including the national minimum wage and holiday pay, as set out by many noble Lords this evening, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool. Clearly, in extremes this can lead to abusive and exploitative treatment of workers, and we are looking at it closely.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley raised the issue of illegal working as reported in today’s edition of the Sun. It is important in considering this issue to realise that the Government recently introduced an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on Report in the other place to extend the scope of the requirement on employers to carry out right to work checks on limb (b) workers or individual subcontractors, such as those working in the platform economy.

We must remain in step with modern labour market models. The purpose of these changes is to require businesses that employ individuals in new labour markets to check that only those with a right to work in the UK are eligible to participate in these arrangements, and to enable Immigration Enforcement to issue penalties where they are not. This ensures that compliance is equivalent for traditional employers. That, as I understand it, is the core of the issue raised in the newspaper report described by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.

The links between substitution and employment status demonstrate how complex this area is. As my noble friend Lady Jones said earlier this evening in discussing Amendment 318, we are committed to consulting on a simpler employment status framework. My noble friend Lord Hendy said that we should look at this holistically. I am confident that this will provide an opportunity to hear views from a wide range of stakeholders on the use of substitution clauses and the interactions with employment status. This is an important issue, but I am also aware that there is a complex interplay with measures we are going to discuss shortly in Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. In that context, it might be useful for me to take this back to colleagues in the Home Office and see how best to pursue it further.

I therefore ask my noble friend Lord Berkeley to withdraw Amendment 323E. In so doing, as this will be my last opportunity to speak in Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the wonderful 11 days in Committee on this Bill for their constructive engagement and, indeed, at times, stimulating debates—who would have thought we would get so many days in Committee? I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said earlier about the pace of progress during immigration legislation. As I am going to be on the Front Bench for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill later this week, all I can say is: I simply cannot wait.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

325: Clause 153, page 148, line 31, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must have regard to the following objectives when making any regulations under this Act—(a) the international competitiveness of the economy of the United Kingdom, and(b) its growth in the medium to long term.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the objective of the international competitiveness of the economy and its growth in the medium to long term when making any regulations under the Act.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 325, 326A and 329B, and briefly allude to Amendments 330BA and 330E, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley.

The Government have stated that this Bill represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Given the tremendous importance that the Government have placed on this piece of legislation, one would reasonably have expected them to have conducted a comprehensive and thorough impact assessment. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, argued earlier that the Government had done just that. However, the fact remains that Regulatory Policy Committee has awarded the Government’s impact assessment a red rating, which encompasses several critical areas, including the Trade Union Act 2016 repeals, day-one rights provisions, flexible working arrangements, and measures addressing harassment by third parties. Such a rating indicates fundamental deficiencies in the Government’s analysis of this legislation’s potential consequences—a point that has been argued from this side of the Chamber on a number of occasions.

I will illustrate precisely how inadequate this impact assessment is by examining one particularly striking example. It states that:

“There could also be wider impacts on society, including … a reduction in days lost to strike action if Trade Union reforms lead to better industrial relations, which will prevent significant costs on the economy. Rail strikes alone are estimated to have cost the UK economy at least £1.7 billion over the eight-month period to January 2023”.


This statement exemplifies the superficial and speculative nature of the Government’s analysis. Rather than providing concrete evidence and detailed economic modelling, they have resorted to hypothetical scenarios and broad generalisations. They suggest that their reforms might lead to better industrial relations, which could potentially reduce strike action and in turn prevent economic costs. However, this chain of assumptions lacks any of the rigorous analysis which legislation of this magnitude demands.

Furthermore, although the Government cite the economic impact of rail strikes, they fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of how their specific proposals would address the underlying causes of industrial disputes. They offer no detailed examination of the potential unintended consequences of their reforms, nor do they adequately assess the costs that businesses and workers might face during the implementation of these new rights. The mention of implementation affords me an opportunity to again remind the noble Lord, Lord Leong, that we will very soon be delivered an implementation plan.

On Amendment 325, we have heard Ministers trumpet on a number of occasions PwC’s global CEO survey, which ranked the UK as the second most attractive destination for international investment. Unfortunately, that claim collapses under scrutiny. The survey was conducted before the current Chancellor’s first Budget and before the Government began systematically dismantling the pro-growth, pro-enterprise environment that we left in place. Since then, the UK’s position has collapsed to 29th in IMD’s world competitiveness rankings. We are now considered less competitive than Oman, Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic. We are barely ahead of Kazakhstan and Kuwait. That is not a global powerhouse. What is the Government’s response? Instead of halting the slide, they are doubling down with a raft of measures that will make the UK even less attractive to investors, less hospitable to entrepreneurs and less viable for businesses that are looking to grow.

At the centre of this is the Employment Rights Bill. This legislation threatens to make Britain one of the most rigid and punitive labour markets in the developed world. Let us be clear: the Bill introduces day-one rights for employees to bring legal claims, dramatically increasing the litigation risk for employers from the moment a contract is signed. It expands rights around dismissal, probation and workplace disputes, turning even small staffing decisions into potential courtroom battles. It removes key flexibilities that employers rely on to respond to changing economic circumstances. This may all sound very appealing in the abstract. The Government will say that it is modernising employment rights, but in practice job creation will slow, entrepreneurial risk will drop and, crucially, offshoring will accelerate, because businesses can choose to hire in other jurisdictions —and they will.

We are already seeing warnings from business leaders that the cost of employing in Britain is simply becoming too high, not just financially but legally and procedurally. A recent survey by Saffery and Ward found that employers are planning layoffs and the relocation of operations abroad in direct response to increasing national insurance contributions and regulatory burdens, and now the spectre of hostile employment legislation. EY has warned that high energy costs and slow growth are deterring investment, while major employers are now reviewing UK operations due to the cumulative cost of doing business here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We on these Benches meet with members of the SME sector all the time for various purposes. As well as the formal meetings, we meet them in all sorts of guises—for example, to discuss the industrial strategy and some of the digital growth policies. I do not think it practical to do what the noble Lord has asked, but I can assure him that the more formal consultation meetings happen regularly.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her response. It is clear that there is significant disagreement on this subject. Indeed, there is a degree of disagreement on the statistics. We seem to be quoting statistics that contradict each other. I have to say that I think ours are rather more up to date—but I would say that.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I completely agree with everything he said, as I do with everything said by my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is very concerning that, in the other House, the Government tabled further amendments with no meaningful assessment of their economic or practical impact, and no proper consultation with the stakeholders that this will affect. This is not how good legislation is made. It is not the standard Parliament or the country should accept.

The Minister just described the Bill as the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. If that is the case, one might reasonably expect a thorough and credible impact assessment, not one that is rated red by the Regulatory Policy Committee. That is not a minor procedural footnote; it is a warning and a signal that the economic, legal and operational consequences of this legislation have not been properly understood.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

271ZB: Clause 94, page 112, line 13, at end insert “under Schedule 7, Part 1, paragraphs 1-12, 22 to 34 inclusive”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that any ‘fishing expedition’ actions of enforcement officers enabled by subclause (a) are limited to the most serious breaches, thereby preventing a broad expansion of an enforcement officer’s ability to enter business premises to include entering at any point to check on minor matters.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 271ZB I will speak also to Amendments 271ZBA, 271ZD and 273LA in my name. Amendment 271ZB ensures that the powers being granted to enforcement officers under this part of the Bill are used proportionately and only in response to the most serious breaches of labour market law. Without this amendment or something very much like it, we risk handing enforcement officers sweeping powers to enter business premises with very little constraint.

As currently drafted, Clause 94(1)(a) grants enforcement officers the authority to “enter any premises” for “any enforcement purpose”. That is an extraordinarily broad power. This amendment would limit such warrantless powers of entry to those paragraphs of Schedule 7 that deal with the most serious forms of labour market abuse, namely child labour offences, the failure to pay the minimum wage, unlawful deductions from wages and exploitation through forced labour. These are the areas where strong enforcement action is absolutely justified.

However, is it appropriate that the same powers—entry without warrant or consent—could be used to check whether someone forgot to keep a copy of an employment agency contract on file or perhaps miscalculated a payslip by a few pounds? We must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The vast majority of employers want to comply with the law; they invest time and money in doing so. However, if we allow overly broad enforcement powers, we risk creating an atmosphere of distrust, regulatory overreach and disproportionate intrusion, particularly into smaller businesses which may not have the resources to constantly defend themselves against investigatory overkill. The Government say they want better enforcement, and so do we, but good enforcement is not the same as unchecked enforcement.

Turning to Amendment 271ZBA, as currently drafted, Clause 95 restricts the power to enter dwellings to those occasions where a warrant is issued by a justice. This is a well-established and necessary safeguard, reflecting the heightened privacy interests we attach to a person’s home, but there is a conspicuous gap in the safeguards applying to entry into non-dwelling premises, such as business premises, offices or other places of work.

Clause 94 grants enforcement officers wide powers to enter any premises for enforcement purposes, without the same explicit requirement for a warrant or judicial authorisation, unless it is a dwelling covered by Clause 95. This gap means that, unlike the protections for residential premises, business premises can be entered and searched by enforcement officers without prior judicial approval. This is a significant and unwarranted imbalance. The intrusion into a business, especially a small or medium enterprise, is a serious matter. Entry and seizure powers can disrupt operations, damage reputations and create an atmosphere of suspicion.

That is all quite apart from the rather sinister nature of this power. For many small businesses, their premises are their livelihoods. The difference between a home and a business may be one of degree, but the right to protection from arbitrary state intrusion should be similarly robust. Judicial oversight ensures that these powers are used only when there is a legitimate and evidenced basis for entry, and it prevents abuse or overreach.

The requirement for a magistrate to authorise a warrant is a safeguard that protects due process, proportionality and the rule of law, and is of course very well established. It requires that enforcement officers demonstrate reasonable grounds and the necessity for the warrant. That is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is just a check that balances the state’s legitimate enforcement interests with individual and business rights.

On Amendment 271ZD, as it stands, the appeal process focuses primarily on the accuracy of the sums claimed or the penalties imposed. It is essential that underpayments and penalties are correctly calculated and justified, but this narrow scope overlooks a critical element: the manner in which enforcement powers are exercised.

Enforcement officers hold significant authority when issuing notices, including entry, inspection and seizure powers. However, these powers must be exercised lawfully, proportionately and with respect for those affected. This amendment allows tribunals to consider whether enforcement officers have acted beyond their legal authority or used their powers excessively or unfairly. It further empowers tribunals to cancel or vary notices where misconduct or disproportionate enforcement is found and to award compensation as appropriate. This is not only a matter of protecting businesses and individuals from overreach but is vital to maintain public confidence in the enforcement regime. When enforcement is perceived as fair, transparent and accountable, compliance will improve and the number of disputes will reduce.

On Amendment 273LA, at this stage, the Bill does not define who enforcement officers are in any detail—we started this discussion on Monday—nor does it set any clear limits on the powers they may exercise when carrying out their functions. This lack of clarity is deeply concerning, especially given the serious nature of the enforcement powers being proposed, which include entry, inspection and seizure of documents and property. It is vital to establish unequivocally that enforcement officers, who are not police offices and do not have the training or mandate of the police, must not be allowed to use physical force or authorise others to do so. The use of force is an extreme measure that can be justified only in very specific and regulated circumstances, and generally only by trained law enforcement personnel. The amendment simply ensures that enforcement officers cannot resort to physical coercion, which is not appropriate for officials tasked with regulatory enforcement in the labour market. That is a matter of basic human rights and dignity. It is also a safeguard for businesses and individuals who may otherwise be subject to intimidation or physical harm.

I have absolutely no doubt that Ministers on the Government Front Bench have no interest in physical coercion being a part of these powers. In that case, they should accept this amendment because, if they do not, the implication is clear: they accept that physical coercion is acceptable. I do not believe that is what they want and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I declare an interest as a director of a very small business—a think tank.

As an employer, the idea that we have no warrant or judicial oversight of an enforcement officer’s intrusive visit to a business to seize or take copies of documents and to check up is intrusive on the time and output of the business. It is also an infringement of a business freedom to conduct the business to the best ability of those in the office or the business.

Both clauses in fact contain very intrusive proposals. As my noble friend pointed out, one of the things that is deeply worrying about them is we do not know who the enforcement officers will be or exactly what their powers will be. We have seen, even with the best trained police force in the world, the Metropolitan Police and local police forces, a certain amount of over-zealousness in pursuing certain types of crime. Therefore, with an untrained and unknown quantity and with such powers, we need very clear limitations, and we need to focus on the most serious crimes and those outlined in these amendments. For those reasons, I support both the amendments in the name of my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, for his intervention, because I was about to raise a similar point. It has been a long time since, as a policeman, I applied for a warrant, but we did not routinely notify the intended recipient of our visit that we were about to do it. I do not buy the argument that that would see an awful lot of documents destroyed or anything that they might have been pre-warned being removed from the premises—they would not know. I do not see why it should be different for enforcement officers and the police, who obviously are, in some cases, investigating much more serious crimes.

On the use of force arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, deployed, surely the point is that these powers are being extended and, yet again, we are relying on future guidelines, comments or statements that will be written into their terms of employment. I simply do not believe that that is enough. The public deserve the reassurance of having this in the Bill or, at the very least, clarified in a Dispatch Box Statement.

As we bring this debate to a close—my noble friend Lady Lawlor, I think, homed in on this point—the fundamental concern that underpins all these amendments is that the Government have not yet provided a clear definition of who the enforcement officers will be, what precise powers they will hold, and what training or accountability measures will govern their conduct. The absence of clarity is not a minor oversight; it is a significant gap that leaves businesses and individuals vulnerable to potential overreach and misuse of authority. Enforcement officers will be vested with extraordinary powers of entry, inspection and seizure, but we have no clear picture of the safeguards that will be put in place to prevent abuse.

These amendments are not about obstructing enforcement or denying the Government the tools that they need to tackle serious breaches of labour market law; on the contrary, we recognise the importance of robust enforcement. However, enforcement must be lawful, proportionate and accompanied by proper oversight and accountability, or it will risk losing public trust.

We have sought to introduce reasonable limits on when and how enforcement—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, in addition to the problems he has raised, there is a very great danger of vexatious claims being made without evidence, and of disproportionate actions and intrusions taking place as a result?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend; that is one of the reasons that we are seeking more clarity in the Bill. As I said, without transparency, accountability and a clear definition of what the powers will be—they are unarguably vague —all those concerns remain. It is disappointing that the Government have not fully recognised the risks inherent in the broad powers envisaged by the Bill. We argue that the Government should, at a very minimum, provide clear guidance on these roles and responsibilities and on the limits of enforcement officers. This subject is so important that I think we will have to return to it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 271ZB withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

271D: Clause 113, page 124, line 31, at end insert, “and the worker has provided written consent to the Secretary of State to bring proceedings on their behalf,”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the worker’s informed consent before the Secretary of State can initiate legal action, preserving individual autonomy and control over personal legal matters.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 271D, I shall speak also to Amendments 272ZZA, 272ZZB, 272ZZC, 272ZZD, 272ZZE, 272ZB, 272ZC, 272AA, 272AB and 272AC.

There is a troubling message throughout this legislation of the fundamental belief that third parties, whether they be unions or the state in Part 5, will make decisions on behalf of individuals rather than individuals being able to make decisions for themselves. The challenge with third parties making decisions is that they pay no price when they are wrong, and that is evidenced in this clause. Clause 113(6) states:

“The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done) in, or in connection with, the discharge or purported discharge of the Secretary of State’s functions by virtue of this section”.


That is an unacceptable subsection in this clause, hence my Amendment 272ZZE.

The reality is that workers whose claims are taken up or not taken up by the Secretary of State risk having their rights mishandled or ignored, yet, under the clause as drafted, they would have no recourse, remedy or ability to challenge that failure. We think that that sets a dangerous precedent, because we are granting power without responsibility. We would be creating a regime in which decisions that affect individuals’ livelihoods and legal rights can be made from behind a veil of immunity. That is neither just nor consistent with the principles of good governance. We need to be clear that, if a private employer or a trade union behaved with this level of impunity, we would not accept it, so why are we accepting it from the state?

The fundamental principle underlying Amendments 271D, 272ZZA, 272ZZB, 272ZZD and 272ZC is consent. Clause 113 currently allows the Secretary of State to initiate legal action in a worker’s name without requiring that worker’s consent. That is deeply problematic. Legal proceedings, particularly employment proceedings, can be deeply personal, reputationally sensitive and complicated. To bring such proceedings without the individual’s explicit and informed consent is a serious encroachment on personal autonomy. My Amendment 271D would insert a requirement that the worker must provide written consent before the Secretary of State may act on their behalf. That is not a mere administrative formality; it is the cornerstone of the individual’s control over their own legal affairs.

What if consent was not initially required or given but circumstances change? That is addressed in my Amendment 272ZZA, which would establish a clear opt-out mechanism. It would ensure that the worker is given notice before proceedings begin and is afforded 28 days to object. If they do, the case does not proceed. Surely this strikes a balance between the state’s interest in pursuing enforcement and the worker’s right to decide how their own case is handled. Legal action is not always welcome, even when it is justified. The consequences of litigation, especially in employment, can be damaging professionally and personally. Workers may prefer alternative dispute resolution.

However, consent and opt-out are not enough on their own. Even with consent, the state must be bound by a duty to act in the worker’s best interests. That is why I have proposed an amendment requiring that the Secretary of State should have regard to the worker’s stated objectives, the potential impact on their current and future employment, and the proportionality of taking legal action in the specific context. That is a safeguard to prevent well-meaning intervention becoming harmful or heavy-handed.

Then there is the matter of control. A worker may initially consent to the Secretary of State taking the lead but later wish to take back control of the proceedings, perhaps because they have secured private representation or circumstances have changed. My Amendment 272ZZD addresses this. It would ensure that the worker retains the right to reclaim their case and that the Secretary of State must accommodate that request. It affirms that ultimate control remains with the individual and not with the state.

Finally, my Amendment 272ZC would introduce a fundamental principle, that of subsidiarity. The state should not intervene unless there is absolutely no other viable route to justice. If the worker has representation or access to advice or union support, that route should be exhausted first. Legal action by the Secretary of State should be a last resort, not a first impulse.

These amendments are not intended to frustrate enforcement—far from it. They are designed to ensure that enforcement is fair, consensual and genuinely in the interest of the person whose rights are at stake. Workers are not passive subjects of policy; they are individuals with agency, judgment and a right to decide how they wish to pursue justice. We must ensure that the Bill does not cross the line from protection into paternalism.

I turn to Amendments 272AA and 272AC. Amendment 272AA simply calls for an annual report—nothing excessive, just a basic record of how often these powers have been used, what types of claims have been pursued, the outcomes and any costs or awards recovered. This is a common-sense transparency measure. If the state is litigating on behalf of private individuals, we should, at the very least, be keeping track of how that power is being exercised and with what effect.

Amendment 272AB, however, is the more pressing amendment because it would place a sunset clause on the power, causing it to expire at the end of the next Parliament unless it is actively renewed. It would also require an independent review to assess whether this power has delivered real value for workers, for justice and for public money, because the truth is we simply do not know if this clause is necessary. We do not know if workers even want the state litigating on their behalf; we do not know if the outcomes justify the costs; and we certainly do not know if this is the most effective way to improve enforcement. If this power is to remain, Parliament should be given clear evidence that it works and works better than the alternatives.

Finally, Amendment 272ZB would introduce a simple but important safeguard: a public interest test before the Secretary of State can bring proceedings on a worker’s behalf. Without this, we risk allowing the state to pursue claims that may be frivolous, politically motivated or unnecessary, potentially at public expense and also to the detriment of both workers and employers. Litigation should not be used to make a point; it should be used to deliver justice where it truly matters. This amendment would ensure that such powers are exercised responsibly and proportionately, and only where there is a clear public benefit. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I oppose the Question that Clause 113 stand part of the Bill. I raised this in Second Reading, and I appreciate the discussions that have taken place with officials and the Minister since, but I genuinely believe these are novel powers.

I appreciate that we are perhaps just not going to agree today on how far the Equality Act 2006 goes, but when I tabled Questions to the Minister, they were passed to the EHRC. The commission said that, since it had received those powers—I think it was commenced in 2007—no powers had been used to initiate legal proceedings that were not judicial review or as an intervener. It gave me the distinct impression that it did not necessarily believe that it should be initiating legal proceedings in this regard. It has its own policy and that is under consultation. However, it does beg the question, given some of the other consultations that the Government have initiated, whether they will in future seek to take over any such duties or powers that the EHRC has in a variety of legal proceedings, because the EHRC is not using powers that the Government think it has. However, I think that is still really a matter of debate.

Building on the amendments that have been tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench, I think this is an odd situation. I appreciate we have discussed elements of Clause 113 before; indeed, the other day we debated my noble friend Lady Noakes’s sensible amendment that this should be in the public interest. It would be helpful to understand from Ministers what they see will happen as a consequence of this. Where are we getting to? What is going on?

I have deliberately degrouped some parts of this discussion on Clause 114—about the money side—but it is useful to understand that, for the purposes of this clause, this is not just about people who are working; it is about people who do not have a job with the person they are seeking to take to court. We had a debate some time ago about why that could be, and we got into a debate about what sort of special privileges there might be. Nevertheless, this seems quite an extraordinary shift in the capability of the Government, first, to initiate these proceedings anyway and, secondly, to do so when the worker involved does not intend to do so. That is why, I appreciate, the legal wording really restricts any inclusion of the worker at a future date, which specifically seems to be ruled out in various provisions in the clause, except in Clause 113(5), which allows the worker to be brought in at an appeal stage. However, I am concerned more generally about this approach of a new agency.

Another element that really concerns me is subsection (6), which in essence provides:

“The Secretary of State is not liable to any worker for anything done (or omitted to be done)”.


I expect that is there to cover circumstances—we may have had a brief exchange on this already—in which the worker says, “You didn’t go after this bit or that bit”; it is kind of “Tough luck”. As it stands, it is not clear to me whether, if the worker is unhappy with the action taken, double jeopardy is allowed: will the worker be allowed to initiate separate claims against the employer, if they feel that the Secretary of State and the enforcement officers have admitted different things?

Overall, this clause is an unnecessary innovation. I am concerned about it, and I would be grateful for some broad examples of how it could be used in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

On that point of clarification, I will write to the noble Baroness.

In conclusion, the civil proceedings powers within the Bill align with our manifesto commitment to strengthen enforcement and improve outcomes for workers through a fairer, more accessible system. We need to let the fair work agency operate with the tools it needs, guided by the statute but not constricted by inflexible restrictions or ministerial bottlenecks. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 271D.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will not be surprised to know that I am afraid I did not buy any of those arguments.

I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson, Lord Ashcombe and Lady Verma for their interventions; they all made extremely good points. I will return to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Murray of Blidworth, in a second.

We have just heard this clause described variously as “beyond belief”, “especially bonkers”, “an utter mess”, “quite extraordinary” and “perverse and unheard of”. Do you know what? It is all of those things. This has been an extraordinary debate, and so many interesting points have been made that it is hard to sum up. However, there is one point that was brought to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who was sitting next to me at the time. He pointed out that this clause might be in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life. This needs to be explored, and it is important for the Minister to take account of, because, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, she has to sign on the front of this Bill that it is compatible with the rights under that convention.

I will read the relevant article, so it is on the record:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence … There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.


I do not expect the Minister to answer this now, but I would be very grateful if she could at least allude to the legal advice that she was given before she signed the Bill to confirm that it did not contravene Article 8.

I appreciate that government legal advice is rarely published, but, having had some experience of government lawyers and their risk-averse nature, I would be very surprised if they had considered this in its entirety. I would be grateful if the Minister would come back to that issue, perhaps in the letter to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This is clearly one of the subjects to which we will have to return, because, as both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Murray have explained, this is extraordinary and positively Kafkaesque.

I will leave the last words to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, who pointed out that we could end up in a state where we have litigation about litigation on behalf of someone who does not want to litigate. That is frankly absurd. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Before I sit down, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her 55 years of public service. I believe that she was first elected on 18 June 1970 to represent Merton and Morden—many congratulations.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

That is most kind, but we must not be diverted from the business in hand. Is it your Lordships’ pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 279GZA seeks to understand what “and, in certain cases” means in Clause 149. I would be grateful for an explanation. I looked extensively in Schedule 12 and saw only the insertion of a regulation to do with Northern Ireland. I would be grateful to understand that.

I am happy to support Amendment 323, which seems a sensible way of trying to ensure that justice is delivered effectively and people can still have fair access while also making sure that we make the best use of employment tribunal judges’ time.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for introducing her amendment and also to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the first of which proposes a report on the expansion of legal aid in employment tribunals. It would not itself change entitlement but seeks to prompt a structured exploration of the options. Legal aid is, of course, a complex and often contested area, and this amendment simply calls for a government-led review that considers both employer compliance and the financial position of workers. It is reasonable to assess whether the current system adequately supports access to justice in employment disputes.

I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I will discuss with him outside but, just to get it on the record, I am curious to know whether the “report on the options”, which he describes in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in his lead amendment, extends to small and medium-sized employers as well. I am interested to know whether he thinks they should be included within that survey based on the fact that many of them will also suffer some financial hardship.

On the proposed new clause on summary judgments in employment tribunals in Amendment 323 by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, such a power could offer a means of reducing the burden on tribunals, improving efficiency and focusing resources on cases where the issues genuinely require full examination. In short, both amendments are interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will first speak to Amendment 279H in my name, which increases the time limit for making a claim to an employment tribunal in relation to paid time off for employee representatives in consultations on certain changes to occupational and personal pension schemes from three months to six months. This would amend the employment tribunal time limit that is set out in the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006.

This amendment is essential to ensure consistency with the time limits for the majority of tribunal claims which are being amended to six months throughout the Bill. This is a technical amendment which brings the provisions on consultations on pension schemes in line with the other clauses in the Bill regarding the increase in time limits which have been set out.

Increasing tribunal time limits will provide employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally or through the conciliation process as well as more time for employees to consider the merits of bringing a claim to an employment tribunal. Judges will continue to have the discretion to hear out-of-time claims on a case-by-case basis.

Amendment 279GZA from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to provide that the extension of employment tribunal time limits from three to six months does not apply in respect of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland. We have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to develop an approach to extending time limits which respects the Northern Ireland Assembly’s competence to legislate on devolved matters. Where time limits are in UK-wide legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and that relates to matters that are reserved, such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, this Bill amends the time limits for bringing a claim to the industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with the Executive to consider implementation and, if appropriate, these changes may come into force at different dates for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Bill does not amend time limits in legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and is transferred—that is, devolved powers.

On Amendments 273 and 323, I understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in tabling his amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to them so ably. In order for the reforms we are making through this Bill to be effective, it is vital that workers can enforce their employment rights. As noble Lords know, tribunals, including employment tribunals, are designed to be informal, accessible and low-cost means of accessing justice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the backlog of tribunal claims at the moment is unacceptable. We are taking steps to address that backlog in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, and the fair work agency can also play a part in easing that load. We will be able to debate the measures that we are taking further in later groups.

However, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that legal aid is available, subject to means and merits tests, in relation to discrimination and breaches of the Equality Act 2010. Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, funding may still be available through the exceptional case funding scheme. Of course, members of trade unions will receive advice and representation anyway as part of their membership.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on employment tribunal summary judgments, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that employment tribunals have a wide range of existing powers to address weak claims or responses, including strike-out and default judgments, to achieve the aims set out in this amendment. The strike-out rule in its framing and application is already similar to that of Rule 24 in the Civil Procedure Rules. It allows employment tribunals to strike out half or all of a claim or response, including where there is no reasonable prospect of success. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 273.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Yes, I would.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that was a most interesting exchange, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and my noble friend Lord Jackson for it. As I have said many times, I am not a lawyer, but as a broader observation, there seems to be a slight philosophical discussion developing this evening between intervention and initiation when it comes to various state interventions in certain areas of law.

I have no doubt at all that the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment is to strengthen the enforcement of equal pay laws. As she rightly says, we all support that objective, but we feel that this particular proposal is somewhat flawed, not least because we just do not think it will work. At its core, the amendment risks conflating pay disparity with unlawful discrimination. It assumes that if a pay gap exists, there must therefore be wrongdoing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, acknowledged, it is not that simple, because pay disparities can and often do arise for entirely legitimate reasons, such as differences in experience or qualifications, performance geography or even negotiated terms, to my noble friend Lord Jackson’s point. To suggest that a mere statistical difference is indicative of discrimination is to abandon the nuanced legal framework carefully set out in the Equality Act 2010. While paying a great deal of respect to the arguments—and there is considerable merit in this—we cannot support this amendment.

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, I am also an occasional visitor to this Committee, but I am very pleased to be here this evening to address her Amendment 275. I thank her for recognising the engagement there has been with the Government and others on this up to this point.

Certainly, the Government want to make very clear that we share the broad aims behind this amendment. Over 50 years after the Equal Pay Act 1970 and 15 years after the Equality Act 2010, it is clear that equal pay has not yet been achieved. That is why the Government have committed to strengthen the equal pay regime and end pay discrimination. I share the concerns of my noble friend in identifying the challenge of enforcement in this case. There is more we can do to ensure that the onus does not fall only on women to find out whether they are receiving the same pay as their male colleagues for equal work and to take enforcement action against employers in the case of a breach.

It is possible to envisage, in relation to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, a system in which you have both the contractual arrangement and the ability to take individual action as is the case now and an enforcement body that supports people doing that in general terms and identifies thematic or consistent ways in which equal pay is being breached. That is why the Government are committed to establishing an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit with the involvement of trade unions. As part of this, we will carefully consider how we can improve the enforcement of the equal pay scheme.

On 7 April we launched a call for evidence on this issue and wider equality law to ensure that any steps we take will lead to a meaningful strengthening of protections against pay discrimination—an objective that I am sure my noble friend will share. It is important that the Government are able to develop these changes in partnership with business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that the law works for everybody. For that reason, I hope my noble friend will recognise that this will be a more appropriate process through which to address these issues. As she suggests, we will give these areas very close consideration in advance of the equality, race and disability Bill.

In relation to some of the specific points my noble friend raises about the way this might operate, we certainly recognise the benefits that can arise from government departments, including HMRC, working together. HMRC already has a number of joint working and data-sharing arrangements with departments and agencies. The Government are therefore not closed in principle to establishing new data-sharing arrangements with regulatory authorities where this can support their regulatory functions.

My noble friend made a very interesting point about the use of AI. It would not be sufficient simply to compare the pay of different people working within a workplace unless you could also have some analysis of how that applied to the nature of the work and whether that was work of equal value. It may well be that advances in technology, including AI, would be a way in which we could support that monitoring.

Policy is at a very formative stage. My officials will explore a wide range of options to improve the enforcement of equal pay rights. While taking great care to ensure that safeguards are put in place in relation to personal data, particularly where that relates to discrimination and protected characteristics, I suspect the sort of description that she gave of the contribution of AI is very much part of what, across government, we are wanting to see in terms of its use in future.

We are sympathetic to the ultimate objectives of my noble friend’s amendment. I hope she recognises that and the progress that we intend to make on that pledge to deliver stronger enforcement mechanisms and, in particular, an equal pay regulatory and enforcement unit. With that assurance, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

279ZZB: After Clause 146, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment on enforcement of holiday pay compliance(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the ability of businesses to comply with the enforcement provisions of this Act relating to holiday pay entitlements.(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include—(a) an evaluation of the practical, administrative and financial implications for employers in meeting the requirements relating to holiday pay,(b) consideration of the capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises to comply with those requirements, and(c) an analysis of any barriers to compliance identified during implementation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to assess how effectively businesses—particularly small and medium-sized enterprises—are able to comply with the enforcement mechanisms relating to holiday pay under this Act, and to identify any practical barriers or burdens.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 279ZZB and 305 to 309, which are in my name.

Turning first to Amendment 279ZZB, we firmly support the principle that workers must receive their full entitlement to holiday pay and that those rights must be enforceable. However, we believe that achieving that goal in practice, particularly under the new framework set out in the Bill, requires us to be clear-eyed about the real-world challenges that many businesses face. Holiday pay is one of the most complex areas of employment law and has only become more so following the changes introduced in January of this year.

While some employers regrettably seek to avoid their obligations and should rightly being sanctioned, the reality is that many more are simply trying to navigate a legal framework that is very confusing, technical and still evolving. For small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, compliance is not always a question of willingness but of capacity and clarity. That is why this amendment is both timely and proportionate: it asks only that the Secretary of State undertakes an impact assessment to consider how businesses—particularly SMEs—are coping with the new enforcement provisions. It would require an evaluation of the practical, administrative and financial implications of compliance and establish whether any barriers have emerged during implementation.

Crucially, this is not about weakening enforcement. In fact, it is quite the opposite: it is about ensuring that the fair work agency, which we hope will become a cornerstone of enforcement under this Bill, is properly resourced, modernised and equipped to support both workers and employers in meeting their obligations.

Turning to Amendment 305, this Government have managed to get unemployment to hit its highest since the pandemic—4.6%, according to the most recent ONS figures. This is not a figure that we can shrug off because, of course, behind it are real lives, real households and real businesses that are facing uncertainty. At the same time, the business environment is under considerable strain. Recent changes to national insurance contributions have forced employers to make extremely difficult decisions. The employer rate has risen from 13.8% to 15% and the threshold has been lowered, placing even greater pressure on payrolls.

Research from S&W has shown that around a third of UK business owners are still planning further job cuts as a direct result of these changes. Many have already begun reducing headcount. Others are cutting hours, freezing pay or raising prices—moves that will impact both employees and consumers. So, the question that has to be asked is: how will this legislation affect employment in that context? I should also have mentioned, of course, that May showed a very significant drop in payroll numbers.

It is easy to sit in Westminster and write these rules. It is much harder to understand how the rules will play out in towns and factories, in small businesses, in hospitality, in logistics, and across the many sectors that make up our labour market. That is why this amendment is vital.

I turn to Amendment 307. The British Retail Consortium has warned of a potential “high-street bloodbath”, with one in 10 retail jobs at risk over the next three years, if the Bill’s measures are implemented without careful consideration. Retailers are already grappling with rising costs and squeezed margins, and these additional employment burdens could accelerate job losses in an industry that is vital to our economy. I believe that 180,000 jobs—I forget the precise number—are at risk through to 2028, according to the BRC.

Similarly, the Institute of Directors has published stark findings showing that nearly three-quarters of its members—72%—believe that this legislation will dampen economic growth. Some 49% of business leaders say they plan to reduce hiring; 36% of them intend to outsource more roles; and 52%, more than half, anticipate investing further in automation as a response. These figures paint a clear picture: employers are preparing to scale back on job creation and are likely to replace human roles with technology, in response to rising costs and compliance demands.

The Federation of Small Businesses echoes these concerns. SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy, yet many are telling us that the cumulative impact of new regulations, increased national insurance contributions and rising wage floors are forcing them to reconsider recruitment plans or even reduce existing staff. The FSB has called for a more balanced approach that safeguards workers’ rights without stifling the very businesses that create these jobs, and the growth. Can the Minister name a single business that expects to increase hiring because of the measures in the Bill?

On Amendment 306, what of our youth? At a time when the Government should be prioritising opportunities for young people entering the workforce, the figures are concerning. Between January and March 2025, an estimated 354,000 young people aged 16 to 24 were not in education, employment or training; that is up by 21,000 compared with the same period last year. The Government will no doubt argue that the provisions in this Bill, such as the right to guaranteed hours and changes to statutory sick pay, are designed to protect vulnerable workers, many of whom are young and may be on the margins of employment. However, the reality is more complex. Although well intentioned, these changes will make it more costly and complicated for employers to hire young people, who often lack the experience and are seeking flexible or part-time work to get started in their careers. The burden of additional costs and rigidities can discourage employers from offering entry-level roles or apprenticeships—exactly the opportunities that young people desperately need to develop skills and build work histories.

On Amendments 308 and 309, let me turn to a specific sector in the UK: manufacturing. In the north-west, manufacturing is not only a significant contributor to the regional economy but a vital source of skilled employment and innovation. Many manufacturers there are actively seeking to invest in advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence and automation, to improve productivity and to remain competitive on the global stage. However, these ambitions risk being undermined by the additional costs and compliance burdens imposed by this Bill. Manufacturers are already grappling with the challenges of global tariffs, supply chain disruptions and inflationary pressures; adding further regulatory and financial strain threatens to hollow out this critical sector.

If the increased labour market enforcement and associated costs become too great, there is a real risk that manufacturers will reduce investment, scale back hiring or even relocate operations. The knock-on effects on local economies, particularly in regions depending on manufacturing, would be severe, affecting jobs, skills development and regional growth. While the objectives of the Bill—to protect workers’ rights and promote fair employment practices—are indeed laudable, we must ensure that they do not come at the expense of vital industries and communities. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. Figures go up and down every month but let us look at it in the longer term. We are creating new jobs and that is what is really important. In conclusion, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am enormously grateful to the Minister for his passionate defence of his Government and for his remarks. I am genuinely delighted that he has taken on a new role in small business because, unlike the vast majority of his Government, he actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to small business. We are very pleased to hear that and we welcome his general remarks. I also agree with Jamie Dimon about the growth agenda, but the fact is the Bill will not help the growth agenda. That is the argument we are trying to make.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his remarks. He accused me of being doomy and gloomy, but I did not get those statistics out of thin air; they were all supplied by the employer organisations that we referenced. If he would like, I will happily put him in touch with them all. The fact is that, once again, the Minister could not rise to the challenge of naming a single business that expects to increase hiring because of the measures in the Bill, and references to the strategic defence review do not help that argument.

The other reason why I am doomy is because, the other day, I came across a notice in a window in London that said, “After much reflection, and as a result of the substantial business rate and national insurance cost increases imposed on us in this year’s Budget, we have made the difficult decision to close. Our final day of service will be 28 June 2025”. That is a real business going out of business—that is disgraceful.

The Government’s impact assessment of the Bill, which we have debated a number of times and which I know irritates the Minister every time we bring it up, was simply inadequate. There is not enough detailed rigorous analysis to understand how these enforcement measures will affect businesses and employment across the country. Without that, we are walking blindly into serious economic risks. At this rate, if the Bill proceeds without the necessary amendments and safeguards, it will not just fall short, it will create unemployment. The additional burdens on employers, especially small and medium-sized businesses and crucial sectors like manufacturing, threaten to reduce hiring, stall investment and ultimately cost jobs. This is not speculation; it is happening, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out. It is a clear and present danger based on the evidence that we have seen, and the trend is unlikely to diminish.

We support workers’ rights, but not at the expense of widespread job losses and economic harm. The Government have to provide a proper, thorough impact assessment—one that honestly addresses these risks—before we proceed further. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer of a meeting to discuss this, but I am not sure what there is to discuss without the actual impact assessment or the commitment to hold it as soon as possible. If this does not happen, the Bill will fail both workers and employers, and we will face the consequences of higher unemployment as a result. That is something no one wants. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 279ZZB withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I feel like the support act, really, because the substance, the meat, of this issue and this clause has been debated, although I am delighted that this is the final schedule and the final part, so we are on the final stages of the Bill. I just say very briefly, with respect, to the Minister, that we often ask the Minister to write to elucidate the remarks that she and her colleagues have made in the course of the Committee’s proceedings. We are watching that and making sure that we do get replies and, if we do not get proper replies, we will raise those issues on Report. I do hope, very gently, that the Minister is aware of that. Of course, we understand that information is not always at her disposal or her colleagues’ disposal, but we will need that information in order to make an informed decision on Report if the House divides at that juncture.

The second issue that I think it is appropriate to raise, raised several Committee days ago by my noble friend Lady Coffey, is impact assessments. The Cabinet Office guidelines say that impact assessments should be updated as the Bill goes through. To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened, and I am not sure that the Minister has satisfactorily answered the question that my noble friend asked earlier. With that in mind, I think that the rationale that the Minister used for the extension from three to six months was not even tepid and not even weak; it was just non-existent. To say that the Law Commission has done a consultation I do not think cuts the mustard. We on this side believe firmly that extending that period will bring more uncertainty to business, will be more costly, will encourage more litigation and workplace strife and will be a false economy.

I look over at the Government Benches and I see the pawprints of the trade unions in this. I do not know why they would want to do this, but, as on so much of the Bill, they are seemingly pulling the strings and I think that, in the end, it will not be in the best interests of workers for this to happen, not least because, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said, the system is creaking. It is no good saying, “Oh, well, it was creaking under you”; this Government have been in power 12 months now, it is incumbent on them to fix the system with their legislation and I think that this is a retrograde step. It will not work, it will backfire, and on that basis, I think that neither Clause 149 nor Schedule 12 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, most of what I needed to say was said in the last group, so I will not labour the points, except to add a bit of colour, because my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I consult quite widely. We consulted this morning with a distinguished employment lawyer, who told us that, if you apply now to an employment tribunal, you will have no chance at all of getting even a preliminary hearing for 10 months. That is next April. In order to get a resolution, a case resolved, you would be looking probably at December 2027. That is nearly two and a half years away. It will take a lot more than the number of judges the noble Baroness mentioned that they have recruited so far in order to fix that particular problem. I wish her good luck and I hope she succeeds, but I really do not think that we should be doing this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the first thing I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is that if we say we are going to write, we will write: we do not need to be told that this is being monitored in some way. I would say that I feel that we on these Benches have bent over backwards to engage with noble Lords, not only in debates but outside, by having meetings and trying to work through some of these issues in more detail. So I do resent the accusation that we are somehow hiding from accountability on these issues. We are bending over backwards to be accountable.

I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we have updated the impact assessment and written to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about it already. As noble Lords have said, we have now debated this issue quite extensively. We argue that the proposals we are putting forward will benefit not only employees but employers, by increasing the time within which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed, creating an opportunity for more disputes to be resolved without the need for litigation.

Current ACAS performance data shows that that around a third of early conciliation notifications go on to submit an employment tribunal claim. Therefore, the longer period of time for resolving disputes internally and/or via conciliation will simplify the time limits for making employment tribunal claims and improve access to justice.

I have heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and, as I say, we have now debated this extensively. I can assure your Lordships that this clause and schedule are essential for those who need to bring a claim to a tribunal in order to have adequate time to prepare a robust claim. I therefore ask that they stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for so expertly introducing her amendment, and I welcome the contribution from my noble friend Lady Penn regarding the establishment of an employment law advisory committee.

We believe my noble friend’s amendments would significantly strengthen the framework for effective and balanced labour market regulation. The creation of a dedicated advisory committee, modelled on the Social Security Advisory Committee, seems a prudent and timely measure. It would provide the Secretary of State with expert independent advice that draws from a diverse range of perspectives: employers, workers, and independent experts alike. This inclusive composition is vital to ensuring that any regulations developed under the enacted Bill are well-informed, fair and workable in practice.

Moreover, the proposed committee’s clear statutory function to scrutinise draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament would introduce an important additional layer of oversight and transparency. It would help to ensure that regulations and the views of all relevant stakeholders are carefully considered. The requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the committee’s report alongside any laid regulations, including an explanation when recommendations are not followed, would enhance accountability and public confidence in the regulatory process.

In sum, we think that these amendments represent a balanced and constructive approach to policy-making in the complex area of employment law. They would help guard against rushed or poorly considered regulations, support better policy outcomes and uphold the principles of consultation and transparency that are essential to good governance.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her Amendments 299 and 300. The Government have already committed to consulting on the detail of implementation and have already undertaken extensive engagement with employers, businesses and workers’ representatives, trade unions and experts. We will continue with this approach as we develop our secondary legislation.

There are some specific instances, such as in the enforcement space, where we are proposing setting up an expert group. Upgrading the enforcement of workers’ rights is an important and complex task, where it is right to draw on expertise from businesses, workers and independent representatives.

That is why the Bill requires the Secretary of State to establish an advisory board. It will play a critical role in providing advice and insight to the Secretary of State on their enforcement function under Part 5 of the Bill, which they will in practice deliver through the fair work agency. This is a proportionate and necessary step to help ensure the agency’s effectiveness. But this is not required across the Bill and wider labour market legislation as a whole. The committee proposed by the noble Baroness would be a repetition of the planned engagement and consultation on the Bill. We have already engaged with more than 190 different stakeholder organisations on our Plan to Make Work Pay, including employers of all sizes, from SMEs to large corporations, trade unions and representative organisations representing thousands of businesses and millions of workers.

We have held round-table discussions focused on particular topics, such as zero-hours contracts, and with particular groups, such as leaders of small businesses or retailers. As a Government, we are committed to engaging closely on our plans, and we will continue to do so. This engagement will continue throughout implementation, including as we develop regulations under the Bill.

On parliamentary scrutiny, the Select Committees will of course scrutinise the government proposals and reforms as they are rolled out. The Economic Affairs Committee had an inquiry on the labour market, and the noble Baroness was herself a member of that committee, so we know that there are already bodies in the parliamentary network that can be used to provide that scrutiny. On the basis of our proposed consultation and the parliamentary scrutiny available, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment 299.