Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

I will just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the greatest danger we have is that the Bill passes and yet we have groups of people in the workplace who are not in any way protected, or not sufficiently protected, either from violence or from harassment. I thought the case was brilliantly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

I say to the Minister: carpe diem. Here is an opportunity to make sure that there is not a gaping omission in the work that the whole Bill is attempting to do to provide proper protection in the workplace. I find it quite ingenious that the approach here is to try to use the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. If the Minister has a better way of doing it, I am sure that everyone will be very eager and willing to listen. It contains within it the capacity for both investigation and enforcement. When we talked in previous groups, it was very evident that investigation and enforcement are very often the vital missing elements in the arrangements that we have set in place today. This seems to me to have been a very sensible approach to try to find an organisation that is appropriate and has the relevant kind of teeth.

I will not attempt to expand on the case as it has been made so eloquently. I am sort of filling in on this Bill when others have been called away—in this particular case to a NATO meeting. But I would have been very pleased to add my name to these amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join the general congratulations offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on her very comprehensive introduction of these amendments; she deployed some incredibly powerful examples.

We are all in agreement that violence and harassment, particularly sexual harassment and gender-based abuse, have absolutely no place in any workplace. Every worker, whether in an office, on a site or working remotely, deserves to feel safe, respected and protected. Tackling those issues must remain a top priority.

The amendment before us seeks to introduce stronger duties on employers to prevent and respond to these harms. Measures such as risk assessments, training and clear reporting systems can be important in building a workplace culture where abuse is not tolerated and victims are supported, so we absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment.

Although we agree that there is a need for action, we do not believe that the Health and Safety Executive is the right body to enforce these new responsibilities. That is not meant as a criticism of the Health and Safety Executive; it is simply a recognition that there are fundamentally different areas of concern that we think require a different kind of regulatory response. That is not the same as saying that we do not support the intentions of the amendment.

We do not support Amendment 100. We need solutions that deliver real protections to address sexual harassment. Finally, I have to say, from a very personal point of view, that I completely agree with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and her reservations about proposed new subsection (3B).

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

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for her patience and apologise to her that it has taken until our fifth day in Committee for her to introduce her amendments. I thank her again for Amendments 99 and 100.

I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment. This is a top priority for this Government, with our manifesto commitment, as mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. In response, I am happy to say that we already have a strong and, in the Government’s view, appropriate regulatory framework in place that ensures that workers are protected from such risks.

I refer to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Under the statutory provisions made under the existing Act, employers have a very clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. Employers are required to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce this risk. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with other related legislation, also mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risk of workplace violence.

As part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and to take suitable action to reduce or eliminate this risk. The Health and Safety Executive—HSE—and local authorities are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and carry out 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. It also works very closely with other regulators to promote co-operation, share intelligence and, where appropriate, co-ordinate joint activities.

In the noble Baroness’s proposed amendments, there is a request for HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. Employers already 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 in the workplace, including violence and aggression. Although workplace harassment could be addressed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the HSE does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation exists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I did not want to intervene on this group, but, listening to the noble Lord, I became slightly worried that we are getting into censorship. This country is a proud country because of its ability to speak out and speak up. I would be incredibly nervous if we felt that we could not demonstrate our political views openly without being penalised for it. The unions do their own work, but it is incredibly important that people are able to demonstrate a political affiliation or a particular viewpoint without having to feel that they are going to be censored. That would really worry people like me, who often are the recipient of things that we do not like to hear, but we tolerate it because we think the country enables us to have the debate.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for his expert introduction to the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about common sense, but I fear that went out of the window of an employment tribunal some years ago. As my noble friend Lord Young laid out in an earlier group, this Bill threatens to restrict free expression in some cases with its provisions. It is for this reason that I support the amendments, which seek to safeguard political opinion and affiliation within our employment laws.

At the heart of any thriving democracy lies the freedom to hold and express political beliefs without fear of retribution. In a democratic society, freedom of speech and freedom of belief are not luxuries; they are fundamental rights that underpin our entire system of governance and civil life. The workplace, where so many of us spend a significant portion of our lives, must be a space where individuals can hold and express their political views without fear of unfair treatment or dismissal. As it stands, our existing laws provide only patchy protections for political beliefs, and they leave many workers vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Young’s examples are truly shocking, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish, in particular, Mr Poursaeedi well in his ongoing battles.

We should draw upon the timeless wisdom of John Stuart Mill, who was one of the great architects of liberalism. He argued in his seminal work On Liberty that the truth emerges only through free and open debate, and he warned against the suppression of any opinion, because no one person or group holds a monopoly on truth. Even opinions that we may find mistaken—perhaps such as democratic socialism—or indeed offensive, must be heard and challenged openly, for only through such dialogue can society discern truth from error. Voltaire was right on this. I must admit I find it a bit disappointing that the Liberal Democrat Benches are not more enthusiastic about these amendments.

By protecting employees from dismissal or discrimination based on their political opinions or affiliations, these amendments would ensure that the workplace remains a forum where diverse ideas can be expressed, scrutinised and debated. Suppressing political expression risks silencing valuable perspectives and preventing the emergence of truth through robust discussion.

We in this House pride ourselves on opening our minds to a broad range of political views. Obviously, that involves robust engagement, challenging each other and refining our positions through vigorous debate. If such diversity of opinion is essential to the functioning of this Chamber, why would it not apply beyond these walls, and particularly in other workplaces? Workers, like us, should be free to express their political beliefs without fear of losing their jobs or being discriminated against.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to accept my noble friend’s amendments. To go back to the great liberal John Stuart Mill, he also said:

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury”.


This is not the time for inaction. These amendments not only would protect workers from unfair dismissal and discrimination but would uphold our fundamental democratic values. By embedding these protections into our laws, we would reaffirm our commitment to free expression. I am afraid saying just that they are not necessary is not good enough. They clearly are necessary, as we heard in the examples from my noble friend.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it would be helpful if I first clarify where the law stands on this.

On Amendment 101B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, let me make it clear that religious and philosophical beliefs are already protected by the Equality Act 2010, including in the workplace. However, political belief—in the sense of a party-political affiliation or opinion—was not included as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. The noble Lord referred to the Grainger case. That case and the definition that the noble Lord read out referred to the issue of philosophical belief, which is already protected by the Act.

In 2015-16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reviewed whether Great Britain’s equality and human rights legal framework sufficiently protects individuals with a religion or belief and the distinction of a religion or belief organisation while balancing the rights of others protected under the Equality Act 2010. The review found that the definition of religion or belief in the Equality Act is sufficiently broad to ensure wide protection for many religions or beliefs. It recommended no change to the definition of religion or belief or to the approach that the court should take in deciding whether any particular belief is protected under the Act.

We are not convinced that a political opinion or affiliation should be specifically protected by amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in contrast to other religions or beliefs. The extent of protected beliefs has been developed in case law, and we have not been presented with strong evidence that any legislative amendment is necessary. The amendment the noble Lord is proposing would potentially cause legal uncertainty over its relationship to the protected characteristic of religion or belief in Section 10 of the Equality Act, which has a much wider application than just the workplace.

The Government frequently receive calls for new protected characteristics—there have been over 21 suggested to date. While some of these carry merit, it simply would not be practical to include these all in the legislation, which would quickly become unmanageable for employers and service providers to follow, and for courts and tribunals to process and judge.

The noble Lord referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts and tribunals will always be required to balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as academic freedom.

Noble Lords have referred to a number of individual cases. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases. However, I can assure them that free speech is a cornerstone of British values. We are firmly committed to upholding the right of freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Monks that, in many cases—and preferably in all cases—it is ideal for these issues to be resolved by common sense at the workplace.

Turning to Amendment 141A, I seek to reassure the noble Lord that further legislative provision on this matter is not needed. Through the Bill, the Government are creating a day one right against unfair dismissal. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged in his explanatory statement, additional protections for employees already exist under Section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which currently ensures that claims for unfair dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation are not subject to any qualification period. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that, while dismissal on the grounds of political beliefs and affiliations is not automatically unfair, if brought to a tribunal, the tribunal could find that it was unfair based on the circumstances at hand.

As we have said, these issues will very often have to be decided by a tribunal, based on the facts of the case. This will obviously also have to apply to the noble Lord’s amendment as well. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the delays in employment tribunals are a very real challenge that we are very conscious of, and we have already reported elsewhere in other debates on the Bill that we are taking steps to address this.

Relevant case law sets out the circumstances where political beliefs may constitute a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, discrimination provisions could apply. Following a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, the qualifying period for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal relating to political opinions or affiliation was removed, further strengthening employees’ access to justice in instances of unfair dismissal based on political views. The Bill ensures that claims for dismissal on this basis continue to be treated in the same way as claims for automatic unfair dismissal by carving them out in a new Section 108A from the requirement that any employee must have started work before a claim can be brought.

We regard this as the right approach. Making dismissal for political opinions automatically unfair, as this amendment seeks to do, would fundamentally change the way that free speech is considered in relation to dismissal for the holding of views or the expression of views that the employer regards as unacceptable. It could sweep up such a wide range of views as to be unworkable. As sufficient protection against dismissal for political beliefs already exists, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 101B.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I will reply to that. Yes, it is a technical question, and perhaps that wording sits there, but any person with an ounce of common sense who sees the Bill can see what the Government are trying to do. I do not think that the Bill, with over 300 amendments to it, is geared to do what the noble Baroness is intimating. That is cheap political point-scoring, and I think it is beneath her.

I have carefully considered the amendments put forward by noble Lords in this group, particularly those seeking to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3, including Amendments 23 and 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the series of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others relating to probationary periods, including Amendments 105 to 112. While I am not persuaded by those amendments or the case for removing the provisions or fundamentally changing the Bill, I recognise the need for greater clarity on probationary periods. Given the Bill’s current drafting, which relies heavily on future regulation, it is essential that the Government provide clear and firm guidance on how the provisions will operate in practice, especially for small businesses, which will find ambiguity challenging in difficult times.

Amendment 107A from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which proposes a default initial employment period but would allow the Secretary of State flexibility to amend that through regulation, offers a balanced concept that could be helpful in providing certainty while retaining adaptability. Likewise, Amendment 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which calls for a retention of the current qualifying period until suitable regulations are in place, reflects concerns about the smooth transition, and that deserves attention. However, I am less convinced by the calls for further impact assessments or reviews of the proposals in Amendments 103 and 123, which I believe risk delaying the necessary reforms without providing clarity.

In light of those amendments, I urge the Government to seize this opportunity to give definition and definite practical guidance on the provisions that the Bill will implement. It would be better if the Minister could say in absolute terms the length of time for which probationary periods will be set in future regulation after the passage of the Bill. That would be particularly important for smaller employers that need certainty to comply. Providing that clarity would help to ensure that the reform worked as intended, and it would help to strike the right balance between protecting employees’ rights and allowing employers the flexibility to manage probationary employments effectively. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lucas for their amendments and their thoughtful contributions in this group. It has been a most interesting debate. I will speak to my Amendments 103, 113 and 123.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it would be much better to get this right now rather than pursuing Amendment 103 in particular, which returns to the Government’s insufficient impact assessment. The assessment that has been produced states that this provision will have one of the highest impacts, yet, as we have mentioned before, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s analysis in this section a red rating. The RPC’s critique is not a matter of minor technicalities because it identifies serious deficiencies in the Government’s case for intervention in the options that they have considered and in the justification for the policy that they propose. The Government’s impact assessment admits that it lacks robust data on dismissal rates for employees with under two years’ service. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, there is no evidence for that. It proceeds regardless, however, with only superficial reference to “asymmetric information” and without any substantive analysis of any market failure.

The RPC highlights the impact assessment’s failure to consider how long-serving employees might view the equalisation of rights for new joiners—an issue of fairness and workplace cohesion that the Government have ignored. The impact assessment itself mentions that options such as reducing the qualifying period to 18 months or one year were considered and rejected without detailed assessment. No real exploration of probation periods was provided. That is not a balanced appraisal of possible alternatives; it is a justification for a predetermined decision.

On the justification of the preferred option, the impact assessment is again found lacking. The RPC calls for clarity on the costs to businesses—the costs of managing performance, handling disputes and the increased settlements to avoid tribunal risks. It also questions whether the Government have considered evidence from existing unfair dismissal claims and how risks might vary across sectors or job types, particularly in roles where reputational damage from a claim might deter employers from hiring at all.

More significantly, the Government have not addressed indirect and dynamic labour impacts, such as whether day-one rights might lead to more cautious hiring, greater use of temporary contracts or weaker overall job security. These are not abstract concerns as they go to the heart of how this policy might reshape employment relationships across the country. Noble Lords might be interested in a real example. I was talking this morning to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company. It is an exemplary employer in every way; for example, offering many day-one rights. But this year—partly as a result of the jobs tax but also in anticipation of the Bill—it has reduced its hiring by 84%. I repeat that for the record: 84%. This is not abstract or theoretical. This is real, this is now.

It is important to note that these likely labour market impacts are not accounted for in the £5 billion cost to businesses, so the real cost is likely to be significantly higher. The result is a policy with high ambition but little practical clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has just noted. How will unfair dismissal rights interact with a statutory probationary period? Will employers still have access to the same set of fair reasons for dismissal? Will there be a different threshold for acting reasonably during probation? Can probation be extended if needed? None of those questions has been clearly answered.

The noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us of the light-touch, nine-month proposal, but what does that mean in practice? My noble friend Lady Meyer asked that. At the same time, the Government’s own analysis predicts that granting day-one rights for unfair dismissal alone will result in a 15% increase in employment tribunal claims. Using the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that is an additional 750 claims per year, on top of the 50,000 backlog already waiting 18 months to two years. The noble Lord argued that this is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance, but it is not to the 750 business owners who are being dragged through courts. That is a substantial impact. It represents direct costs to businesses in terms of time, legal risk and, of course, the chilling effect on recruitment.

The tribunal system itself needs to be looked at. Without significant new investment it is hard to see how the system will cope with this 15% increase. The result could be longer delays, greater costs and justice deferred for all parties. In an earlier group we heard about a case that is going to take more than two years to come before a tribunal. Yet the Government intend to bring these changes into force in 2026. On what basis? There is nothing in the impact assessment that explains why 2026 has been chosen or how the system will be ready by then. Businesses will need time to revise contracts, restructure probation processes and train managers on the new rules. What assessment has been made of whether 2026 is realistic, with all those things in mind? What engagement has been carried out with employers, particularly SMEs, about what implementation will require?

It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to explain how the timeline was determined and whether it is genuinely achievable, given the lack of clarity in both the policy detail and the supporting evidence. We all agree that employees deserve fair treatment, particularly in the vulnerable early stages of employment, but employers must also have a reasonable opportunity to assess performance, capability and suitability without the immediate threat of litigation.

We have established that there is no evidence for any of this clause. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was arguing his point, he said that it is very difficult anyway for employees to take a case to an employment tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, as I just mentioned, said it is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance. If there is no evidence, it is too difficult and it is a statistical irrelevance, why are we bothering at all?

I want to raise a final point that others, particularly my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, have referred to. It is not just about the policy itself; it is a more troubling concern. The policy will create unintended incentives, but for whom? It is not just about employers scaling back hiring overall but about who they stop hiring. If we remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and provide no workable probationary mechanism, we tilt the hiring incentives away from risk-taking, as we have heard. It will, in effect, stop employers taking a punt.

Right now, a small business owner might be willing to take that chance on someone with no formal qualifications, or from a non-traditional background, or re-entering the workforce after a time away. That chance exists because the employer has a short window to assess their suitability—and vice versa, of course—before facing the full weight of employment litigation risk. If that safety net is removed and exposure begins from day one and the probationary period lacks clarity or legal protection, that same employer will think twice. They will play it safe.

Noble Lords opposite should pay attention to those of us who have employed people. It is a simple fact. Who is going to suffer? It is not the already advantaged candidate with a polished CV. It is the young person with gaps in education, the career switcher with no references, the working parent returning after years out of the labour market, or the person coming back to work after a long period of illness. Noble Lords opposite should reread the speech given by my noble friend Lord Elliott, with his experience of the Jobs Foundation. He explained this much more eloquently than I just have. Those are the people who benefit from flexibility and second chances and who may now find those doors quietly closed.

This goes to the heart of social mobility and genuine workplace diversity. I would like to ask the Government a rhetorical question: have they considered the incentives this policy creates? If they have not—both common-sense experience of real working life in the private sector and, indeed, the RPC suggest that they have not—we risk designing a policy that sounds progressive but, in practice, reduces opportunity for the very groups that we should be helping the most. We need a decent impact assessment, and my amendment would allow for it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As there have been a number of questions about our intentions with these clauses, I think it would be helpful to clarify them and put them on the record.

Clause 23 introduces Schedule 3 and repeals Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. Schedule 3 further amends the 1996 Act, including the introduction of a statutory probationary period in legislation. Schedule 3 also removes the two-year qualifying period for the right to request written reasons for dismissal. Any employee who has been dismissed after the statutory probationary period will have the right to written reasons for dismissal within 14 days upon request.

The legislation will introduce a statutory probationary period that will maintain an employer’s ability to assess any new hires. Schedule 3 allows the duration of a statutory probationary period to be set in regulations by the Secretary of State following consultation. The Government’s preference, as we know, is for this probationary period to be nine months in length. Schedule 3 also creates the power to modify the test for whether dismissal during the probationary period is fair for reasons of performance or suitability for the role.

The Government’s intention is to use this power to set light-touch standards for fair dismissal during probation. The power will be limited to the following reasons for dismissal, which, under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, qualify as potentially fair reasons: capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. The Government will consult on the light-touch standards and proceed to set out in regulations what specific reasons relate to the employee and when.

Schedule 3 amends the delegated power to set the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal so that a different maximum can be set for dismissals during the probationary period and when the light-touch standards apply. It is our intention to consult before the introduction of any new cap on awards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, we are being promised a blizzard of consultations, but can the Minister give me any idea when those consultations will take place? Can we also have some assurance that all the employer organisations will be consulted on this occasion? From our conversations with many of them, they do not feel particularly consulted up to now.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

First, on the issue of consultation, I assure the noble Lord that there have been a considerable number of consultations, not only with the main employer organisations but in terms of working parties working on particular aspects of the Bill, and those will continue. That consultation will continue—and I have now forgotten his other question.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Will the Government consult with employer organisations?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I was—I was sitting over there. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for speaking after him. I am sure he is welcome to speak after me if he disagrees with anything I have to say.

Obviously, I am a barrister, as are many of the contributors this evening. I practised in the employment tribunal and in human rights, and I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Joint Committee wrote to the Government in respect of the Bill, expressing concerns that were reflected by the Equality and Human Rights Commission: in particular, the potential for a conflict between the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10—as we have heard from various noble Lords—and the Article 8 right to a private and family life. That balancing exercise would be difficult for many employers to carry out.

The previous iterations of measures of this type included safeguards which have been omitted from the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out. In the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 there was a measure that sought to place a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, and which is now Section 40A of the Equality Act. During its passage through Parliament, that Bill included provisions which sought to introduce a duty on employers to prevent non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties. That was Clause 1 of that Bill, as brought from the House of Commons. That provision failed. It would have required all reasonable steps to have been taken to prevent harassment of the employee, solely because they did not seek to prevent the expression of an opinion in circumstances where the conduct constituting harassment involved a conversation in which an employee was not a participant.

In short, the Government have so far failed to answer the question from the Joint Committee about their reasoning for not including a similar carve-out for overheard opinions in the new duty in Clause 20. That was echoed in the original iteration of the Equality Act 2010, passed by the previous Labour Government, under Section 40(2) to (4). That would have required an employer to be liable for third-party harassment where they had failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable to prevent the harassment. However, to be liable, the employer would have had to have known that the employee had been harassed by a third party on at least two other occasions.

The Government have decided not to adopt the same three-strike policy taken in the equivalent provisions or in the earlier potential measure proposed in the 2023 Act. Instead, we have a rule-making power that is said to provide what steps are to be regarded as reasonable. To my mind, that sits uneasily with the mandatory terms set out in new subsection (1A). For those reasons, it should not be part of this legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes very much for their expert, valuable and important introductions to and insights into this group. I also thank my noble friends Lady Meyer, Lady Lawlor, Lady Cash, Lord Strathcarron, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Murray for their practical, legal and philosophical objections to Clause 20, which, as noble Lords will perhaps not be surprised to know, I do not regard as straw-man arguments. It was also wise of my noble friends to note that these amendments have the support of UKHospitality. They also have the support of the British Beer and Pub Association.

These amendments are vital in ensuring that we do not inadvertently restrict fundamental rights of free expression in the workplace and beyond. We all recognise the importance of protecting employees from harassment. It is not about not caring about their plight, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, implied; it is about also ensuring that we are not creating a framework that stifles open and honest conversation. That is especially true in matters of political, moral, religious or social debate.

Clause 20 as it stands is, as my noble friend Lady Cash pointed out, poorly drafted and therefore risks leading to unintended consequences. In fact, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, who made a very persuasive case that Clause 20 is superfluous in its current form.

The inclusion of speech or conversation that simply expresses an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social issue would lead to significant restrictions on individuals’ freedom to speak openly. This could lead to employees feeling that they cannot express their thoughts and ideas or, perhaps worse, would be penalised for expressing an opinion that someone else may find uncomfortable or offensive. As my noble friend pointed out, we must be mindful of the unintended consequences that could arise from an overbroad definition of harassment. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, gave strong examples from the footballing world. If I may speak as a fellow West Ham United fan, I am very aware that being a supporter of that august club can be a very testing experience that can drive one to the occasional profanity.

It is not just in sports that these concerns arise. Think about public spaces such as pubs, about which we have been hearing. If an individual overhears a conversation that they find offensive or upsetting, where does the line lie? What happens if somebody misunderstands something that is said and it is taken to an employment tribunal as a case of harassment? In such situations, the burden placed on employers would become unreasonable. Would they be required to intervene every time someone overhears an opinion that they find discomforting or just dislike?

If I may ask a genuine question, how are people supposed to judge, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, whether a conversation is obviously fake or not? As my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, argued, are we expecting publicans to make finely calibrated judgments on ECHR Article 10 in particular? We should remember that even senior police officers, who are trained in these matters, often struggle to make such judgments. Employers will inevitably err on the side of caution and that is chilling.

I believe that we must ensure that harassment in this context remains focused on behaviours that are truly indecent or grossly offensive, not on speech that is merely uncomfortable or challenging. People must have the right to engage in conversations, to express differing opinions and to debate issues of public importance without the fear of being accused of harassment. To allow an employer to be forced or encouraged into silencing this kind of expression would be a serious violation of freedom of speech, which is a cornerstone of our democracy and society.

The amendments before us offer balance. They ensure that employers are not required to protect their employees from hearing or overhearing expressions of opinion, provided that those opinions are not indecent or grossly offensive. This is a reasonable and sensible approach. It respects individuals’ rights to express their views without creating an environment where every opinion has the potential to be deemed harassment.

Moreover, these amendments recognise the specific context in which such protections should apply. By excluding certain sectors, such as the hospitality industry, sports venues and higher education, we acknowledge the diverse nature of these environments where debate, disagreement and the expression of differing opinions are often the fabric of daily life. To apply the same strict rules in these settings as we would in an office environment or a more controlled space would be misguided. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, may well say that this is not the purpose of Clause 20. However, as my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Murray pointed out, the drafting means that that is unlikely to be the effect.

The requirement for repeated instances of harassment before an employer must take action, as outlined in Amendment 86, aligns with the principle of proportionality. We should not expect employers to become the arbiters of every comment or opinion expressed, especially when such comments are made in good faith. The amendment rightly recognises that harassment should be defined as something that occurs repeatedly, not something that might result from a single isolated incident of disagreement or discomfort. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Acton that this is a solution in search of a problem or, based on his statistics, a sledgehammer in search of a nut.

When the Minister responds, can she please answer my noble friend Lady Noakes’s point on territorial extent? These issues are clearly not going away, so I urge the Government to take them very seriously. As it stands, Clause 20 is garbled and needs rewriting.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I hope I can reassure the Committee of the Government’s approach, as well as set straight some considerable misunderstandings on how the provisions will operate. I stress at the outset that the provisions in the Bill will protect employees while preserving existing human rights, such as freedom of speech, which I hope we can all agree are core British values. Also core to our identity is the belief that with rights come responsibilities.

I will first address the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who oppose Clause 20. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for meeting me to share his views. When we met, he pushed his position that our proposals are anti-banter, and he has reiterated that today. I make it clear that we are anti-harassment, not anti-banter, and this is what Clause 20 delivers.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I feel that we have been subjected to a wave of synthetic rage by many on the other Benches this evening, who have given examples that simply would not be covered by the harassment provisions in Clause 20. Removing Clause 20 would not only go against the manifesto on which this Government were elected but deprive employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act 2010. This Government are committed to tackling all forms of harassment in the workplace. In order to make workplaces safe, we must require employers to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.

For example, if a woman is sexually harassed by a customer at work today, she has very few effective options by which to seek legal redress, even if her employer has made no effort whatever to address the issue. The only possible employment law action in this scenario at present is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to exercise its unique enforcement powers against the employer. However, such powers can be used only very selectively and strategically by the commission, and would be unlikely to be used in anything other than an exceptional case.

Sexual harassment is, sadly, not the only type of harassment that is experienced in the workplace. Employees can experience racial harassment or harassment related to their disability or other protected characteristics. In the case of non-sexual harassment, not even the possibility of enforcement exists at present. As such, Clause 20 is required for employees to be able to seek legal redress where they have experienced third-party harassment, and to ensure that employers are clear about their responsibilities.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said—I apologise if I have mispronounced her name—most if not all speakers have worked on these two important and connected issues for years. That has been reflected in the quality of the speeches we have heard. It also reflects the fact that progress has not been made. We need to make progress here.

The traditional approach from Ministers in situations such as this is to say, “These are important issues and we agree something needs to be done”, and then either “We need more consultation”, as my noble friend pointed out, or “This is not the right vehicle for these issues”. Those are the two excuses that will be given. The point on consultation has been well made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As for whether this is an appropriate vehicle, just look at this Bill. It is well over 300 pages and covers almost every aspect of employment. To say there is no room in this Bill—I am pre-empting what may or may not be said—would be wrong. There is more than enough space in this Bill to cover these issues.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, said, this was debated in the Commons and my honourable friend Layla Moran also had an amendment on this issue, but the Bill came here without it. The safe way of making sure that this can survive contact with a very large majority at the other end is for the Minister to take this on and put it in the Bill on the Government’s behalf. We have heard a lot of excellent speeches from the Minister’s own Benches, as well as across the Floor. Clearly, we can all agree on both these issues. The Minister should stand up and say “We will take this on, work with all interested parties and produce two amendments for both of these issues” to address what has clearly been going on for too long without being resolved in legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that this has been an extremely interesting debate. I thank all noble Baronesses—they are mostly Baronesses, with some noble Lords—for their contributions. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, deserves singling out for her very thought-provoking introduction to this group.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral pointed out in the previous group, every individual should feel safe and supported in their working environment. We recognise that NDAs have deviated from their original purpose, which was to protect trade secrets and intellectual property, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, pointed out. They have been abused in some circumstances, particularly where they are used to silence the victims of misconduct, which includes sexual harassment.

However, we must also acknowledge there are some cases where NDAs may serve a legitimate purpose. Some individuals may wish to resolve disputes privately, without the need for public disclosure. It is important, therefore, that we do not take a blanket approach but instead consider the context in which NDAs are being used. Many of the amendments acknowledge those simple facts. Having said that, we also need to consider the wider impact that NDAs might have—for example, in cases of medical malpractice. How can society and the medical profession learn from mistakes that are not made public?

It is clear that further scrutiny of NDAs is essential. The potential for abuse cannot be ignored, and we must ensure that any agreement entered into is fully informed and entirely voluntary. I will briefly speak as a non-lawyer, because I was particularly taken by Amendment 281, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I was rather shocked that such an NDA might exist even under the current regime. How can one sign a legally binding document that prevents the disclosure of a breach of the law? With apologies to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I say that only the legal profession could manage the perverse logic to invent such a thing.

As we have seen, particularly in the NHS, whistle-blowers are often the individuals who bravely speak out against wrongdoing, misconduct or unethical practices that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their courage in raising concerns is critical to maintaining trust and ensuring that the organisation remains committed to the highest ethical standards.

Both noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the NHS. I looked into this earlier, and in one high-profile case, the NHS spent over £4 million on legal action against a single whistleblower, including a £3.2 million compensation settlement. This sparked criticism from Professor Phil Banfield, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who argued that whistleblowing is often not welcomed by NHS management. He emphasised that NHS trusts and senior managers are more focused on protecting their reputations than addressing the concerns of whistleblowers or prioritising patient safety. That is clearly a very unacceptable state of affairs, and that example alone suggests that the Government should take these amendments extremely seriously.

I am sure that the Minister is about to stand up and offer to have further discussions on this subject. We will pre-empt her and volunteer to take part in those discussions. There is clearly much more work to be done in this area. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I genuinely thank all noble Lords—they have mainly been noble Baronesses—who have taken part in this excellent debate, in which we have addressed some important, salient and highly concerning issues about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We have heard some very moving and completely unacceptable examples that have no place in the modern workplace.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, for their Amendments 98, 101 and 101C, which seek to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers disclosing certain misconduct. My noble friend Lady Kennedy’s amendment looks to apply this to a broader category of misconduct, including harassment, retaliation and discrimination. I also acknowledge that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy make it clear that workers should still be able to request confidentiality protections in agreements between a worker and employer, if they so choose. A number of noble Lords have reiterated that that is an important principle.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her Amendment 281, which makes express provision for a court to void an NDA in the public interest if it seeks to prevent the disclosure of illegal conduct by the employer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that my noble friend made a very compelling case on that issue.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, for Amendment 101A and her contribution today. Her amendment would void any provision in an NDA that prevents a worker making a disclosure about sexual harassment. However, it would allow NDAs in settlement agreements to stand where the victim of sexual harassment requests them and where they have received independent legal advice. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his comments in support of that amendment.

Today’s debate on NDAs demonstrates the best elements of your Lordships’ House. Points have been well made by all noble Lords, and we have listened carefully to their arguments. I was grateful to have the opportunity to meet with a number of noble Lords in recent weeks to reaffirm the Government’s position on the misuse of NDAs and to understand the intention behind these amendments. Let me be clear: NDAs should never be used to silence victims of sexual harassment and other forms of misconduct in the workplace.

My noble friend Lady O’Grady asked whether the proposals extend beyond sexual harassment. The whistleblowing measures in the Bill cover only sexual harassment. However, the whistleblowing framework already covers disclosures about criminal offences, breaches of legal obligations and endangerment of health and safety. In many cases, harassment and discrimination in the workplace will fall within those categories.

While the Government agree that NDAs should not be misused by employers to conceal misconduct in the workplace, any restrictions on their use must be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences. For example, confidentiality can allow employers and workers to resolve a dispute and move on without publicity and expensive legal proceedings. It is vital that we take the time to consider any impacts on a worker’s ability to choose the right outcome for themselves, including the option of an NDA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the answer to both noble Lords—and I think I said this during my response—is that the amendments are all raising really important issues. There is an issue about the breadth of the issues and the extent to which we need to legislate or perhaps amplify things that are already the law but are not understood to be the law. We have more work to do on this, but we are working at pace on it. We still have time before the Bill passes through your Lordship’s House, so I hope we can make some progress during that time.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Baroness once more. Does that mean she intends to talk to interested Peers before Report?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I have already had one meeting and, as noble Lords will know, I seem to be in perpetual meeting mode. I certainly am very happy to carry on having those discussions.

Trade Negotiations

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The economic prosperity agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States is a welcome but limited first step towards a comprehensive free trade agreement. As such, it signifies a positive move towards strengthening the special relationship with our most important ally. Indeed, it was particularly refreshing to see that the special relationship was explicitly acknowledged as one of the three core objectives. If the relationship is to endure, it must be based, as the document says, on fairness and reciprocity.

The United States is the UK’s largest bilateral trading partner outside the EU, with trade in goods and services valued at over £310 billion in 2023. Following the costs imposed by the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions, this agreement brings some relief to sectors in our economy. For example, tariffs on UK vehicles have been reduced from 25% to 10%, benefiting up to 100,000 vehicles annually, as well as attendant auto parts. With UK car exports to the US worth £7 billion last year, this is an important development and will provide some relief. As Mike Hawes of the SMMT noted:

“The agreement announced today to reduce tariffs on UK car exports into the US is great news for the industry and consumers. The application of these tariffs was a severe and immediate threat to UK automotive exporters so this deal will provide much needed relief, allowing both the industry, and those that work in it, to approach the future more positively”.


We take Mr Hawes’s words at face value.

Similarly, the removal of tariffs on steel and aluminium, which had disrupted £400 million-worth of exports, is welcome news for our manufacturing sectors. But can the Minister say what exactly will the fact that the US is constructing a quota at most favoured nation rates for UK steel and aluminium products mean in practice, and particularly for the troubled British Steel?

In agriculture, US beef export quotas to the UK have increased from 1,000 to 13,000 metric tonnes, and negotiations are expected to continue on pork, poultry, rice and seafood—sectors where the United States has significant export interest and capacity. The US Agriculture Secretary has made it clear that these areas are priorities in their trade agenda. As further discussions progress, it will be important that they take into account the structure and needs of the UK’s own farming sector. Although there is broad support for open and competitive markets, we know that some British producers, particularly in poultry and seafood, have raised questions around production practices and the cost implications of different regulatory approaches.

The agreement acknowledges that both countries will

“comply with the importing country’s sanitary and phytosanitary … standards”.

Can the Minister therefore update the House on the nature of conversations held with domestic farming representatives so far, and on how the Government expect ongoing negotiations in this area to progress? Are there any major areas, apart from the frequently trailed chlorine-washed chicken, which may cause difficulties?

There is also very limited detail on digital trade, despite the Government’s ambition, set out in their AI opportunities plan, to position the UK as a global leader in emerging technologies. We would welcome clarity on how this agreement supports the goal in practice but acknowledge the commitment to negotiate an ambitious set of digital trade provisions. Can the Minister update the House on what discussions are under way regarding the future of the digital services tax?

Moreover, the agreement states that the UK will receive preferential treatment if new tariffs are not imposed as part of the US Section 232 investigation into pharmaceuticals and other products. It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves what that means. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 provides the President with the ability to impose restrictions on certain imports based on an affirmative determination by the Department of Commerce that the products under investigation are being imported into the United States in such quantities or under such circumstances as to threaten to impair the national security.

So preferential treatment sounds positive, but we are awaiting clarity on what it means in practice. Will it mean lower tariffs, exemptions or more lenient treatment than other countries may receive? This is crucial for the UK’s pharmaceutical sector in particular, and we need transparency on the details of this arrangement. How will that impact our relationship with Ireland, which is home to a number of pharmaceutical companies with extensive operations here? On the subject of Ireland, can the Minister enlighten us as to exactly how Northern Ireland will be affected by this deal?

Note that security of supply chains in our exports is explicit in this agreement. China has expressed concern, suggesting that it could lead to the exclusion of Chinese products from British supply chains, and it may risk breaching international trade norms. In light of the Government’s stated intention to reset and stabilise relations with China, it is important to understand how these concerns are being managed. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that progress with one strategic partner does not inadvertently compromise engagement with another?

Furthermore, in the context of the UK’s economic and financial dialogue agreement with China, which includes co-operation on pharmaceuticals and financial services, how do the Government assess the potential impact of this new US deal on future negotiations in those same sectors? I appreciate that the Statement refers to other sectors, including copper, lumber, film production, semiconductors and critical minerals, but the themes of national security and defence run through this document, and obviously they represent the foundation of the special relationship. However, I note that no mention is made of the defence sector, so could the noble Baroness perhaps update us on discussions in that space?

The agreement states that:

“Both countries intend to build on an existing set of Mutual Recognition Agreements … by negotiating additional agreements … across certain industrial goods”.


How does that square with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is currently in the Commons? Superficially, this would suggest that the Government should have accepted some of our amendments in this area, but I say to the noble Baroness opposite that it is not too late.

While tariffs on UK exports have been reduced, the US baseline tariff of 10% remains higher than pre-President Trump levels. We should acknowledge the progress but also recognise that this still represents a return to a less favourable environment for UK exports. What this country needs is a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States to alleviate these challenges to our businesses.

It would be remiss at this point not to mention that small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of our economy, need clarity on how they will benefit from this agreement. Tina McKenzie from the Federation of Small Businesses pointed out that practical measures to boost SME access to the US market remain unclear.

In conclusion, while this agreement represents important progress, it is clear that much remains to be done. The Government must now focus on expanding the deal to include services, investment and small business support, ensuring all sectors are given a fair chance to thrive. I have one last question, which has been asked and evaded every day this week. Will Parliament have a say?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as a vice-chair of the All-Party Motor Group, I must say that this agreement was good news for the UK car industry or, perhaps more importantly, it was less bad news—coming in where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, left off. In truth, manufacturers will still see a rise from pre-Trump tariffs of 2.5% to post-Trump ones of 10%, but that is much more manageable than the 27.5% that was being faced and jobs will be saved, which is good news. As a key shareholder in the industry, I am sure the Government will welcome the moves on steel as well.

But on those and on the wider perspective, there is much detail still to resolve and I think it would be helpful if the Minister could set out a timetable for when businesses will start to know the detail of what this agreement will actually deliver. To date, the Government have not published the documents we need, such as impact assessments on key British industry. That leaves us in the dark at the moment as to what Ministers have really given up in exchange for these lower tariffs.

I was a little intrigued by the ethanol concession. Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds said in the Commons:

“On ethanol, we … are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/25; col. 35.]


This seems a little late. Some weeks ago, when I met staffers of senior senators and asked them what their number one red line was, the most popular response was “Ethanol”. If I knew six weeks ago, I assume the Government knew a long time before that, which means there was plenty of time to work through the implications on domestic suppliers. Yet it seems only now is that process under way. How can negotiators know the value of what they are conceding without having done the work that seems now to be under way?

The deal also allows more American beef into the UK market. The Secretary of State was at pains to say that imports would not compromise our standards, so can the Minister confirm that this is being achieved by uprating the tariff rate quota for so-called “high-quality” beef? To put this into context, can the Minister share the Government’s analysis of how much high-quality beef the US produces per annum and what is the annual expected level of imports of that beef into the United Kingdom? Finally on this, can she set out in detail what border inspection regime will be planned to make sure that this indeed meets the standard of high-quality beef?

Given the urgent need for phytosanitary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what conversations the Government have had with their EU counterparts about this decision to allow US beef into the United Kingdom?

Overall, how certain is any of this? For example, Trump 1 signed a full trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the USMCA, in 2018 and then Trump 2 threw this self-same deal out in his first week of this presidency. This UK-US agreement may have been endorsed by President Trump this month, but what confidence do the Government have that new demands will not be made next month, or the month after that—or at Christmas? Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the best long-term defence is to build our trading relationships with long-standing partners which do not change their views all the time, including the European Union and dependable allies such as Canada? Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House the Government’s analysis of how this US deal impacts the furthering of relationships with those reliable potential partners?

A further unanswered question, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, surrounds our position with China. The deal with the US includes strict security requirements, particularly around the British steel and pharmaceutical industries. These requirements have already caused China to complain that this could be used to squeeze Chinese products out of British supply chains. How will the Government manage their relationship with China when President Xi knows that Trump is leaning on us in every way with our relationships? What is the Government’s message to China as a result of this deal?

The level of uncertainty over the details in this agreement begs many questions, but again, it seems the Government will duck proper scrutiny. If this was a full-blown trade agreement, we would expect it to be put before your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member. But so far, we have been starved of the involvement of the Grimstone agreement and we have not really been taken in on this. Can the Minister confirm whether the International Agreements Committee will scrutinise this agreement?

Even if we did make a report, the key to a debate in the Commons is still held by the Government. The shortcomings of our scrutiny process of trade deals are laid bare. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that this agreement will have a full Commons debate? If the Government do not follow this course, that will indicate that this agreement is not a treaty that needs to be fully ratified and lodged with the WTO. If it is not a fully ratified treaty, under the WTO most favoured nation rules the UK will have to offer similar tariff-free entry to all other countries, not just the United States. Unless Keir Starmer wants to join Donald Trump in breaking a fundamental international agreement that supports world trade, this should be treated as a trade deal and lodged with the WTO. That requires a full CRaG process in your Lordships’ House.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

71A: Clause 11, page 37, leave out lines 21 to 24 and insert—
“(1) Statutory sick pay is payable by an employer to an employee—(a) at a rate of 60% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings for the first three qualifying days of any period of incapacity for work,(b) at a rate of 80% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings for subsequent qualifying days,subject to a maximum of £116.75 per week.(2) Subsection (1) applies regardless of whether the employee earns above or below any lower earnings limits that were previously set.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment adjusts the rates of Statutory Sick Pay (SSP), providing 60% of normal weekly earnings for the first three qualifying days and 80% for subsequent qualifying days.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 71B and 75 standing in my name.

According to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics this morning, the number of payrolled employees fell by 33,000 in April, or 106,000 on the year, and the number of job vacancies also fell. Wage growth has slowed. This evidence suggests that the OBR was right and the provisions in the Bill are already creating a net negative impact. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s latest survey was widely cited at the weekend. It confirms that employers’ confidence is at the lowest level since the pandemic and that a quarter of employers are planning to make redundancies in the next quarter. The CIPD’s economist, Mr James Cockett, was quoted as saying:

“The Employment Rights Bill is landing in a fundamentally different landscape to the one expected when it formed part of the Labour manifesto in summer of last year”.


This picture was confirmed in KPMG’s and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s reports. Recruitment activity across the UK continued to weaken at the start of the second quarter. The chief executive of the REC, Neil Carberry, has said that

“it is time for real changes to address employers’ fears and boost hiring. A sensible timetable and practical changes that reduce the red tape for firms in complying with the Bill will go a long way to calming nerves about taking a chance on someone”.

Last week the noble Lord, Lord Fox, called for the Bill to go on vacation because we need to get it right. This raft of new statistics proves his prescience, and perhaps the vacation ought to be permanent. Instead, we are now being asked to consider further obligations on employers through changes to statutory sick pay. A number of businesses across sectors have made it very clear that, while they support the principle of statutory sick pay, they are concerned about the rate and structure being proposed. Many have called for the rate of statutory sick pay to be set at 60% rather than 80%, as a more sustainable and proportional figure. The Government claim to have consulted widely with businesses, trade unions and various stakeholder groups to try to strike a fair balance, but, based on the data and the concerns raised, we believe that the right answer, particularly for the initial days of absence, is 60%.

Let us look at some of the other evidence. In the British Chambers of Commerce 2024 workforce survey, a full 50% of respondents stated that they would be negatively impacted by the proposal for statutory sick pay entitlement from day one. That is a clear warning sign that the proposed structure may have unintended consequences. Further, in a survey by the London Chamber of Commerce, 38% of firms predicted that they would need to freeze hiring as a direct result of the statutory sick pay changes; 30% expected a reduction in profits; and 33% anticipated lower wage increases for their existing staff.

--- Later in debate ---

I assure my noble friend that of course the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of the changes we are making to strengthen statutory sick pay, how the SSP is used by employers and how it supports employees, including lower-paid employees. This issue will be kept under review, and in the meantime I hope the amendment can be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much indeed for her response, and, indeed, all noble Lords for their contributions to what has been a thoughtful and valuable debate. My particular thanks go to my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lady Coffey and Lady Lawlor, as well as to my noble friend Lady Cash, for bringing to the debate her unique expertise in the area of behavioural science.

It is it is crucial that the Government fully recognise that many provisions in this Bill are interlinked, as we have heard from all sides of the Committee. Changes in one area can have unintended ripple effects in others. As I have said, we support statutory sick pay, but we must also acknowledge that these proposed changes will result in higher costs for employers. My amendments were an attempt—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Fox—to ameliorate some of those costs and find some sensible compromises. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to reject them. Without clarity, businesses cannot plan, cannot invest and cannot hire with confidence. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, the facts are plain: jobs are being lost now.

Regarding an SME rebate scheme—as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Coffey in her Amendment 73 and spoken to by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Lawlor, as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his Amendment 74—the Government have stated that final decisions will follow consultation with business through secondary legislation. The impact assessment notes plans for “extensive engagement” with small and medium-sized businesses to

“test where mitigations can be made”.

However, SMEs have spoken: they have asked for a rebate scheme as used during the pandemic. It is therefore disappointing the Government have not accepted the amendments to provide that support.

I would suggest that the Minister takes up the offer of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to talk more on this subject —a conversation that we would like to be party to. I am pretty sure that we will be returning to it on Report. If I may paraphrase the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, it should not be beyond the wit of man to design a simple scheme that works. For now, however, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 71A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, if I felt we were able to finish the group in the next five minutes, that would be fine. We have had a good debate, but this is an important topic, and it is important that the Committee is able to finish the group by hearing from any other Back-Benchers who might wish to contribute, as well as from the Front-Benchers and the Minister. All of the Committee might not be aware of it, but we have agreed through the usual channels that we will have the dinner break early to accommodate the repeat of the Statement. We are ultimately in the whole Committee’s hands. That is why we are breaking now. I know it is not usual to break midway through a group, but, as I say, it has been agreed through the usual channels that a dinner break at 6.30 pm would take priority. Perhaps we can resolve this.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have had confirmation from my side that the usual channels have agreed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his explanation.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 283 and 327 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I note that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has dealt with the purpose clause in Amendment 1 very comprehensively, so I will say no more on that. I remind the Government Front Bench that it was the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who opened the attacks on Margaret Thatcher. My noble friend is perfectly within her rights to defend the great lady’s record.

There is a growing troubling feeling in many of the businesses that we have spoken to, across sectors, regions and sizes, that the Government see them not as partners in growth or employers to be supported but, as my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow, noted, as bad actors to be restrained. The sense is that the Government have concluded that virtually all businesses cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and so they are pressing ahead with a centrally planned, top-down approach to employment reform. It is an approach that prioritises control over co-operation, uniformity over flexibility and ideology over evidence. This approach does not benefit businesses: it burdens them with cost and complexity; it strips away the flexibility on which many sectors rely, especially those with seasonal, part-time or rapidly evolving workforces; and it will impede their functionality.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said that this Bill is popular, but it is not popular with the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, nor the Recruitment and Employment Confederation—and, as we have learned from my noble friend Lady Stowell, it is not popular with techUK. They have all raised serious concerns and called for urgent changes.

If there is a groundswell of support out there, it is an incredibly well-kept secret. If there is a group of employers which believe that these changes will make them more confident to hire, invest and grow, we have yet to meet them. Judging by the open letters, briefings and consultations that have been submitted to Parliament, neither have the Ministers opposite. Let us not pretend that this Bill is being driven by the demands of business, because it is not.

I move on to the amendments. The Government claim that this Bill is about protecting workers, but it is time that we recognised that protection cannot come at the cost of opportunity. For many workers, the most important protection is the ability to get a foot on the ladder, gain experience, build skills and find stable, long-term employment.

In that regard, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his Amendment 283. I agree with my noble friend Lady Noakes that, in some ways, it risks creating a monster, but I think that, in this case, and because of the nature of this Bill, it will be a friendly monster, because it will at least provide some certainty. As we know, and as anyone who has had a conversation with businesses will tell you, businesses crave certainty more than anything else. The fact that the code of practice is written as it is reflects the complexities in the Bill, the vast array of delegated powers that the Government are about to award themselves and, of course, the lack of certainty.

The noble Lord is entirely right to focus his attention on SMEs. It is worth reminding the Committee that 48% of business turnover and 60% of employment is accounted for by SMEs. In many cases, they will be the businesses without extensive HR departments to help them interpret the facts in this Bill. Therefore, the Government will have to do it for them. This is not perfect, but it deals with the main issues. We would prefer to see no need for this amendment, but, because of the other factors that I have mentioned—the delegated powers and so on—we have no choice.

We need a framework that recognises the diversity of business models, the pressures that employers face and the legitimate role that they play in building opportunity. This is not an employers versus workers situation. We are all committed to improving workers’ rights but we must do so in a way that is realistic, pragmatic and supportive of the broader economy. Without that, we risk achieving the opposite of what we intend: fewer jobs, more uncertainty, greater barriers for the people we are trying to help and, frankly, less equality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 8. I commend my noble friend Lord Wolfson on his excellent speech, bringing the reality of employing so many people into the heart of this debate, along with the constraints and the concerns being raised, while still recognising that I understand why so many people consider casual work and zero-hour contracts to be particularly poor when people are trying to have certainty of employment over some time. I also support Amendments 7, 12 and 13—in essence, any amendment that refers to specifying the reference period in the Bill.

I say that because, when thinking of 26 weeks, I think in particular of the hospitality industry in coastal areas. There are a number of employers around the country who literally shut down their businesses, or move to a much lower level of needing people, at certain times of the year, and then, in the summer, are desperately trying to find people. We need to give flexibility. The 12 weeks simply does not recognise that, as has been referred to. It is perfectly usual for people to work at different points throughout the year, potentially in on annualised-hours contract, but varying the number of hours expected to match the demand of customers requiring a particular service. I fear that the 12 weeks does not address that sort of business.

Across the country, 2 million people work in the hospitality industry. It is one of our biggest industries, and for many families it is key to how they support their household income. For the flexibility that employers want, and—thinking of how many people lose their childcare at certain times of the year—for employees to have flexibility around their hours worked, bringing in casual staff is a key element in how employers keep those businesses going.

There is another element that needs thinking through. While I appreciate that the Government seek to reduce the number of agency and bank workers in the NHS, let us not get away from the fact that, unfortunately, many NHS trusts are actually terrible employers. A lot of people leave or reduce their permanent contracts because they simply cannot get the flexibility that they need working in the NHS. That could be for caring reasons, for all sorts of people—it does not matter whether it is men or women; people provide care to their families and to their friends. I am concerned, and I intend to discuss further with NHS Professionals how this will impact on the NHS fulfilling its expectations for people right across the country. I appreciate that it is not simply NHS Professionals; many individual trusts have their own bank. That is intended to provide flexibility based on need, and recognises that simply not everybody can work the NHS shifts expected.

Thinking of the 26 weeks or the 12 weeks, I am also concerned that, at the other end of the Corridor, 650 Members of Parliament are all individual employers. They have to sign contracts, which are provided, but when people are ill or go on maternity leave, MPs can and do take people on through certain term contracts. I am concerned that there will be unintended consequences for the provision of services. As a real example, if you had to guarantee hours beyond when the employee came back, you could end up in a situation that you simply could not manage.

It is for those reasons that we need to think very carefully about the reference period when we are considering the different employment situations that small employers find themselves in, as well as the large sectors, such as hospitality and retail, which have already been discussed.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 3, 6 and 17 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. Before turning to the detail, I would like to frame the debate in its proper context.

At the heart of this issue lies the question of incentives. Much of the discussion around zero-hours contracts rightly concerns the security and well-being of workers. We must not lose sight of the fact that only a relatively small proportion of the workforce is employed on such contracts, or in other forms of temporary work. Many of these individuals are young people—as my noble friend Lady Lawlor illustrated in her very detailed speech—who are starting out in their careers. Others are disabled people, who may be able to work only a limited number of hours due to their personal circumstances. If we make the regulatory environment too rigid, we inadvertently create a disincentive to hire precisely these groups. We reduce the number of vacancies, reduce opportunities and end up harming those we most wish to support. Good intentions do not alone lead to good results. It is the incentives that lead to results.

I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan and the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard, for their contributions in this group, and I will come on to others. My noble friend Lord Moynihan made a compelling argument to leave out this part of the clause altogether, because it is simply unworkable in its current form. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

I turn to the specifics of my amendments. Job security is vital, and there can be no disagreement on that point, but we have to recognise that guaranteed-hours contracts are not always practical or appropriate across all sectors of the economy. The principle that we wish to uphold is simple: autonomy. Workers themselves are best placed to judge their own circumstances and to decide whether a guaranteed-hours contract would suit their needs.

Research from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, published in its report on zero-hours contracts, found that workers on such contracts often report a better work-life balance and higher well-being compared with other workers. This is an important reminder that flexibility, when genuinely chosen, can be empowering rather than exploitative.

Not every worker wants a rigid schedule. Young people, parents with caring responsibilities and disabled people may actively prefer the flexibility that variable hours allow. A one-size-fits-all approach simply does not reflect the realities of the modern labour market. Sectors such as retail, hospitality and tourism, and other seasonal industries, are heavily dependent on flexible staffing to meet seasonal demand. It is these very sectors that offer the vital entry-level opportunities to workers who might otherwise struggle to find employment.

Despite the Government’s understandable ambition to improve labour market fairness, the Bill as currently drafted risks reducing that flexibility rather than enhancing it. The automatic obligation placed upon businesses to offer guaranteed-hours contracts once certain thresholds are met would impose significant and disproportionate administrative burdens, even when the worker involved may have no desire to change their current arrangements.

The problem is particularly acute for larger employers, such as national retailers, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who delivered an expert speech. They would be forced into a continual cycle of recalculations and offers, simply because an employee’s working patterns have shifted slightly. As my noble friend Lady Verma explained, that affects small businesses as well. In practice, firms would face a daily or weekly obligation to offer a new contract based on changing patterns, resulting in huge and unnecessary administrative costs. This would not only create inefficiency but would discourage businesses offering overtime and additional work voluntarily, thereby reducing opportunities for those who value flexibility.

The amendments I propose take a different approach. Instead of an automatic right to be offered a guaranteed-hours contracts, we propose a right to request a guaranteed-hours contract. It entirely respects the spirit of the Government’s intentions. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already explained, it would impose the same the obligations on employers as the Government’s Bill. This would preserve the choice for workers, empowering them to seek greater stability when they wish, but it would avoid imposing blanket obligations on employers that may lead to perverse outcomes. The Government’s current drafting, with an automatic right to guaranteed hours, risks creating a bureaucracy that neither workers nor businesses have asked for.

On the subject of businesses, it is worth referring to the letter received from five employers’ organisations. For reference, those are Make UK, the CBI, the IoD, the Federation of Small Business and the British Chambers of Commerce. They say in that letter:

“Not every job can be made compatible with every possible need. This reform means businesses incur admin costs whenever an employee works variable hours. The result is that firms are discouraged from offering variable hours even when the flexibility is requested by workers, including voluntary overtime. The cost associated with administering and calculating contract offers on a rolling basis whenever staff work additional hours is also disproportionate and provides no clear benefit to workers”.


I could not have put it better myself.

There has been some reference on the other side, by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, to the Low Pay Commission, which met seven years ago. That ignores the fact that, over the last seven years, working practices more generally through the economy—whether on flexible-hours contracts or not—have changed very dramatically, partly as a consequence of the pandemic. I note that the FSB has now signed the letter which includes the quote I have just delivered, so it has clearly changed its mind.

I recognise that there may be an even simpler and more effective alternative to the right to request, which would be an automatic offer of a guaranteed-hours contract combined with the right for the worker to opt out if they so wish, so Amendment 17 introduces a worker opt-out mechanism. A qualifying worker may opt out of receiving a guaranteed-hours contract provided that the employer has provided clear written information about the guaranteed-hours system, the worker has given written notice in a prescribed form, and the employer reminds the worker at regular intervals, at least every six months, that they can opt back in at any time. Under that model, every eligible worker would be enrolled on to a guaranteed-hours contract after the reference period by default.

However, those workers who genuinely value the flexibility of their zero-hours arrangement—and there are many, particularly, as we have already discussed, young people, carers and so on—would have the right to decline the offer by providing written notice. This approach would strike a better balance, because it would ensure that guaranteed hours are the norm unless the worker themselves chooses otherwise, thereby protecting workers who might otherwise feel pressured not to request more security. Equally, it would avoid the unnecessary administrative burden on employers of offering contracts that in many cases would be rejected. We would be sparing businesses the cost and disruption of a process that delivers little practical benefit where flexibility is mutually valued by both employer and employee. It would ensure that the choice remains a real and continuing one, recognising that workers’ needs and circumstances evolve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I take that point. I was attempting to explain in my description, which I obviously need to develop a little bit more, that we understood some of those issues and are trying to find a way through it.

Amendments 3, 4 and 6 seek to change the model for the right to guaranteed hours from a right to be offered to a right to request. We have debated this at some length. These amendments would mean that a qualifying worker experiencing one-sided flexibility would need to make a request to their employer to access their right to guaranteed hours. Noble Lords underestimate the imbalance of powers that employees in this circumstance face. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned young people, which is the group that is likely to be the most intimidated by having to request guaranteed hours. Therefore, we are attempting to make sure that these rights are balanced in a proper and more effective way.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for reminding us that the Low Pay Commission also looked at a right to request and, understandably, rejected it for exactly that reason. It understood that the people in those circumstances had the least power in the labour market and would therefore, quite rightly, feel intimidated about coming forward. She also raised the issue of what happens if the request is denied. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fox, attempted to address that, but I do not know that the amendments necessarily do so. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, says that employment has changed since those days. I would say that employment has become even more unpredictable and unreliable. Nothing that the Low Pay Commission said—or indeed that I said—addresses the potential exploitation which the commission identified. There is an imbalance, and it is very difficult for people to come forward and make that request; that is why we are insistent that it is done in the way that we have suggested.

After receiving an offer, the workers would then be able decide whether to accept it, based on its specific terms. That would empower the worker to decide for themselves, having seen the offer on the table. This addresses the point that some people do want to work flexible hours, and we understand that.

Amendment 15 would allow workers on limited-term contracts of four months or less to voluntarily waive their right to guaranteed hours. We believe that workers should be able to retain the flexibility of a zero-hours contract or arrangement if they wish, which is why those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on their current contract or arrangement if they wish. This amendment would add an additional opt-out mechanism for workers that could create needless confusion for both employers and workers.

Amendment 17 would provide workers with the ability to opt out of receiving guaranteed-hours offers. We understand the importance of workers being able to retain the flexibility of zero-hours contracts or arrangements if they wish, which is why those receiving a guaranteed-hours offer will be able to turn it down. However, to ensure that all qualifying workers will benefit from the legislation, all workers should be able to receive a guaranteed-hours offer. We want to ensure that employers and workers are starting from a position of equal bargaining power. Therefore, through the Bill we have allowed for employers and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero-hours contract measure, if they agree. Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and a holistic view of what is best for the workers. We feel it is more appropriate than individual workers opting out of receiving offers. After receiving an offer, qualifying workers would then be able to decide whether to accept, based on their individual circumstances.

Finally, Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the right for qualifying workers to be offered guaranteed hours. We think that all employers should be required to offer their qualifying workers guaranteed hours, as this is the best way of addressing one-sided flexibility in the workplace and ensuring that jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability.

Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult to apply for credit or a mortgage, to rent a flat, to plan for major events, or even to manage their day-to-day life expenses. As I have previously iterated, those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on a current contract or arrangement if they wish. We believe that this is the right balance. I therefore hope that I have persuaded noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister is relying a great deal on the fabled consultation that we are going to have. Can we have some idea of when that consultation is likely to take place? Can I suggest that it perhaps takes place before we get to Report, because it will iron out a great many of these arguments? The Minister asserted that some businesses have supported the 12-week reference period. Can she say which ones?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Bill sets out, in a number of ways, that there will be regulations that will be consulted upon. This goes back to the issue of when that consultation will take place, but there is a framework for that set out in the Bill which should cover that point.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Coffey. It is frankly not acceptable for the Government at this stage in a Bill to lay this many amendments of this magnitude to the policy in the phase of the Bill as it is travelling through the upper House. These measures will receive no scrutiny from the elected House. It is frankly not constitutionally proper to use this method. It should be used for only minor and technical amendments, and by no measure can these proposals be put into that category. The Government should be very ashamed about this. Frankly, the correct way of proceeding would be to withdraw the Bill and start again, and to lay this entire Bill back before the Commons so that it can be properly scrutinised in accordance with our conventional norms.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed introduction to the amendments in this group. As he was speaking, I thought that he had inadvertently highlighted the mind-boggling complexity of what employers are up against when dealing with this Bill. I did hear all the words but, to paraphrase a famous comedian, I was not entirely sure that they were necessarily in the right order.

As my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Murray, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, have pointed out, the Government tabled these 27 amendments only a few days ago. Perhaps they are simply technical amendments, but I am afraid I am inclined to agree with the other speakers that they do not appear to be so. I will just pick a few items at random from the Minister’s speech. If amendments involve national security, insolvency and the death of a claimant at an employment tribunal, these are matters of substance; they are not technical at all.

This is not the way to do business in this House. The last-minute approach is symptomatic of a much deeper issue, which is the lack of care and due diligence when it comes to this Bill. It is rushed, it is poorly thought-through, it has been inadequately consulted on, and it is one that these Benches will scrutinise to the fullest possible extent.

We have to ask why the Government have still not tabled any amendments to address the concerns of businesses regarding the changes to zero-hours contracts in this Bill. These are not niche or minor concerns; they go to the heart of how businesses—especially, as we have been discussing all evening, small and seasonal employers—operate.

We have heard already some of the germs of the future scrutiny that these amendments can expect to receive in depth. We will not oppose them today, but we of course reserve the right to revisit them at a later stage, when we have had time to digest them and read the Minister’s comments in much more detail.

On a personal note, I read Amendment 14 with mounting horror. It induced a minor heart flutter because it reawakened memories of a particularly unsuccessful algebra exam I took when I was about 16. I would be very grateful if we could have a minor health warning on any future amendments of that type.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank all the noble Lords for their contributions. Some noble Lords raised concerns about the number of amendments tabled by the Government, and I would like to reassure the Committee that these really are technical amendments, brought about as a result of welcome scrutiny of the Bill. They are entirely appropriate and an ordinary part of making good legislation. I remind noble Lords that we had tons of government amendments when we debated the Procurement Bill recently, so this is not unusual.

I will answer some specific points raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about Amendment 53. This is one of a number of technical amendments designed to ensure that the Bill operates as it was intended to operate. As an example of how technical they are, Amendment 53 seeks to amend new Section 104BA because we realised that it was not clear that Section 104 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already ensured that dismissal in such cases was automatically unfair.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned scrutiny. There will be technical regulations tabled at a later stage, or during the course of this legislation, and the House will have every opportunity to scrutinise these through the affirmative procedure. There will be time for noble Lords to scrutinise delegated powers and this Bill.

Employment Rights Bill: Productivity

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The employment Bill that we have before us today is a very substantial piece of legislation. There will be further opportunities in the make work pay plan to come back to some of the wider issues and I look forward to debating those when the opportunity arises.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, at Second Reading last week, I asked the Minister to name one company—apart from the four that are routinely trotted out by the Government—that is supportive of this Bill. She did not answer the question, so I invite her to have another go, because we would really like to talk to them.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord will know that we have had extensive discussions with all the employment bodies that are engaged. Those stakeholder discussions are continuing. I am sure that we can provide further details, but the important thing is that those stakeholders have been engaged and listened to. We are continuing with that engagement and that will help the policies going forward.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join in thanking the Minister for her introduction, and, of course, in praising and commending the speeches of the four maiden speakers today: the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham, and my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Young of Acton. This has been a very interesting debate. Before I start, I should declare my interest as a minority shareholder in two businesses that employ people. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what he said, and I will do my best not to repeat all of it.

Others have commented on the fact that this, overall, is a troubling Bill, and for numerous reasons—not least, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral articulated so expertly, its excessive reliance on secondary powers. I will not expand on that now, as the case has been made—and, indeed, reinforced just now by the noble Lord, Lord Fox—but I will focus my remarks on two areas where, to use a phrase coined by my noble friend Lady Penn, the balance is seriously wrong. They are the inevitable and disproportionate impact on SMEs, acknowledged in the Government’s own impact assessment, and the day-one rights and their inevitable impact on hiring.

I begin by turning to the bigger picture and quoting from the Government’s own impact assessment. It states:

“Many of the policies within the Bill could help support the Government’s Growth Mission … we conclude the direct impact on growth could be positive, but small”.


The word “could” appears 132 times in the assessment. That is the language not of confidence but of uncertainty and hesitation, and it shows a fundamental lack of conviction in the very legislation before us.

While the Government dither, businesses are suffering. Indeed, as we saw only yesterday, the OBR downgraded growth forecasts from 2% to 1%. A particularly telling phrase in the explanatory note—as already referenced by my noble friend Lord Moynihan—said

“we have not incorporated any impact of the Government’s Plan to Make Work Pay as there is not yet sufficient detail or clarity about the final policy parameters.”

It goes on to say:

“Employment regulation policies that affect the flexibility of businesses and labour markets or the quantity and quality of work will likely have material, and probably net negative, economic impacts on employment, prices, and productivity”.


That is an explicit acknowledgement of the uncertainty generated by this Bill, and an admission that implies that more downgrades are to come. Let us look at the facts. The business confidence index for the United Kingdom stood at 97.4 in December 2024, a sharp decline from the previous month and the lowest reading since July 2020. That, of course, was a time of extraordinary crisis, global shutdowns and economic freefall. Yet today, with no pandemic to blame, we find ourselves again teetering on the brink.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales’s Business Confidence Monitor, which is the most comprehensive measure of sentiment in our business community, plummeted from 14.4 to a mere 0.2 in Q4 2024. The Institute of Directors confirms this: its Economic Confidence Index dropped to minus 64 in February, close to the lows reached during Covid. Regarding this Bill specifically, the Institute of Directors’ survey suggests that 57% of business leaders will be less likely to hire.

ICAEW members across the UK have raised concerns about the Bill’s impact on costs, labour flexibility and business dynamism. According to a poll of its members, 73% expect the Bill to increase employment costs for new and existing employees. One said, “It is like rushing down a hill towards a lake and pressing the accelerator.” The OBR has told us how this ends: in unemployment, and it will be unemployment of the Government’s own making. On that subject, that is one statistic that noble Lords opposite failed to cite when making their international comparisons. For the record, it is currently 7.3% in France, 6.2% in Germany and only 4.4% here.

What is driving this collapse in confidence? It is the suffocating weight of excessive taxation and crippling uncertainty about the future, as many others have noted. Small and medium-sized enterprises, which concern those of us on these Benches considerably, are rightly hailed as the backbone of the British economy, and for very good reason. SMEs account for 60% of UK employment and 48% of business turnover. Their confidence has turned negative for the first time since Q4 2022, falling from 12.8 to minus 4.7. That figure is not just a dry statistic. It represents thousands of business owners lying awake at night, wondering whether they can afford to keep the lights on, let alone hire new staff or invest in their future.

We should be under no illusion: the cost of this uncertainty is devastating. The Federation of Small Businesses reported that a staggering 33% of small employers now expect to reduce staff. That number has doubled in just one quarter. Meanwhile, only 10% of small firms plan to take on new employees. The result will be a shrinking economy, a contracting workforce, reduced opportunities for young people and those seeking to move from welfare to employment, increased costs and bureaucracy, and a country that is clearly retreating from ambition rather than embracing it.

If more confirmation is needed of this picture, the Government’s own impact assessment for the recent SI, the National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025, confirms the difficulties facing small business. It states that

“there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs specifically. Around 42.7% and 36.8% of micro and small businesses, respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024 (compared to 19.2% for large businesses). Around 15.6% and 33.9% of micro and small businesses, respectively, reported the cost of labour as a challenge to business turnover in November 2024.”

It is not clear whether, by the “cost of labour”, it was talking about the workforce or the party opposite. SMEs will need many exemptions from the provisions of the Bill. Yet the picture I have just painted is about to be made worse, as the Bill chooses to add yet another burden: disastrous day one rights for unfair dismissals and statutory sick pay.

So I ask a simple question: who truly understands what a business needs to thrive and survive? Is it the entrepreneur who has built something from nothing, the employer who fights every day to keep their company afloat, or an employment tribunal that is removed from the realities of running a business yet is now empowered to make decisions that could determine its fate? As the data reported last year by His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service makes clear, employment tribunals are currently not able to make any speedy judgments. The Law Society described the backlog as “spiralling” and a very well-known legal firm described the tribunals to us as

“a bit of a laughing stock”,

“creaking” and “hugely unreliable”. That firm might be expected to support the Bill out of self-interest, but it does not.

The Bill makes it harder for businesses to prove that redundancies are genuine. It creates a scenario where every decision could be second-guessed by tribunals that the legal profession thinks are a bit of a laughing stock. Every restructuring might have to be questioned and every difficult choice turned into an expensive legal battle. Why would a business fire for no reason? Businesses need motivated, skilled employees, and they need time to assess the likelihood of an employee acquiring those skills and demonstrating that motivation. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, put this very well and comprehensively explained it. However, to quote one of his Cross-Bench colleagues—the noble Lord, Lord Moore of Etchingham—in a newspaper column the other day, this clause is,

“as if children, once admitted to a school, were immediately deemed to have passed all the ensuing exams”.

As my noble friend Lady Cash noted, this is not an us-and-them perspective. Even if there were no other reason, retention is cheaper than firing and rehiring. Yet the Bill assumes, without evidence, that businesses are acting in bad faith, that they need tribunals to intervene and that they do not already have a strong incentive to retain talent.

The cost of all this will be staggering. The impact assessment suggests £5 billion, which will inevitably prove to be optimistic and which will inevitably fall disproportionately, as the Government admit, on the very SMEs we need to power growth—SMEs that the facts say are already struggling as a result of this Government’s other misguided policies. Instead of managing their businesses and seeking new markets and customers, they will be bogged down in human resources. If they get it wrong, they will be bogged down in litigation, endless documentation and the endless hiring of legal experts to justify every strategic decision. This is not just bureaucratic overreach but an outright violation of business autonomy.

A business should be able to shape its own workforce in response to market demands, competition and innovation, yet under the Bill it seems that businesses can only make such decisions when faced with an existential crisis. What recourse would a company struggling with stagnation and trying to bring in fresh talent and stay ahead in a fiercely competitive world have? We must ask ourselves: do we want a thriving economy and businesses that grow, invest and create jobs, or do we want a system that strangles them in red tape, drags them into courtrooms and forces them into stagnation? The Bill, as it stands, will not boost our declining growth, restore business confidence or create jobs. Instead, it will leave many businesses trapped: unable to adapt, unable to compete and, ultimately, unable to survive.

So I ask the Minister: have the Government considered the likely impact of the measures in the Bill on their recently stated aim to move people off long-term welfare? Can they speculate as to the likely effect of day 1 unfair dismissal rights and statutory sick pay rights on that ambition? Can they answer why a prospective employer might take a risk on a potential employee who is recovering from a long-term medical condition? The obvious net effect of these measures will be to encourage employers to do more due diligence, be more risk averse and rely more on references and less on intuition. That will have a very damaging impact on social mobility and workforce diversity. How do society or the individuals and businesses affected benefit from that? How is that—to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Livermore—either compassionate or fair?

Beyond the immediate damage to business confidence, we must consider the broader implications for the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for investment. Capital flow is where it is welcomed. Investment thrives where there is stability, flexibility and a regulatory framework that encourages and does not obstruct growth. The Bill sends precisely the wrong message to investors. It signals that the UK is becoming a more complex, risk-laden and bureaucratic place to do business. Why would international companies choose Britain when they can invest in economies with more business-friendly policies?

Ministers claim that employment protections will create a fairer economy, but they fail to acknowledge the reality: an economy that cannot attract investment is an economy that cannot create jobs at all, and surely that is the ultimate unfairness. Or, to put it another way, and to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, surely the greatest dignity of all is to have a job.

As we have heard, there is plenty more in the Bill that we will be addressing in Committee. My noble friend Lord Young of Acton made a brilliant maiden speech, drawing heavily on his experience with the Free Speech Union and talking to the invidious Clause 20. We will support him. As a reminder, my noble friend pointed out that employers are already liable for the sexual harassment of third parties under the worker protection Act. On flexible working, we struggle to understand the problem this is trying to fix. As my noble friend Lord Hunt said earlier, a majority of workers on these contracts seem to like them. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation states that 79% of respondents to their recent survey like flexible working because of the flexibility. The Chancellor says she wants to tear down regulation to boost growth, but this Bill introduces a new quango with perhaps alarming, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, or even Kafkaesque powers.

We have spoken to all the major business organisations and many employers with real-world experience, and we can find none that supports the Bill. We found unanimity that it will cause considerable damage. Can the Minister give any examples, apart from those four that she has already mentioned and which have been trotted out fairly frequently over the past few months, of actual, real employers that support all the Bill? Please name just one, as we would love to talk to them to see what we have missed. We will of course also be turning to the subject of trades unions, to which a number of noble Lords have spoken. In particular, I commend the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, for their thoughtful interventions on this.

We believe that the UK stands at a crossroads. We understand the intent behind the Bill, and of course there are some things in it that we can support. But we can either embrace policies that made us a global leader in investment and innovation, or we can burden ourselves and businesses with regulations that drive them elsewhere. I believe that the Government are serious about growth, but I have no choice but to conclude that the choice here is straightforward: they can have this Bill or they can have growth, but they cannot have both.

US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they plan to take to mitigate the impact of US steel and aluminium tariffs on the UK manufacturing sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, it is disappointing that the US has today imposed global tariffs on steel and aluminium. The UK will always be a champion of free and open trade, which is essential in delivering our Plan for Change. We are resolute in our support for the UK steel industry. This Government are working with affected companies today, and we back the industry’s application to the Trade Remedies Authority to investigate what further steps might be necessary to protect UK producers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, and I am pleased to hear about the steps she is taking. To move on slightly, I was pleased to hear that the Prime Minister acknowledged, during Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Brexit benefit of seeking a trade agreement with the United States to avoid tariffs. However, while the UK looks to negotiate with Washington, the EU has already retaliated against US tariffs, so the Government must now recognise that resetting relations with the EU at this moment risks dragging the UK into an escalating transatlantic trade war. Last month, a close ally of Donald Trump, Stephen Moore, made it clear that Britain will have to choose between its special relationship with the US and closer ties to the EU. The time for vague statements and talk of all options being open is surely over; we need clarity. Now that the US and the EU are openly in a trade war, do the Government not see the urgency of making their position clear? What will the UK prioritise—the special relationship or Brussels?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made clear, when it comes to the national interest, he rejects having to make any false choice between allies. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority will be the growth of the UK economy and free and open trade with our most economically important partners. We will only ever sign trade agreements which align with the UK’s national interests.