Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 120U as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120G, in lieu of Amendment 120N, and Amendments 120V to 120Y as amendments to Commons Amendment 120H, in lieu of Amendments 120P to 120S—

120U: Leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc.), for subsection (1ZA) substitute—
“(1ZA) The amount specified in this subsection is £118,223.
(1ZB) Within three months of the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must conduct an impact assessment of the change to the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) made by that Act in order to assess whether the limit specified in subsection (1ZA) is the appropriate amount.
(1ZC) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must consider the effect of the change to that limit on—
(a) the ability of claimants to obtain fair compensation,
(b) the operation and capacity of employment tribunals,
(c) the willingness of parties to settle claims without recourse to a tribunal, and
(d) public sector employers and public expenditure.
(1ZD) An impact assessment under subsection (1ZB) must include a consultation with—
(a) employers’ organisations,
(b) trade unions,
(c) organisations representing employment law practitioners, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

--- Later in debate ---

120Y: Leave out paragraphs 2 to 5”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has just said, yesterday a letter was sent to Members of the House by six major business organisations, setting out precisely what many of us said in the Chamber last week. That letter makes one thing abundantly clear: the Government did misrepresent when they claimed that the abolition of both compensation caps was agreed between businesses and the trade unions.

The agreement—I choose that word carefully—was to remove the 52-week salary cap while retaining and increasing the overall monetary cap, which is currently just over £118,000. That was the compromise that was understood by the business community, but the Government have now chosen not only to abandon that agreement but to misrepresent it to the House. To prove that point, I will quote from the same letter from the six business organisations, which states:

“Unfortunately, we have not been able to reach a compromise that satisfies both the unions’ request for removal of the cash cap and our position of retaining it while raising the overall limit”.


This is made all the more serious by the Government compounding the error by behaving unconstitutionally. The removal of the compensation cap was introduced at ping-pong, having been debated at no previous stage of this Bill, neither in your Lordships’ House nor in another place. This House exists to scrutinise legislation, not to rubber-stamp late-stage surprises, still less ones accompanied by misleading assurances.

Let me be clear about the Conservative Motion that is tabled in my name. It reflects precisely the agreement that business groups believed they had reached with the Government: the removal of the 52-week cap, coupled with the retention and review of the overall monetary limit. There is no credible reason that the Minister can give for the Government to not accept it.

The Motion also provides for a formal review and proper consultation. I remind the House that, when the cap was increased under the Labour Government in 1999, that change followed consultation. When the coalition Government introduced a 52-week gross salary cap in 2015, the same approach was taken. There is no reason whatever why the Government should not proceed in the same careful, evidence-based manner again.

It is the Government’s choice, and theirs alone, to delay this legislation by introducing an entirely new issue at this final stage and then attempting to justify it on the basis of an agreement that did not exist. It is also wholly wrong for the TUC, the Minister in another place and others to attack hereditary Peers for doing precisely what they, like all noble Lords, are here to do: scrutinise legislation. It is also worth noting that the criticism of hereditary Peers was unfairly universal. No thanks were offered to at least one Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer who backed the Government.

If the 65 Labour Peers who were absent last week had attended, the Government would have likely prevailed. However, I rather suspect that some of them might have developed cold feet once they realised that they were being asked to support multimillion-pound payouts to water bosses and failed senior executives in financial institutions. Perhaps absence in this case was a mercy.

Over the weekend, the latest employment tribunal statistics were published. They are stark. There are now over 515,000 open cases, and that figure will rise, not fall, as a result of this decision. Why? Because well-resourced senior executives advised by the very best lawyers will now enter the system in greater numbers, clogging up tribunals, prolonging hearings and consuming judicial time. The inevitable consequence is that ordinary working people, many of whom have a legitimate and modest claim, will wait longer for justice or be denied it altogether.

This debate does not take place in a vacuum. Unemployment has risen again this month, as it has every month under this Government. Nearly 2 million people are now unemployed, this Christmas there will be 192,000 fewer in private sector payrolled employment than last Christmas, and young people are bearing the brunt. At a time when their futures are already being crushed by rising costs, weaker growth and dwindling opportunities, the Government choose to inject yet more uncertainty into the labour market. What on earth do Ministers think they are doing? Instead of encouraging job creation, they are creating incentives for litigation, delay and risk—precisely the opposite of what a fragile jobs market requires.

I say to the Liberal Democrats that it is a curious position to demand that water company bosses be dismissed while simultaneously supporting a policy that could hand such individuals eye-watering compensation. Something does not add up. What we are seeing instead is the Liberal Democrats choosing to form a coalition of chaos with the Government and abandoning British business, working people and the constitutional role of your Lordships’ House. In fact, according to data published by the Liberal Democrats themselves just last year, executives of water companies in England collected some £70 million in remuneration between 2021 and 2023, including nearly £41 million in bonuses. One is therefore entitled to ask why, in the space of a single week, their position appears to have shifted so dramatically. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, can explain this sudden change of heart.

The Government have claimed that removing the compensation cap will not affect the level of awards. The Ministry of Justice’s own data shows that the median award of just under £7,000 is derived from just 650 tribunal awards. Yet each year there are many thousands of potential unfair dismissal claims, the overwhelming majority of which never reach the point of an award because they are settled long before they reach that stage. The reason those cases settle is the existence of a statutory maximum. The cap provides a known endpoint and encourages realism from both parties. Remove that ceiling and settlement becomes vastly more difficult. Claims run longer, positions harden and costs escalate—and tribunals, which are already overwhelmed, are left to pick up the pieces.

Even President Macron recognised that the absence of such a cap was harming French competitiveness and introduced one in 2017. It is a sorry state of affairs when France has something to teach a British Government about competitiveness. The only country in Europe without a statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is Luxembourg, which has a youth unemployment rate of 20%.

I have a few questions for the Minister. What conversations have Ministers had with the financial services sector, where concern about this change is profound? Will the promised impact assessment be serious, comprehensive and honest, and will it include the risk of opportunistic and speculative claims, the increased burden on the public sector and the likely cost to the taxpayer? The original Employment Rights Bill impact assessment was, frankly, inadequate—a fact recognised by the Regulatory Policy Committee, which issued a red rating. Will the Government now guarantee that the impact assessment on abolishing the compensation cap will not meet the same fate and that it will be detailed, rigorous and transparent? If it becomes clear, as many of us fear, that the removal of the cap leads to tribunal congestion, rising costs and injustice for ordinary workers, will the Government commit to reintroducing a cap, as President Macron did? Finally, will Ministers undertake to consult properly with employment law practitioners, the majority of whom oppose this decision, alongside businesses both large and small?

In conclusion, because of the Conservative Party a six-month qualifying period has been secured. However, that alone does not remedy the fundamental flaws of the Bill. The £5 billion cost remains. The costs of a raft of 1970s-style trade union reforms have not been properly identified, let alone accounted for, by the Government, and I repeat that all this is against a backdrop of rising unemployment. Let me be completely clear: the next Conservative Government will repeal every job-destroying, anti-business measure in this unemployment Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned part of the letter written to the Business Secretary yesterday by six business groups including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce. What he did not mention is that the letter from those groups also said that

“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”,

despite their concerns. That seems to be a much wiser approach than that adopted by the Conservative Front Bench—not least because Motion A1 raises no great issue of principle. It raises a request for an impact assessment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his question. As I mentioned last week, the context here is Bill specific and the changes that have been proposed and have been put in terms of this tripartite agreement were in response to issues that had been raised in your Lordships’ House. We went away and convened a particular mode of operating, and we have brought it back as a Bill-specific package. As I also mentioned last week, there are many discussions in the House about how we want to take business forward. The Leader of the House has set that out very clearly. That is the way we intend to proceed more generally.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this very brief debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is of course right—I did not quote that bit of the letter because the Minister did. The House generally does not like needless repetition, so I am following the rules.

I am very grateful to the Minister for those assurances, and I am somewhat reassured. I am grateful—correct me if I have any of this wrong—that the impact assessment will be published before commencement and will be public and transparent and include a dispute resolution mechanism, that the tripartite agreement will endure going forward in further discussions around the Bill, and that all stakeholders will be consulted widely. That is, in effect, what we were asking for. The simple fact of the matter, though, is that we on these Benches will continue to hold the Government to account on behalf of the wealth creators, the businesses, the employers and their workers in this country.

I have heard what has been said and will emphasise a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I should have made in my speech: we are particularly concerned about the impact of the entire Bill on small businesses. We will return to that theme unless their interests are very carefully protected going forward.

As to the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding the strategic position, I am not entirely sure what the strategic position is. But I am grateful for his comments.

I am also enormously grateful to all those on His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s Benches and the many on the Cross Benches who stuck to their principles. We have achieved a great deal and made a bad Bill marginally more palatable. I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.

Motion A1 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

For these reasons, we will support the Government to ensure delivery of the change to unfair dismissal, as well as the broader set of new rights in this Bill, which these Benches support. I beg to move Motion A1.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak principally to Motion B1 in my name. The Government’s introduction of a six-month qualifying period, one that can be amended only through primary legislation, was, I am happy to acknowledge, a very welcome concession and we thank the Government Benches opposite for it. Angela Rayner spoke of disruption, but the truth is that this House was simply doing what it is supposed to do and what it does best—scrutinising legislation diligently and ensuring that our small businesses and our young people retain at least some chance of building a bright future. Those are our vested interests.

However, what followed was the very opposite of proper scrutiny. Without consultation, assessment or, as far as we can tell, any precedent—and without even the courtesy of signalling the change to either House—the Government brought forward at the 11th hour a wholly new measure to abolish entirely the compensation caps for unfair dismissal. These issues had not been discussed at any earlier stage in the Bill’s passage. The constitutional implications of introducing major new policy at ping-pong are profound. This is not responsible government; it is unnecessary, inappropriate and constitutionally troubling.

Motion B1 in my name accepts almost all of the Government’s amendment. It seeks only a modest and responsible safeguard that the Government conduct a review of the compensation limits before abolishing them. I acknowledge that an impact assessment has been promised after this becomes law, but what use would that be? It would already, by definition, be somewhat redundant.

This is not obstruction. It is the bare minimum that a competent Administration should undertake. When Tony Blair increased the cap in 1999, there was consultation. When the coalition Government introduced the 52-week cap in 2015, there was consultation. Why should this Government be exempt from the same cross-party accepted standards of good practice? The Government claim that this change reflects an agreement between business groups and trade unions but I wonder whether this is true.

Neil Carberry, chief executive of the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, was explicit. He said:

“For the employer side of the table last week ‘lifted’ did not mean ‘abolished, right now’. We agreed that the 52 week cap should go—protects ordinary workers better—as part of the deal that retained the qualifying period. We anticipated a further discussion about the future of the cash cap, too. But the decision to go for abolition, now is political”.


The Federation of Small Businesses said on Times Radio this week: “In the agreement between us as business groups and the unions, we agreed that there would be a lifting of the cap. We didn’t suggest it would be both caps abolished. So that’s broader than the agreement, and it helps a very small number of very, very rich people working for corporates”.

When those alleged to have agreed to this package say plainly that they did not agree to abolish both caps, the government rationale collapses. It is rumoured that there are minutes of these various meetings and, to clear all this up, perhaps, I ask the Minister whether that is the case and, if it is, will they place a copy of the minutes in the Library?

Let us also have a look at the possible practical consequences of this. The Government appear not to have considered even the most basic scenarios. For example, what happens when a board is faced with an underperforming CEO on £1 million or more? Today, many boards reach a clean exit. Notice is given, a payment to cover the maximum unfair dismissal award is made and a swift settlement is agreed. It allows the organisation to move on. But under an uncapped regime, the entire risk changes. Will a board now be expected to conduct a full six-month performance improvement plan, offer formal warnings, objectives, documented support and staged reviews, simply to reduce the risk of defending a seven-figure tribunal sum? In answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the incentives have now changed, so we would expect behaviour to change. They will now be incentivised to use the tribunal system, even if they were not in the past.

Let us consider a particular bête noire of your Lordships’ House: the water company executives, those who have overseen sewage being pumped into our rivers and seas. Are these individuals really now to be entitled to multimillion-pound payouts for so-called unfair dismissal? Is that the policy intention? Are noble Lords opposite truly comfortable becoming the party defending corrupt water bosses, while ordinary claimants are pushed further back in the queue? This policy is a recipe for the rich and a wrecking of justice for working people.

On Motion C, we are glad that it has taken the persistence of the Official Opposition to ensure that the Government now concede the need to consult our farmers and our other seasonal businesses. After the jobs tax, the tax on family farms and the business rates increase that are crushing the hospitality and retail sectors, and with the construction sector shrinking at the fastest rate since the pandemic, it is rather vital that such industry concerns are taken seriously.

On Motion D1, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He has been entirely reasonable and constructive throughout these discussions. The noble Lord has engaged with the Government in good faith, seeking sensible middle ground rather than conflict. It is precisely because his approach is so measured that the position taken by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, opposite is so remarkable, because it was the Collins review of 2014 that argued that the old model of automatic political fund enrolment was no longer acceptable. It was the Collins review that insisted that workers must give explicit individual opt-in consent before contributing to political activity, and which championed transparency, choice and the principle that democratic legitimacy cannot rest on inertia. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins; dare I say that he is U-turning, and is possibly not the first on those Benches to do so?

In our previous debate, the Minister suggested that the recent wave of industrial action somehow demonstrates that the existing legislative framework is inadequate. The rise in strikes in 2022 and 2023 occurred against a backdrop of the sharpest inflation shock in 40 years, global economic turbulence during and after the pandemic, and the profound wage erosion that followed the peak of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. These are extraordinary economic circumstances, not failures of the Trade Union Act 2016. In 2017, 2018 and 2019—the first full years after the Act was implemented—working days lost to strike action fell to historic lows. In 2018, the 273,000 working days lost represented the sixth-lowest annual total since records began in 1891, according to the ONS. Industrial action in the public sector was at its lowest sustained level for decades.

I turn to recent events. Just over a week ago the BMA announced yet another round of industrial action. These strikes will undoubtedly put patients at risk and place even greater strain on our already overstretched National Health Service. Let us also recall that it was the Government’s own Health Secretary who accused the BMA of behaving like a cartel—and you cannot negotiate with a cartel. We have all heard, purely through the most reputable Westminster whispers, of course, that there may be a measure of tension within the Government on this—a hint of disagreement between the Health Secretary and other Ministers, perhaps even the Prime Minister himself. I would never suggest that Ministers are briefing against one another or that competing ambitions are shaping policy, but the murmurings grow louder by the day.

The Government have a splendid opportunity this afternoon to dispel all such unhelpful chatter. They can prove to the House, and perhaps even to themselves, that they are a united operation. They can put all doubts to rest with one simple gesture, by accepting what we are calling the Wes Streeting amendment before your Lordships today. His Majesty’s Official Opposition remain firmly and unapologetically on the side of Britain’s businesses, large and small.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion D1. In recent years, there has been an extraordinary and significant interest in what has become known as choice architecture. This was popularised by the book Nudge and by one of its authors, Richard Thaler, who received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2017, partly for his work on it. One key point which is so relevant to the issues I have been raising is that he highlighted that when individuals are presented with a choice, any default option has a very important influence on their decision and should be taken into account in designing the process of choice.

My previous amendment aimed to eliminate the impact of the default option, in one direction or another, when members wish to take advantage of the right not to pay the political contribution. It proposed that new members should be required to make an active choice between two options displayed on the application form: to pay or not to pay. This would eliminate the need for a default option, and potentially reflect more closely the true preferences of members. This proposal has not found favour in the House of Commons: clearly, the Government and the trade unions with political funds want to influence the decision of members in favour of paying the political contribution. They want as many members as possible to pay the contribution, and of course I understand the motivation.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

At end insert “and do propose Amendment 120N as an amendment to Commons Amendment 120G and Amendments 120P to 120S as amendments to Commons Amendment 120H—

120N: Leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) In section 124 (limit of compensatory award etc.), after subsection (5), insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, conduct a review of the limit imposed by this section on the amount of the compensation awarded or compensatory award made.
(7) A review under subsection (6) must include a consultation with—
(a) employers’ organisations,
(b) trade unions,
(c) organisations representing employment law practitioners, and
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.””

--- Later in debate ---

120S: Leave out paragraphs 2 to 5”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the manifest constitutional impropriety on display, I do not think we have a choice. I beg to move Motion B1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62E in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

This is not the end of Fife’s industrial story. As Exxon gradually decommissions and remediates the site, the Government are committed to working with the local authority and the Scottish Government to promote the benefits of this location for future industrial investment. This Government are committed to supporting the workforce and the community over the coming weeks and months, during what I know will be a difficult and painful transition. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Official Opposition’s thoughts are with the 450 workers at Exxon Mobil’s Fife plant, who now face losing their livelihoods. That plant had been a cornerstone of chemical production in the United Kingdom for 40 years. These are skilled people—proud people—and whole communities are now wondering what comes next. They deserve our sympathy, of course, but sympathy will not keep an industry alive. This closure was not unavoidable; it is happening because of this Government’s policies.

The chief executive of the Society of Chemical Industry, Sharon Todd, put it starkly:

“Without further government action to address high energy costs for industry, and a greater consideration of the importance of fossil carbon for material feedstocks, industrial resilience in the UK is undermined and further closures are increasingly likely”.


What a verdict—and it is one that the Government cannot pretend they have not heard. We on these Benches have warned Ministers repeatedly. Industry has warned them repeatedly. Everyone who actually makes things in this country has warned them repeatedly.

But the Government simply will not listen, and the price of this stubbornness is being paid by workers, manufacturers and communities up and down the country. ExxonMobil is not alone; we are seeing exactly the same story in steel. Everywhere you look, energy-intensive industries are struggling with the same crushing energy costs, and the pattern is not subtle. The Government’s energy policy is pulling in the opposite direction to its supposed number one priority of growth. You cannot claim to have a plan for growth while presiding over some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. It just does not add up.

Only a few weeks ago, the US ambassador to the UK, Warren Stephens, warned Ministers that high electricity prices are deterring investment from the world’s strongest economy and our closest ally historically. Then we have ExxonMobil’s UK chairman, Paul Greenwood, who said that the company had spent months warning the Government about the risks to the plant, only to be ignored. He said that

“these are deliberate Government policies that are undermining us”.

When global companies start talking like that, something is seriously wrong.

This closure lands at the same moment that Make UK published a report warning that surging energy costs and cumulative taxes are threatening the future of Britain’s industrial base. Ministers have no excuses left. These are the results of decisions made in Whitehall: a slow-motion sustained act of industrial self-harm. Even Unite and GMB—hardly allies of these Benches—warned Ministers that their ban on new oil and gas development would devastate supply chains and destroy skilled jobs. When both employers and unions are saying the same thing, it seems that only this Government could fail to hear it.

And what exactly has this achieved for the environment? Nothing, because now we simply import more oil and gas instead of producing it ourselves. Meanwhile, the Minister in the other place, the Secretary of State for Net Zero, posts on X claiming that bills remain high due to fossil fuel dependence, yet Ofgem has confirmed that policy costs are the major driver.

Minister can no longer hide from the consequences of their own decisions. We have major international investors describing the UK as “mismanaged” and “uninvestable”. South Africa’s richest woman called Britain a “scary country”, saying that she

“wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole”.

When global investors are talking about the UK in those terms, something has gone profoundly wrong.

As we said during the steel debate a few weeks ago, high energy costs and new unemployment burdens looming from the Employment Rights Bill, plus scatter-brained and ideological policies coming out of DESNZ, are all squeezing the life out of British industry. Will the Government reverse their ban on North Sea oil and gas? Will they stop pouring unaffordable subsidies into wind and solar while heavy industry collapses under the weight of energy costs, or are they determined to preside over a full-scale de-industrialisation? British workers, British industries and British communities deserve a lot better than this; they deserve a Government who listen, support industry and understand growth, and the Government are failing on all three counts.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is quite clearly a blow for the area of Fife, and especially for the direct and indirect workers of the plant. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, our thoughts go to them and their families as they seek to find ways of coming to terms with the blow.

The closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. The company has talked about supporting its employers and possible relocation available for some, but what about contractors and the wider supply chain? As far as I am aware, no task force has yet been set up to manage this, so can the Minister please update your Lordships’ House on how the wider workforce will be helped as this crisis bites? It is reported that only around 50 staff are being offered jobs, and nearly 500 miles away in Hampshire. Can the Minister confirm how many have actually agreed to relocate? What are the Government doing to protect and create highly skilled, high-quality jobs located for those who cannot move far from their homes, their communities and their wider family? More generally, much is made of the transition to net zero, which we wholeheartedly support, but there is a danger of the old jobs disappearing more quickly than the new ones are being created, and this mismatch will make growth very difficult, if not impossible.

There has, not unexpectedly, been some finger-pointing—indeed, we just saw some—trying to work out who is to blame for this. But we should understand that this plant has been in trouble and making a loss for five years. If economic and trading environments are causing the closure, both this Government and the last Government are culpable. But I also point to Brexit. All the products made at Mossmorran are exported to the EU. Can the Minister outline how much Brexit contributed to the plant’s demise? Given that there will no longer be these exports from the plant, what is the effect on our balance of trade?

This is, of course, a further blow for the Scottish economy and UK-wide manufacturing, and it comes fast on the heels of other company closures. The common denominator seems to be a combination of long-standing depressed demand alongside the policy environment—and the overwhelming issue, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is the cost of energy. Energy was a problem when the noble Lord was in government and it remains a problem now. This is not to downplay today’s news confirming the £420 million a year committed to reduce electricity costs for the UK’s most energy-intensive industries—but that is jam tomorrow; it does not start until 2027.

There is a desperate need for further and more rapid intervention, as many UK chemicals operations face risk of closure before the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as it is called, comes into effect the year after next. There also remains considerable uncertainty about which businesses will benefit from this new support. Can the Minister fill us in on what the process will be for deciding which businesses and sectors qualify for this subsidy? What specific steps are the Government taking for the here and now? We understand what is happening in 2027, and we have seen the long look into the future that is called the industrial strategy, but what is happening now? We need to find a way of making sure that there is long-term investment in our manufacturing and chemicals industry.

The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs in Scotland, so why is there no meaningful mention of them in the Statement? Will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government and when, and how the Minister sees the role of the Scottish Government going forward?

To conclude, energy-intensive industries are in decline across the UK. Every chemical business across the UK is paying more for its energy than competitors elsewhere, as was the case under the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as much as 400% higher than in America. Closures at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost. Britain’s once dominant chemical industry is continuing to suffer. The UK’s chemical output has reached its lowest level for a decade. The latest business survey of members of the Chemical Industries Association shows that 60% of chemical businesses report falling sales with a further 20% seeing no growth. More worryingly, many report strategic reviews.

Closures reduce our already dwindling industrial capacity and reduce our ability to deliver essential materials for our country’s critical national infrastructure, be it health, energy, food or defence. If the Government want to continue to have a chemical industry, then we need much more action to address these unsustainable costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The steel industry is incredibly important to the Government. As noble Lords know, the Government have taken action in respect of British Steel, and, as I outlined earlier, in respect of energy costs for the industry. My department has been engaging in discussions with EU counterparts on this to ensure that we properly understand what is going on. We will always take action to protect our industry.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if no one else has another question, I will ask a very quick one. The Minister referred to £250 billion-worth of inward investment and 450,000 jobs that will be created. I do not expect her to have this information to hand, but would she be willing to commit to write to noble Lords who have participated in this debate with a list of the amounts dedicated, by whom, where and when, et cetera, particularly in reference to jobs? That is because, as we know, since the Government have taken power, 177,000 jobs have been lost.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the government amendments and for the noble Lords opposite’s willingness to meet. But to say that the amendments that have been offered are inadequate would be something of an understatement. In essence, they oblige the Secretary of State, before making regulations, to

“consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

Who might those persons be? That really is the extent of the amendment. We already know that, so far, government consultations with business on this Bill have been desultory at best. I do not believe that the amendment even qualifies as a bunny, never mind a rabbit.

The chorus of disapproval for this proposed legislation has now been joined by Labour’s most successful ever Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley pointed out—and to expand on my noble friend’s remarks—in its report Tony Blair’s institute said:

“At present, employees gain protection from unfair dismissal only after two years—one of the longest qualifying periods in the OECD. The bill would move to the opposite extreme, granting such rights immediately. This would raise employment costs by increasing the legal and procedural risks attached to every new hire and discourage firms from recruiting—a concern already raised by some of the UK’s largest business groups, which have urged the government to amend the bill”.


Addressing the Government’s intention to introduce regulations allowing an initial probationary period, during which an employee could be dismissed under a light-touch process, the institute said that

“uncertainty over what rights apply during probation will do little to reassure employers nervous about taking on staff. Introducing a six-month qualifying period for unfair-dismissal protection, which is more typical among advanced economies including across much of Northern Europe and Australia, is more likely to balance fairness with flexibility”.

Meanwhile, billionaire Labour backer John Caudwell put it rather more succinctly. He said this will make Britain “less investable”. He continued:

“It’s not good for Britain, it’s not good for workers”.


Spot on.

To summarise, we have multiple business groups against this, and perhaps we should recap who they are: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, the ADS Group, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality. The British Chambers of Commerce contacted me after the last debate to explain that it would have signed the letter but had been too late.

Academia has added its voice to the chorus of disapproval. Professor Jonathan Haskel of Imperial College, and a former member of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, said:

“Using the OECD index of employment regulation, there’s a negative relationship which is that more employment regulation means less intangible investment. My best prediction is that the employment rights bill is a rise in uncertainty for firms. The reason is that these employment rights are set out in broad outline in the bill but will then end up being interpreted by the courts”.


Those are all joined by the Government’s favourite think tank, as we discussed last time: the Resolution Foundation. Lest we forget, its former chief executive now sits in the Treasury. I have to say, looking at the Benches opposite, that they are also joined by quite a lot of Labour Peers, whose facial expressions the Minister cannot see.

The Government will of course say, “Business would say that, wouldn’t they?”, but that is to miss the point. These are the people who make hiring decisions, who decide whether to offshore because it is cheaper and causes them fewer HR headaches, whether to downsize, and whether to just close down completely, as we just heard so powerfully on the last group from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley and his correspondent—I think it was Mr Dunham.

Remember that the impact assessment says the measure is likely to have a disproportionate impact on small and micro-businesses. Additionally, following the decision by the Government to double the conciliating period to 12 weeks for ACAS to resolve disputes, the Employment Lawyers Association has said:

“We are apolitical but the fact is that Parliament can pass all the reforming legislation it wants, but unless those laws can be enforced, with cases heard within a reasonable time, its laws are placed over the horizon, de facto out of sight to both workers and employers alike”.


These are the people who might be expected to benefit from the 10,500 increase in claims forecast to go before ACAS in the Government’s own impact assessment. Instead, they are expressing despair at the broken employment tribunal system.

As we saw last week, unemployment is rising and stands at almost 2 million, and it was reported yesterday that half the 170,000 jobs shed since Labour came to power are from the under-25s. Everyone who knows anything at all about wealth creation, about private sector hiring and about employment law says that the Bill will make it worse.

I need to refer back to the Tony Blair Institute, because it was very explicit about discouraging from hiring and I noticed that the Minister did not engage with that particular point in his introduction. This debate is about the people the party opposite claim to want to help. It is about a young person trying to find a job, a long-term unemployed person trying to rejoin the workforce, a woman wanting to return to work after having children, and somebody recovering from a long-term health issue getting back on their feet. The Bill should be about helping them; it is doing the complete opposite.

The last time we debated this, the Minister constructed a tortuous analogy and said that I and my party were on some sort of journey. If we are, our destination is common sense, and the Government need to listen to the wise voices on their own side and to join us.

On Motion F1, all I will do is quote what the Health Secretary said last week, that

“to be out on strike, setting back the NHS, because you don’t think we’re going fast enough, and because the leadership of your union are not honest enough that some of this change takes time, is extremely irresponsible. It is extremely unnecessary”.

He said that the BMA

“is no longer a professional association, and it is engaged in cartel-like behaviour”,

and that:

“The BMA’s leadership appear more interested in grandstanding and causing pain to patients than improving the lives of frontline resident doctors”.


Those are fairly damning words.

According to the Government’s own analysis, the full-time basic pay of resident doctors is expected to reach £54,300. This is where the farce becomes almost theatrical, because recently we heard that the Treasury considers that anyone earning above £45,000 a year is not a working person.

It appears that the Government have achieved something truly novel. They are actively creating a category of “non-working people”—not my phrase but the Chancellor’s own definition—and then showering them with no-strings-attached pay rises. Meanwhile, the BMA, emboldened by these spineless handouts, continues to abuse its influence, holding our NHS hostage while the Government wave through concessions without so much as a performance requirement or reform condition attached. The 50% threshold is not some sort of draconian barrier but a bare minimum, a line of defence against precisely this kind of chaos. Removing it will only accelerate the downward spiral that the Government have set in motion with their desperate, unconditional giveaways. The union bosses, entirely predictably, have now turned on them the moment it suited their agenda. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope the noble Lords will understand that we have tried to respond to the cases. On the threshold, it is very clear, and I hope the noble Lord will consider not pressing his Motion—and indeed all his Motions. We have said that we will not implement that change without absolutely ensuring that the issue of turnout is properly addressed through members being able to vote not just by post but through other methods. I have banged on long enough, so I hope we can respond to this.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but he has yet again failed to answer the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. We know that you cannot use a spent conviction as a reason for a dismissal, and that is entirely appropriate. The point is that there will not be anybody with a spent conviction in work, because no one will employ them. That is what the noble and right reverend Lord was asking, and yet again the Government have failed to answer what is a very straightforward question. They also failed entirely to address the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, highlighting the difficulties young people are likely to face, and indeed are facing in the current workplace, because of this Bill.

I am afraid that the answers have not alleviated our concerns on these Benches. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. It is not just the noble Lord who is obsessed with this; I think the whole House is. If he wishes to press his Motion, we will support him, but, in the meantime, I commend Motion B1 to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 48B.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move Motion C1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move Motion F1.

Built Environment Sector

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right on that point. We need to have the right standards, skills and funding. Among the programmes the Government have in front of them, the affordable homes programme, for example, commits £39 billion over 10 years to build social and affordable housing, which will include low-interest loans and rent settlement reforms to support housing providers to provide those decent standards of housing across the country.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the report argues that the built environment should form a core part of the Government’s industrial strategy. But, as we heard in our recent debate on steel, for Britain to have a strong industrial base, we must also foster a flexible, innovative and low-tax business environment if industrial policy is to thrive. Could the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not impose further tax increases on British businesses in the forthcoming Budget?

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, before I begin, I also add to the general praise for the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, for her excellent maiden speech, and I wish the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, the very best for his, while also welcoming both to the House. As the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, will not be followed, I take this opportunity to say how welcome it is to have someone with his business experience join the Labour Benches.

This has been a wide-ranging and extremely interesting debate. The one theme that is very clear and has come from pretty much all speakers across the House is the lack of the strategy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just summed that up rather well. The first of the questions that I therefore add to the long list from the noble Lord, Lord Fox is: can we please have a date for the strategy? When can we expect it, and when can we expect to discuss it?

In starting, I echo the words of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, and indeed several other noble Lords. The Government’s handling of the steel industry has, to put it mildly, been deeply unsatisfactory. The events of six months ago must not be allowed to repeat themselves. Your Lordships’ House was offered little clarity as Ministers rushed through emergency powers—powers granted, as my noble friend reminded us, without a sunset clause. As a result, we have no indication whatever of when or if this Act will be repealed, in spite of ministerial assurances at the time. Instead, the saying that “nothing is so permanent as a temporary government programme” seems to hang rather ominously over us. I therefore ask the Minister to tell the House precisely when the Government intend to bring this legislation to an end.

The agreement reached by the previous Conservative Government with Tata Steel in relation to Port Talbot should have provided this Government with a clear and successful template for transition. It is a partnership model that combined industrial realism with long-term vision, with a keen eye on steel security. Yet by all accounts the current Administration have not followed that example. Indications suggest that the key sticking point in the Government’s continuation of the negotiations, originally initiated under the previous Government, has been an insistence that the existing loss-making basic oxygen furnace operations be maintained throughout the transition phase. This is an approach that defies both commercial logic and fiscal responsibility, as my noble friend Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist highlighted.

I ask the Minister, specifically in relation to the events leading up to 27 March 2025, what proposal did the Government put to British Steel? What counterproposal did the company make in response? What contingency planning, if any, was undertaken to address the possibility of a breakdown in negotiations? It is now evident that Ministers were woefully unprepared for the outcome that followed.

We have to revisit the Government’s narrative concerning Jingye’s responsibilities. A proper under- standing of British Steel’s position is essential if that narrative is not to descend into distortion. During the first four years of Jingye’s ownership of British Steel, from late 2020 to late 2023, the Government’s operating losses and capital investments required injections of some £811 million in loans and equity, almost all of which were provided, in cash, by Jingye itself. The solvency of the business was wholly dependent on that continuing support. By the end of 2024, it is probable that British Steel’s combined intercompany debt, equity and assets exceeded £1 billion.

It is simply not realistic to expect any private enterprise to provide indefinite cash support to a loss-making operation of that scale. Jingye quite reasonably sought to restructure its business model to place it on a sounder financial footing, as any responsible company would, provided that it acted lawfully and with due regard to its other obligations. But instead of engaging constructively, the Government chose to declare a national emergency and seized effective control of the company, locking its directors out of their own plants and records, while simultaneously requiring them to retain their statutory and common-law duties to the company. That is an extraordinary and troubling position. It represents a clear violation of private property rights. British Steel and its directors had, until that moment, acted entirely within the law, yet they were treated as though they were the problem rather than the victim of government failure. As my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere argued so persuasively, we know where that inevitably ends.

It would not be the first time that a Labour Government have sought to blame private enterprise for the failures of the state, but here we are. The pattern is familiar: mismanagement, intervention and then the scapegoating of those who have invested, worked and strived to keep a British industry alive. Does the Minister accept that such an action represents a serious breach of private property rights? What precedent does this set for other foreign investors considering the United Kingdom?

The Official Opposition have made the point in your Lordships’ House and the other place numerous times since the Government took office that their energy policy is leading to skyrocketing electricity prices. We have heard a good deal about that around the Chamber today, including most persuasively from my noble friends Lord Jamieson and Lord Prior of Brampton. Britain and Europe are deindustrialising, largely because of high electricity prices—it is simply much cheaper to make things abroad. Meanwhile, exporting production in this fashion almost certainly makes global CO₂ emissions worse than if we made them at home. It looks very much as if we have a situation—which could only be created by a Labour Government—where the net zero-policy undermines net zero.

Having said that Europe is deindustrialising, it must also be said that it is streets ahead of us as regards steel. The EU steel and metals action plan aims at securing commercially viable melted and poured steel, partly through developing an effective carbon border adjustment mechanism which will help ensure competitive energy supply and cost. Are the Government looking at this as a possible model, without necessarily resorting to the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle?

Recently, my noble friend Lord Hunt and I—this will please my noble friend Lord Eccles—met the British Metals Recycling Association, an organisation founded in 1919 that contributes over £9 billion in gross value added to the UK economy annually and supports more than 15,000 direct jobs across 2,000 businesses. It made plain to us its grave concern that the Government may consider pursuing restrictions on the export of recycled metals under the mistaken belief that this might somehow strengthen domestic steel production.

The evidence shows the opposite. Independent research conducted for the BMRA by the Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research at Sheffield Hallam University concludes that even modest constraints on exports would cause billions of pounds in lost economic value and tens of thousands of jobs to disappear over the next five years. A 50% export quota alone would, it estimates, result in a £4 billion loss in GVA and more than 23,000 full-time equivalent jobs lost. A total ban on exports to Turkey, which is our single largest market for recycled metal, would remove over £2 billion in value and jeopardise almost 7,000 jobs.

But the economic cost is only part of the story. The environmental consequences would be equally perverse. Restricting exports would not increase the recycling of metal in Britain; it would reduce it, by undermining the financial viability of recyclers who depend on global competition to sustain fair prices. It would mean less investment in cleaner, higher-grade feedstock and in the advanced sorting and quality systems essential for the production of low-carbon electric arc furnace steel. Indeed, the BMRA has warned, quite credibly, that if the sector’s viability were threatened, the unintended consequence could be an increase in things such as fly-tipping as end-of-life vehicles and electrical goods are dumped rather than recycled. Without access to international markets, the recycling industry cannot survive, let alone flourish and invest in the emerging technology that will make British steel greener and which, of course, is so necessary to the new electric arc furnaces.

The Government recently announced stronger trade safeguards on steel imports, claiming these measures will protect British jobs and rebuild our industrial strength. However, such a measure would have ramifications for the pound sterling and, as we know from experience, trading partners may respond with their own restrictions on UK exports, as evidenced, and as has been discussed by a number of noble Lords, by the EU recently announcing it will reduce tariff-free quotas on imported steel and hike tariffs from 25% to 50% on any excess imports. I look forward to the Minister’s answers to the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, on this subject.

This, in turn, will reduce access to global markets and lower overall trade volumes. By sheltering less competitive industries, we risk diverting labour, capital and energy away from high-value sectors such as aerospace, pharmaceuticals and renewables, ultimately weakening productivity and long-term economic growth. Steel is a vital input for industries such as construction, automotive and energy infrastructure, so higher steel prices would increase costs, reduce competitiveness and even push some firms to relocate. As always, protection for one sector can become a tax on many others, and protectionism and subsidies carry costs.

I conclude by asking a few very specific questions of the Government. Have they considered the potential impact of these safeguards on the competitiveness of other UK export industries? Have they assessed how higher domestic steel prices might affect downstream sectors, such as construction and manufacturing? What analysis has been done on possible retaliation from trading partners and the effect on UK exporters? Can the Minister confirm that the Government are considering, or will consider, the concerns outlined by the metal recycling association about export restrictions in the forthcoming steel strategy?

I move to a few broader questions. In his recent visit to China, did the new Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, talk to Jingye? If not, why not? If yes, can the Minister outline what was discussed? I may have misheard, but I will ask this anyway: I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, said in her the opening speech that the rules have been changed so that British-made steel must be “considered” in public procurement. Can I probe a little more what “considered” means in practice? If it meant preferred, that would potentially leave us falling foul of WTO rules, but if it just means being considered, was it not being considered in public procurement anyway?

Where is the latest four-weekly report? I think the last one was delivered at the very beginning of September, and we are now seven weeks away from then. Finally, I reiterate, we need a strategy and then all these questions would, we hope, go away.

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Good try.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

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

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

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

We agree with that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

Amendment 125 withdrawn.