Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his powerful and clear speech; he has said it all. I just want to add that this issue has arisen from the P&O scandal that took place three years ago. The maritime unions are particularly concerned about this, and I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to provide some comfort for the arguments that have been presented. The issue of pre-emptive injunctive relief for seafarers and other workers is a crucial issue and it is possible that we will need to return to it on Report.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate the intent behind Amendment 143. After all, we are all familiar with the high-profile cases, such as P&O Ferries, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, referred in his introduction.

I cannot pretend that I was au fait with the case details that the noble Lord explained, but we have some concerns about the practical and legal consequences of what is being proposed here. It seems to us that the amendment would allow employment tribunals to declare dismissals void and as having no effect; therefore, in effect, reinstating employees regardless of circumstances.

That is a major departure from the current legal framework, where the remedy for a breach is compensation, not nullification. That obviously raises serious questions. What happens if a dismissal is declared void months later? Is the employee reinstated, and are they entitled to back pay? What if the role no longer exists or has been filled? For many businesses and many workers, that would create uncertainty and not protection.

There is also the issue of enforcement. Giving tribunal decisions the force of the High Court, and allowing contempt proceedings for breach, risks confusing two fundamentally different judicial systems. Tribunals are meant to be accessible and the High Court is not.

I also question whether this change would meaningfully deter bad-faith employers. Those who already factor in the cost of breaking the law may simply budget for this risk too. Meanwhile, small and medium-sized employers acting in good faith could face disproportionate legal exposure for administrative or technical errors. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of my noble friend Lady Warwick on an issue that, as far as I am aware, has not appeared anywhere else but is of some importance. There is growing unease in the higher education sector about the potential implications of Clause 30. Universities UK has said it is frustrated that its letters to both officials and Ministers—they would be the same thing, I imagine—remain unanswered. UUK is probably being a bit polite in saying that it is frustrated; I suggest that it is unacceptable for a letter from any UK-wide organisation not to receive a response. If nothing else, I hope my noble friend will be able to give an assurance in her reply that she will ensure that Universities UK receives a considered response to its very legitimate concerns.

As my noble friend said, the higher education sector is concerned at the potential impact of measures proposed in Clause 30, which relate to outsourcing, on current arrangements within the sector and on the viability of steps that universities have taken or are planning to take in order to stabilise their financial position. Many universities consider themselves as falling within the definition of contracting authorities and may therefore be inadvertently caught in this clause of the legislation.

As originally introduced, the public sector outsourcing provisions applied to contracting authorities in England only. However, Ministers introduced an amendment in Committee in another place, and provisions now apply to contracting authorities in England, Scotland and Wales. Again as my noble friend said, the major point on which clarification is essential is whether and in what circumstances universities will be considered to be contracting authorities for the purposes of this legislation.

There is also the question of whether the planned separate outsourcing rules for different UK nations will or even might create complex and prohibitive arrangements for universities. As an example, if an institution is working across the UK nations—a good example would be the Open University—that could mean it is subject to two or more sets of outsourcing rules, potentially providing a conflicting legislative framework for its operational practice. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify how the Government envisage such separate outsourcing rules will operate, and that in doing so she will provide reassurance to many in the higher education sector who, as my noble friend Lady Warwick said, are very supportive of the Bill in general but fear that universities could become victims of unintended consequences.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, for her introduction to her Amendment 143B. We think it is important to recognise the unique position of higher education providers when considering worker protection in public sector outsourcing. Because universities and similar institutions operate outside the traditional public sector framework, they possess a level of autonomy that sets them apart from government bodies, so applying the same regulatory requirements to these institutions clearly risks imposing unnecessary burdens that could affect their ability to focus on their core missions of education and research.

The amendment seems to us to thoughtfully acknowledge that difference by excluding higher education providers from the scope of these specific worker protection provisions. Such an approach would allow the focus of these protections to remain on core public sector organisations, where procurement processes are more standardised and closely tied to government accountability. At the same time, it would respect the operational independence of universities.

The fair treatment of workers remains an essential principle across all sectors, including higher education. Encouraging good employment practices within universities should continue through other means, but the amendment recognises the practical realities faced by these institutions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

145: After Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—
“Use of positive action in the workplace(1) In this section—(a) “P” is a public sector worker who reasonably thinks that the application by P’s employer, in relation to P’s employment or a working practice, of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010 has caused or risks causing detriment to P,(b) “R” is P’s public sector employee, and(c) P reasonably thinks that R is responsible for the detriment in subsection (1)(a).(2) A Minister of the Crown must by regulations make provision for—(a) forms through which P may anonymously question R on any matter relevant to subsection (1),(b) forms through which R may answer questions by P, and(c) such forms to be made publicly available.(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act and every three months thereafter, R must publish a report setting out―(a) the number of forms received under subsection (2), and(b) a summary of the nature of the complaints to which they relate.(4) A Minister of the Crown may by regulations require R to report on the use of sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010.(5) This section does not apply to activities undertaken by R under paragraph 1 of Schedule 9 of the Equality Act 2010.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a mechanism for public sector employees who believe they have been disadvantaged by their employer’s use of positive action under sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. It would require the Government to create a process allowing such employees to anonymously question their employer and requiring employers to respond.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 145 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. This amendment introduces a mechanism for public sector workers who reasonably believe that they have been subjected to detriment as a result of their employers’ use of positive action under Sections 158 and 159 of the Equality Act 2010. It does not seek to outlaw such action, nor does it obstruct efforts to promote fairness. Rather, it seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only those whom the state or the employer happen to deem underrepresented.

We must confront the uncomfortable truth that some public bodies have begun to apply positive action in ways that no longer reflect the careful balance envisaged by Parliament when the Equality Act was passed. We have now entered territory where lawful positive action shades into unlawful positive discrimination —where the scales of justice have been not merely tipped but turned. For example, let us consider West Yorkshire Police, a force whose conduct in this area raises urgent and serious concerns. It has come to light through both media investigation and internal whistleblowers that recruitment processes have been operated in a manner which in practice delays, restricts or even excludes applications from white British candidates. Candidates from certain ethnic minority backgrounds were allowed to apply early and, in some cases, were mentored through the process by dedicated positive action teams. Meanwhile, white British applicants were told to wait until a general window opened, often for as little as 48 hours. This, we are assured, is not discrimination but rather the fair operation of the law. I do not agree. This is not the spirit nor, arguably, even the letter of the Equality Act. It is a distortion of the law, and it demands redress.

What makes this all the more troubling is that these actions are being taken not by private corporations but by the state, or at least by institutions that act in the name of the state and are funded by the public purse. The taxpayer in this case is being forced to subsidise policies that they might find discriminatory and from which they may be excluded. There seems to be something especially perverse, indeed, almost Orwellian, about that.

This is not merely an abstract concern. West Yorkshire Police, for example, reportedly spent over £1.4 million in recent years on equality, diversity and inclusion staff—more than any other force in the country. That is public money. It is money earned by ordinary citizens, some of whom now find themselves effectively barred from entry into public service not because they lack ability but because their ethnic background does not satisfy an internal diversity target. When questions are raised, when whistleblowers from within these forces speak up, what happens? We hear of them being silenced, reprimanded or warned not to interfere. We hear of secret job listings marked “hidden” in the system, visible only to certain candidates. We hear of candidates greeted with hugs and reassurances that their interviews are merely a formality. That is not recruitment, and it is not equality. It is institutional manipulation.

The amendment before your Lordships seeks to restore a measure of transparency and accountability. It proposes a system by which a public sector worker who reasonably believes that they have been harmed by the operation of positive action can submit a formal question anonymously to their employer. The employer, in turn, must respond. Moreover, employers will be required to publish data on such queries, allowing Parliament and the public to monitor the use and potential abuse of these provisions. This is not a punitive or burdensome requirement; it is the most basic form of procedural fairness.

Let us be clear. This amendment does not challenge the principle of inclusion; it does not deny that discrimination has existed; but it says unequivocally that the answer to past unfairness is not the imposition of new unfairness, that the pursuit of diversity must not come at the expense of justice, and that inclusion must include everybody. Equality before the law is not a suggestion or a secondary consideration to be weighed against modern ideological preferences. It is a constitutional principle that underpins this very Chamber. When we allow it to be weakened quietly and gradually by well-meaning policies that turn into arbitrary practices, we invite division, resentment and, ultimately, more injustice.

The Minister may say that everything that I have described—the delays, the exclusion of white British applicants, the unequal mentoring and the hidden vacancies—is perfectly lawful under existing legislation. He may say that this is precisely how the Government intend for positive action to operate in the public sector. However, I sincerely hope that is not the argument that is to be advanced. Alternatively, the Minister may offer reassurance to the Committee and to the public that existing law already contains sufficient safeguards, and that what we have heard from West Yorkshire Police, Thames Valley Police and others would not and should not be permitted under any reasonable interpretation of the Equality Act. If that is the case, I would welcome that clarification. I would also welcome assurance that there is already a functioning system of redress for individuals who believe that they have been mistreated on the basis of how positive action has been applied.

If the Minister agrees with the points that I have made—that West Yorkshire Police should not have discriminated against white applicants and that there is no mechanism to stop this—then I very much look forward to the Government accepting this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I came into this debate by chance, but it seems to me that this is part of a very undesirable development: an attack on the principle of equality, diversity and inclusion policies. These principles are at the heart of my politics. I have fought for racial equality ever since I was a student, when I went on marches against Enoch Powell and what he stood for. I thought that the response of the Labour Government in the 1960s—to make racial discrimination illegal—was very important. In more modern times, when I was chair of Lancaster University and looking at the question of student admissions, I always thought that we should make allowance for the fact that some working-class people had not had the best chance in life and take this into account in admissions procedures Therefore, I rather regret what the Opposition Front Bench is trying to do, which is to undermine the political acceptability of these policies.

There is a danger here. I have seen it from some people in my own party who say that, in response to the alleged great Reform upsurge, we should start abandoning EDI. That would be catastrophic for a social democrat like me, who has always believed in these things. I hope that the Members opposite will withdraw their amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this quite lively debate. I have to say I was disappointed that the greatest lady of them all who did not need a helping hand did not get a mention, so I will mention her: Margaret Thatcher.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we are not seeking to undermine anything in this; I was very clear about that. I want to make it clear that, as I said in my opening remarks, this amendment does not seek to outlaw such action, nor does it obstruct efforts to promote fairness. It just seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only to those whom the state or the employer happens to deem underrepresented.

I am grateful to the Minister for his extended quote from the Yorkshire case, but I also mentioned the case in Thames Valley. A tribunal there ruled that the three white police officers who won a claim after they were passed over for promotion were overlooked by Thames Valley Police because of their race and an ethnic-minority sergeant was promoted—this is the killer line—

“without any competitive assessment process taking place”,

which is precisely not the spirit of the laws that we have just been discussing.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

And that is illegal.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That is why we were asking these questions and laying this amendment. It is good to have it out in the open. The amendment sought not litigation but clarity. It sought not courtroom battles but a simple mechanism for transparency and accountability. It would have been a route for asking questions and a structure for reporting. It would be a reminder that positive action must remain within the bounds of the law and fairness, and not become a euphemism for sanctioned discrimination. However, I have heard the arguments from the Minister and, not least because of the lateness of the hour, I am content to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 145 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

This amendment seeks to close the loophole that allows some employers to exploit unpaid workers as a means of avoiding their responsibilities under the National Minimum Wage Regulations. The challenge is to weed out the unscrupulous employer who misleads young people to extract free work with no real interest in employing them afterwards. This not only exploits individuals but highlights the need for clear safeguards to prevent bad employers abusing the system under the guise of offering experience. That said, we must be careful not to discourage genuine, well-structured opportunities for young people at the beginning of their careers, where learning, mentoring and future progress are real and meaningful. The goal here should be not to eliminate work experience but to ensure that, when it takes place, it does so on fair terms. I hope the Minister will reflect on this amendment and consider how best to balance access and protection with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes for tabling this amendment and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, with his perspective from the creative industries, for introducing it so well.

This amendment highlights an important issue: ensuring that work experience opportunities do not become a means to circumvent minimum wage regulations, thereby protecting young people and others seeking to gain valuable experience in the labour market. At the same time, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, noted, it is important to recognise that many charities, non-profit organisations and others rely to some extent on unpaid work experience placements, partly to deliver their valuable services but also to provide opportunities for individuals who might otherwise struggle to enter the workforce. We must acknowledge that many young people who leave education not knowing what they want to do, as the noble Viscount noted, find them a useful way of testing various sectors. The practical impact of this amendment on such organisations merits careful consideration to ensure that their ability to provide meaningful work experience is not unduly restricted, while maintaining fair treatment for those undertaking such experience.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short but focused and interesting debate. I too regret that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, was unable to attend; with my Whip’s hat on, I note that perhaps if we had made better progress on earlier days of Committee then we would have heard from him directly. I pay tribute to him for tabling Amendment 129, which seeks to prohibit unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for stepping into the breach and making a more than worthy understudy in moving the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway and the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for contributing to this debate. This is an important issue, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others are right to raise it. I pay tribute on the record to his previous work campaigning on this issue, not least through his Private Member’s Bill in the 2017-19 Session.

This Government made a commitment to deliver the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. This includes tackling unfair working practices. As we heard from the noble Viscount, there are examples not simply in the creative sector—although that area of our economy is rife with them—but beyond it. This Government absolutely stand by the national minimum wage, and on 1 April delivered an increase of 16.3% to the 18 to 20 national minimum wage rate to make it £10 an hour—a record amount in both cash and percentage terms, making progress on closing the gap with the national living wage. This is an increase of £2,500 to the gross annual earnings of a full-time worker on the NMW. It was the first step in the Government’s plans to remove the discriminatory age bands and ensure that all adults benefit from a genuine living wage, making a real difference to young people.

I think it is worth saying in passing that we welcome, on this side of the House at least, the Conservative Party’s conversion in recent years to supporting the national minimum wage. However, as a member of the party that introduced it in the first place, in the teeth of some quite vehement opposition at the time, I assure noble Lords that this Labour Government are absolutely committed to supporting it and making sure that it applies in all cases where it should.

Work experience or internships can offer individuals, especially younger people, invaluable opportunities and experience. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities, but we do want to ensure that they are open and fair. Most importantly, where workers are due payment, they should be paid the wages they are entitled to, and I have to say that the current legislation already protects them.

As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway—to whose years of campaigning in this area, through the TUC, I pay tribute—said, there is an aspect of this amendment, very well-intentioned though it is, that would create unintended consequences and raises the spectre of, as she put it, rolling internships of four weeks, on and on.

As we know, according to the Department for Education’s 2022 employer skills survey, around 5% of employers had offered internships, either paid or unpaid, in the preceding 12 months, and there were around 200,000 people on internships. The vast majority of these—88%—were of two weeks or more in duration, and nearly 30% were over six months. It is only right that these people should be paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.

As we have heard, the national minimum wage legislation provides for a number of exemptions to recognise the importance of gaining work experience. It is important to recognise that these examples have a strong and firm place in the economy, including students on placements for up to one year, as required as part of a UK course of either further or higher education, pupils below the compulsory school age, participants in certain government programmes to provide training, work experience or temporary work, and—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, made this point—voluntary workers employed by a charity or voluntary organisation, providing they receive no monetary payments, except for expenses.

The Government are committed to banning unpaid internships, unless they are part of an educational or training course. Because of the way legislation is drafted, they are already largely banned. For national minimum wage purposes, the crucial fact is whether someone is considered a worker due to the nature of the work they do. Employers cannot simply call someone an intern or say they are doing work experience and not pay them. What matters is whether the arrangement they have makes them a worker for minimum wage purposes. However, one valid exception is work shadowing, which is where individuals are observing others perform tasks and are not performing any work themselves.

There is a risk that the broad-brush nature of this amendment could create loopholes, leaving interns or individuals on work experience open to abuse. Where an intern is carrying out tasks, they are a worker and therefore entitled to the national minimum wage. Accepting the amendment could mean that these individuals could be recruited for short-term roles and lose their entitlement to the minimum wage, even if they are performing work. The Government will be consulting on this issue soon. We want to engage with businesses and individuals who carry out internships or work experience. This is how we introduce change to ensure that individuals are protected and treated fairly.

We have heard from both the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and my noble friend Lady O’Grady that enforcement is the issue here. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, asked about the number of prosecutions. I am afraid I do not have that number to hand, but I will certainly undertake to write to the noble Viscount. Enforcement of any law is important, and I am sure that part of the consultation will cover issues of enforcement. Creating more laws but not solving the problem of enforcement would not actually get to the heart of the issue, which is making sure that, when people work, they are paid the national minimum to which they are entitled.

In that vein, I hope that we can deal with the issues the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address most effectively outside the Bill. I therefore ask the noble Viscount, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw Amendment 129.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for moving Amendment 131 and speaking to Amendments 297 and 314, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I go back a long, long way. When I was in the T&G, he was frequently instructed by my union to defend workers, so I appreciate that he is absolutely on the right side of this agenda.

Of course, this is an issue that we have been debating for a very long time. I particularly pay tribute to the late Alf Morris, Lord Morris, who absolutely focused on this agenda and was responsible for the Disability Discrimination Act, which has been the foundation of all the other changes since then.

On Amendment 131, it is important to be clear that the Equality Act 2010 already places a duty on providers of goods, services and facilities, and persons exercising public functions, to make reasonable adjustments for disabled service users. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, as Great Britain’s national equality and human rights body, safeguards and enforces the laws that protect people’s rights to fairness, dignity and respect. In the context of this debate, it monitors and has powers to enforce the Equality Act, which prohibits discrimination, harassment and victimisation in a variety of settings, including work. The commission has been active in monitoring disability equality, including as part of its regular comprehensive reviews of how Britain is performing on equality and human rights, as well as its work in monitoring compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The commission’s powers do not extend to monitoring the accessibility of manufactured goods or the development of services and, as such, it would not be able to respond to reporting of the kind suggested in the new clause. Therefore, the Government are unable to support the amendment.

Turning to Amendment 297, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for speaking to this amendment and drawing attention to this important issue, and of course I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who has been a strong voice on this and recognise his contribution in championing the rights of blind and sight-impaired people. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, can go back to the days when my union heavily supported the National League of the Blind and Disabled—a union that had been representing blind and disabled workers for nearly 100 years, certainly when we were engaged with it.

I agree that addressing the level of employment for blind and sight-impaired people is still an important issue, which is why we have a range of existing specialist initiatives in place to support individuals, including those who are blind and sight-impaired, to stay in work or get back to work. Our existing measures provide tailored support to disabled people more broadly and are designed to be flexible to meet the range of needs, including the needs of those who are blind and sight impaired. I repeat the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made: existing measures include work coaches and disability employment advisers in jobcentres —working with employers, absolutely right—and access to work grants, again to facilitate and support employers in doing this, as well as joining up health and employment support around individuals through employment advisers in NHS, talking therapies, individual placement and support in primary care, as well as WorkWell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, it seems that, yet again, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and I are not going to quite agree. I support both these amendments, particularly the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.

I would like to look at the amendments from the point of view of the employee. When an employee finds themselves in a disciplinary or grievance hearing—we heard from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough earlier—it signifies a profound breakdown in their relationship with their employer. It is a moment fraught with stress, uncertainty and fear; one where an individual may feel their professional life is unravelling before them. They may question how they will continue to support their family, whether they can afford to remain in their home, and what their future may hold.

Large corporations, such as the one I work for, have the benefit of HR departments to guide them through such proceedings, ensuring that their position is well-organised and profoundly represented. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to make people redundant; it is not fun, even with HR beside you, but they had nobody. In smaller companies, personal relationships between employer and employee can add an additional layer of complexity to the situation. In either case, the individual facing the hearing is often isolated, and struggling to recollect past events and present their case clearly.

These amendments, particularly Amendment 137, propose a fair and practical position: the right to have the assistance of a certified individual—someone equipped to review the facts dispassionately, organise events in logical sequence and provide the employee with a much-needed sense of reassurance. As we have heard, the trade unions already fulfil this role, particularly in large companies. However, many employees, myself included, choose not to join a union for a variety of personal reasons. The absence of union membership should not mean a lack of support in such critical moments. This amendment would ensure that every employee, regardless of union affiliation, has access to a certified individual who may provide guidance when facing disciplinary proceedings, fostering a fairer and more balanced process. For this reason, I support these amendments to uphold the right of fairness in our workplaces.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing their Amendments 132 and 137.

As has been said, not all workers have or want access to a union representative. In fact, the latest statistics that I have from the Department for Business and Trade suggest that only 22% of all employees are unionised. Not all workers have access to or can afford legal advice, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, pointed out, those in smaller workplaces or those performing more precarious roles. Allowing trained, certified HR professionals to provide advice could help ensure that more employees are supported when making important decisions about their rights.

It is important to recognise the valuable support already available through organisations such as ACAS—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barber—citizens advice bureaux and others, which provide free and impartial advice. This amendment complements those services by seeking to expand the range of qualified advisers accessible to workers. The principle of widening access to competent support is a reasonable one, especially where safeguards are in place through certification by recognised professional bodies. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, if nothing else, that ought to serve to ease pressure on employment rights tribunals, which, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Committee, are stretched to breaking point.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, that that was a classic case of the TUC advocating for a closed shop, and I applaud him for that. However, not so many employees are now members of trade unions, as I have pointed out, and the majority of trade union members are in the public sector.

The question of genuine independence will be critical, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that. I would also say, perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that, without wishing to quibble too much with his amendment, I think that as currently written it gives the Secretary of State rather too much discretion in determining what is a professional body. If he wants to have a think about that, I am available for a chat.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

133: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact on farm businessesWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of the impact of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act on farm businesses in the United Kingdom.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 133 in my name.

I have to start by saying that the family farm tax introduced by this Government is a disastrous policy. According to the NFU, it has put 200,000 jobs at risk—a staggering number that should have stopped Ministers in their tracks. I am disappointed to see noble Lords opposite are laughing at that number. A recent economic report on the combined effect of these measures lays the facts bare. It estimates the direct cost to the Treasury at £1.9 billion by 2030, stemming from lost tax revenues and increased benefit claims due to job losses and reduced productivity. More than 60% of farmers are expected to cut investment by over 20%, choking off future growth and innovation. The cost to the wider economy will be staggering—a staggering £14.8 billion blow to gross value added, all for the sake of political posturing masquerading as employment reform. The effect on food security alone could be catastrophic.

I must also highlight a concern that has been brought to light by recent tragic events and official responses, and that is the case of a farmer who took his own life just before the Government’s Budget, which is a heartbreaking example of the immense pressures our rural communities face. These pressures are exacerbated by the looming inheritance tax changes that threaten the very future of family farms.

Despite the seriousness of this issue, the official statistics on farmer, landowner and family business owner suicides are woefully inadequate. There is a significant delay, often of years, before accurate data is published. This delay means we will not see reliable figures for suicides in 2026 until 2028 or later, and that is simply unacceptable. Without timely, detailed data, broken down by occupation, policymakers cannot fully understand the human cost of these policies. Would the Minister acknowledge the urgent need for this and commit to working with the Office for National Statistics and other relevant bodies to improve the frequency and detail of suicide data by occupation, particularly for farmers and rural workers, so that we can properly address and understand this crisis without delay?

Turning to this legislation, it represents a further devastating blow to British agriculture. This Bill introduces unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment without a shred of evidence that it is workable in sectors such as farming. The extension of unfair dismissal protections from two years to day one of employment is being pushed forward with no clear guidance, no transitional arrangements and no defined probationary period. There is only speculation, and speculation is not a legal framework.

The Minister will say that this is currently being consulted on, but in the meantime farms are exposed. Every hiring decision becomes a legal and financial gamble. If a worker turns out to be unsuitable, which can happen quickly in physically demanding and safety-critical environments, the employer may be already too late to act without risking litigation. In farming, where work is seasonal, strenuous and sometimes requires immediate action, farms cannot afford to spend months navigating HR processes. They cannot afford legal exposure every time a hire does not work out, and that is exactly what Bill sets out.

Then there is the matter of zero-hours contracts. This Government, in their detachment from rural life, believe that these contracts are exploitative, but on farms they are essential. Harvests do not run on clocks, and weather does not obey timetables. Labour demand swings sharply: one week it is quiet, and the next week it is all hands on deck. Therefore, flexibility is all. Without zero-hours contracts, many farms simply cannot function, so replacing them with rigid guaranteed-hours contracts is not just unrealistic but destructive. The Bill would force the farmers to guess months in advance how many workers they will need—or pay the price when nature does not co-operate.

Rural employers, particularly farms and estates, rely heavily on seasonal and zero-hour staff to meet unpredictable and time-sensitive labour demands. That is not a loophole but a necessity born of reality. But the Bill introduces a new legal obligation that completely fails to take account of how agriculture works. Under the proposals in Part 1, if a casual worker ends up working a regular pattern—say, 20 hours a week over a few months—the employer will be legally required to offer a guaranteed-hours contract reflecting that pattern. That will fundamentally alter the nature of seasonal hiring.

Instead of flexibility, farmers will be locked into fixed commitments, which mean guaranteed pay even if the work disappears. In farming, it often does: crops cannot be harvested in a thunderstorm, livestock routines change, and machinery breaks down. Labour needs fluctuate by the day and employers have to adapt. The Bill removes that option, forcing them to guarantee wages based on past patterns and not future needs, and the result of that inevitably will be higher staffing costs, less flexibility and more legal risk. Farmers will no longer be able to adjust hours week to week based on workload and may instead reduce hours across the board, or simply hire fewer workers to avoid triggering these new obligations. That is not security for workers; that is lost opportunity.

Then we come to flexible working—another ideological insertion into a sector where it simply cannot apply. The Bill increases the burden on employers to justify denying flexible working requests. But who in this Committee honestly believes that lambing can be done from home or that dairy herds can be milked on a four-day week? Farming needs people physically present on time and able to adapt to sudden changes. This measure will destroy farms and open the floodgates to legal claims, rather than improve their working conditions.

I turn to another deeply flawed proposal in the Bill: the changes to statutory sick pay, which will hit farm businesses with immediate and unsustainable costs. Under the current system, employees are entitled to SSP only after three consecutive days of sickness absence. That allows employers, especially small family farms, to absorb short-term minor absences without being penalised for every cold, sprain or missed morning. The Bill proposes to remove that protection entirely, and statutory sick pay will become payable from day one of absence. For most farms, this is not just a technical change but a fundamental shift in financial exposure.

Agricultural work is physically demanding, often outdoors and highly seasonal. Casual absences are common and often unavoidable. But, under the Bill, every single one of those absences now comes with an automatic cost from the very first missed shift. Under the current rules, if a farmhand calls in sick on Monday and is back by Wednesday, the farmer pays nothing. Under the Bill, the employer must pay statutory sick pay from day one. Multiply that by three or four casual workers, each with intermittent absences through lambing or harvest, and you have a significant unpredictable cost burden for a farm with already razor-thin margins.

It does not stop there: the Bill also proposes to reduce the lower earnings limit—currently £123 per week—meaning that even fewer workers on minimal-hours or short-term seasonal contracts will now be eligible for sick pay. These are precisely the workers whom farms hire during calving, lambing, crop picking and harvest, often working flexibly as needed. Under this system, a farm might be required to pay sick leave to a casual labourer who worked only a handful of hours the week before and might not be scheduled for any in the week ahead—that is not financial protection.

Farmers are also now expected to put in place formal absence tracking and management systems. That means logging each instance of sickness, reviewing attendance histories, holding review meetings, drafting improvement plans and, if things do not improve, potentially going through a formal dismissal process. If that were not enough, we now face the proposed cancellation payments. Farms will be penalised for calling off shifts at short notice, even when the reason is pouring rain or a late-season frost. These changes will force employers to choose between operating at a loss and paying people not to work, and in what rational universe is that considered progress?

The Bill, particularly Part 1, is not reform but sabotage. Amendment 133 is therefore essential. It does not block the Bill or repeal any of its measures; it simply demands what the Government have utterly failed to do, which is to deliver a detailed impact assessment of how these reckless changes would affect UK farm businesses. If the Bill proceeds unexamined, the consequences will not be theoretical: more farms will close, more jobs will disappear, and rural economies will contract. The very people this Government claim to support—working families, small businesses and so on—will be left to pick up the pieces. I reiterate my point about the necessity of food security in troubled times.

If the Government have nothing to hide, they should have no objection to analysing the impacts of this legislation on farm businesses, and they should accept Amendment 133. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened to every noble Lord’s concerns. To be fair to the Secretary of State for Defra and my fellow ministerial colleagues at Defra, I should say that they are in regular contact with the farming community and farmers. The Secretary of State has recently spoken at the National Farmers’ Union conference. My noble friend Lady Hayman comes from a farming community and understands the problems that noble Lords have raised.

I turn to Amendment 133, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As I have repeated multiple times throughout the debate in this place, we have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments, based on the best available evidence, on the workers likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment of the economic impacts of the Bill, including impacts on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. We intend to publish further analysis in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and, as I have said previously, further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to meet Better Regulation requirements. The 23 amendments on impact assessments tabled by the Opposition would pre-empt work that the Government are already planning to undertake.

It should also be mentioned that this Government are steadfast in our commitment to Britain’s farming industry. It is why we will invest £5 billion into farming over the next two years, the largest amount ever directed to sustainable food production in our country.

It is with immense sadness that we hear about suicides in the farming community, and I agree with noble Lords that we need to have accurate and timely data. I promise noble Lords that I will speak to my ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS as far as their request is concerned.

It will be no surprise to the noble Lord that we oppose Amendment 133 and ask him to withdraw it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response and all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Roborough for their expertise, which I think noble Lords around the Committee will agree shed great light on this tricky subject. I also greatly appreciate the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for what is a very modest amendment, and I am therefore disappointed with the Minister’s response, although pleased that he will consult Defra further.

On the subject of inheritance tax, the noble Lord asserted that Defra has been steadfast in its support for the farming community, but it is not clear that the farming community has recognised that steadfastness, because over a dozen leading farming organisations, including the National Farmers’ Union and the Country Land and Business Association, have condemned the Government for a lack of transparency. Those groups have written directly to the Treasury demanding the release of modelling and evidence behind the policy.

When pressed to explain why they rejected the fairer clawback option for inheritance tax reforms, Treasury Ministers offered nothing more than vague assertions—no consultation, no published impact assessment—and when challenged under freedom of information laws, the Treasury responded by saying that it was

“not in the public interest”

to disclose this analysis. How can the Government possibly claim this is not in the public interest? Are they really arguing that the means of food production and all that pertains to it are not in the public interest? We are talking about reforms that could rip through the foundations of multigenerational farms, force land sales and strip the viability from small rural businesses.

If this Government’s approach so far was not reckless enough, a fresh report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has added yet more weight to the call for caution and transparency. The cross-party group of MPs has urged the Government to delay its proposed reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief for two years, pushing back the implementation date from April 2026 to April 2027, with any final decisions postponed until October 2026. That is because the reforms are intended to tighten inheritance tax reliefs on farms and agricultural businesses and were introduced without adequate consultation or any formal impact assessment. The committee highlighted that rushing ahead without proper analysis risks serious consequences, including impacts on land values, tenant farmers, family farms and food production, and it warned that this could disrupt the food supply chain, potentially driving up supermarket prices and hitting consumers across the UK. Noble Lords should take seriously my noble friend Lord Deben’s warning about food shortages and what it does to government popularity.

What is particularly striking is the committee’s citation of a March 2025 survey which found that 70% of farmers were optimistic about their rural businesses before the Autumn Budget, but that figure plummeted to just 12% afterwards. That collapse in confidence speaks volumes about the uncertainty and fear that these policies have created within rural communities, and the same attitude is now evident in this Employment Rights Bill. Once again, we are seeing major legislative changes with profound economic impacts pushed through without proper consultation, without proper published impact assessments and without any serious recognition of the realities facing British farmers, and that is precisely why this modest amendment is so important.

At the bare minimum, before further damage is done, we should demand an independent, published assessment of how these employment law changes will affect UK farm businesses—not months after the fact and not hidden behind opaque Treasury memos. It is in the public interest, so it should be within 12 months of this Act passing. That is a modest, proportionate and entirely reasonable request. I will withdraw the amendment on this occasion but reserve the right to return to it. Again, I refer to my noble friend Lord Deben’s suggestion, or perhaps warning: 9 million people are watching.

Amendment 133 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I will speak briefly to this amendment, which proposes to prohibit unpaid trial shifts by ensuring that those who undertake such shifts are paid at least the national minimum wage. This issue echoes concerns raised in earlier debates on unpaid work experience.

The amendment seeks to clarify that shift trials, defined as work undertaken in the hope of securing a temporary or permanent position, should be fairly compensated. This would address that potential gap in existing legislation and offer clearer protection for workers, ensuring that their time and labour are respect and valued. Such clarity is important for both workers seeking fair treatment and employers, and in maintaining transparent and ethical recruitment practices.

At the same time, it is important to consider the practical implications for employers who may rely on trial shifts as part of their recruitment process. I therefore invite the Minister to consider carefully whether this amendment strikes the right balance between protecting workers’ rights from exploitation and allowing employers reasonable flexibility in assessing candidates.

I look forward to the Government’s view on the best way to achieve a proportionate and effective approach that serves the interests of all parties involved.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively brief group. I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey. At first glance, the idea of banning unpaid trials seems fair, because no one wants to see people, especially young people, exploited under the guise of a try-out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out when she was introducing the amendment.

However, we also need to be honest about the likely effect of the change, particularly for those very people it is trying to protect. In many sectors—in particular hospitality, retail and care—trial shifts are often the only realistic way for somebody without a formal CV to show that they can do the job. Trial shifts can therefore open doors for young people, school leavers and those coming back into work.

If we start requiring every short work trial to be paid at minimum wage then the reality is that many of them simply will not happen at all. Employers, especially small ones, may decide that they are just too risky or costly. The obvious result will be fewer opportunities and fewer chances for somebody to get in front of an employer to show what they can do. I worry that this amendment, although well intentioned, could have the opposite effect: closing off relatively informal routes into work for those who need them most. The measures in the Bill already create the wrong incentives, and we do not need any more of them.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak very, very briefly. It is heartening to hear support for the amendments in this group right across the House. I will speak in particular to those from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Penn. I have already shared with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, that, when I was at the TUC, I very, very vividly remember having conversations with young men who were working as riders and delivery drivers, and they really, really wanted to be good dads. They had young babies and children, and what was most important to them—and I hope others will reflect this in paying attention to how we make working families’ lives better—was predictability of shifts and guaranteed hours, so they would know how much money they could earn, but they also wanted paid paternity leave.

To keep this really, really brief, I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister before she responds. First, can we accept that the starting point for a review would be to recognise that, compared with other countries, the UK is so ungenerous in its paid paternity leave? We do not need a huge review to know that; it is our starting point. If we are to move into the 21st century, we also need to recognise that new dads from all sorts of backgrounds want time to bond with their babies and be involved more equally in their care. Secondly, will this review focus specifically on paid paternity leave, working from the simple premise that, unless it is paid, there are whole swathes of new dads who simply cannot afford to take it?

I have been encouraged by the discussion around the House. I think there is a cross-party consensus that we all want to see new dads having that opportunity. We all know it will bring benefits for women—including closing the gender pay gap—and opportunities for children to have a better life, too.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Penn for her very thoughtful amendments in this group. I acknowledge the valuable contributions from all noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing her amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing his amendments and, perhaps more importantly, reminding the House of the Conservative-led coalition Government’s work in this area—although I note that he did not heap praise on the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my right honourable friend Iain Duncan Smith.

We fully recognise and support the intention behind these proposals, which is to strengthen support for families and in particular to enhance the role of paternity leave in allowing fathers to spend essential early time with their children. This is a laudable aim that clearly finds broad sympathy across the House.

However, while the objective is clear and commendable, we must also consider the practical implications of how such policies are implemented, particularly in relation to the impact on businesses. Many employers, large and small, continue to face significant challenges in the current economic climate, as we have discussed at length this evening. The introduction of new requirements, even when limited to large employers, must be approached with caution and care, and I acknowledge that my noble friend Lady Penn addressed many of those concerns directly in her speech.

As for the reporting obligations set out in Amendment 128, tabled by my noble friend, these would apply to businesses with 250 employees or more. While this threshold helps to focus the requirement on larger organisations, we should still be mindful of the potential administrative and financial burdens such reporting could entail. Even within that category, resources vary significantly, and not all may be equally equipped to take on new reporting functions—a point that was addressed by my noble friends Lord Bailey and Lord Ashcombe. That said, transparency and data collection can play a valuable role in shaping effective policy. If it can be clearly demonstrated that these measures would bring mutual benefits, improving employee well-being and retention, for example, without imposing disproportionate costs or complexity on employers, it is certainly something that we should be prepared to consider further.

Ultimately, we have to strike the right balance, ensuring meaningful support for families while safeguarding the viability and flexibility of the businesses that employ them. That is the lens through which we should view not just this amendment but the broader provisions of the Bill.

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

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging, informative and very exciting debate. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on his four month-old son. I begin by recognising the key role that parental leave plays in supporting families—I wish it had been available when I became a father, at a much older age, some 18 years ago. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for sharing his story about the difficult time he had during the birth of his children.

This Government understand that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is the most transformative time in a family’s life. We understand that the current parental leave system needs changing so that it better supports working families. We have committed to do this and we are taking action in a number of different ways. Through this Bill, the Government are making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of the intent to take leave from the first day of employment. I hope that many noble Lords will welcome this position. This brings such leave in line with maternity and adoption leave, so simplifying the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we could hardly have expected two more expert speakers to propose this amendment. This is another case where society is getting something on the cheap and, even though it is a different argument from the one about unpaid carers, it is another way where, in fact, we are not recognising the value that society is getting from these people who work as special police officers.

I really want to hear what the Government say on this and I hope it is not the sort of answer that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested it might be but is something rather more constructive that can come forward the next time this Bill comes up.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I would very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his important amendment in this group and for the valuable context he gave in his opening remarks, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for speaking so eloquently to it as well.

They are both right. Special constables play a vital role in our communities and, as they pointed out, they serve alongside other police officers, offering their time and their skills to protect the public and contribute to the safety and well-being of society at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just pointed out, society benefits from their work.

It is often overlooked, though. For many, being a special constable is something they do alongside other regular employment. These individuals are already balancing their professional lives with the demands of policing and, as has been pointed out, that can be both challenging and rewarding.

I could bore on for hours about how valuable special constables were when I was policing in Hong Kong—but I will not. I welcome this amendment and believe it represents a small but significant way to better support those who give their time to serve our communities by ensuring that special constables can fulfil their duties without facing conflicts with their employment obligations. We would be sending a strong message of support for public service generally, as well, of course, as for special constables. So we are very minded to support this amendment.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate—some might say “esoteric”, but not me— and indeed, thankfully, a slightly shorter one. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling Amendment 82, co-signed by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans of Rainow. I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, for meeting me, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, earlier today to discuss this amendment. It was really helpful to have the opportunity to, as we heard from both noble Lords this evening, hear the background context to the work of special constables, how they are regarded within the force and how they are integrated within the forces in which they serve.

Amendment 82 would give employees who are special constables a statutory right to time off from work to carry out their voluntary police duties. This Government recognise, as I think we all do across the House, and really value the important role that special constables play in our communities, and we are committed to ensuring that they are supported to navigate those responsibilities that they carry out as special constables alongside their working life.

Special constables, along with the full range of police volunteers, bring valuable and diverse skills, which complement the roles that full-time officers and staff play in delivering the best possible service to the public in protecting our streets and making sure that our communities are safe.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

18: Clause 1, page 8, leave out lines 41 to 44
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations specifying additional circumstances in which the duty to offer a guaranteed hours contract does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his letter explaining certain matters that were left over from the last day of Committee. The fact that the algebraic question required a three-page, detailed answer for one worked-up example rather illustrates our point that this adds a huge and possibly unnecessary level of complexity for small businesses in particular. But I will let that lie for now.

Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name would remove the broad delegated power in new Section 27BD. This Bill continues the concerning trend of the steady transfer of legislative authority from Parliament to Ministers. As I noted at Second Reading, it contains no fewer than 173 delegated powers. The Government may, and probably will, argue that this is justified by ongoing consultation, but that is in effect an admission that this Bill is not yet complete or ready for full and proper scrutiny by this House.

Time and again, we have seen ill-defined powers handed to the Executive allowing for significant policy changes to be made by regulation without meaningful parliamentary oversight. Clause 1 exemplifies this problem. It inserts new sections into the Employment Rights Act 1996, establishing a framework for a new statutory right relating to guaranteed hours. However, through new Section 27BD(6), it grants the Secretary of State a remarkably wide power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply or where an offer may be treated as withdrawn. There are no limitations, no criteria and no guiding principles. There is no requirement for a consultation or justification. In effect, the Secretary of State is given a blank cheque.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has been very clear that the power is “inappropriately broad” and should be

“restated with a greater degree of precision”.

While the Government’s memorandum refers to

“maintaining the original policy intent while allowing reasonable exemptions”,

the committee rightly points out that nothing in the Bill legally constrains the Secretary of State’s discretion in that regard. Moreover, as we raised on the first day of Committee, businesses need clarity on the operation of guaranteed hours. If there are to be sector-specific exemptions—and there may very well be a case for them—they should appear in the Bill, not be left to future ministerial discretion. Uncertainty benefits no one—not workers, not employers and not enforcement bodies. Allowing such fundamental aspects of the regime to be decided later by regulation undermines the transparency and stability of the framework that the Government are seeking to establish.

I remind the Minister that, during the passage of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, she rightly accepted similar concerns and tabled amendments which directly reflected the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At the time, she said:

“I hope the Minister is able to commit to taking on board the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee in this respect”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. GC 198.]


Why should that principle not apply here? If it is truly the Government’s intention that this power will be used only in limited and specific cases, then the legislation should make that clear. As it stands, any future Secretary of State could by regulation significantly weaken or disapply this statutory regime without the involvement of Parliament.

Regardless of one’s views on the underlying policy, that is not an acceptable way to legislate. When Parliament creates new rights in statute, they should not be left vulnerable to being hollowed out at the stroke of a ministerial pen. This amendment removes that overly broad delegated power and ensures that any substantive changes to the scope of the duty must be brought back to Parliament through primary legislation. Will the Minister now commit, as she has done before, to taking seriously the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and amending the Bill accordingly?

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

My Lords, it is very good to return to the subject of zero-hours contracts as we start day 2 of Committee. As we debated last week, the Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility and exploitative zero-hours contracts, ensuring that all jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability so that workers can better plan their lives and their finances.

Employers who already provide this security and predictability for their workers will benefit from a level playing field, but these measures will help drive up standards and eliminate undercutting across the board. Meanwhile, employees who enjoy the flexibility of their current zero-hours arrangements will not be pressurised into accepting a guaranteed-hour contract.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling Amendments 18 and 19, which would remove the power to make regulations specifying circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, or an offer may be treated as withdrawn. This power would allow the Secretary of State to react dynamically to changing employment practices that may arise, allowing for updates to maintain the original policy intent of providing a baseline of security and predictability so workers can better plan their lives. It could provide the required economic flexibility that businesses have been asking for, to ensure that the policy is working as intended while adapting to changing circumstances.

This power is separate to the power in the Bill to exclude categories of workers. Regulations made under the excluded workers power would allow specified workers to be taken out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours. Since the right to guaranteed hours is a new, novel right, it could be necessary to exclude certain workers in order to respond to the changing employment environment.

The power at issue here relates to specified circumstances where the right to guaranteed hours would otherwise apply but limited and specified circumstances justified an exception to the duty to make a guaranteed-hour offer. We envisage that any exceptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours will be narrow and be applied in specified circumstances; for instance, where the measures would otherwise have significant adverse impacts, even when the employers and the workers act with good intentions and there is no other accepted way to mitigate the risk. Examples could include unforeseen circumstances such as a pandemic or a state of emergency.

Consultation is required to further determine which specific circumstances may justify a potential exemption. I assure the Committee that we will give full consideration to any representations made in this House and by respondents to that consultation. Gathering the views from those who will be impacted by the policy via consultation remains of the utmost importance to this Government. By removing the power, we would become unable to make such exceptions and to provide flexibility in those specific circumstances. The power will also be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that both Houses will have the opportunity to debate this matter.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I am, as ever, grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its careful consideration of the Bill, including in relation to the power with which we are here concerned. The committee continues to serve your Lordships’ House well by providing a thoughtful analysis of the Government’s legislative programme, and I thank it for that.

As acknowledged by that committee, the need to respond to changing circumstances is an appropriate basis for such a power, but in the committee’s view, that power should be narrowed—whereas the amendment goes much further than what has been proposed by it. On that basis, I hope I have been able to set out more information on how the Government intend to use this power, and I of course look forward to responding more fully to the Delegated Powers Committee report in due course. I hope that reassures the noble Lord so that he feels able not to press his Amendments 18 and 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to these amendments, but I have to confess that I am disappointed, not simply that the amendment is being rejected but that the Minister has chosen not to uphold the principle of parliamentary scrutiny which she championed herself only last year. At that time, she said

“the limits on effective scrutiny of secondary legislation are manifest”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. GC 197.]


That is spot on; I could not agree more, so I have to ask: does the Minister still stand by those words, or does she now disagree with her own assessment—and indeed that of the Attorney-General? I will refrain from quoting again from the Bingham lecture that he gave last November, but we may have to return to that in due course.

Today, the Government are defending a delegated power that is not just broad but boundless. It is a power that allows a future Secretary of State to undo or dilute a statutory right without reference to Parliament and without any of the safeguards the Minister has previously endorsed. I am disappointed, and I regret that the Minister has chosen not to accept these amendments or to listen to the Committee, but it seems that she does not listen even to her own warnings. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In the end, this is a further case of prematurely tabling the Bill. We do not have a sense of what the Government mean by this—so it is important for the Minister to set out how we will find out. If this is still in the process of consultation, we are back at exactly the same point that we were in previous groups. In general, we have passed the point of trying to demonstrate that work is lumpy, because the Minister has agreed that work is lumpy; this is about how that lumpiness is accommodated, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, set out. What is reasonable for employers to do, what is reasonable for employees to accept, and what is the Government’s view on that? That is what we need to know before we get to Report so that we can take this forward.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for introducing this group with his Amendment 21A. I could not agree with him more that flexibility is a key part of an efficient economy. That deserves to be written in stone. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lady Noakes for their support for various amendments in this group and to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his positive comments.

I shall speak to Amendments 22, 24 and 28 in my name. There are many circumstances in which an employer has no choice but to make a request or cancel a shift on short notice—my noble friend Lady Lawlor gave us some very useful examples of that. But to go on a bit, for example, if a colleague calls in sick, which is something that is likely to increase in frequency with changes to statutory sick pay governed in other areas of this Bill, or if events beyond the employer’s control intervene, such as local flooding or public disturbances, payment for unworked cancelled shifts becomes an additional financial burden at precisely the time when a business is already experiencing a downturn. It is not simply about inconvenience; it is actually about viability.

To give another particular example, we have heard from the hospitality industry that the proposed rights around notice and cancellation of shifts could severely undermine existing staffing practices. For instance, in the case of pubs, which as we know are under pressure anyway, those with outdoor garden spaces in particular operate in a highly unpredictable environment. One representative of the sector made it very clear to us when he said:

“The new right to notice of shift allocation and cancellation could undermine a pub’s ability to offer voluntary overtime”.


During the course of the discussion, the examples were magnified to some extent—and to some extent the example that I am about to give is the flipside of the one that my noble friend Lady Coffey highlighted with regard to restaurants in a previous group, and the fact that they are pre-charging for tables. The representative of the industry pointed out to us that in many cases, for example, offering food in a pub Monday to Wednesday is a highly marginal business, and they often let their staff go early, and so on. He is of the opinion that, as a result of the Bill, much of that work will simply disappear; they will not bother to open, because it will be too complicated to administer. Not the least of it is that it is not just the administration but the costs of offering the compensation that is governed by this clause. That would obviously not be very good for consumer choice, plus of course there are implications for tax receipts and a whole host of other areas as well.

In practice, these businesses rely heavily on flexibility, which includes voluntary shift swaps and short-notice availability. As we have discussed on numerous occasions, if the weather turns—and in Britain, let us be honest, that is not a small variable—a pub expecting a busy day may suddenly find itself very overstaffed. Under the Bill, cancelling those shifts could result in mandatory compensation.

I turn to Amendment 24. Another flaw identified in the Bill is that it presumes that, in every instance, a cancelled, moved or curtailed shift entitles the employee to compensation. This rigidity, however, does not account for the unforeseen events which, as noble Lords across the House will know, are a common occurrence throughout the working world. We have heard many examples of those. The assumption that the employer is always somehow at fault does not reflect the realities of working life. Our amendment therefore seeks to clarify and incorporate a degree of flexibility into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, we are proposing that the conditions that govern this entitlement to compensation should be subject to regulation in this case. There is a strong case to be made for this exception to our general principled dislike of the amount of regulation on which the Bill relies. As defined by the Secretary of State, this could be nuanced to ensure greater parity in the employer/employee relationship.

It is vital that we remember throughout these debates that we are discussing a piece of legislation that will profoundly affect workers and employers across the country. I am concerned that, in certain elements of this Bill, an ideological assumption is made about the relationship between the worker and the employer, which leads to absolute positions—another point that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised in a previous group. We all have a duty to ensure that the Bill meets the practical demands of the real workplace and does not just speak to such assumptions. This amendment would balance the relationship between the employer and the employee and would make sure that those who provide the work are protected, alongside those who undertake it. There is an essential symbiosis that needs to be maintained in order for us to have a thriving economy, with good jobs available for workers. We cannot fall prey to inflexible, absolute stances that upset this relationship. Our amendment seeks to correct this mistake in the text of the Bill.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes in particular for her support for Amendment 28, because she raised unarguable points. The reasonable belief test outlined in the Bill raises several concerns. One of the most substantial is that the term “reasonable” is incredibly broad and creates a great deal of uncertainty for both workers and employers. As noble Lords across the House will know, this part of the Bill is designed to make working entitlements clearer and provide greater clarity and certainty to workers about the shifts they are working and the sort of income they can therefore expect to receive. However, the text in its current form is wide open to a massive range of interpretations and fails to provide clarity or protection for either workers or employers. How is either party to know what constitutes a reasonable expectation? Redefining this element of the Bill so that a formal confirmation of a shift is required for entitlement to compensation will provide clarity for both parties and will create a mutual responsibility between the worker and the employer to make expectations and duties clear.

It is my understanding that the Government intend this section of the Bill to place an obligation on the employer to clearly communicate shift assignments to workers in order to avoid misunderstanding. We agree that this should be the case, although the current text of the Bill uses language that is far too vague. If the Government want to promote the clear communication of shift assignments, surely providing for a formal commitment of work, rather than the belief of being needed, is the way to make sure that that obligation is met. Our proposal of a formal confirmation requirement would mean that both employer and employee know where they stand and what is expected of them and would address the shortcoming in the text as it stands.

I will say just a few brief words on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Forty-eight hours seems to us a perfectly reasonable notice period regarding the time before a shift is due to start. A survey from the Association of Convenience Stores found that 90% of colleagues in the convenience sector report that they have never had a shift cancelled with less than 48 hours’ notice. Unless a reasonable notice period is reflected in the new requirements, it is likely to lead to a cautious approach to staffing by many hospitality and retail businesses. This would mean restricting operating hours and/or staff numbers during periods of uncertain footfall, rather than offering shifts that may ultimately be surplus to operational needs on the day, thus incurring compensation costs for late cancellations.

Moreover, there is a notable asymmetry in the Bill as drafted, because there are no reciprocal requirements for employees to provide notice when they are unable to work at a scheduled shift. That gap will have significant implications. One of the biggest challenges for employers, particularly in retail, is managing last-minute cancellations by employees due to illness, childcare needs or other issues. When employers must find cover at short notice, how are they to meet the same reasonable notice requirements that they themselves are held to?

We need common sense in this legislation, so I urge the Government to accept my and other amendments, or to be honest about why they will not.

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

My Lords, before I address the amendments in this group, I take this opportunity to refer to the letter I wrote regarding the algebraic formula. There are existing formulae in employment rights legislation—for instance, in relation to the calculation of the amount payable to an agency worker as calculated in Section 57ZH of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so this is not something new. We will, however, publish full and comprehensive guidance in due course, which I am sure many noble Lords will find fascinating.

This has been a very useful debate, and I am very grateful for the contributions of all noble Lords. We have covered several areas in this debate related to the amendments tabled. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in his Amendment 21A, is seeking to make changes to the period of notice deemed reasonable for cancellation of or change to a shift for agency workers. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, in Amendment 22, is seeking to make changes to the right to reasonable notice of shifts for directly engaged workers. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Fox and Lord Goddard of Stockport, are seeking to make changes to the right to payment for short-notice shift cancellations, movements and curtailments in Amendments 24, 27, 28 and 29.

Before I address each of these amendments in turn, let me share some analysis that the Living Wage Foundation did in 2023. It suggested that 59% of workers whose hours vary from week to week, which includes zero-hours and low-hour workers, receive less than a week’s notice of shifts, with 13% receiving less than 24 hours’ notice. The vast majority of respondents—90%—stated that they do not receive full payment when their shifts are cancelled unexpectedly, 74% receive less than half, 51% receive less than a quarter and 26% receive no payment. Further analysis, from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, suggests that approximately 33% of UK employers who use zero-hour contracts compensate workers for shifts that are cancelled with less than 24 hours’ notice, with 48% of employers responding that they do not.

I turn first to Amendment 21A. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, says in his explanatory statement that this amendment

“seeks to define a reasonable maximum period of temporary work for agency workers in primary legislation”,

which

“will help remove any uncertainty for businesses worried about genuine temp work being caught in the new zero-hours regulations”.

The noble Lord seeks to achieve this by providing that the period of what is presumed to be reasonable notice for agency workers must be no greater than 24 hours. This would mean that it would be presumed reasonable if an agency worker receives 24 hours’ notice, but unreasonable if they receive less, so only in those latter situations would the agency or hirer have to prove that the period of notice was still reasonable in the circumstances.

I am not clear how this amendment would achieve this. The amendment would be made to Clause 2, concerning rights to reasonable notice for directly engaged workers, and appears to prevent workers being given more than 24 hours’ notice of cancellation or change to a shift. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill provides for periods of notice “presumed reasonable” to be set in regulations for directly engaged workers and agency workers, as well as the factors that should be taken into consideration in individual cases.

Following consultation, it may be that the “presumed reasonable” periods of notice and the factors that should be taken into consideration will be different for agency workers and directly engaged workers. We intend to consult on what period is presumed reasonable, because it varies from case to case. Setting a period of reasonable notice in primary legislation would thus pre-empt consultation and not allow us to take into account stakeholders’ views.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am not sure about that. Basically, we do not want to be too prescriptive and define what reasonableness is, because it varies from case to case and company to company. There needs to be that flexibility there.

Amendment 29 is a probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which seeks to add a power into the Bill to make regulations setting out factors that determine whether a worker reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. The Government tabled an amendment during Commons Report stage to ensure that a worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift unless at some point prior to that they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. This is considered appropriate because it is only where a person reasonably believes that they will work a shift that it is reasonable for them to prepare to work and incur costs as a result.

This amendment was necessary to eliminate the risk of workers taking cases to tribunals and making claims for shifts they did not reasonably believe they needed to work. This is particularly important in situations where an employer offers a shift out to multiple people, for example if they organise shifts through a large WhatsApp group. In cases like this, we want to be clear that people should receive cancellation payments when they are told they are not needed at short notice only if they reasonably believed they would work the shift in the first place.

For example, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, if there is an established practice of “first come, first served”, and an individual says they will work a shift after they have seen that another individual has already done so, they should probably not expect to work that shift. Even where a shift is offered only to one worker, they should still reasonably believe they will work it in order to be eligible for a short-notice payment. For example, if an employer offered a shift four weeks in advance, and the worker accepted the shift only two hours before the shift, it seems less likely they should expect actually to work that shift.

These are the kind of scenarios the Government considered when making the amendment; however, there are other scenarios where issues about this may arise. The Government wish to avoid being overly prescriptive by setting out factors in regulations, given the range of scenarios where this may be relevant. Instead, the Government consider it more appropriate to leave it to tribunals to determine on a case-by-case basis and we want to ensure that tribunals maintain flexibility to do so as they consider appropriate.

Before I conclude, I will answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about reasons outside of employers’ control. With better planning, employers need not cancel as many shifts, but it is not right that, when there is uncertainty, the entire financial risk rests with the workers. We really need to have a fair balance, and the Bill offers exemptions as a possibility for that. We will consult on that; however, any exemptions are likely to be narrow, as we do not believe that workers should take the whole financial hit.

I hope that I have been able to persuade all noble Lords and provide assurances on the Government’s wider commitment to consult with stakeholders and businesses. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Is the Minister really saying that the points that we were making are related only to employers’ bad planning? How on earth are they supposed to plan for natural disasters, floods and so on? Secondly, I apologise for using the wrong reference to the Bill, as the Minister helpfully pointed out. He also helpfully pointed out that much of the Bill is being written on the hoof, so I would be very grateful if he would commit to stop producing new iterations of the Bill, which are ever expanding.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Lord will be happy to hear that I will consult with everybody as widely as possible, including him. We can have further conversations to explain the purpose of the Bill and why we are doing it. We are not doing this in isolation. I believe that the Bill is pro-business and pro-worker, and we need to get that message across to him and other noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

42: Clause 5, page 30, line 35, leave out from “independence,” to end of line 36 and insert “or
(ii) an employee representative body or staff association that—(A) has been formally established for the purpose of consultation or negotiation with the employer,(B) represents a defined group of the employer’s workers or the workforce generally, and(C) operates independently of the employer in its decision-making, andthe worker’s employer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands the definition of an appropriate representative to include employee representative bodies or staff associations that are formally established, represent the workforce or defined groups of workers, and operate independently in decision-making. It ensures that workers can be represented by legitimate and independent collective structures beyond traditional trade unions.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 42, 43 and 44, which address a crucial gap in the Employment Rights Bill as currently drafted. The Bill, in its present form, assumes that collective agreements and the important rights that attach to them can be made only through trade unions. The assumption is problematic, as it fails to reflect the diverse and evolving landscape of employee representation in the United Kingdom.

Across a wide range of sectors, there are effective forms of employee representation that operate independently of trade unions. For example, many large employers across the UK have implemented formal employee forums, staff councils and other representative bodies that play a critical role in negotiating terms, improving working conditions and ensuring that workers have a voice. These bodies operate with transparency and independence; they often work closely with management but are not subject to the control of the employer. In sectors such as retail, hospitality and technology, companies have established these independent bodies to provide workers with a platform to express concerns, suggest improvements and engage with senior leadership on workplace issues. These bodies, although not unions, are trusted and valued by workers as genuine vehicles for consultation and negotiation.

Likewise, in industries such as financial services, employee representation often takes place through staff associations and other internal bodies that focus on consultation, transparency and communication between employers and employees. These bodies are instrumental in maintaining a constructive dialogue between workers and management, and they often handle issues such as pay, conditions and workplace policies without the need for union recognition.

The current draft of the Bill fails to accommodate these vital forms of representation. It risks excluding workers who are represented by such independent bodies from accessing the protections associated with collective agreements, including important provisions on guaranteed hours. This approach undermines existing employee engagement practices that have proven to be effective in fostering good relations between workers and employers. The Government have spoken repeatedly about the need to modernise our economy and bring employment rights into the 21st century. A key part of that modernisation must be acknowledging that trade unions are not the only legitimate means through which workers can be represented. Properly constituted employee forums and staff bodies can and do play a vital role in today’s diverse and evolving workplaces. By recognising this, the Government have an opportunity to align this legislation with the modern realities of work and deliver on their commitment to updating our employment framework.

Moreover, the Bill raises serious concerns about freedom of association. The principle of freedom of association is about not just the right to join a union but the right not to be compelled into union membership as a condition for accessing fair treatment at work.

If we want to strengthen the relationship between employers and employees, we must ensure that the Bill is inclusive of all legitimate and independent forms of worker representation. These amendments are designed to achieve that. They would extend the recognition of collective agreements to properly constituted employee representative bodies, such as staff forums or associations that operate independently from the employer in their decision-making. They would ensure that these bodies meet clear governance standards, including transparency, accountability and independence.

The Government’s aim is to promote better workplace relations, and these amendments support that aim. They would recognise the wide range of ways in which workers and employers engage with each other constructively. By recognising diverse forms of representation, we can build trust, enhance co-operation and create workplaces where both workers and employers can thrive. I urge the Government to support these amendments, which would reflect the realities of modern employee representation and strengthen the protections available to all workers, regardless of whether they belong to a traditional trade union. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I totally oppose these amendments. This is the first time I have spoken in the progress of this Bill. I have amendments coming up later. I think the noble Lord’s amendments illustrate the complete difference in mental framework between those who support and work with the trade union movement and those who do not. I should be clear that, although I do not have any formal interest to declare, I have spent most of my working life working in or for the trade union movement. The trade union movement and what it has achieved is based on 150 years of struggle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Phew—I do not know whether I want to join in this philosophical debate because, clearly, we have heard strong views on both sides, and they have strayed way beyond the amendments we are trying to moderate today. But I would say that the Bill overall seeks to find the right balance between workers, unions and businesses, recognising that each has an important role to play. Our aim in the Bill is to modernise those arrangements for the 21st century so that we are not playing “Yah-boo, you did that back in 1953” but are actually looking to the future. We hope that is what the Bill will deliver.

These amendments aim to broaden the provisions in the Bill to allow employee representative bodies or staff associations to collectively agree to modify or opt out of the zero-hours measures. The Bill already allows these collective agreements to be made, but only by trade unions. As we are allowing for modification of statutory employment rights, it is vital that the appropriate safeguards are in place. This includes that only trade unions that have a certificate of independence, and are therefore free from employer control, can agree with employers to modify or opt out of rights, and that rights are guaranteed in exchange and incorporated into a worker’s contract.

I make it clear that staff associations and employee representative bodies, some of which we have heard described this afternoon, can do really good work, and we welcome engagement between employers and workers in all forms. However, we do not think it is appropriate for these associations and bodies to be able to modify statutory employment rights. This is not least because they may not have sufficient independence from the employers—a point well made by my noble friend Lady O’Grady—unlike independent trade unions, which do have that independence and which offer high levels of protection to workers. Furthermore, there is a well-established framework for trade unions, including recognition, independence and incorporation of terms, and the provisions build off these provisions.

I can see that the noble Lord’s amendments suggest a framework of requirements that staff associations and employee representative bodies would need to meet in order to modify or exclude zero-hours rights. These include requirements around independence, recognition, elections and record-keeping.

However, as my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Davies have said, the more you incorporate those requirements, the more you add to a staff association or employee representative body, the more similar it appears to be to an independent trade union. Given that the trade union framework is well established, historically and legally, it is not clear to me that it makes sense to establish a similar but different structure just for the purposes of the zero-hours measures. I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Davies, Lady O’Grady and others for reminding us of the hard-won rights that we have achieved through organisations within the trade union movement. Trade unions already serve to protect and advance the interests of workers.

I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, presented a caricature of the unions. For every criticism he has, we could come back with all the advantages that trade unions have delivered for working people over the years in pay and conditions and in some of the fantastic campaigns—for example, around the environment, women’s rights, and so on. They have already contributed enormously to modernising workplace rights, so I do not feel that it would be appropriate or proportionate to try to recreate them. The trade unions already provide the constructive dialogue with employers to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, refers, and membership of trade unions remains voluntary for employees.

I say, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that there is a technical issue around all this. If his amendment was accepted as drafted, it would not achieve the aims that he intends. Collective agreements have a specific definition in the Employment Rights Act 1996, which the zero-hours provisions are being inserted into. The definition, referring to the definition in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, provides that collective agreements are ones between independent and certified trade unions and employers’ or employees’ associations, so there would not be scope in the way that the noble Lord has worded his amendment for a wider definition of employee representatives.

We have had a debate which I have a feeling we are going to return to on some of the other trade union issues, but, for the time being, with this set of amendments in mind, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That was a short but most interesting debate, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who participated. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for their comments. No one on this side is denying that trade unions often have a proud history. As my noble friend Lord Deben pointed out, they have a very strong history in securing workers’ rights which has been constructive for our country over many years—no one is denying that. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, not all modern trade unions support that history. I am sure that noble Lords would accept that.

The fact is that the world has evolved, and these amendments simply respect that evolution. My noble friend Lord Moynihan points out that only 22% of workers are currently unionised. The latest figure that I can find for the private sector is 12.3%. The other 88% have not been prevented from joining a trade union; they have exercised a choice not to, a democratic choice, so trying to argue that this proposal is somehow undemocratic makes no sense in the context of the rest of the Bill. Why, for example, does the Bill later on scrap the 40% turnout requirement for statutory recognition? That seems profoundly undemocratic.

Having said all that, I am obviously very grateful to the Minister for her response, and I accept that there are probably technical issues with my amendment. With that helpful hint, I shall improve them for the next time that we debate these measures. However, on the first day in Committee, we heard the Government argue that, in relation to guaranteed hours:

“Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers”.—[Official Report, 29/4/25; col. 1203.]


If the Government are willing to accept that logic for trade unions, surely the same reasoning must be extended to independent staff bodies and employment forums, many of which are embedded deeply within the day-to-day life of a company and have even greater practical knowledge of their specific industries and workplaces. In some cases, those bodies are closer to the operational realities of individual businesses than remote union structures, and they are more trusted by the employees themselves.

The debate should ultimately be about respecting individual workers and their choices. The Government’s stance suggests a lack of trust in individual workers and the belief that, unless a worker is represented through a traditional trade union, their voice is somehow less valid or less informed. Fundamentally, it appears that the Government do not believe in the individual and do not trust workers to know what works best in their own context; instead, they insist on a one-size-fits-all approach, even when that model may be entirely foreign to a smaller business or industries where union involvement has never been the norm.

What about the many employees who are content with their current representation? Will they now be told that their structures are not good enough and that they have to change, bring in new frameworks, hire experts and prepare for union-led negotiations, whether they want them or not? Will industries that have long enjoyed stable relations be pushed into more adversarial models, creating the very tensions that this Bill should be seeking to avoid? Can the Minister perhaps enlighten us as to how smaller businesses and those that have never operated within a unionised environment will adapt to rigid models such as this, which assume that union involvement is the only valid route to collective agreement?

These amendments do not challenge the value of trade unions—very far from it. They simply recognise that unions are not the only route to fair and effective representation. If the Government are truly serious about modernising employment rights, we must begin by acknowledging the diversity of how workers organise today. For now, I am of course content to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join the general praise and congratulations for my noble friend Lady Penn for her Amendment 64. There is not much more for me to say, other than that I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I hope the Government are listening and will address the issue raised by my noble friend as we get to the next stage. If they do not, I would be more than happy to support my noble friend in her future endeavours.

Amendment 66 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, was expertly spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I was going to echo very much the same points about the employment tribunals. An awful lot will be expected of them but, as we know, the simple fact is that the backlog is increasing, there is a shortage of funds and the waiting times are increasing—they are up to two years. It does not seem very plausible to expect that employment tribunals will be able to cope with the amount of work that is coming their way—I am afraid that will probably include work with regard to that amendment. I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness’s comments.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am afraid the noble Lord will not; he will hear from me. I thank my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie in absentia for tabling Amendment 66 and my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway for so ably speaking to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for tabling Amendment 64. This has been a broadly helpful debate, if somewhat spicier than expected, on flexible working.

This group and the next deal with flexible working. I agree with many of the comments that noble Lords across the Committee made in highlighting how important flexible working is in helping people to balance work with responsibilities in their personal lives, particularly caring responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, pointed out, flexibility can lead to happier, healthier and more productive employees. He is absolutely right on this point. It is good for employees, good for businesses and, in turn, good for the economy.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, outlined in some detail, along with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, a primary benefit of flexible working for families is that being able to work part-time, or having flexible start and finish times, can make it easier for parents to balance work and childcare needs. Similarly, for those caring for a vulnerable adult or a child with a disability, flexible working can help people to manage their caring responsibilities while remaining in work.

I echo some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about how we regard flexible working. To be clear, flexible working is not solely about working from home—something on which, post pandemic, we have become somewhat focused. Indeed, the ACAS guidance sets out eight examples of flexible working, and working from home is only one of those eight. It talks about compressed hours, staggered hours, remote working, job sharing and part-time hours as well as working from home.

According to the 2023 flexible jobs index, although nine in 10 want to work flexibly, only six in 10 employees are currently working flexibly and only three in 10 jobs are advertised with flexible working. Equally, the Government recognise that business needs vary and that not all flexible working arrangements are possible in all circumstances. That is why the Government are increasing access to flexible working by making it the default, except where not reasonably feasible. I concur with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox: this is not a soft policy but an important economic and human management tool, and we should regard it as such.

Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson would require the Secretary of State to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal may award to an employee with a successful claim related to flexible working. The maximum compensation award is currently set at eight weeks’ pay for an employee bringing a claim to a tribunal.

Section 80I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 already means that the Government may review the maximum number of weeks’ pay that can be awarded to an employee. If they consider it appropriate to do so, they can then use this power to change the specified number of weeks’ pay by which the maximum amount of an award of compensation is set. It is therefore not necessary to include anything further in the Bill. It is worth pointing out to noble Lords that the maximum has risen every year since its introduction, from £250 in 2002 to £719 now—so this is not something that is caught in aspic. Therefore, we would argue that a statutory review on the maximum compensation award within six months of Royal Assent could create uncertainty across the board and detract from some of the other important reforms that employees, employers, trade unions and the wider economic and business community will need to prepare for.

Before leaving this, it might be helpful to speak to the wider points from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on tribunals. I cannot speak in any great detail on this issue, but I understand that the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a review of the employment tribunal system. I would hazard that it has not been sufficiently invested in in recent years, and the slowness of that system is certainly something that we should seek to address.

Before leaving Amendment 66, it is worth pointing out that there is a risk in creating uncertainty for both businesses and workers alike by creating the possibility of differing awards for different types of claims. As things stand, a number of types of claims—for example, relating to redundancy and unfair dismissal—face the same maximum award as those relating to flexible working. It might be undesirable to create confusion and undue complexity through in effect having a two-tier system.

I turn to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, Amendment 64, which would extend the right to request flexible working to candidates with a job offer. In practice, the Government believe that this is already the case. The right to request flexible working, which is being strengthened in this Bill, is already a day one right. This means that employees can request flexible working from their first day in a role. We know that, in practice, many employers and employees will begin discussions about working arrangements before the candidate starts work.

As the noble Baroness said, before joining an organisation, informal and constructive discussions can offer a more effective way in which to identify working arrangements that work for employees and employers than a one-off formalised request and response might otherwise achieve. Mandating through legislation a right to request flexible working prior to appointment would not account for the fact that not all job offers come to fruition, for a number of reasons. However, candidates with a job offer have some limited rights. Discrimination and contractual rights are among those. The hypothetical example that the noble Baroness cited in her contribution would indeed be taken care of; discrimination based on protected characteristics is currently outlawed during the recruitment process. However, we would contend that it is not a status that we would want to overformalise at this point.

Additionally, under this proposal, employers would still have up to two months to consider and respond to a request. If the intention of this amendment is to significantly bring forward in time people’s ability to have a flexible working request accepted, it would not succeed in this respect. While the Government encourage employers to start conversations about flexible working with new starters at an early stage, it would not be appropriate to extend the legal framework for flexible working to all candidates under offer.

Lastly, to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, on sex discrimination, I contend that this form of discrimination would actually carry a higher risk of penalty and payout than unreasonable refusal of flexible working, so it is probably a little out of place in the debate on this amendment.

To close, I therefore seek that noble Lords do not press their amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

65: Clause 9, page 36, line 9, at end insert—
“(1AZA) But where the employer is— (a) the Security Service,(b) the Secret Intelligence Service, or(c) the Government Communication Headquarters,subsection (2)(b) does not apply, and the notification under subsection (1)(aa) need not explain why the employer considers that it is reasonable to refuse the application on the ground or those grounds.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would exclude the security services from the Bill’s provisions on flexible working.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 65 I shall speak also to Amendments 65A and 67. Amendment 65 is necessary because it lies at the very heart of the nature of the work that is performed by these agencies. The Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters, collectively known as the intelligence agencies, are at the heart of the United Kingdom’s national security apparatus. Their roles involve highly sensitive operations, often conducted in real time and under exceptionally stringent conditions. They work to protect the nation from terrorism, espionage and cyberattacks, among other threats. The national security landscape is dynamic and fast-moving, and it requires the utmost flexibility, discretion and responsiveness from their employees.

In this context, the introduction of provisions for flexible working could unintentionally create significant risks to national security. The need for immediate action, tight schedules and often secretive operations simply cannot be fully compatible with the predictability that flexible working arrangements might demand. We think it is essential that we avoid the unintended consequences of applying the Bill’s flexible working provisions to the intelligence services. Arguably, this list of services could be expanded, of course, to other operations that have implications for national security. As I said, these services operate in highly confidential environments and their work often involves time-sensitive operations that demand secrecy and agility.

This is obviously a probing amendment: I want to ask the Minister what conversations the Government have had with the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and the Government Communications Headquarters regarding the potential impact of the flexible working provisions on their operations.

On Amendment 67, again I join in the broad support for flexible working that we have just heard in the last group, but this amendment presents an important opportunity to better understand the implications of introducing such a right. We think we ought to approach it with a slightly critical eye: specifically, we need to consider the Regulatory Policy Committee’s feedback on the clause, which has raised several concerns that cannot be overlooked. The RPC rating for this clause was red across all three core areas of rationale for intervention, identification of options, and justification of preferred way forward.

The RPC has stated that there is a lack of sufficient evidence presented to justify the need for this intervention. In particular, it highlighted that there is little evidence to suggest that employers are rejecting flexible working requests unreasonably. This is a key point that must be addressed. The committee’s wider concerns suggest that, without strong evidence of a widespread issue with employers rejecting requests, the Government are introducing a policy that is based on assumptions rather than concrete data. What problem are the Government trying to solve by introducing the right to request flexible working if the case is as the committee has described? Do they in effect believe that the RPC’s assessment is incorrect? What data or evidence do they have to demonstrate that employers are systematically denying such requests in a way that harms workers?

One of the most important questions that this clause raises is whether the intervention is justified. The RPC has pointed out that the rationale for introducing the right to request flexible working has not been sufficiently established, so the purpose of tabling this amendment is to find out what the Government have done in this area and to suggest that the overall environment around this debate would be enhanced by a broader understanding of the situation under consideration.

Amendment 65A seeks to provide clarity and fairness regarding the refusal of flexible working applications in roles where such flexibility would fundamentally alter the nature of the job or undermine critical operational needs. Clause 9, as drafted, is obviously well intentioned but is ultimately a blunt instrument. New subsection (1ZA) sets out a list of what are deemed reasonable grounds to refuse a flexible working request, but they are largely subjective and difficult to quantify in practice. For example, how can an editor reasonably be expected to prove that a journalist’s writing has deteriorated because they are working from home? How does one assess the decline in creative spontaneity that often arises when collaboration in the newsroom is replaced by isolated remote working? This ambiguity could create a climate of uncertainty for employers. Rather than making legally risky judgments, many may simply acquiesce to requests even where remote work may compromise essential aspects of the role. I go back to the example of journalism: this could disrupt the delicate balance of the newsroom and undermine quality, editorial cohesion and the development of junior reporters through in-person mentoring, and so on.

This is precisely why we think that sector-specific exemptions are needed. A one-size-fits-all approach, as is implied in the current drafting, is simply not adequate. This amendment provides a clearer and more realistic framework, recognising that in certain sectors and occupations physical presence is not optional but essential. To expect employers in some of these sectors to navigate the current subjective standards is both unfair and, we think, unworkable. This amendment seeks to offer a constructive alternative by allowing a reasonable refusal where the core nature of the role would be compromised, and by specifying sectors where that risk is most acute.

As I have said, we support flexible working in principle, but flexibility must be implemented with common sense and a clear-eyed understanding of operational realities. We do not believe that the current drafting provides that assurance. We urge the Government to take serious note of these amendments, because we may have to return to them on Report. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is reassured and feels able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his detailed answer. I accept and am somewhat reassured by his answer on Amendment 65; it is good to know that the security services employers have been properly consulted and are content with this legislation. That is to be welcomed, and I thank the noble Lord for it.

I was most interested in the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted. I believe she said—I apologise if I am misquoting—that employers have a poor understanding of what flexible working involves in education. I am sure they do, and that a lot of parents and people who are involved in education do. It rather makes the case for why Amendment 67 is necessary. The RPC’s opinion may not have related to the policy, but it still remains red: the fact is that the impact assessment was not good enough.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised a very good point about what flexible working is. We agree that flexibility is to be encouraged, but I noticed that the noble Lord has now relied twice on the eight types of flexible working identified by ACAS. I suspect that that is not widely understood in the public domain. The proposed impact assessment would go a long way to make it much clearer what people could and should be asking for, what employers should be thinking about, the likely economic impacts and the more societal impacts from the right to request flexible working.

This would help the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, as well, because people would have a much broader understanding of what it means in teaching. Obviously, 100% of teachers cannot work from home—that goes without saying—so what does this actually mean in practice? I do not think that anybody has much clarity about that, including, by the sounds of it, employees and many teachers themselves.

[Baroness Bousted (Lab)]

I am chairing a commission that will be very clear about what it means and how it can be employed in schools. I hope that will enlighten lots of people.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I look forward to being enlightened.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, again made some very good points about the need to describe the job; I accept that that was an imperfect way of tabling that amendment. However, I leap into the defence of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth from his attacks by the Fox. As I heard it, my noble friend was not saying that employment tribunals are no good; he was saying that there is a backlog, that they are probably underresourced and underfunded and that, because of their structural nature, they do not necessarily resolve things. An increasing reliance on them to resolve things will not necessarily have the desired effect. That is an incredibly important point that we should return to in the discussion that the Minister offered the Committee because, as I said in my last summary, we are placing an increasing reliance on employment tribunals to resolve an awful lot of the unanswered questions that are being discussed as a result of the Bill. For things not to be resolved even after they have got to an employment tribunal, after a long delay, seems a little short-sighted.

For now, as I say, I am somewhat reassured on Amendment 65, and I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. We should return to the idea of Amendment 67 and a much broader impact assessment, but for now I am content to withdraw Amendment 65.

Amendment 65 withdrawn.

Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. As we know, the UK has certain accounting standards, such as GAAP and the international financial reporting standards. These standards are non-mandatory. However, the Companies Act is very clear that a true and fair view of the accounts must be stated. That is a very high standard, but it is up to the individual or the committee of the company as to what should be reported in the accounts. This new Bill will set much higher standards for companies to abide by.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, can the Government provide assurances that the powers granted to ARGA will not create an overly burdensome regulatory environment that discourages investment in the UK?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point. At the end of the day, we would like any regulator to perform the work but not to overburden SMEs or, for that matter, to stifle growth, which is the Government’s number one priority.

Overseas Companies: UK-registered Subsidiaries

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they provide support or advice to companies domiciled overseas who have set up a UK-registered subsidiary through which to bid for public sector work.

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

My Lords, before answering the noble Lord’s Question, I wish everyone celebrating a happy St Valentine’s day—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Wrong day. I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s day.

The Government provide guidance on GOV.UK to companies seeking to engage in public sector work, including those domiciled overseas which establish a UK-registered company. Additionally, the Government encourage open and fair competition in public procurement, and UK-registered subsidiaries of foreign companies are treated in the same manner as domestic businesses.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. I agree that it is essential that transparency is key to all of this, especially in the defence and security sectors, where I am sure the Minister would agree that a level playing field is absolutely necessary. However, are the Government aware that some non-UK enterprises with only a token presence in the UK seek defence and security work here, and that some of those firms are domiciled in foreign states which actively exclude British companies from competing for contracts under that state’s control? What assurances can the Minister give that British contractors are not the victims of such unacceptable commercial discrimination?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question. The UK’s international obligations require us to treat suppliers from other countries on an equal footing with UK suppliers in procurements which are covered by trade agreements with those countries and under WTO arrangements. The requirement for fair and open competition is a two-way street, as it gives UK suppliers access to public procurement opportunities overseas, which is worth close to £1.3 trillion. If the noble Lord has a particular case in mind, perhaps he could speak to me, and I will refer it to officials in the department.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill will preserve the UK’s status as a global leader in product regulation. It creates a level playing field between the high street and online marketplaces, supporting businesses and protecting consumers. It grants necessary powers to adapt to modern-day safety issues and technological innovation, and to safeguard businesses and consumers from emerging risks.

This Bill is not the same one that entered this House. We have listened carefully to the concerns of all Peers and have proactively made changes in relation to consultation and the use of the affirmative procedure and Henry VIII powers. We have also provided further clarity on definitions in the Bill. Furthermore, the Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory controls in place to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and evidence based.

It is fair to say that the Bill has given rise to some interesting debates, passionately and expertly argued by noble Lords across the House. Particularly, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, whose support during these debates has been invaluable; the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his forthright scrutiny of the Bill, made with his customary charm and good humour; and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his extensive engagement on the Bill. He, along with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have been crucial in getting the Bill to where it is today. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his engagement on the Bill, particularly on standard essential patents. I am glad I have been able to reassure him.

I thank the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, past and present, for their reporting on the Bill, as well as the thorough grilling they gave me and Minister Justin Madders in October last year. I extend my gratitude to the Bill team and the officials supporting the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff and those in my private office, who are instrumental in the continued smooth running of this House.

As we send the Bill to the other place, I believe we do so having fulfilled our role as a scrutinising Chamber with diligence and care. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Hunt, Lord Sandhurst, Lord Frost, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson and Lord Lansley for all their contributions and for raising very important issues throughout the discussions on the Bill. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their openness, collaborative approach and humour—it was very much appreciated.

On these Benches, we take pride in having pushed not only the Government but even the Liberal Democrats —yes, even them—to acknowledge the importance of protecting the pint. Although they were initially resistant, they eventually recognised its value, and we have ensured that the pint will remain untouched.

As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, noted, the Government made some welcome concessions on this Bill, such as the introduction of a requirement for consultation—a very welcome step. However, as highlighted by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee, this remains a skeleton Bill. We think it grants excessive power to the Executive with insufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Whether it is the affirmative procedure or, as once proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the super-affirmative procedure, we will still advocate for greater parliamentary oversight.

The question of dynamic alignment with the EU remains unanswered yet ever more topical. When my noble friend Lord Frost raised the issue, the Government could not rule out as a fact that the Bill could lead to dynamic alignment with the EU.

We still do not think this is a good Bill, but it is much improved. It not only allows for alignment with the EU but risks overregulation, and we confidently suspect that the lawyers will be busy for a while. But it would be churlish to finish on that note, so I once again thank noble Lords opposite for their incredible work on the Bill. I also thank their officials, who often go unremarked in these matters, and our research team led by Henry Mitson, and in particular the indefatigable Abid Hussain, for their enthusiastic and extensive help.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the speeches on this Bill have probably been exhaustive. I make just one observation: it appears that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has had one pint too many as far as this debate is concerned.

This Bill turned out to be more exciting than its name promised. It has been an interesting process going through it. I thank the Ministers, the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for their good humour—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on that—their levels of engagement and the engagement from the Bill team and the political office, which helped us fashion this Bill. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, and their Back-Bench posse, for making the debates on this Bill so interesting. I also thank Cross-Benchers for their support, who made some important interventions.

Special thanks go to my noble friends Lady Brinton, Lord Foster and Lord Redesdale, and a big thank you to Adam Bull, who was our legislative support officer and supported us ably. Your Lordships have shown great interest during this debate in the affirmative process and legislative scrutiny, so I look forward to seeing all of you in Grand Committee when the statutory instruments arrive.

India and Southeast Asia: Free Trade Agreements

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns for tabling this short debate, which I am sure all noble Lords would agree has been most fascinating.

As she said regarding the progress of His Majesty’s Government in securing free trade agreements with India and countries in south-east Asia, this is the bedrock. It is a matter of enormous significance. After leaving the European Union, the previous Conservative Government pursued an ambitious and outward-looking trade policy. They secured agreements that unlocked new opportunities for British businesses and consumers, and our commitment to the Indo-Pacific region was steadfast, as I am sure all noble Lords would acknowledge. We recognised its growing economic dynamism and strategic importance. I gently say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that this is not boosterism but common sense.

In May 2021, Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Prime Minister Modi agreed to deepen trade co-operation between the UK and India via the enhanced trade partnership. The noble Lords, Lord Sahota and Lord Bilimoria, made compelling observations about India’s spectacular growth, which makes the case for this deal and obviously a future FTA extremely attractive. The strategic approach under that agreement outlined the following benefits of such a deal: a potential increase in UK exports to India of between £8.8 billion and £16.7 billion by 2035 and a boost to UK GDP of potentially up to £6.2 billion by 2035, depending on the final terms. The Government’s strategic case is surely unarguable. It is to develop the UK’s status as an independent trading nation that seeks trade and investment opportunities and champions free trade. Surely that is even more pertinent in a world where such principles are currently under threat.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked a very interesting question on trade diversion. I look forward to the Minister’s answer on that.

I appreciate that any agreement reached must be beneficial for both countries, and that can take time. That being said, British exporters in financial services, technology, life sciences and manufacturing have much to gain. Will the Minister give us an update on progress for the benefit of our ambitious British businesses seeking more certainty for their exporting future, particularly in light of the competition from other areas and countries that were pointed out by my noble friend Lady Anelay and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota? Perhaps the Minister might also comment on the comments of my noble friend Lady Verma and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, about the wonderful advantage we have because of our diaspora population in this country.

Our trade relationships with ASEAN nations, which is a region representing the world’s fifth-largest economy —I do not need to tell the Minister anything about that—are in danger of stagnation. The majority of the work behind the UK’s accession to the CPTPP was done under the previous Government and we of course welcome the current Government’s accession, but we must now capitalise on this advantage. The previous Government’s agreements with Singapore and Vietnam set a strong foundation. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking to advance new partnerships with Indonesia, which is a fabulous opportunity, as my noble friend pointed out, and with Thailand and the Philippines? What is the Government’s strategy for this region, which is so ripe with potential benefits for this country?

As my noble friend Lord Vaizey so articulately explained, the trade benefits are substantial. Given his position as chair of the UK-ASEAN Business Council, I think the Government should seriously consider enlisting his services in that part of the world.

Free trade has long been a driver of prosperity, innovation and economic growth. The Conservative vision was one of openness, dynamism and ambition, but, under this Government, we are concerned that we are seeing signs of drift. Can the Minister reassure me that the Government are still steadfastly aligned with the previous Government’s strategic vision, as outlined under the previous Indian deal?

Negotiations of this scale require leadership, vision and determination. Businesses and consumers need certainty, and our global partners need confidence in Britain’s commitment to free trade. So, finally, what specific steps are the Government taking to accelerate trade talks with India? How do they intend to build on the CPTPP and partnerships in south-east Asia. Perhaps most importantly, do the Government still believe in the previous Government’s strategic vision?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

15: Clause 2, page 2, line 43, leave out paragraph (k)

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, which is in my name, seeks to leave out Clause 2(2)(k), concerning authorised representatives. The introduction of an authorised representative is a critical concept, but this provision remains too vague and ill defined in the Bill. For businesses, this lack of clarity leads to uncertainty, especially when it comes to the exact role and responsibilities of an authorised representative. Businesses require certainty when it comes to compliance, and this uncertainty may hinder their ability to plan, operate or expand. By removing paragraph (k), we would eliminate potential confusion and ensure that businesses do not face unnecessary administrative burdens or legal risks.

Amendment 22 addresses the issue that these powers could allow Ministers to align UK law with EU regulations entirely or, conversely, to diverge from them in significant ways. Whether Ministers choose to follow EU rules or set our own course, these substantial decisions could have far-reaching implications for the future of UK businesses and consumers. What is particularly troubling, however, is that these decisions could be made through delegating legislation, which , as the DPRRC has stated, would be subject to only a relatively low level of parliamentary scrutiny.

We rehearsed these arguments in previous debates and I will not rehash them at length now. My noble friend Lord Frost addressed this point on the first day of Report and the risk of dynamic alignment with the EU through this Bill, which the Minister stated was not possible. However, he did not explain why, so I beg to move Amendment 15.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, the amendments in this group from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would remove specific provisions from Clause 2, including a paragraph on authorised representatives; a subsection defining who product regulations apply to, which I do not think the noble Lord mentioned; and a subsection on environmental considerations before introducing regulations. We strongly oppose these changes, particularly as we emphasised in Committee the importance of environmental considerations for products. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that since the DPRRC’s report, the Government took on board Amendment 9 on the previous day on Report and undertook to issue statements, which have a statutory consultation process, before such regulations are laid. The idea that there is no accountability has been somewhat set aside so, with those provisions, we do not feel it is conducive to support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister very much indeed for his remarks. It was remiss of me earlier to not acknowledge again the fact that the Government have gone a long way to addressing what I was going to call the various complaints by the DPRRC, but that might be slightly overstating the case.

I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that consultation is, by definition, as I said earlier, a relatively low level of not necessarily parliamentary scrutiny, and the DPRRC was still not happy with the levels of scrutiny. But that is an argument we have already had and it has been dealt with in a reasonable way.

I appreciate the points that the Minister made, especially about responding to events as they happen. I am grateful that he has spent time with my noble friend Lord Holmes; that offers me a level of reassurance that the Government are listening on this and are aware of all the concerns that have been laid before them by the DPRRC and others. For that reason, I am content to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 15 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

29: Clause 4, page 5, line 30, at end insert—
“(3) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a comprehensive framework outlining the conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers under this section.(4) Product regulations providing for emergency disapplication or modification may not be made until this framework has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of both Houses.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to present a framework to Parliament defining the use of emergency powers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for their response in Committee, and for confirming that the Office for Product Safety and Standards will be publishing a framework outlining the conditions and procedures for using emergency powers under Clause 4.

However, we feel that it is vital that such a framework is discussed in Parliament. The use of emergency powers must be subject to scrutiny, transparency and democratic accountability. Parliament must have the opportunity to assess the scope, necessity and potential consequences of these powers before they are enacted, otherwise we will risk allowing significant regulatory changes to be made without sufficient oversight, which again potentially impacts business, consumers and public confidence in the regulatory system.

Just like the rest of the clauses in this Bill, there is a level of vagueness in Clause 4. Once again, as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has stated, that represents an unacceptable shift in power to the Executive. Emergency powers should not be granted on broad and undefined terms without proper safeguards and clear limitations.

I am also revisiting Amendment 30, which seeks to limit emergency modifications to an initial period of three months. Not only do we need a clear understanding of what may or could constitute an emergency but, even though we acknowledge that emergencies can be by their very nature unpredictable, there is undeniable value in debating this in Parliament. We saw this during Covid-19, where initial emergency measures had to be quickly defined but, over time, continued justification and scrutiny became essential. Three months is more than enough time to assess an emergency, determine whether modifications are still needed, and, if so, bring forward a proper review process with stakeholder consultation. Furthermore, Clause 4 States:

“The disapplication or modification may be made subject to conditions”.


That raises the question: what conditions?

I urge the Government to accept these amendments to enhance transparency, ensure accountability and reaffirm the role of Parliament in overseeing emergency decision-making. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 29 and 30, in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I think these amendments are very helpful to the Government.

I put on record that I believe that both Ministers have engaged. Whatever you say about them—we do not necessarily agree all the time—they engage with the argument, and they respond properly and respectfully. That speaks well of them, their Front Bench and their party on this Bill, even though we may disagree.

I support this amendment because it speaks to a need for flexibility. We know that there will be occasions where there are emergencies which we cannot foresee in any reasonable timescale. My noble friend referenced Covid, which is the most obvious example of recent years.

One of the other issues running through this Bill has been business certainty—businesses having the opportunity to understand the legislation and take measures necessary to ameliorate any impact of it on their businesses. These two very sensible amendments would do that, because they would give business a proper framework and reference point for the sort of emergency secondary legislation that may occur as a result of unforeseen circumstances. They address the imperative—this has been a major theme of this Bill, given the reservations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—for proper scrutiny and oversight because we have so many enabling powers, and give flexibility.

The amendments are not prescriptive. Seeking a proper outline of conditions and procedures for the use of emergency powers does not directly enforce a fear upon Ministers. It does not direct Ministers, and it does not fetter their discretion in acting appropriately in the national interest in the case of emergencies. It nevertheless is a way for Parliament to have an understanding of the actions the Government are taking. As your Lordships’ House knows, we are looking at rationale and definition in Amendment 29, and clarity and certainty in Amendment 30.

My final point is that this will, no doubt, be litigated in the future, as all legislation is. The more certainty and clarity that we put in the Bill, the less chance there is for vexatious litigation arising from any use or discharge of those regulatory powers in unforeseen emergencies.

For those reasons, and because I know the Government are committed to having a proper debate and discussion on the regulations that they intend to use, particularly in emergency circumstances, Ministers should look favourably on these two amendments. They are seeking to be helpful. I do not think, as I have said before, they fundamentally alter the raison d'être of the Bill. I am pleased to support my noble friend’s Amendments 29 and 30.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for returning to these amendments on Report. I also place on the record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, for his kind words about me and my colleague.

As discussed in Committee, this is an important debate on how emergency powers are used and scrutinised to ensure appropriate parliamentary oversight, while maintaining the ability to respond quickly in emergency situations. Clause 4 provides the Government with the ability to modify or disapply product regulations in an emergency to ensure the supply of critical products. This could include streamlining conformity assessments or temporarily adjusting certain regulatory requirements to allow essential products to reach the market more quickly, while ensuring public safety remains paramount.

This clause is not about removing oversight but ensuring that, in genuinely urgent situations, we can act swiftly to prevent product shortages, while making sure that parliamentary scrutiny remains central to this approach. Peers will also be aware that Clause 4 is subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that any regulations made under this power must be laid before Parliament and approved before coming into force. This ensures that both Houses have full oversight and provides for full scrutiny of emergency measures.

Amendment 29, which we discussed in Committee, seeks to require the Government to lay a comprehensive framework before Parliament outlining how Clause 4 powers will be used. As I stated in Committee, the Government are already committed to developing a clear framework on how this policy will operate in practice, in consultation with stakeholders. Indeed, as noble Lords will know, the Government have published a code of conduct on product safety that sets out how our product regulation system currently works, and to support the use of the powers under the Bill.

The code sets out the Government’s proposals on how we expect the emergency powers to work. To summarise a few key points, first, a derogation would be made available only if there were a serious risk of harm to people, businesses or the environment, and would be in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. Secondly, it would be granted only for products deemed critical for an emergency response, where demand exceeds supply. Thirdly, in times of emergency, the Government may temporarily reduce or modify requirements for the product to meet essential health and safety requirements for use in certain settings, provided the market surveillance authority is satisfied with the product’s safety and traceability.

The code of conduct, alongside the Government’s planned framework document, provides just the sort of structure the noble Lord appears to be seeking. In addition, the Government will commit to notifying Members when the framework document is available and place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses. Given these points, and coupled with use of the affirmative procedure, we believe the existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient without the need formally to lay the framework document before Parliament.

Amendment 30 proposes a fixed three-month sunset period, including a review prior to extension; this too was debated at length in Committee. As I set out then, while we understand the importance of ensuring that emergency measures do not remain in place indefinitely, a strict three-month limit is not appropriate for all emergencies. The nature and duration of emergencies can vary significantly: some may require short-term interventions while others may necessitate longer regulatory adjustments. As a result, we believe that the right approach is to tailor the use of time limits to the unique circumstances of the emergency, within the associated secondary legislation. We believe that this approach, supplemented by the use of the affirmative procedure, provides proportionate safeguards and ensures the right level of parliamentary oversight.

It is also important to emphasise that product regulations will form only one part of a broader national emergency response. Clause 4 is not a general power for deregulation, but an exceptional provision strictly limited to emergency situations. These measures will always be taken with appropriate safeguards in place, including time limits where appropriate, ensuring that derogation does not compromise public safety or consumer protections. For these reasons, I must resist these amendments once again and I humbly ask the noble Lord not to press them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord for his very detailed response. I also thank the other two noble Lords who spoke in this brief debate, particularly my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. The points he made—that these amendments still afford the Government plenty of flexibility, and of course the litigation point—were extremely good ones and I urge the Government to consider them in future deliberations on these amendments and the subject under discussion. Of course, I understand where the noble Lord is coming from, and I am reassured. On Amendment 29, I accept that the clear framework is going to be fairly and comprehensive, and I appreciate the offer of making sure that it is available for other noble Lords to study. We will of course study it in some detail, but I accept the point he was making, and I think he has given me sufficient reassurance.

On the three-month limit, I of course accept that the nature and duration of an emergency may vary. I still do not, if I am honest, see how that precludes explanation and parliamentary scrutiny, but because I am reassured by the noble Lord’s other remarks and his overall willingness to engage on this subject and others, I am more than happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 29 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was nearly subject to a flashback, when the when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned the internal market Act, to the memory of the long hours, deep into the night, spent debating the shortcomings and problems that Act could create—as, to some extent, it has. We are indebted to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Thomas, that the framework arrangement was brought into that Act to avoid the clashes that were almost certainly going to occur under its original drafting. We owe them a great debt, and on that basis we should listen when they talk to us on these matters. That is why I was happy to sign the amendment.

Happily, I do not have to add much to this, except that it is necessary. This consultation will happen one way or another. The Minister will know that I specifically asked him when we debated Amendment 9 to confirm from the Dispatch Box that the devolved authorities would be part of the consultation process as set out in the Secretary of State’s statement that will arise from this Bill. I hope that the spirit of this amendment can be in that consultation process and in that statement, so that the devolved authorities know that they will get access, which is very important for all the reasons that have been explained by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lords.

I have one final point on the Government’s attempt, which I think is sincere, to bring the nations of this country back together again. This is really important for lots of reasons, but it also calls into question how the common frameworks will be used in the future. I do not expect the Minister to answer now but he should set out, in either a letter or a meeting, how those common frameworks will develop. Some people may already know but I am certainly not aware of that. As we know, the future is changing and lots of things are happening. How will the common frameworks and central government’s liaison with the DAs adapt to deal with the changing trading environment? With those provisos, I am happy to support the amendment.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I could not agree more forcefully with the summation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. It was very well put indeed. In general, I also find that improving on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is nigh on impossible, so at this point I will confine myself to saying that I agree. On this occasion, I also join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in his remarks on the consultation; I hope it achieves the things that he has set out. I have nothing else to add, but I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

38: Clause 5, page 6, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not use any powers under this Act to remove or disapply the use of the pint as a unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages sold or marketed in the United Kingdom.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the pint remains an accepted unit of measurement for alcoholic beverages.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 38 standing in my name. As I stated in Committee, a pint of beer is not a bloodless, intangible item: it is a tangible institution. It is linked to our history and to a part of our heritage. The pint is a well-established unit of measurement in the UK that is recognised and understood by consumers and businesses alike. Removing or disapplying the use of the pint for alcoholic beverages would create unnecessary confusion, disrupt long-standing practices and sever a cultural and historical connection that has endured for centuries.

While we debate this issue of tradition and measurement, we must not lose sight of the real and immediate crisis facing pubs, brewers and the wider hospitality industry. The Budget announced by the Government has inflicted more damage on an industry that was already under enormous pressure. The UK’s core hospitality trade bodies—UKHospitality, the British Beer and Pub Association, the British Institute of Innkeeping, and Hospitality Ulster—have issued a stark warning. Pubs, brewers and hospitality venues will be forced to make painful decisions to weather these new costs, which will have a damaging impact on businesses, jobs and communities.

However, something else deserves mention here. Just recently, there was significant concern over how the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill could force pub landlords to monitor patrons’ conversations to avoid any potential harassment of staff. In effect, landlords might be asked to become the banter police, forced to scrutinise and restrict what customers say to avoid liability. After all of that, therefore, protecting the British pint is the very least the Government should do. I urge the Government to accept this amendment and protect the pint, and, more importantly, to ensure that our pubs and breweries remain places where our history, culture and heritage continue to flourish without unnecessary interference. I beg to move.

Amendment 38ZA (to Amendment 38)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

38ZA: Leave out from “to” to end and insert “amend or repeal section 8(2)(d) of, or Part IV of Schedule 1 to, the Weights and Measures Act 1985.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is not just about protecting the pint in the Bill; it would also ensure that the pint remains protected in law. That is why this amendment is rooted in primary legislation—the Weights and Measures Act 1985—rather than being limited to the scope of the Bill. By embedding these protections in the broader legislative framework, we ensure that the pint remains a legally defined unit of measurement, safeguarded from regulatory drift, ministerial discretion or future legislative changes that could weaken its status.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for introducing his own amendment, for two reasons. First, it got me thinking about the broad, and therefore possibly flawed, drafting of my own Amendment 38; secondly, the noble Lord’s amendment is also flawed. It addresses the marketing of the pint, which is important, but it does not mirror the wording of the Weights and Measures Act 1985. If sales are banned, marketing is redundant. A mere definition of the pint within this Bill does not ensure that the existing legally binding protections remain intact.

That is where my amendment is different: we are closing any potential gaps, removing any possible loop- holes and ensuring that the pint remains fully protected in trade, measurement and law, and, most importantly, that there can be no future confusion with regard to existing legislation.

In the other House, Daisy Cooper said that the pint is well and truly safe,

“so this scaremongering is just total nonsense.”—”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/25; col. 814.]

If that were true, why the change in Liberal Democrat hearts? Why introduce their own amendment on this matter? It seems that now, they recognise that explicit legal protection is necessary.

I understand that the Government were sympathetic to the purpose of my Amendment 38 but were concerned about the drafting and various technical details, so I hope this manuscript amendment addresses those concerns in full and will ensure that the pint remains Britain’s favourite. I hope the Government will now accept the amendment, and I look forward to their support, as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the Liberal Democrats.

“Fancy a pint?” remains one of the most pleasing questions in the English language. Let us make sure it stays that way. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when I saw the manuscript amendment some time mid-morning, I was disappointed. I thought we were not going to get a reprise of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which very few of your Lordships will have appreciated, because it was in Grand Committee, but I am relieved that he was able to give another rendition of it before speaking to the amendment. I understand he may take it on tour to provincial theatres—if he can get the backing.

The noble Lord having tabled this amendment, we then find a manuscript amendment, on which I have to say I congratulate the noble Lord. I have not participated in a manuscript amendment process before, so it was quite good to see it in action. As he noted, last week the Opposition chose to use some of their time in the Commons to debate the noble Lord’s then amendment. He mentioned the speech of my colleague, Daisy Cooper. I commend it to your Lordships, because it was both engaging and very thorough, setting out all the things the Conservative Government did to make the job of a publican much, much harder.

On a serious note, I join the noble Lord in saying, “Minister, please don’t repeat those errors. Many of Britain’s pubs are teetering on the brink; please don’t be the Government who make the final push.” But that is a debate for another day and another Bill, which we will see soon. The issue described by this amendment is not that fatal push for those publicans. For some inexplicable reason, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, chose to split his amendment from my Amendments 38A and 38B. I will be giving the speech I would have given, had they been in the same group, but I assure your Lordships that I will not then repeat that speech when we get to the next group.

I do not believe that the Minister or his Government have ever had any intention of banning the pint glass, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, does not believe that either. However, what we are talking about now is some form of reassurance. So while my honourable friend Daisy Cooper talked about this being unnecessary, she and I agree that this is an opportunity for the Government to reassure people that they have no intention of doing it, and that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned in a different context, a future Government would not have that option either.

I ask myself, if the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is so passionate about the pint, why does he not also care about the pinta? The iconic pint milk bottle is so redolent of the UK, and it deserves the same reassuring protection as the pint glass. I have to say that my father milked cows: milk flows through my veins. So I tabled Amendment 38A, which ensures that both the pint and the pinta enjoy the reassurance of this Bill. It was the tabling of this new amendment, Amendment 38A, that caused the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remember that, as well as bars, there are doorsteps. Perhaps the two should not be mixed—certainly not sequentially.

It caused him to realise that he was in danger of proposing an amendment that forgets the milkmen and women on their pre-dawn delivery rounds in so many of our streets—the whir of the float, the clink of the crates. A manuscript amendment was tabled this morning. I did not know that manuscript amendments could be used to completely change an amendment; I thought they were for spelling errors and suchlike. If my mother were still alive, she would have deemed it too clever by half. Sadly, she is not.

The purpose of this debate is to assure the public of the continuation of the use of this iconic imperial measure for the purposes we have discussed. I am not entirely sure that the manuscript amendment, Amendment 38ZA, buttons things down in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asserts, but I do know that Amendment 38A does this, in plain sight and with no cross-referencing.

I think that the Minister and I see eye to eye on this. That is why I am hopeful that he will indicate support for my Amendments 38A and 38B, and that the Government will accept both. It is clear that, in the event of that acceptance, the hastily amended effort from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would be unnecessary. Amendment 38A covers both alcohol and milk. By persuading the Government to accept it, we will have ensured clear and overt reassurance of the preservation of the pint and the pinta. This assurance, and the knowledge that this measure will endure and not be reversed by a Commons majority, are important. We will not support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, safe in the knowledge that we have rewritten the Bill effectively and avoided any reverse or any ping-pong.

--- Later in debate ---

I once again note the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and thank him for raising this issue. Indeed, I may well express my thanks by buying him a pint later, as I will definitely need one myself. With that offer, and in the knowledge that the alternative amendments will provide stronger protections for the pint than those he has proposed, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate both noble Lords on what were semantic masterpieces. The simple fact is that the amendment I have tabled transposes the language of the Weights and Measures Act 1985 in a very similar way to that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It does include the pint of milk. By the way, when the noble Lord said that milk runs through his veins, I am pretty sure I heard somebody behind me saying that it is certainly not blood.

This is a complex area, and I do not believe that these amendments are sufficient to save the pint. The simple fact of the matter is that sales and marketing are not the same thing. They may often appear in the same job title; that does not give them equal weight, or indeed equal measure. I am not satisfied with the answer. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 38.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as noted, I have already spoken to this amendment. I thank the Minister for indicating that the Government will support it and Amendment 38B. It is on the latter that I shall say a few words. If Amendment 38A is there to reassure, Amendment 38B is there to define. There have been a number of statutory instruments that define the units we use. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment 38B defines the volume of a pint in primary law as 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. For those of your Lordships querying the definition of a decimetre, I recommend the statutory instrument brought to your Lordships’ House during Covid in 2020. I believe that the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and I were among the only Peers physically in Parliament when he brought to Grand Committee his amendment to the Weights and Measures Act 1985. That enshrined an accurate definition of both the metre and the kilogram in law. For metrology fans, it is a debate that I thoroughly recommend. That said, I beg to move Amendment 38A.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Obviously, we do not have a huge amount to say at this precise moment, but I point out for the record that manuscript Amendment 38ZA included reference to Part IV of Schedule 1 to the Weights and Measures Act 1985, which also specifies 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Once again, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his masterclass in semantics. Had he accepted mine, this amendment would have been entirely unnecessary. With that, I have nothing left to say.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendments on preserving the pint in relation both to draft beer and cider and to milk in returnable containers. As I outlined on the last group, the Government propose to accept these amendments. They will bring greater clarity and certainty to protect the use of the pint, delivering the intent of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing these alternative amendments forward. I hope that the House will accept Amendments 38A and 38B. Having these workable provisions in the Bill will send an important message that the pint is here to stay. I look forward to raising a pint with both the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, in due course. Cheers.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under this Act, advance that purpose while prioritising the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy.(3) Accordingly, and so far as it is possible to do so, provision made by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect so as to achieve the purpose mentioned in subsection (1) to the extent that it is consistent with the maintenance of the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy.(4) When taking action to improve regulation under this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to maintaining the highest quality regulatory framework.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has a troubled history. It should not have been introduced to either House in its current form. It has now fallen foul of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on three occasions and of the Constitution Committee on two occasions. We acknowledge the Government’s efforts to assuage the DPRRC’s concerns, and we thank the Minister for engaging so fulsomely and openly and driving through a number of government concessions. Those concessions are welcome, and we will support them, but, regrettably, they do not go far enough, in our view.

I speak today about the critical importance of having a purpose clause in the Bill, and its implications for the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. In its current form, the Bill contains no explicit mention of respecting the UK’s regulatory autonomy, which is the foundation of a prosperous, independent economy. This absence is exactly why we need this purpose clause: to fill that gap and provide clear direction for the actions of the Secretary of State under the provisions of the Bill. After all, the reason we left the European Union was to regain the ability to make our own decisions, free from external control. Yet without this purpose clause, the Bill does not sufficiently safeguard the autonomy we have worked so hard to reclaim. This is precisely why we need this purpose clause. It explicitly addresses the need to protect and prioritise the UK’s regulatory autonomy in any actions taken under the Bill. It would establish a guiding principle that the Government must always act in a way that protects the UK’s sovereignty in regulating products and metrology, free from undue influence by foreign laws or regulations.

By explicitly requiring the Secretary of State to ensure that regulations are of the highest quality, this proposed new clause would push the Government to focus on creating a regulatory environment that stimulates rather than stifles business, and extend a clear message that the UK’s regulatory framework should encourage technological development, support start-ups, protect consumers and ultimately contribute to economic growth. We live in a highly competitive global market, where businesses need certainty and the freedom to operate according to clear and fair rules. A regulatory framework that ties the UK’s hands by aligning with foreign laws could create significant barriers to growth and innovation.

I appreciate that this preamble is lengthy in the context of an amendment on Report, but the proposed addition of this purpose clause makes sense only with some of that historical context. These arguments will inform many of our other amendments, so noble Lords will be relieved that they will not need to listen to them again too often.

If the Government are determined to force through this unfinished skeletal legislation in the teeth of perfectly reasonable objections from the committees of this House, and, indeed, from their own Attorney-General, the least we can do is give the Bill an overarching purpose: to improve the regulation of products and metrology, while prioritising the United Kingdom’s regulatory autonomy. If the Government are serious in their stated growth intentions—earlier today, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said, “We will always act in the national interest to secure what is best for Britain, British businesses and citizens”—surely they will find nothing to object to in either of those aims and will therefore accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I apologise to the House for not being able to be present at many of the earlier debates, but I have come specifically to hear the explanation of this amendment, and I have to say that I am not convinced. The purpose of regulation is, of its nature, to do the best for growth and for business, and if it is best for growth and business to have a regulation that aligns us with somebody else then that must be sensible. There is no reason to say that the priority is not to be aligned. Indeed, I rather think the opposite: the priority is probably, in most cases, to be aligned.

To tie the arms of a future Government on the basis that somehow or other we are living not in the world that we now live in but in some mysterious world that people would like to live in seems wholly unacceptable, and I must say that I am sad that the Government have been opposed on this basis. It runs through all these out-of-date amendments, all of which seek to reassess and restate the disastrous policy of leaving the European Union, which we all know to be a huge success—everyone, throughout the country, knows how very good it has been, so let us make it even better by making it even more difficult to try to come to terms with the world in which we now live. I very much hope that the House will not agree to this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have given up so many hours to meet me and my officials to go through this Bill. I really appreciate those meetings. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his amendment seeking to introduce a new clause about the purpose of the Bill. Likewise, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.

We have had many hours of debate on the Bill and I think that we all support the intent of this amendment—the importance of improving product regulation. On that, I hope that there is consensus. As the Secretary of State for Business and Trade pointed out when giving evidence to the Lords International Agreements Committee, the powers that the Bill would provide give the UK regulatory autonomy. If the previous Government had continued in office, they would have needed the same Bill.

We require this Bill, as powers in other legislation are inadequate for updating our extensive product metrology and regulatory regime and responding to new risks and threats. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about secondary legislation. This is about 2,000 pages of highly technical regulations. It is not a good use of parliamentary time to use primary legislation every time these are updated. There are, however, differences in how we go about improving regulation. That often requires a balance to be struck, such as where obligations sit, or regarding requirements that businesses must meet. That nuanced debate, which we heard during the Bill’s passage, may not be best served by introducing a broad “purpose to improve” in the Bill.

The Bill is about strengthening the UK’s regulatory autonomy. It will make sure that there are appropriate powers to regulate products to suit the UK’s needs and interests. Parliament will have ultimate control, with oversight of the regulations made under the Bill. The Bill is about providing powers to enable the UK to change regulation to suit the UK’s needs and interests, ensuring consumer safety and certainty for businesses. The Bill is necessary because we do not currently have those powers as a nation state. As I said earlier, all changes will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

I hope that I have been able to outline why this amendment is not necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, particularly my noble friends Lord Lansley, Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for their support of this amendment. I also thank my noble friend Lord Deben for his intervention, which gives me an opportunity to agree with my noble friend Lord Jackson that this is absolutely not about relitigating Brexit. Regulatory autonomy guarantees the freedom to pursue the best-quality regulation, as is made clear in the amendment. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:

“The purpose of this Act is to improve the regulation of products and metrology”.


There is no disagreement about that, and it more than takes care of the lawnmower that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to. Precisely as my noble friend Lord Lansley said, it allows the Government to retain control.

The Minister asserts that the previous Government would have delivered this Bill in its current form. They would not have done so; it would not have come in this form. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, this amendment is straightforward. There does not seem to be much disagreement about the purpose of the Bill. Therefore, I am at a bit of a loss as to why the Government will not just accept the amendment. As my noble friend Lord Jackson pointed out, it provides clarity, certainty and explicit purpose. I am afraid that I am not satisfied with the Minister’s response and would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fire Safety and Rescue. In that context, I support Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and endorse his comments on lithium batteries, given that I had similar amendments in Committee. Importantly, the product is not included, and I hope the Government will be able to take note of that and help.

I also support Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I think I was the first person at Second Reading to raise the question of criminal issues. The amendment helps us to get to a solution that provides scrutiny. Early scrutiny by Parliament is much stronger than the affirmative procedure.

I continue to support the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which is encapsulated in her Amendment 26. I also support the powerful example given to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman. However, I disagree, in that, in my view, tampons should be as well-regulated as blusher. They should be deemed to be a medical device, for all the biocidal reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, explained —and I will not rehearse those. I remind your Lordships’ House that paragraph 9 of the schedule at the end of the Bill removes medicines and medical devices as defined in the Medicines and Medical Devices Act. Unfortunately, with period and incontinence products there are health issues. If they are not defined under that Act, there needs to be some way of recognising that they have an impact on individual health. I therefore support Amendment 26 and hope that the Government will listen to that as well.

I should also point out that there is more information on the government website about the correct taxation of period products and incontinence products than there is elsewhere on the health issues.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments in this instructive and interesting debate. I am a little wary about speaking after finding out how much plastic is in our brains, because that is obviously potentially to invite unfavourable comment.

I shall speak sympathetically to my noble friend Lord Lansley’s Amendments 3 and 12. One of the many problems that we have already discussed at some length, now and in Committee, is the vagueness of the Bill as drafted. That lack of clarity creates significant uncertainty for both businesses and consumers, so I thank my noble friend for his contributions. His amendments offer important suggestions that could help to address some of these issues, particularly by expanding the definition of safety and, indeed, providing a definition of safety.

As technology continues to develop, it is critical that we recognise that our understanding of what constitutes safety must also evolve. My noble friend’s amendments reflect that forward-thinking approach, acknowledge that new technologies and innovations may require updates to safety standards over time and, by expanding the definition, would ensure that the legislation remained flexible and adaptable, allowing for future growth and innovation without sacrificing safety. As my noble friend pointed out, different language suggests different outcomes, so I hope the Minister will be able to address that in answering my noble friend’s questions. We believe that these amendments provide much-needed clarity in areas where the Bill could have been more precise, and we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for bringing this issue into sharper focus.

Amendment 7 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay—who, as the noble Lord, Lord Foster, pointed out, is president of the Chartered Trading Standards Institute—has significant merit. The noble Lord, Lord Foster, made a persuasive case, with some alarming statistics and illustrations. Consumers should have confidence that the products they buy, whether from a high street store or an online platform, are safe and, if things go wrong, that there is a clear route to accountability. By allowing regulations to extend liability to online marketplaces and ensuring the proper disclosure of evidence in claims for compensation, this amendment would strengthen consumer rights and help to create a fairer system. We will return at a later stage to the definitions of online marketplaces.

Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would also help to do things better. I should remind the noble Lord that, in effect, it would mean more consultation. I am reluctant to remind the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, of this, but the DPRRC, on which she sits, said in its most recent report on 21 February that

“consultation is not a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny”.

However, I recognise that, in pointing that out, I am probably flogging something of a dead horse.

I turn to Amendment 26 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which were spoken to—again, very persuasively—by the noble Baronesses, Lady Freeman and Lady Smith. These amendments address an important issue: ensuring that period products meet high safety standards while also considering their environmental impact. Given that these products are used by millions of women and girls, often over a lifetime, it is only right that their safety, composition and labelling are subject to clear and effective regulation; the list of organisations quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is illustrative of the interest in this particular area.

The safety and regulation of period products is a matter of both public health and consumer protection, so ensuring that individuals can make informed choices about the products they use is obviously essential. Amendment 26 seeks to introduce clear and necessary provisions for testing, marking and risk information, reflecting the need for greater transparency and oversight in this area. By addressing both single-use and reusable products, it acknowledges the evolving nature of the market while prioritising safety and well-being. We ask the Government to take further consideration and to carry out additional study on this important area—and, indeed, to expand it to some of the other areas that the noble Baroness mentioned, such as the formaldehyde that is present in non-iron shirts. Of course, one of the other uses of formaldehyde is to preserve dead bodies; I am not sure what that tells us about our sartorial choices, but there we are.

As the market for period products continues to evolve—particularly with increasing interest in reusable products—it is obviously essential that any regulation stays relevant and up to date, so we expect to return to this issue in future health-related Bills. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made some very good points about the fact that these products should be treated as medical devices; those deserve to be explored further. It is crucial that we continue to monitor and adapt the regulation of these products in order to ensure that public health and consumer protection are maintained.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. May I put on the record that I do not buy any non-iron shirts? I am pretty old-fashioned: I buy 100% cotton shirts.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for Amendments 3 and 12. Both in Committee and on Report, he has illustrated his thoughtful scrutiny of this legislation. A major element of our product regulations, and a focal point of this Bill, is consumer safety. Safety is at the very heart of this Bill, but products exist on a spectrum of risk, which can be mitigated to different levels and in different ways. That is why the Bill refers to risk rather than to safety.

Turning to Amendment 7, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Foster, for his consistent and thoughtful engagement on this issue; I also thank him for his relentless campaigning on both this issue and areas such as lithium-ion batteries and various other fire risks. In many ways, he has got to the nub of our system of product regulation with his amendment and his remarks: how do we consider risks from products? I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive discussions and for tabling Amendment 9.

As I set out in Committee, our current system of product regulation quantifies risk in a number of ways. At the most basic level, all consumer products must meet the baseline general safety requirements unless specific, additional or unusual risks are identified and they therefore need additional bespoke requirements; cosmetics or pressure equipment may be an example of that. Identifying and assessing risk are already at the very heart of Clause 1; indeed, it is inherent in passing product regulations that a risk must be identified in the first place. The powers in this Bill already enable regulations to consider product risks and the response to them in such cross-cutting ways.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to give a long analysis of the economics that demonstrate how poorly manufacturing businesses have performed since the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement, but that would have been a Second Reading speech, so I decided not to give it. Instead, I will speak to the amendments we have before us. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for tabling his amendment and for allowing me to sign up to it.

Members on the Conservative Benches seem to find terror wherever they go. There is danger; there are plots, schemes and Trojan horses all over place. I would not like to live in their world; it must be very frightening. This Bill does what it says it does, and this amendment does what it says it does. It makes simple a process that has been put forward very carefully and in a measured way by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool.

There are all sorts of things that the Liberal Democrats would like to do that are far more extreme than the noble Lord’s amendment, but we recognise the limitations of this legislation and the nature of what we are debating. That is why I have supported the noble Lord, Lord Russell. It is a simple and modest measure that has the practical benefit of helping out businesses.

To close, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, said that it would not be sensible to close off options—quite. Closer alignment with EU regulations within the government negotiated red lines would yield a boost to the UK economy of between 1% and 2%. That sounds like an option to me.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour and the closeness of the dinner break, I will also be very brief. I thank my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Jackson and Lady Lawlor for bringing forward these important amendments. I was happy to sign some of them. They raise a fundamental concern about the potential alignment with the European Union, specifically through regulations that could be made under the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Frost put it, that is a significant constitutional matter and, I might add, it is one that has been highlighted by the Constitution Committee—again, we are back to the committees of your Lordships’ House.

The issue at hand is that, as currently drafted, the Bill contains provisions which would allow the United Kingdom’s regulatory framework to align with EU laws in—this is key—a dynamic or ambulatory manner. This means that, as time goes on, our regulations could automatically change in line with the evolving laws of the EU without any further scrutiny or review by the Houses of Parliament. This is deeply problematic. It would allow the UK to be influenced by regulatory frameworks and standards that are set externally and potentially lock us into a regulatory direction that we do not wish to follow. That is not the same as saying that we should not be able to adapt, adopt, negotiate, recognise or seek mutual recognition of the best regulations from whichever equivalent regime they come from.

These amendments address and achieve the aims set out so eloquently by my noble friends. If my noble friend is minded to test the opinion of the House later, we will support him.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate. Although more general issues to do with Brexit have emerged, it has been very helpful to focus minds on what this Bill will actually do rather than the fears some noble Lords have expressed. In essence, all the Bill does is to allow the United Kingdom to choose to recognise or to end recognition of relevant EU product requirements where it is in the interests of both consumers and businesses so to do. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell. He was certainly right to acknowledge the contribution of chambers of commerce. I understand the point he made about business requiring transparency, predictability and stability, and I would add a flexible approach to alignment within that context.

Equally, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is right that the ultimate interest is the public interest—the interest of consumers. That goes to the heart of what we are seeking to do. Essentially, the power in Clause 1(2) will allow us to update UK regulations which address the environmental impact of products where a similar provision exists in EU law. We know the EU is updating its product safety regulations. We are seeing an increase in the changes being made, including provisions to mitigate products’ environmental impact. This power will allow us to provide regulatory certainty and stability for industry.

Let me make it clear that this is not designed to regulate the wider environment but to let us choose whether to make similar product rules where we believe it is in the interests of the country so to do. Clause 2(7) makes clear that we can provide that requirements in our own law can be satisfied by meeting specified EU requirements. We believe that this means we can act in the best interest of our businesses and consumers. Let me make it clear that these clauses in no way oblige the UK to recognise or mirror EU provisions. Let me reassure the House that we have been clear that such decisions will be taken only on a case-by-case basis and will be subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.