Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 26th June 2025 Lords Chamber

We have been lucky in the last few years, but the next big issue is waiting around the corner for us. We do not know what it is, but it is there and it will happen, even with the best will and security in the world. It is money well spent trying to avoid it. We know that illegally imported goods coming to this country is unacceptable, whether meat or not. The biosecurity effects could be catastrophic. The work of those in the industry is pretty important. It is not a waste of time to have biosecurity, whether on farms, in factories or, particularly, at the border ports where food is imported. It is the same at Heathrow, but we do not get so much meat coming there; it is mainly green fruit and veg. Ports such as Dover have to take it really seriously. We need to ensure they have the resources, willingness and powers to deal with it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment because I completely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has said.

In my time at Defra, there was a weekly biosecurity meeting covering a variety of things, such as invasive species. In particular, the risks of African swine fever and Xylella fastidiosa were probably our biggest concerns. Those concerns continue to rise, which is why the extra investment has gone in to support Border Force. There is a bit of a debate about Dover and Sevington—or, more accurately, Bastion Point—but nevertheless, officials recommended that Sevington be the principal gateway and that it be reinforced by the Border Force at Dover.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out quite extensively, this matters because it was often a challenge in government to try to get other departments to realise the impact of having something like African swine fever in this country. It would entirely wipe out our pig industry. Xylella fastidiosa would wipe out species after species of flora. This is why it matters for our national biosecurity. It was great to see particular reference to investment going into Weybridge in the security strategy.

Your Lordships should not underestimate what can be done by malicious actors trying to bring in this sort of element to disrupt our country. Although I know there is collaboration between the Border Force and port health in Dover and around the country, having this issue in the priorities of this new commander would give it the prominence it desperately needs—not just among officials but across Cabinet and Ministers.

As a slight aside, I welcome the investment in Weybridge, and I pay tribute to Dame Tamara Finkelstein. She is stepping down as Permanent Secretary at Defra and is leaving the Civil Service. Candidly, I think this will be the main legacy of her time at Defra. It has taken quite a few years and money has gone along the way, but having world-class facilities is vital to recognise the importance of this to our nation.

On how this could work as a priority, a lot of effort is going into the transition from the European Union and more on the border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Of course, there is no border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I fear a lot of effort is going into that at times, and I genuinely believe it has been completely and utterly unnecessary. We need to keep our focus right around the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, is particularly focused on Dover, and I understand why. Candidly, a lot of stuff coming in through the classic white van is going to different parts of the country. I also pay tribute to trading standards around the country, which has been tackling this issue. It is a limited resource in local government and is trying to do many other things as well, such as tackling illegal vaping and similar things. By bringing this into the Home Office as an issue of importance, that should then extend to it becoming a priority for our local police forces around the country too.

A lot of this is seen as quite low-level organised crime, but the impact could become truly devastating. I am very conscious that the Government want to make this Border Security Commander principally about the boats, people and illegal immigration, but we have the opportunity to consider a more strategic approach. Even if this is lower down in the priorities—not that I think it should be—at least it would be a shared agenda for one of the most important posts, which this Government are creating through the Bill.

I hope the Government will consider this. Defra works exceptionally hard on this and tries to work with other parts of government. This is an opportunity to stress how big this risk is and how malicious actors can do little things to massively disrupt this country. Just think back to 20 or 25 years ago and what happened with foot and mouth: it brought the country to a standstill, so much so that a general election was delayed. That is the sort of thing we need to think about. I hope this amendment will go through.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee that I am a small organic farmer and therefore have an interest in this. I also was the Secretary of State and Minister of Agriculture in the key area when we were trying to deal with BSE.

Looking back, it is amazing how we got through that period. Part of the reason was that we had a real reputation for protecting biosecurity here, so it was possible to get other countries to believe us when we said what we were doing and how we were doing it. As the person absolutely in the spotlight on this, I owed my predecessors enormously, because they created the circumstances in which it was possible to fight that battle.

It is very important, and I hope the Minister will accept this, because I honour him considerably and I think the Committee recognises what a considerable role he is playing. He can usually convince us that what he needs us to do is the right thing. I say to him personally: there is a problem if you have a Cabinet in which none of the people is a countryman or has a country constituency.

There are 9 million people who live in the countryside, and agriculture is one of our crucially important industries. Therefore, I hope the Minister will understand why we are very concerned that this should be in this Bill, because it covers a much wider range than doing the things that we might otherwise do in agriculture Bills and the like.

The truth is that, although the noble Lord and my noble friend have concentrated on the gangs and the people who make a lot of money out of it, one problem with biosecurity is that it is sometimes breached almost accidentally by individuals. You can bring really serious diseases in by bringing in a ham sandwich in the wrong circumstances and dropping it. I would just be frank about that end of it. We also know that there is considerable activity in bushmeats—in other words, meat which itself is illegal, as a matter of fact, but therefore has gone through no protective system at all—and the effects of that are really serious. We do not have to go into the details of some of the human diseases which have been spread by the use of bushmeats.

I recently had to spend a lot of time trying to get the Government of the time, a Conservative Government, to take seriously the problem of the growth in the number of wild boars in our forests and the fact that African pig diseases can get into that whole community and then threaten the entire British pig industry. I can tell the Committee why it was so difficult: it was because you were talking to people who did not appear to understand, first, that pigs have two litters and produce an awful lot of piglets, which can very soon get out of hand. They did not understand how close these wild boars were to the pig industry, and they had never really seen a wild boar—as somebody who had most of the lawn dug up by one, not all that time ago, I am quite strongly affected. I say merely that I found it difficult to explain to people how serious this was, why it mattered and what the effects were if we did not get it right, so I beg the Committee to support this change.

I know that the Minister wants to control the Bill, and one does not want to expand it, and I know that the Government are very concerned about that, but it is our only chance to remind everybody of the importance of biosecurity. The challenge is getting worse and worse. It is not just animals but, as my noble friend remarked, it is also about plants, invasive species and huge costs, and I end on that issue.

If we let this get out of hand, the cost to the national Exchequer will be enormous. We need only look at what we are trying to do about Japanese knotweed and all kinds of invasive species—we know what the monster wasp is likely to do, and we think of the American crayfish. I could go through a whole series of things that we would then have to deal with. Many people will know what we had to deal with with the escape of mink, for example. The control of our borders is crucial for biosecurity reasons, but it is crucial also to the Treasury—and, if I may say so, I have never found a department less understanding of how crucial it is to them. They ought to remember the cost of foot and mouth and the cost of BSE and all those diseases. Just think of what bird flu is doing to us at this moment. Therefore, I beg the Minister to take this very seriously.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled after Clause 75, which would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 in terms of emergency service provision and the broader resilience of our public infrastructure during industrial action. These are pragmatic and proportionate amendments, and I regret that they are even necessary, but the manner in which Clause 75 proposes to repeal this legislation—abruptly and with no review, consultation or supporting evidence—leaves us no choice.

The 2023 Act was narrowly drawn. It applied only to a tightly defined set of sectors—ambulance services, fire and rescue, health, transport, nuclear decommissioning and border security—in which a complete withdrawal of labour poses serious and obvious risks to life, safety, national security or national functioning. It did not ban strikes or criminalise union membership. It allowed a minimum service level to be set, by regulation, after consultation with affected sectors. In other words, it was a public protection measure, a mechanism of last resort, and it mirrored provisions already in countries across Europe and beyond.

The Government now seek to repeal the law, seemingly on the basis that it achieved nothing. They will no doubt point to the fact that industrial action has continued since the Act came into force. Indeed, we know from statistics that 160,000 working days were lost to strike action in the first quarter of 2025 alone. However, that statistic proves nothing about the value, or otherwise, of the Act. It proves only that the right to strike continues to be exercised, as it should be.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act was never intended to eliminate strike action, and its success should not be judged by whether workers stopped striking. It should be judged by whether the public was kept safe when strikes did happen, whether ambulances still reached heart attack victims, basic fire cover was maintained and border infrastructure functioned at a minimum level.

That is a relevant test, and the Government have produced no evidence to show that those minimum protections were either unnecessary or ineffective. In fact, if the Act truly achieved nothing, why the rush to repeal it? Governments do not normally spend valuable legislative time repealing laws that they believe have no impact. The truth is that this law has teeth: it provides leverage, and it establishes a legal baseline. The Government want to remove it not because it is useless but because it places limits on how far certain interests can allow disruption to stretch.

Even if one believes the Act was flawed, the responsible course would be to review its effects before repealing it, particularly when the law was so recent and implementation across sectors was still under way. Consultations on minimum staffing levels had not been concluded in all sectors, practical guidelines had only begun to take shape and the real-world application of the law was still emerging, so to repeal it now is to abandon public protection in the name of political symbolism, to uproot a tree before it even had time to settle and declare it a failure for not bearing fruit.

What is most striking, however, is that the Government have provided no evidence that repealing the Act will lead to improved industrial relations, despite making that very claim in the impact assessment for this Bill. It is asserted almost in passing that the removal of the Act will restore trust or reduce tensions in negotiations, but where is the proof of that? Where is the analysis? Where is the independent data or stakeholder feedback to support that optimism?

We are told to take it on faith that repealing a legal framework designed to protect the public will somehow produce a more harmonious climate between unions and employers. But we are not here to govern by faith—we are here to scrutinise and to ask hard questions, and to legislate with due diligence. I put this to the Minister directly: can the Government point to any serious evidence, whether from unions, employers, emergency service leadership or international examples, that repealing this Act will improve negotiation outcomes, reduce disruption or lead to faster resolution of disputes? If not, why are we legislating in the dark?

What is the Government’s alternative? If we strip away the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, what replaces it? Nothing in the Bill offers an equivalent safeguard. There is no provision for voluntary cover agreements, no incentives for minimum staffing, no rapid arbitration scheme and no contingency powers for life and limb services. We must assume that the Government are content to simply let key public services fall to zero capacity during industrial disputes. There will be no legal recourse, no duty to plan and no obligation to protect the public. That is not reform.

Meanwhile, the public, who continue to support the right to strike in principle, also expect a functioning state. They expect to be able to call an ambulance and get one; they expect transport to limp along during industrial disputes, not collapse entirely; and they expect public safety to be preserved. The amendments before us are not extreme; they merely require a clear-sighted review of the implications of this repeal, something that any responsible Government would do as a matter of course.

I urge noble Lords to support these amendments. If the Government are confident that repealing the Act would strengthen industrial relations and carry no risk to public welfare, they should have no objection to reviewing that impact and reporting to Parliament. If they are not confident, I submit that the repeal should not proceed at all.

In short, the issue here is not ideology; it is competence. We are about to discard the only statutory mechanism for ensuring minimum service level provision during strikes—a model recognised across Europe and endorsed by ILO principles—without evidence, without a plan and without a single word of accountability to Parliament. As I said earlier, that is not governance; it is recklessness. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to each of the three amendments in this group, starting with Amendment 254. A significant part of the reason for the minimum services, as my noble friend has just laid out, was to recognise that certain issues were affecting daily life.

It is worth while considering the timing of aspects of this, not long after the end of the Covid lockdowns, and recognising the economic challenges that our country faced. In combination with people’s need to access urgent medical support, bearing in mind that a number of activities had been cancelled many times already, the impact of seeing further strikes—cancelling a basic level of operation for patients—was starting to become potentially very difficult for the country to manage and for patients in getting better.

Other sectors were also discussed, and transport is a good example. I expect that none of the train operating companies used this, partly because many of them found different ways to keep trains running on a basic level—good examples of that would be Greater Anglia or South Western Railway. Greater Anglia will soon become a nationalised rail operator, so I would be very interested to know—I appreciate that the Minister may not have an answer today—what the practice will be in the future as a consequence of this. At the time, the operating company Abellio was able potentially to have gone to this piece of legislation to keep trains running, although it did not have to. Will nationalised rail companies be allowed to continue to keep services running so that users can get to work, or wherever they need to go, even though there are other people on strike? My expectation, candidly, is that no nationalised company will in any way go against any trade union strike. I cannot see a Labour Government Minister using that, so by repealing this legislation the Government will have lost a lever on behalf of many of the users of public services, or services put forward for public use, across the country.

At one point there was a discussion about schools. A similar issue had arisen with children during Covid, through no fault of their own and no fault of the teachers. Schools were kept open, by and large, physically for certain workers but also online. Undoubtedly, there was a challenge for education but also, frankly, the inconvenience to working parents when schools go on strike is particularly harmful and is disruptive to those families and the wider economy. But it was decided not to do that. We reverted back to making sure, in the spirit of the Act’s intentions, that we would keep it to what were deemed to be absolutely key public services. Otherwise, there would have been significant detriment to the wider public.

Amendment 258, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on a review into the impact on small businesses, would be very helpful. Huge changes are being put in place after nine years of a piece of legislation that from the economy’s perspective has worked reasonably well. I appreciate that the trade unions may not have liked it—and I recall it being voted against, back when this was being debated in the House a decade ago—but it is vital to the wider economy that we get our companies growing.

It seems to change every time, but I think that overall the number one mission of this Government is growth and the economy. Yet they are starting to do things, through this Bill and other situations, that seem to be driven by ideology rather than pragmatism and practicality. As a consequence, the basics and the consequences of some of this legislation, or the repealing of existing legislation, need to be considered in proper economic depth. I would love this to have happened with an updated impact assessment for us to consider before we conclude the Bill. By the way, I am grateful to the Minister for making sure that the letter the Secretary of State sent me has been placed in the Library so that every Peer can see it, but it worries me that that issue will not be considered further.

Amendment 256 links with the idea of a certification officer. I will come to series of amendments on that soon, so I am not sure how much of a certification officer role will be left. When it applies its thoughts on how it goes about the enforcement of the laws to which it is subject—and which it is also doing on behalf of trade union members—it should consider our role in the world and, in particular, how that contributes to make sure that we have a growing economy. I am sure all Members of your Lordships’ House would agree that we need it to grow.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 76 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this whole group of stand part notices is basically about the removal of powers from the certification officer. We have already debated Clause 77. In thinking through what is going on here, I wondered whether there would be anything of a certification officer left, because it feels like a lot of this stripping out of certain aspects—for example, in Clauses 79 to 83—is very limiting in terms of what could be left to be done.

Since the Trade Union Act 2016 came into effect, the world has somewhat moved on in terms of transparency and wanting to know what is going on in an organisation. I appreciate they are not state bodies, but trade unions play an important role in our country. It is important that, while recognising there is a declining membership, not in the public sector but in the private sector, for those people who are contributing money every week, every month, every year—whatever it is—having a good amount of information in a consistent way is a good thing in terms of thinking about how we promote aspects of transparency.

We have had considerable debate, as I say, about Clause 77. But I am struggling to understand what the issue really is—why it is so difficult for these things to be produced. In thinking about investigatory powers, let us put a bit of reality or real life into this. There has been a situation within the last six months where an election for the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union happened. On a 29% turnout, a person was elected. That turnout of votes equated to something like fewer than 10,000 people casting their votes in favour of that candidate. However, it was subsequently discovered that 3,000 ballot papers were not issued. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but the difference between winning and losing was less than 3,000. Understandably, the person who lost, who had been in post for nearly 20 years, was somewhat aggrieved. However, when it was decided there had obviously been a breach and something had gone wrong, the certification officer went through a proper process. The Government may well argue that it would have been safer to email out ballots, or do an online ballot, rather than relying on the post. I am sure the union staff were not the only people struggling with things not being delivered by Royal Mail at that time. However, after that process, the losing candidate chose not to require the election to be rerun, which would have been within the gift of the certification officer. In terms of general justice, without having to go to the expense of going to the High Court, a certification officer was a simple way to try to remediate something that was clearly unfair.

However, the person who lost—I am not going to name them—was then very quickly appointed general secretary of another trade union. This time, that was challenged directly by the union’s members. In that instance, I think they went not to the certification but immediately to the High Court. So, one person having lost an election, another trade union—that is the teaching union—used its procedures incorrectly to put them in place as its new general secretary. Then, thanks to the legal challenge, the executive committee of that union recognised that it had not acted properly. This same person, by the way, is still acting general secretary of that trade union. The election commences on Thursday; it is up to the members who they decide to vote for, of course.

I looked at the fairness of a variety of the decisions that the certification officer made over time, and the same teaching union was in breach a few years ago because its general secretary outstayed their elected term. They were then made an acting general secretary and, about a year later, there was another election. It is very expensive if trade union members have to go to the courts over these sorts of things. As I researched these clauses and found out what has happened in real life, it reminded me somewhat of Animal Farm, and how—what was it?—“Two legs bad, four legs good” evolved over time to suit the needs of those who decided that they would be in charge.

I appreciate that trade unions might feel that we should not need to have a certification officer, but these are good examples of where people have had recourse to an independent person who, by law, is not subject to ministerial direction. Those people can have complete confidence in the integrity of the certification officer, and that going to them will lead to somebody having a look, without the cost of going to the High Court—as we know, that is expensive. I understand that Labour has this mantra that it is going to repeal anything to do with the 2016 Act, but I really want the Government to consider why, seeing some of the changes that have happened. By the way, at the same time, they are bringing in different rules for employers in dealing with their employees. It is perfectly valid for them to do so, but just imagine the impact these sorts of stories have. It so happens that both the trade unions in my examples are public sector unions, and we have seen their overall membership increase, but we should not be surprised if lack of confidence has started to drift people’s concerns away on why they need to pay to be a member of a trade union.

I wish the Government would consider carefully what the removal of any of these clauses would do to help the average worker and the average trade unionist, who may not be highly connected and may not have chosen to join a political party or to dedicate their lives, from quite an early age, to being part of that trade union leadership. They should also think about, and this is one of the reasons why I got triggered, what happens when somebody completely left-field—or right-field, whatever—comes in and their union’s ruling body decides, “Yeah, we like the look of that person” and they are not sure why; it may have felt sorry that he had just lost an election elsewhere. Let us think carefully about whether it is the right approach to remove all these powers from the certification officer, which I think people from every level can see are used, rarely and not extensively, to apply some common sense.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lady Coffey. I thank her for bringing forward these crucial amendments to oppose Clauses 76 and 78 to 83 standing part of the Bill. In doing so, she not only upholds the integrity of trade union regulation but calls out a deeply troubling double standard in the Government’s approach to industrial relations.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

257A: After Clause 83, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to consider employer offerAfter Section 69 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, insert the following new section—“69A Right to consider employer offerA trade union must present any offer from the employer to their membership for a vote whether or not the trade union supports the offer.””

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords may think that this amendment is a little odd: why does there need to be a right to consider an employer offer? It came about because of something that happened in the Port of Felixstowe within the last few years. At one point there was huge frustration on the part not just of the employer but of several workers, because, with the union and the employer negotiating in good faith—I am not criticising the union at all—the offer then made did not need to be put to the members. I am not suggesting that this is a loophole: I appreciate that there is back and forth and a current requirement to give lots of notice, with everything being done by post and so on. I can understand that it may not be reasonable that, every time an employer moves by a penny or so, that has to be spelt out. That would be truly ridiculous, but there is something to be said for establishing what is going on. Where is the leverage being applied?

Unfortunately—and I am not saying that there is a causal link between the two issues, but there is definitely a correlation—after a considerable number of strikes in the port of Felixstowe, within 18 months it was announced that a significant shipping line would no longer use Felixstowe as its principal destination in the United Kingdom but would go to the new London port at Tilbury instead. As I say, I am not saying there is a direct causal link, but I have my concerns about the lack of reliability. This, by the way, was the first dispute in 30 years at the port of Felixstowe, and it was quite fractious. It got more fractious because people started to break the strike. I understand that that is not the ideal place for people to be; nevertheless, people—although not everybody—felt that their union was not looking after them and their interests, but perhaps starting to look after the national interest. That led to quite a lot of aggro, not just face to face but on Facebook, with families falling out. In quite a small community, the impact of that can be quite substantial.

When I was speaking to people who worked at the port and to the employer, what stayed with me for some time was that they would have liked the chance to vote, even though the organisers of their local union—or, as they believed, the national union—decided they could not. For that reason, and recognising the transition that is coming as a consequence of the Bill, such as moving to much greater use of digital ballots, there is something to be said for enabling workers not to have to go through something as awful as breaking a strike. I understand why trade union members do not want to do that; but they feel that things need to be done in their interests locally, and that their employer should be allowed to make the offer.

I have put the amendment in this way—I am conscious of what the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, who is no longer in his place, said earlier—because employers should not be trying to get around all sorts of rules to stop people being members of trade unions. That is already protected in law; the noble Lord referred to a situation that has only recently been resolved.

In effect, this amendment addresses one of the trade union disputes in my experience that I believe has had a consequential economic impact on a key part of the east coast. I should say that I intend to respond to comments made on this amendment.

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

The noble Baroness will need to because it is an amendment, and therefore at the end one has to ask for it to be either considered or, by leave, withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendment 257A. I am happy to explain to the noble Baroness that this amendment is not appropriate.

As the noble Baroness knows, trade unions are already required by existing legislation to ballot their members before commencing any industrial action. Union executives are therefore required to obtain a mandate from their members to negotiate with their employer on their behalf before industrial action can commence. We believe that union executives, as representatives of their members, are best placed to judge whether an offer is acceptable and in the best interests of the union members before deciding whether to ballot their members. Balloting members is a considerable financial and administrative challenge and repeated ballots could cause an unnecessary burden—as well as confusing members as to what was being proposed and the likelihood of a higher offer.

Amendment 257A would also remove the power of union executives to negotiate on behalf of their members for a deal that they consider will deliver before balloting members on an offer. This is one of the main reasons that members join a union: they delegate to those negotiators to get the best deal for them. The negotiators will have done a great deal of detailed research on economic indicators, what is happening in their market, on the knowledge of the financial stability of the business, and so on. They will take a very wide range of factors into account into that bargaining process. This is why, quite often, negotiations take time, because all those factors have to be discussed in some detail in a way that an individual member would not be able to do.

Furthermore, the amendment has no safeguards to prevent gaming. Were we to accept it, there are risks that employers could submit multiple derisory offers to unions in order to interfere with the industrial action ballot mandate by forcing the union to constantly re-ballot members on derisory offers at the cost of the union. As the noble Baroness said, balloting on small increases would be ridiculous, but this is exactly what her amendment would require.

We consider, therefore, that existing legislation is effective. As union representatives are elected by their members to represent them, union executives should have the discretion as to whether they put an offer by an employer to their membership. If a union executive believes an offer is acceptable, they should be free to put that offer to their membership and make that judgment at the time.

We think the noble Baroness’s amendment is unnecessary; the current system works well, and it brings great benefits to individual members. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. She will be aware that I am a Back-Bencher and I do not have hundreds of civil servants crafting the perfect amendment and saying when to discuss these sorts of issues.

I am conscious that through the Bill, the mandate will be extended to 12 months. There is, therefore, the potential for handing over considerable power that is delegated to negotiators. I fear there will be situations that develop that can have economic consequences on workers when there are spats that not everybody wants to be involved in. I recognise all the other changes the Government are making in digitising the operations of the trade unions, and that is why I thought it was worth discussing at this point.

This has been a very useful debate. I thank my noble friends Lord Fuller and Lord Hunt for their support and consideration—and their experience, particularly that of my noble friend Lord Fuller. Having taken all this into account, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 257A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

257B: Clause 85, page 106, line 11, leave out “subsection (5)” and insert “this section”

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 257B simply because I did not see the answer in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill. This is quite a straightforward one for the Minister.

In Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the regulations are normally done by negative resolution—or the annulment, as set out in new subsection (6). However, I want to understand why the Government felt that these particular regulations needed to be done through the affirmative procedure. They are not the only changes—that I am aware of—in the Bill to that section, or others, of the Act. Can the Minister explain why they have been singled out? Given the trend of your Lordships’ House over many years, why do we not move to having affirmative resolutions instead of annulments for these ones in the future? I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendments; they are measured, necessary and principled amendments to Clause 85, which rightly restore a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that had been quietly eroded in the original draft of the Bill. As we stated at Second Reading, there are 173 delegated powers in the Bill, which is unacceptable—not just to those the legislation will impact, but to the House.

In the Minister’s contributions on similar legislation in the past, she expressed her strong reservations about the use of delegated powers. I recall well her interventions, which were made with clarity and conviction, as she tabled amendments recommended by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. But we now find ourselves considering a clause that does precisely what she once warned against because it carves out certain sensitive and constitutionally significant areas and exposes them only to selective scrutiny.

The original version of Clause 85 created a two-tier system. Some regulations would require affirmative approval from this House, while others—no less consequential—would not. This piecemeal approach to oversight is not only undesirable but unnecessary. Regulations made under Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act are not merely technical: they pertain to fundamental matters, such as the rights of trade unions, the balance of power between employers and employees, and the protections afforded to those who take lawful industrial action. It is therefore only right and proper that all regulations made under this section should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure: they should be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

My noble friend’s amendment achieves this. It does so with economy of language, but with significant constitutional consequence. It removes the artificial distinction introduced by subsection (5), and instead applies a uniform standard of scrutiny to the entirety of Section 293.

Since the Government took office, many of us across these Benches have expressed concern about the growing use of skeleton Bills, Henry VIII clauses and broad enabling powers that allow Ministers to legislate without adequate consultation or scrutiny. This amendment is a quiet but firm step in the other direction back towards balance, principle and the proper functioning of Parliament.

Again, I thank my noble friend for tabling her amendment, and I hope the Government will not merely accept it but embrace it to show their commitment to transparency and to the constitutional propriety of this House.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. I remember standing before him during the PRaM Bill and we discussed this very matter. Some of this negative resolution is required because not only does it save parliamentary time but it is technical. Anyway, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling Amendments 257B and 257C, which would make all the powers under Clause 56 subject to the affirmative procedure, as well as existing regulation-making powers that are currently covered by the negative procedure, by virtue of current Section 293 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

It is worth noting that most of the access regulations are already subject to the affirmative procedure. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, only four of the 12 delegated powers are subject to the negative procedure. Given the technical nature of those delegated powers, and to save parliamentary time, the Government are of the position that making them subject to the affirmative procedure would not be appropriate.

Further to this, as mentioned in previous debates, all regulations under Clause 57 will be consulted on via public consultation, the outcome of which will be published for all to see. This is an important process, which will help ensure that our policy development is informed by the practical experience and needs of trade unions, businesses and stakeholders.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will have noted in previous debates in this place that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that

“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”—

the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned 173—it had

“only found four on which to raise concerns”.

Clause 56 was not one of those. Therefore, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to withdraw Amendment 257B.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. Undoubtedly, in the last decade, this House has started to move to have far more under the affirmative procedure, so it gets a level of scrutiny, although I appreciate your Lordships’ House does not vote against them. That is how to make sure legislation is properly considered, recognising it will be put to debate, which is certainly not the case with many regulations considered in the negative way. With that, I beg to withdraw.

Amendment 257B withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is getting late—it is more than an hour and a half past my preferred bedtime—so I am going to show incredible restraint: although I have signed five amendments, I will speak to only three. I see that the Chief Whip is scowling at me even before I have started, so obviously I am going to milk it for all it is worth.

As a Green, I see that, with every decade of globalisation, this country has had less industry and more of our public services sold off to foreign owners. I do not understand why that has happened; it does not seem to be good business. The next step, of course, will be freeports, where basic rules and protections just disappear. That is where this country is heading. We need the return of strong trade unions to help turn the tide. Each of these amendments aims to give back the power that organised labour once had.

Amendment 239 would enable workers to act collectively if the employer has dismissed someone for downing tools. That person might have refused to work for all sorts of reasons: they might have been asked to do something dangerous, been asked in an abusive way or been asked to do something beyond their job description.

The Chief Whip is making me laugh now.

There are a lot of good reasons why somebody might walk out, and their colleagues can judge whether they are sensible.

The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said he only really wanted to talk about Amendment 240. I agree that it is quite important because modern industry and services are broken up into small, interconnected companies and subcontractors, and it is essential that workers are able to bring their grievances to the attention of other workers in closely related workplaces. Employers do not like it because it is working people acting in solidarity with each other. It is one set of workers asking another set of employees to make their own decisions about which side they are on.

The idea of democracy does not stop at the ballot box, not that we would know much about that; it should be in the workplace as well. Last week, I met a trade unionist from Italy. He and his coworkers took over the GKN factory in Florence. They are trying to move as a co-operative working force from making parts for very expensive cars to making eco-bikes and solar panels. It is a fantastic opportunity, and I really hope they are successful.

Amendment 241 is the most crucial of these amendments as it restores the right of workers to take industrial action to be recognised as trade unionists. This is the most basic of rights, and it is shameful that a Labour Government have not put this into the Bill. What is Labour for if it is not about working people? Everything else, apparently.

The decline in trade unions has led to the growth of the gig economy and spurious self-employment. The age of secure employment and regular hours has become a fading dream for far too many. This amendment is another small step towards giving people some power in their workplace. Collective bargaining should be automatic in workplaces if a large enough group of employees want it. With so many employers unwilling to take that step, it is crucial that those employees have the right to strike and demand that recognition from an employer.

I would like a just and fair society. The richest 50 families in the UK hold more wealth than the bottom 33.5 million people. How is that okay? I argue that it is not. Nothing in this country works properly any more because the gap between the richest and the poorest is increasing every single day. Those on a low income are being left behind and those on middle incomes are being fleeced by privatised services. Strong trade unions are one way of helping people find a bit of power and control in their lives—these amendments enable that.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for bringing this into our debate but, candidly, his Amendment 240 is truly extraordinary. The only success Flying Pickets had was a number one in 1983 with the single “Only You”—and, by the way, that was a copy from the great band Yazoo. The idea that we would go back to flying pickets is just extraordinary.

Some 45 years on, no sensible Labour Peer has put this forward until tonight. I genuinely find it astonishing that we are here still debating the idea that it is democracy for a strike to be called somewhere else all of a sudden and for you to go off somewhere else for a dispute you are not part of.

While I appreciate the erudite speech we have heard tonight, going back to the real substance and principle of this, this is an important Bill. I do not agree with a lot of it, but I find it extraordinary that we are going back in time when this country actually needs to move forward in modern industrial relations. I regret the amendments that have been tabled today.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak against this amendment very briefly. I agree wholly with my noble friend Lady Coffey. I also agree that the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was very persuasive, compelling, detailed and comprehensive, but completely wrong. It would be a disaster for our country if we were to go back to the era of Saltley coke works, Grunwick, the disaster inflicted on the automotive industry, flying pickets and the closed shop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, I am embarrassed to keep your Lordships even a few minutes more, but I stand to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and my noble friend Lord Jackson in his opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and to introduce my own opposition to Clause 66 standing part. Thus, I go further than the noble Lord Goddard, even though I very much support his words.

Why is Clause 65, in combination with Clause 66, so damaging? The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was quite right to focus on the democratic legitimacy of the provisions of Clause 65, but there is a further, even more key, set of problems with these clauses. With noble Lords’ permission at this very late hour, for which I apologise, I will give a very brief review of the history.

Let us first look at days lost to strikes in the 1970s. In 1970, 10 million days were lost; in 1972, 24 million days were lost; and in 1979, 30 million days were lost during the winter of discontent. We consequently had the Thatcher reforms, which outlawed secondary action, banned strikes conducted for political reasons, regulated picketing, required secret ballots for strike action, and made trade unions legally accountable for actions taken in their name. This enabled unions to restore control and reduce the number of unofficial strikes, which had been a major source of the growth in strike activity in the 1960s and 1970s. The result, post-Thatcher through to the 2020s, was that, on average, less than half a million days a year were lost to strikes. Industrial peace was a direct consequence of those reforms. There were no more winters of discontent. This was enormously valuable, for example, for the Blair and Brown Governments of the noughties.

Let us note that the Government’s Bill seeks to eliminate very few of those specific Thatcher reforms. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which we have just discussed, made an attempt at that; I am glad to hear the Government sensibly decline his invitation. However, even though the Government apparently see the sense of leaving most of the Thatcher reforms in place, they seem, in Clauses 65 and 66 in particular, to be looking to find other ways to unionise the private sector landscape.

If the Government succeed in that, there will be inevitable consequences for the UK’s economy. Last week, it was observed that unions are currently mostly confined to the public sector in the UK, but nobody asked why that was so. It is obviously because public sector workers have a monopoly of employment, so can enforce their will, and timid Governments seek to placate them so as to be able to appear, at least, to be in charge. What is the impact of this? They are multiple public sector strikes and excessive wage settlements in the public sector, the costs of which are now directly leading the Chancellor to her current dilemma of a runaway deficit, plus underserved public services such as social care and child welfare, and an impending debt crisis.

What will Clauses 65 and 66 collectively do to the union landscape in the UK? Clause 65 removes Section 226(2)(a)(iia) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, meaning that for the ballot to be valid, you no longer have any floor for the percentage of employees voting. Clause 66 alters subsection (2)(a)(iii) so that only a majority of those voting would be required for a strike to go forward. One businessman whom I spoke to just today was utterly startled by this news. He runs an SME employing 36 workers. If, say, one-third of them—12 people—vote, and only six of those 36 employees vote to strike, then you have a strike. It is not hard to find six out of 36 employees to vote for a strike.

However, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, democratic? Will the electorate’s heart warm to this quantitative gerrymandering? As I described just now, we all see the impact of unionisation in the public sector. What will happen in the private sector if this Bill, in the undemocratic manner that the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has so rightly decried, passes?

I described last week in this Chamber some of the past, when unionisation destroyed industries such as the London docks, and the present, when the public is tormented by public sector strikes ranging from dustbins to doctors and from teachers to train drivers. This present-day public sector malaise, if it spreads to the private sector, will, as my noble friend Lord Hunt made clear, take us straight back to the 1970s and the winter of discontent.

If the Government are, sensibly, really not proposing to change much of the Margaret Thatcher reforms, which have brought industrial peace to the private sector at least, why is there any need to bring in these new anti-democratic changes? Do the Government really think that allowing strikes to go forward, with feasibly only 10% or even less of employees voting for the strike, will be seen by the public and indeed by the other 90% of the employees of that company as anything but outrageous and leading to even more strikes, even more outrageous wage settlements, even more yawning deficits, even, dare I say, a very large and this time real economic black hole?

If the Government proceed with these changes, the inevitable consequent industrial strife will be laid at their door. The Labour Party saw what happened to it in the 1979 election as a result of the winter of discontent. Why is it now seeking a similar fate in 2029? I urge the Government to withdraw Clause 66 and indeed Clause 65.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to the amendments that I have signed. I do not actually wish to add anything on Amendments 244 and 246 as what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, said was straight to the point. I agree with him absolutely on those matters.

I just want to briefly turn to the Clause 71 stand part notice and Amendment 251A from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, explained it very eloquently. Why, when we are getting into this level of legislation, does it really matter about going from 14 days to 10 days? Actually, it does. There are wider consequences of some of these legal changes which need to be recognised in terms of the practicality of some of this legislation. It would be very helpful to hear from the Minister why that particular move is being made.

The other reason I oppose entirely Clause 71 standing part—to be more accurate, it is probably about subsection (1)(b)—is the categories and the NHS and trying to prepare for strikes. You never know exactly how many people will go on strike when you are running a hospital or other parts of the NHS. Having a clear sense of what capability you are still going to be able to run is critical for patient safety and for patients getting better.

I hope that the Government consider the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, when it comes to the airline industry. I hope Ministers will also carefully consider the NHS in their deliberations, because that genuinely can mean the difference between life and death or, to be less dramatic, whether a whole series of operations will need to be cancelled for many patients across the country. I genuinely believe, recognising that health unions are currently issuing ballot papers, that Ministers should be carefully considering what impact this new clause would have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

The point remains that there was not a threshold mandate for the few referendums that we have had. I maintain my point that ballots and elections are not really analogous, and there is danger for everyone in trying to compare the two.

The removal of the initial requirements imposed by the 2016 Act will reduce the red tape on trade union activity that works against their core role of negotiation and dispute resolution.

On the opposition to Clause 69, the purpose of the clause is to amend Section 234 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 to change the mandate period for industrial action following a successful ballot from six months to 12 months without the possibility of extension, which we have already discussed in Amendment 246. Among other things, the clause brings the appeals process back in line with the position before the Trade Union Act 2016 and many other enforcement bodies of employment law. For example, appeals against the decision of employment tribunals are considered only on points of law, not points of fact.

Amendment 249, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, would require unions to publish results of industrial action ballots on a publicly accessible website, removing the current obligation to notify individual members and employers directly. The Government recognise that the current arrangements can impose a communications burden on trade unions, especially where first-class post is used to provide the notification to members and employers. However, removing the requirement to send direct notification risks reducing the accessibility and certainty of this information to those entitled to receive it. In our view, it undermines transparency and thus confidence in trade unions and the balloting process. Relying solely on a website assumes that members and employers will proactively seek out information, which could lead to disputes over whether that proper notification has occurred. Direct notification ensures clarity and transparency.

To address concerns about the administrative burden associated with these communication standards, the Government intend to update the Code of Practice: Industrial Action Ballots and Notice to Employers to encourage the use of email in place of posts where practicable. This approach preserves the principle of direct communication while reflecting modern methods of engagement and reducing administrative costs. For these reasons, I am afraid the Government do not support this amendment.

Amendment 251, again tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy, seeks to simplify requirements on trade unions when issuing notices. While the Government understand the desire to streamline procedures, these notice provisions serve a vital purpose in ensuring that employers have the necessary information to plan for and respond to industrial action. The Government are already reducing the minimum notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 days, and removing the specific requirements that unions must provide in notice for industrial action, such as to disclose the number of employees in each category. This amendment risks removing too much detail, potentially leaving employers unclear on the nature, scale and timing of the action being proposed. Again, I am afraid, this is why the Government do not support my noble friend’s amendment.

The last amendments in this group are Amendments 251A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hutton of Furness, and Amendment 251B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government do not support either of these amendments because our general position is not to make sectoral carve-outs from the limitations and conditions which apply to industrial action. This is consistent with our repeal of the 40% support threshold for industrial action and ballots in the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act that set further conditions on industrial action in some public services. The same statutory notice period for industrial action across all sectors ensures a simple rule that is clear for all parties involved and that applies in all circumstances. It is then for employers in each sector to manage their industrial relations and their businesses accordingly. However, my noble friend Lord Hutton has some specific concerns around the airline industry and we are happy to meet to understand these concerns further.

The issue of the Clause 71 standing part of the Bill was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Alongside our manifesto commitment to repeal the 2016 Act, the Government are committed to bringing in a new era of partnership that fosters meaningful engagement between government, employers and unions, and this is grounded in co-operation and negotiation. We recognise the importance of striking a balance between allowing for effective strike action while also ensuring that employers are able to reasonably prepare for industrial action when, sadly, it has to occur—I should say when workers have voted for it to occur.

Clause 71 makes targeted changes to Section 234A of the 1992 Act to simplify the process by which trade unions provide that notification. Specifically, we are removing one element from the current requirements: the need to specify the number of affected employees in each job category. Employers will continue to receive essential information, including the overall number of employees affected, the categories they belong to, and the workplaces concerned. This strikes a sensible balance between reducing bureaucracy and enabling employers to plan to mitigate the impacts of industrial action.

Clause 71 also reduces the notice period for industrial action from 14 days to 10 and, consequently, Section 8 of the 2016 Act will be repealed. Moving from a 14-day notice period to a 10-day notice period provides a more flexible, workable approach that reflects modern industrial relations practice.

We acknowledge that some groups argued for a return to the previous seven-day notice period, and that others have called for the current 14-day period to be retained. In our view, 10 days represents a balanced compromise. It is the appropriate balance in allowing employers the ability to plan to mitigate the impact of and reduce the disruption and knock-on impacts of strikes, while respecting the right to strike. It reflects consultation feedback, and allows employers time to prepare, while reducing the burden and uncertainty faced by trade unions. Taken together, these reforms simplify the industrial action framework and reduce unnecessary burdens and legal risk for trade unions.

Finally, Clause 72—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, I particularly focused on the NHS. I was not trying to see it as a sector—I was thinking of the categories and the number by category. I appreciate it is late, so if the Minister wants to write to me, I would be happy to receive that.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

For the sake of brevity and time and all of us staying awake, I will undertake to write to the noble Baroness.

Finally, Clause 72 seeks to reverse the effect of Section 10 of the 2016 Act, removing the requirement under Section 220A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 for trade unions to appoint a picket supervisor and to meet other administrative burdens in relation to this supervisor, such as taking reasonable steps to provide their name to the police.

As the period of disruption that I have already referred to between 2022 and 2024 has shown, administrative requirements and bureaucratic hurdles only make it more difficult for trade unions to engage in good-faith negotiations with employers. These changes will bring trade union law into the 21st century and fix the foundations for industrial relations that have not delivered for workers, employers or unions.

However, the Government recognise that regulations regarding picket lines are important. To be clear, the Bill is repealing only those measures introduced by the 2016 Act in relation to the role of a picket supervisor. Other legislation and an amended code of practice on picketing will remain in place. Picketing must take place at a lawful location and must be peaceful, and those on picket lines must not intimidate or harass workers who choose to attend work. We are returning the law on picketing to what it was prior to 2016, when it was working well and was understood by all parties.

In summing up, I hope my justification for these clauses and how they meet the Government’s intentions has been clear to noble Lords, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw Amendment 244.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I rise to move Amendment 141 in the name of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. She is, about now, talking about net zero to students at Oxford University. It was an engagement that was made some time ago, but she wishes to express her thanks to the Minister for arranging a meeting to discuss this and later amendments, and for the constructive dialogue that followed.

This amendment speaks for itself, but I would like to describe a case where it would have been applicable. It is that of 19 year-old Ellen Reynolds, from Glasgow, who worked a five-hour shift in a restaurant. She told the BBC:

“I ran food and drinks to customers … I cleaned the tables, set up the tables, swept the floor, took people to their seats … took a few payments on the card machine”.


Before that shift, she had to buy a shirt and trousers as a uniform, costing £20. Then, she got paid nothing, and she did not get a job out of it.

The Department for Business and Trade’s guidance on national minimum wage eligibility includes a section on unpaid work trial periods, which discusses to what extent the national minimum wage applies to work trials undertaken as part of a recruitment process. It says that work trials can help employers to

“decide whether the individual has the skills and qualities … for the job”,

and that unpaid work trials can be a

“legitimate practice”,

so long as they are not used

“to obtain work or services for which at least the minimum wage should be paid”.

That, I believe, is an invitation to abuse: the kind of abuse that Ellen suffered, being expected to work for nothing—not getting less than the minimum wage, but getting nothing at all. We hear reports of employers who do this to a succession of workers.

For those who would like to explore this issue in more depth than I have time for today, I point them to a debate in Westminster Hall on 29 March 2023, secured by Stewart Malcolm McDonald MP. That followed the introduction by the same MP of a Private Member’s Bill in 2017 seeking to achieve the same outcome as this amendment. That Bill that won the backing of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Students, among others. The commendably persistent MP reintroduced it last year. So, it has been an issue that has been around a long time but still has no solution.

If the Minister feels that the amendment is not properly drafted, I have been assured by my noble friend that she is in no way attached to the detail of how it is written, although she thanks the Bill Office for its assistance so far. The point is to act and to actually create a solution for an abuse that is enacted on people who can least afford it.

I have heard some very familiar phrases in the past few groups: we need more information, this is not the right time, there is legislation elsewhere that deals with this and this is not the Bill. But if not now, in the Employment Rights Bill, then when and how? We have to protect workers such as Ellen. They are often young and vulnerable, and sometimes English is not their first language. Surely the point of an Employment Rights Bill is to protect people from exploitation such as unpaid work.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment. There are risks of exploitation, which the noble Baroness has just set out. Where I am somewhat more concerned and have more sympathy with the amendment debated earlier today is about how people continue to do these sorts of jobs and still do not get paid.

To give a real example, the Department for Work and Pensions runs a programme called SWAP. It is quite a short-term programme and it is not quite the same as a boot camp, principally run by the DfE. It is often for people perhaps wanting to go into a new sector or who are open to new experiences, so there is an element of training. However, a key part of the SWAP is that you work and try out. There is no guarantee that, at the end of that, you will get a job with that specific employer, but what really matters is that it will give you a sense of aptitude and of getting back into the workplace, while you continue to receive benefits.

Let us not pretend that receiving universal credit for a week is necessarily the same as being paid the equivalent of a national minimum wage. But my principal concern with this amendment is that, while wanting to avoid exploitation, it would unwittingly or unknowingly shut down these broader opportunities and programmes which the Government run to help get people back into the world of work. That is why it needs to be considered carefully by the Minister, but ultimately rejected.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has pointed out, this idea was in both the 2022 Green Paper and in the paper that the Labour Party published during last year’s election. Clearly, there is an expectation that this needs to be addressed in this huge Bill, the main purpose of which, as I have said to this Committee before, could have been achieved through a statutory instrument.

However, one of the important things in the amendment, which has been carefully written by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, sets in place the idea that:

“The right to disconnect does not apply where … a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty”.


In trying to get into this debate, which is a fair debate to have, we find that the legislation already addresses the majority of situations where this would already happen, and so all that would happen if this were to become law is that contracts would be written in such a way that, in effect, if necessary, everybody would be on call—which would not be a desirable outcome.

I want to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to a variety of anecdotes and his personal experience. Personal experience matters in considering how a good employer can act. For what it is worth, in my private office, which was very busy, and in my parliamentary office when I used to employ people, I required everybody to have their “do not disturb” setting on. The setting works such that if somebody really needs to get hold of you—if you are a Minister, say—switch will get through to you eventually. I have to say to the people on the Front Bench that that is the case even if you do not have your phone on. Those situations are already addressed.

One of the things the Bill is trying to do overall is to get that balance. However, it is fair to say that not everything needs to be put into legislation. It is about having a positive relationship, and some of that can be done through ACAS and in other different ways, such as guidance. Trying to micromanage every single relationship that the millions of workers have directly with their employer risks overcomplicating things. The fear that I have, given that this is in the Government’s manifesto, which they seek to put in place—it will be interesting to see how they want to make this happen—is that this will make for very tricky legislation. Although there may be instances where this would work, ultimately, it comes down to employment tribunals and somebody else’s judgment.

For what it is worth, we have an evolving variety of workplaces. A lot of people who used to work at home have now come back to the office so that they can leave their job behind, as opposed to feeling that they will open something up after dinner or whatever.

I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how the Government are planning to fulfil their manifesto commitment while trying to make sure that they do not micromanage every single element of how a job can be done in the workplace.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness said, because this is about fairness and making sure life works. There are a lot of companies, big and small, where, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working. However, there are a number of instances—including somewhere like where I work—where I do not think this would work.

I will just give your Lordships one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge insurance broker. We had a client in the United States who by 5 pm had not decided whether to renew his insurance contract in London. If he had not renewed it by 1 June—which I guess was a Sunday—he would have had no insurance on that specific part of his business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word—he was probably out and about with the phone in his pocket—and the call came through at some time after 9 pm. Looking at the way the clause is drafted, I am not sure whether that would be considered enough of an emergency to get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak. Equally, that company might have had to stop working, doing whatever it was doing in the oil and gas industry—I know that will not endear me to the noble Baroness, but that is a fact. But we had to bind that insurance contract once we got the order. It was all ready to go; it was just a question of sending a number of emails to say that it was done. So there are huge swathes of the country where it is in fact in place already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has said, but in some of the big City environments where you are working across time zones particularly, it is extremely difficult to enact.

On working from home, we all worked at home for some time; personally I loathed it—I am back in the office almost as much as I can be. However, I have members of staff who like working at home, and, let me tell your Lordships, they know how to turn themselves off when they do not want to talk to us anymore, and they are good at it. So they should be, and I respect them for it. But if you really need them, you can always find them.

Finally, you can turn the damn machines off. Be it a telephone, a computer, an iPad or whatever it is, there is an off button out there. Certainly when I was a child, we were told never to call anybody after 9 pm, and that was friends and family. So there are some unwritten rules out there that are already very effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral’s amendment and have little to add to what he and my noble friend Lord Moynihan have said. I emphasise that we ought to support such amendments for reducing the levels of collective consultation for companies involved in insolvency proceedings. We should do so in the interest of reducing the escalating costs to a company as a result of compliance and protracted timing. I support these amendments for that reason.

As we have heard, the Insolvency Act 1986 obliges the administrator to act in the best interests of the creditors. The more time and compliance are demanded of a company, the more it will cost and the less there will be for creditors. These costs will escalate under Clause 27 as drafted. As a result, the creditors will have less available to pay their bills and their employees. We will see a domino effect on companies left short of cash flow and on their ability to pay their bills and their employees. These amendments are very important, because we cannot afford a domino effect, with businesses left short of cash because of the compliance costs and protracted timings posed on companies facing insolvency proceedings. They are suffering anyway; their bills have not been paid. In the end, the less that is available to pay them, the worse the outcome will be for the whole economy, for employment levels as a whole and for the cost of living.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this really quite interesting clause. I have carefully read Hansard from the other place in trying to understand what it is really putting in place. I am concerned by aspects of the comments made by the Minister at the other end, Justin Madders. He said that it really means only that businesses have to consult on their location and only with trade union representatives, and that, “By the way, these things get sorted in legal debate in the courts, and we hope the courts will understand”. That is not good enough when we are writing primary legislation.

In thinking this through, it is important for the Committee to consider what is happening here. Why is this needed? It has apparently been done to reduce the pressure on people with a vulnerability. Let us take the example of a pub chain, which has quite a big estate and has decided that it is going to reduce its number of hours. That could be a consequence of some of the other measures being brought in by the Government or just a trend that is happening. So it starts to think about what it is prepared to do in terms of how many people it employs in its pubs. It may not want to do that straight away; it may want to think about it in different sections and to leave that discretion to local managers. The man or woman in the street would think that that is perfectly sensible.

However, the businesses that gave oral and written evidence to the Bill Committee are worried—which the Minister recognised in saying that they should not worry—because that is exactly what the legislation is saying they will have to do. They could be undertaking consultation at huge expense, right across the country, while recognising that some of those situations could be very localised.

We already have sensible measures in place. When there are going to be significant redundancies across the country, it is already a legal requirement for them to go before Ministers, whether from the Department for Business and Trade or the Department for Work and Pensions, who can then mobilise local jobcentres and the like to prepare for those redundancies. Imagine going back to the business considering the impact of that on what can be quite localised operations. The Explanatory Notes are silent, frankly, which is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons.

I am concerned and would be grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach and how, despite the uncertainty still left in this legislation, the Government want this to be in place. Instead, they should accept the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt to make sure that these situations are well considered and that we do not end up in a situation where, despite the primary legislation, we have to go to an employment tribunal again and again. For that reason, I hope the Minister accepts my noble friend’s amendments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for tabling these amendments. We have been listening to feedback from businesses on the clause as introduced. It requires collective consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies are proposed to be made across an employer’s organisation. Businesses told us that this would put them in a constant state of consultation. That is why we have made amendments in Clause 27 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; they aim to limit the burdens on employers while still expanding protections for employees, by ensuring that collective consultation is triggered when a threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across an entire organisation.

The purpose of Clause 27 is to strengthen collective redundancy rights. The Government worked with stakeholders, including businesses, to address their concerns, which include not counting employees who are already being consulted on redundancy. We will set an appropriate threshold number in due course, via secondary legislation, following further engagement with stakeholders and a public consultation. We will look to balance the interests of both employers and employees when setting this threshold. Business stake- holders have welcomed the Government’s engagement on this clause and the opportunity to input to the threshold number via a public consultation.

Amendment 141BA seeks to exclude employers going through insolvency proceedings from the scope of a new trigger for collective consultation. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, about how one expects an employer which is going insolvent to consult employees across the entire organisation. The Government believe that collective consultations are an important part of ensuring fairness and transparency between employers and employees. The benefits of consultations are felt by both. I heard what the noble Lord said, and I must say that employees are an important part of the organisation, as are the suppliers and the whole supply chain. Whatever is due to them should be paid, as is the same for other creditors.

The law already recognises that consultation may not always be fully practical in insolvency situations. That is why Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 includes a special circumstances defence for employers to depart from the collective redundancy obligations where it is genuinely justified and they have shown that they have taken all practical steps to comply. That flexibility should be applied on a case-by-case basis, not by removing that duty altogether.

Amendment 141C seeks to ensure that obligations are triggered only where redundancies are linked to a connected reason. We recognise that collective consultation will be most productive when workers and employers are focused on a common issue. However, employers and unions have told us that they believe it is not possible to define what is connected or “common reasons” in a suitable, clear way and that this could lead to more litigation. They tell us that attempting to restrict these new rights to connected redundancies in this way would create further burdens, rather than relieving them.

Amendment 141D seeks to exclude seasonal workers or those on fixed-term contracts from the scope of collective redundancy measures in the Bill. First, it may reassure the noble Lord to know that the expiry of a fixed-term contract at the end of its term does not trigger collective consultation obligations. Therefore, any fixed-term contract expiring at the end of its term will not add to the running total for the new threshold introduced for collective redundancies. We will consider further how employees on fixed-term contracts should be counted for the purposes of calculating an employer’s overall workforce that might be needed for the purposes of a national trigger for collective redundancies.

Amendment 141E aims to avoid an obligation to combine consultation by inserting two new subsections into Section 188 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, but new subsection (2A) already strikes the right balance here. Employers will be well placed to determine how to divide consultations appropriately where the national threshold has been met. We agree that each group should receive meaningful collective consultation and intend to set up guidance on this point in a new code of practice.

On Amendment 141F, it is already the case that where collective consultation on redundancies has already begun those redundancies will not be counted when determining whether subsequent new redundancies reach the threshold for collective consultation. We do not believe that this should be extended to exclude employees who have been individually consulted, as individual redundancy consultations have a different character and purpose from collective consultations.

On Amendment 142, we agree with the noble Lord that the threshold number that will trigger collective consultation should be proportionate and not overly and unnecessarily burdensome on employers. However, this amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to address this issue.

On Amendment 142A, the term “establishment” has already been settled and is well understood in employment law. It works well in practice, so we consider that attempts to change the definition here would create confusion and lead to more litigation with very few clear benefits in return.

Finally, Amendment 142B would undo the Government’s extension of the protective award period to 180 days. This change was made following a full public consultation in October 2024 and has been carefully considered. It makes it harder for unscrupulous employers to price in non-compliance with their collective consultation obligations, as we saw in the case of P&O Ferries. The Government are committed to strengthening employment rights in this landmark legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 141BA.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the speeches that have been made, particularly on kinship care, but recognise the challenges that carers face. I am sure that the debate on remuneration for carer’s leave will continue. I am contributing on this group because of Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. I would say that it is quite odd for this to have been grouped alongside the other issues, recognising the very serious situation of pregnancy loss. Before the noble Lord spoke, I was not aware that this was relating to an inquiry at the other end. I have only just started reading aspects of that report, so I am not as fully informed as he was in presenting this. However, there are some issues here that I am concerned about.

Thinking through this, only three other countries in the world include parts of pregnancy loss in terms of being formally considered for bereavement leave. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is important to recognise that we would still be quite a considerable outlier. It needs careful consideration. I am not dismissing it in any way, but I am conscious that the Government responded on 25 March and I am slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen an amendment tabled. I appreciate that some of these things take a bit of time, but I had hoped that in Committee we would be able to consider what the Government were going to table in this regard.

As the Government have set out in their response to the committee and as is set out in ACAS guidance, a number of these issues are already covered in terms of pregnancy or maternity-related illness. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about this becoming a potential HR issue. It is discriminatory for any such illness in any way, including miscarriage, and molar pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy would be covered very straightforwardly by that.

I have a particular concern about proposed subsection (2B)(a)(iv) in his Amendment 81, which widely casts the net of any medical abortion. It is already recognised that any abortion after 24 weeks is automatically covered in bereavement leave. The same is true of stillbirth, which, in the UK, is considered to be the loss of a pregnancy at 24 weeks and above. The two are not causal or directly related—obviously, there is a correlation in the timing. It just so happens that we have our current abortion limits, with certain exceptions, up to 24 weeks. So I am concerned that, in effect, proactive abortions taken up to 24 weeks would be covered in this amendment. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government in their response, because, as I have said to the House already, I have not yet had the chance to read the entire report from the Women and Equalities Committee.

On proposed subsection (2B)(b), I say that I have had many friends who have, not always successfully, had children through IVF. Thankfully, many people do, but they recognise when they enter into it some of the challenges they definitely will face in trying to have a child by IVF. As it stands, on average, the success rate for a woman below 38 is about 35% for any particular embryo-transfer loss. Once a woman starts to go over the age of 40, that falls—it has gone up from 2012 from an 8% to a 10% success rate in 2022. That careful consideration needs to be thought about by the Government and your Lordships in this House when we decide to extend certain entitlements, while recognising the heartbreak that can happen at certain moments in people’s lives in these particularly sensitive moments. I am conscious that this is a sensitive issue to bring up at this point in the Bill.

I do believe that I would like to understand this in more detail. I will take the time to do some more research myself, but I am very keen to hear from the Government quite where this is stretching. I appreciate they have given a certain kind of wording to the House of Commons Select Committee on this point, but the provision of further details to the Committee here would be very welcome.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all speakers from your Lordships’ House for what has been an excellent debate. It is a genuine pleasure for me to participate, hopefully quite briefly.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, gave a moving speech, which was made more moving by the knowledge that Sarah Owen is at the Bar today, and I thank both of them for their contributions, but especially Sarah.

Amendment 81 has our support, not least as a catalyst to try to have the sort of debate we need and the careful consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also alluded to. I hope it can start to move things forward.

We also support Amendment 134, which was so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This again is an important issue that we want to have more conversations about following this debate.

My noble friend Lord Palmer gave a very spirited and strong advocacy for kinship care, and that was supported across the House—here is another area where there is an absolutely clear and present need for carers to be officially brought into the carers’ community.

The point on fostering was also well made by my noble friend, as was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about short-term fostering as something we should seek to bring into that. All these amendments are, in a sense, broadening the scope of carers and where we should be considering. For all of them, I hope the Minister will be able to stand up and say “Let’s have a debate following this particular group. Let’s talk with interested parties to see how some or all of this could start to be moved forward”.

I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I focus on paid carer’s leave. I had the great honour of piloting Wendy Chamberlain’s Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House with, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the strong support of the Conservative Government. During that time, I had a chance to meet a lot of carers and a lot of employers of carers—big companies such as Centrica, which the noble Lord mentioned, and much smaller companies. They all set out the advantages of having a proper, strong relationship with their carers and the starting point, which we established through that Private Member’s Bill, of unpaid carer’s leave.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends on our Front Bench. I have a number of concerns about the guaranteed-hours provisions in the Bill, one of them being that they are drafted almost wholly from the perspective of workers and pay little heed to the needs of employers. I do not believe that is a good way to create employment law to underpin a healthy economy.

On our first day in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, who is not in his place today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill, both spoke about the work of the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts. I was grateful to them for being pointed in that direction. I have a great deal of time for the work of the Low Pay Commission, which is always balanced and very careful, so I went back and looked at the 2018 report. Unsurprisingly, I found that it does not provide the copper-bottomed support for the Bill that noble Lords opposite have claimed—I should also say that the employment bodies represented on the Low Pay Commission have told us that as well.

The Low Pay Commission did indeed recommend that workers should be offered guaranteed-hours contracts, but, importantly, it also recognised that there would be circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for the employer to have to do that. There is not a trace of that in the Bill. The Low Pay Commission was clear that the Bill should set out specific circumstances in which the employer would not have to offer guaranteed hours. The commission cited with approval some equivalent legislation which was at that stage going through the Irish parliament, which provided, among other things, that adverse changes in the employer’s business or the existence of temporary factors would allow employers not to offer guaranteed hours.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I believe that Amendment 19A is eminently reasonable in that context. It does not give an employer carte blanche to ignore guaranteed hours but allows for some genuine business circumstances to be taken into account by the employer when looking at whether guaranteed-hours contracts should be offered.

At the end of the day, if we do not have successful businesses, there will not be any jobs on any kind of contract available. As I said on our first day in Committee, I am particularly concerned, as is the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, about small and micro-businesses, which really need to be allowed the flexibility if we are to protect the work opportunities of around half the private sector workforce.

Even if those small and micro-businesses survive the incredible bureaucracy associated with these guaranteed hours, they will potentially not survive the substantive impact of the hours if they are required in all circumstances to offer guaranteed-hours contracts. Of course, this is particularly the case in the hospitality sector, the largest user of zero-hours contracts; my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about the problems in that sector. There are also very large numbers of small and micro-businesses in that sector.

Recognising some very limited flexibility, my noble friend’s Amendment 19A is actually very modest. It would go some way towards making this new requirement to offer guaranteed hours work in the context of businesses that have to face difficult circumstances, and at the moment the Bill pays no attention to that.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends. I am just thinking of my career. I have had quite a conventional career in many ways, but I have also had many extra roles, particularly when I was a student—I am conscious that we will come to Amendment 19B separately later. It is important to reinforce the challenges in starting up or expanding a particular business. It is well said that a coffee shop will know within the first week whether it will succeed. You could argue that there are different factors, but within the first month a business will certainly know whether the footfall and the sale per customer justify the number of people it is employing and adapt accordingly.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned, there is also this extended element about things such as holidays. It may surprise your Lordships to know quite how many jobs are, frankly, based on whether it rains and people cancelling going out to do different things. That is one of the reasons why, in particular but not exclusively, many hotel chains have started having a price differential: basically, you get a better deal if you book up front, but you cannot cancel or get your money back. Indeed, it is why even more restaurants are, effectively, starting to pre-charge an amount of money that is expected so that people do not cancel. Having lived in touch of the coast for most of my life, I can assure your Lordships that the fluctuation in how many people actually turn up to a resort for the day in a town is real, and what that means for temporary jobs.

That is why I think my noble friend Lord Hunt has found a good way of trying to help the Government to consider some of the everyday decisions that employers have to make as to whether they open up in the first place, whether they try to expand, and whether they try to get the growth. If I go further on to Clause 20, at the same time that the Government are trying to encourage businesses to go into artificial intelligence and see all that can be embraced in that regard, they need to bear in mind that businesses will not invest in such technologies if they are concerned that the other costs will be so detrimental to them.

We keep having this Catch-22 situation: if the Government want growth, they need to recognise the success where employers have been given the chance to scope and to be flexible, although I understand entirely the Government’s intent that the employer should be reasonable with the people that they take on. It is for these reasons—and I will speak more in the next group—that I believe that the Government should seriously consider how they operationalise this. We keep hearing about more and more consultations. We have heard people from the British Retail Consortium, from retailers and from hospitality saying that these are the real issues. We are almost doing their consultation for them by putting forward these amendments, so I hope that the Minister will look on them carefully in his consideration.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall make four short points on these amendments, all of which I oppose. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employers would get locked into guaranteed hours. I remind him that all contracts of employment may be varied by mutual agreement or, if not, they can be terminated and there can be re-engagement on fresh terms.

Secondly, the noble Lord mentioned the industrial reality. The industrial reality of zero-hours contracts is a complete disparity of power: 80% of those on zero-hours contracts would prefer a permanent contract, but those on zero-hours contracts are completely at the mercy of the employer. They do not know how many hours they are going to work tomorrow, let alone next week, and they do not know how much income they will make at the end of any week. Therefore, a worker on a zero-hours contract does not want an argument, to fall out or have a disagreement with the employer. That is a vital component of the legislation my noble friend proposes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I may also go down memory lane about aspects of employment—it was a variety of activities. Where I slightly disagree with my noble friend Lord Hunt, who moved the amendment, is that I expect the Minister will simply say that students are not required to accept a guaranteed-hours contract. She is absolutely right about that. However, if I were in a situation as a student getting a guaranteed-hours contract, happy days. I would lap them up wherever I could. I am trying to think back to my time doing my PhD. I think I worked for the university in two different jobs. I also managed to use some of my holiday to get extra work. It was a mixture of things, and we are seeing this trend increase. With the cost of living challenge that people across the country face, we are seeing a significant increase in students starting to take on quite long working hours, which is somewhat detrimental to their learning progress.