Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cash (Con) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it truly is an honour to take a place on these venerable Benches and make my maiden speech today. I start by congratulating the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray, on their excellent maiden speeches—and no easy acts to follow. I do not really need to worry too much, I believe, because truly I am just the warm-up act for the noble Lord, Lord Young, today. He is someone who has already starred in many of his own features in life, and he is a fine colleague. So I look forward also to hearing his maiden speech.

I thank noble Lords on all sides of the House for the warmest welcome. It is true what everyone says about the courtesy and embrace when one arrives here. I am very grateful also to all the officials and staff, particularly our dedicated doorkeepers. I am grateful to my sponsors, some of the finest academic minds and most principled people I know: the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, who is also my chair at the EHRC, and the noble Lord, Lord Godson, who has been a dear friend for nearly 30 years. I am also grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Morris of Bolton. I have two mentors. I have not dared to ask why they thought I might need double supervision, but I thank them for their courage in stepping up to do it.

Since learning that I would be joining your Lordships, I have received many kind messages and kind words—including, rather delightfully, from my primary 7 teacher Ken Cardwell. That reminded me that, when I was 10 years old in his class, he had also once trusted me to make a speech on a subject of my choice, on the day of a school inspection. Unaccustomed as I am, and have always been, to public speaking, I relished this prospect, and he was confident that this particular child would not let him down. When I ran into him 20 years later, the horror was still palpable on his face when he described how I had stood up in front of the class and announced, rather cheekily, “I’m not giving a speech today”. His heart sank and there was the most terrible pause, until I whisked from behind my back a hand puppet and announced, “He is” and proceeded to lecture them all on ventriloquism.

I will not be quite as random today. I have chosen this debate because I have a life that some of you do not know much about. I have been very lucky to know some noble Lords in parts of my career as a barrister, parliamentary candidate or, indeed, a policy wonk—something I still love. But what is less well known is that I have for 10 years, prior to now, chaired the UK’s leading behavioural science business, which we took on to the stock market. During that time, I have seen first-hand the challenges of running an SME. We confronted the pandemic, we then had costs ratcheting and salary insecurity as a result of the war in Ukraine. Now, we are looking forward to really strangulating increases in national insurance. I also know from running that business, because we work with 62% of the FTSE 100, that most employers want the best for their employees. It is not a them and us; talent is what makes businesses work and grow, and they are highly valued by the majority of people. It saddens me enormously to know so many people in business spoken about in some of the ways we have heard in the other place.

This was not my first experience of business. I grew up in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. That was the height of the Troubles, but it was also a low ebb for our economy. I spent my early years in the anteroom of a tiny newsagents run by parents. They worked incredibly long hours, while my father also held down a full-time job. It was not easy and costs were high.

Those micro-businesses—I owe my parents a world of thanks for the way they worked in theirs—employ 33% of the workforce. That is an enormous number of businesses with between nought and nine employees. The consequence of some of the changes introduced by this Bill in subjecting those tiny businesses to some of these new ideas will be to strangle them, mostly at birth. Costs are rising, taxes are rising and profits—that dirty old word—for them are falling. Profits for those businesses can mean a pair of trainers for their children, or the hope of a family holiday. Are we really going to do that to 33% of the providers of our workforce?

From the CBI to the Federation of Small Businesses, every representative group is warning—pleading—that the implications of this Bill mean a disaster for growth in this country. It is not all bad—of course we want to see more fathers take parental leave, and there are other good things—but the overall direction of travel is to create unintended consequences. If I have learned anything from leading a behavioural science business for 10 years, it is that, often, the things we do to achieve a certain outcome have exactly the opposite effect. This Bill is destined to destroy our growth.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and Amendment 72, and I add my thanks to the Safe Sick Pay campaign, the Health Foundation and other organisations. I heartily welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to strengthening SSP by removing the lower earnings limit and the waiting period.

A nationally representative survey conducted for the TUC found that around half of employees get their full pay as usual when sick, but that around 28% were forced to rely on SSP alone. It also found a clear class divide when it comes to who gets what: eight in 10 of higher earners—over 50 grand a year—got full pay when off ill, compared with only one-third of lower earners.

The Covid pandemic exposed just how precarious life is for those in insecure, low-paid work, and we do not know how many preventable illnesses were caused by people struggling into work and spreading the virus because they could not afford to stay home. But we do know, as we have heard, that forcing people back to work when they are ill is bad for workers and bad for business, puts pressure on the NHS and is costly for the economy.

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to discuss our concern that the formula adopted by the Government could leave low-paid workers who earn just above the lower earnings limit worse off. The DWP’s answer has been that abolition of the waiting days before a worker receives SSP ensures that, for the first three weeks, those losses will be offset. But, surely, the policy intention of the Government’s commitment to abolish the waiting days is not to make up for losses caused by its own formula. The policy intention should be to ensure that every worker who relies on SSP is, in fact, better off, and we need to protect those on longer- term sickness who are, for example, receiving cancer treatment.

I note the Government’s concern that the formula must be designed in a way that avoids workers getting more in sick pay than they would in wages, and avoids a cliff edge. I remain unconvinced, however, that it is beyond the wit of the DWP to come up with an approach that protects that position without penalising a group of low-paid workers.

Secondly, as we have heard, this amendment seeks a review of the rate of statutory sick pay. As the Resolution Foundation has pointed out, unlike many other European countries, the rate is not linked to earnings. Currently at £118.75, SSP equates to 27% of the national minimum wage. In 1999, SSP was equivalent to 43% of the national minimum wage. That is a big drop. For a decade and more, SSP has failed to keep up with the cost of living or increases in the living wage.

The Work and Pensions Select Committee has confirmed that the SSP rate is not enough to live on. At the Covid public inquiry hearing in December 2023, Matt Hancock was quizzed by Sam Jacobs, who is counsel for the TUC. The former Health Secretary agreed that the rate of SSP should be higher. How could he argue otherwise, when the UK languished at the bottom of the OECD league for statutory sick pay under the previous Government and when we know that such a low rate of SSP is a danger to public health?

I understand that perfection must not be the enemy of the good, but an SSP rate that works out at around £3 per hour is some way short of either perfection or good. This amendment implicitly recognises that this woeful legacy of neglect in tackling it will not be remedied overnight. It would, however, be welcome if the Minister could reassure us today that both the formula and the rate of statutory sick pay will be reviewed before the Autumn Budget, and rightly so.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring interests. I am an employer, the founder of a listed business, MindGym, which is a behavioural science business, and an expert in corporate training to improve employee well-being and productivity. I am also a commissioner at the EHRC.

I support the Opposition’s amendments in this group: Amendments 71A, 71B, 73, 74A, 74B, and 74C. At the outset, I would like to note for the record that everyone here is driven by compassion for those who need protection. I pay tribute to the speeches by noble Lords from the Benches opposite, but I am very concerned about these proposals by the Government.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, for drawing our attention to the Resolution Foundation report, which has identified some of the points that support the amendments from this side of the Committee. I will return to those.

The Government have said on record that they want growth. We support that goal. They want businesses to succeed. We support that goal. They have also said on the record that they want to reduce the number of people who are out of the workforce on long-term sickness—currently running at 2.8 million. We support that goal. What we do not understand is how on earth the Government believe that this legislation and these proposals are going to achieve any of that. They are based in compassion, I have no doubt, but the Government are pursuing a culture of incapacity and dependency that will impede the stated aims.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Consider, for example, a casual exchange in a lobby between two clients overheard by a member of staff, a third party or maybe another client from a different part of the world. I would like to think that this would never happen, but life is never predictable. Should the company be responsible for that? I would argue not. If, in effect, the legislation discourages companies from welcoming clients and prospects to their offices, we will risk undermining one of the UK’s most successful and globally respected industries, the insurance industry, let alone all the other industries in this country. This sector contributes significantly to our economy through invisible earnings and supports the Government’s growth agenda. For these reasons, I support these amendments. They offer a realistic approach to the responsibilities of business while continuing to uphold the principles of dignity and respect in the workplace.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, there have been very helpful and mainly anxious speeches during this debate. I am very grateful to my colleagues but also to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, whose speech this afternoon was probably the most enlightening and helpful. I say that because throughout her speech she described how improbable it was that anything described in the other speeches would happen. Unfortunately, we do not have the promise of the noble Baroness adjudicating on the claims that will be brought as a result of this clause.

I should declare at the outset that I spent 15 years as a libel barrister specialising in media law and freedom of expression. I am also a commissioner at the EHRC. I know only too well that the law as intended gets misconstrued. If one looks back at the EHRC’s code of practice in relation to equal pay, one sees very clearly that the code, issued under Trevor Phillips, was never intended to be deployed in litigation that has resulted in the bankrupting of Birmingham City Council or in the absolutely constraining circumstances imposed on large companies. It is just not there. Similarly, the reputation of our immigration tribunals is on the floor because they are likewise applying provisions in the Human Rights Act, which we are bound by the ECHR to apply, but they are applying them in subjective, absurd ways that I do not doubt for a minute the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, would throw out if they were in front of her.

So what are we to do? We know that there is common sense on all sides of this Chamber, but our job is to scrutinise legislation and ensure that, when it gets to a court and to a judge, it can be properly and safely applied. That is why I support some of these amendments: there must be a way, and I beseech the Minister to review this and to look at what anxieties on this side of the Committee could be closed by some of these amendments.

I have done a search of the Article 10 case law under the human rights and European legislation where there has been tension in other countries. In France, for example, employees were harassed directly because of smoking outside—only in France, of course. In Germany, it was because they were wearing uniforms while biking. In all those cases, Article 10 rights were protected because the legislation was specifically drafted to say that the harassment was directed at the employee. The original clause here is not safely drafted, which is why I am asking the Minister to look at this again. It is not clear that it is only direct discrimination or harassment of an employee that will be caught by this. That is why we have had so many speeches this afternoon worried about what loopholes are being allowed with the clause as currently drafted. To be compliant with Article 10, we need to tighten it. We need, in this Chamber, to scrutinise it and ensure that the message goes back to the Government that it needs to be tightened.

The other thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, so beautifully enunciated in her speech was how it ought to be a reasonable perception of the activity that was deemed to be harassment. Again, we would hope that any sensible court would look at that and say, “Yes, absolutely”, but that test is not in the clause as currently drafted. I will read Clause 20, “Harassment by third parties”:

“In section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 (employees and applicants: harassment), after subsection (1) insert … (1A) An employer (A) must not permit a third party to harass a person (B) who is an employee of A”.


There is the first problem: we do not limit the harassment to direct harassment, and we need to do so. To ensure that it will be applied and interpreted by tribunals in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, envisages, we need to ensure that that is tightened. Clause 20 goes on:

“(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), A permits a third party to harass B only if … the third party harasses B”—


there is still no tightening of the definition of “harass”—

“in the course of B’s employment by A, and … A failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent the third party from doing so … In this section ‘third party’ means a person other than … A, or … an employee of A”.

There is no reference at all in that clause to what test a court is to apply to the perception by the employee of the harassment. All the European cases, by which we are still bound under the ECHR, require an objective test to safeguard our freedom of expression rights under Article 10. What I have heard this afternoon is that there is no dispute between the two sides of this Committee that protecting Article 10 in the balance that happens here is the right thing to do, but that test is not in this clause, which is why these amendments are so important. We need that test and we need the direction of the harassment at a specific person, so that it cannot scoop up the other conversations or any of the other activities that are happening around them. It must be like the French case, the German case and all the other cases, which anyone is welcome to look up as I did. For that reason I support these amendments and beseech the Minister and the Government to look again at this. The way this clause is drafted is of very real concern.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness when she was speaking. However, I refer her to Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, with which I am sure she is familiar, as an EHRC commissioner. That is where the relevant test is set out.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Amendment 220 would reduce the period within which trade unions must provide an opt-out notice to their members after the 10-year anniversary of the passing of a political resolution, on the same timescale. It is sensible, practical and fair in terms of the service delivery for individual members, who may wish to explore the possibility of opting out. That does not mean it is a green light to opting out. I suspect that a shop steward or other senior person in the workforce would persuade a trade union member that they were best off staying in the union, but that information should nevertheless be provided. With those provisos, I would be interested if the Minister would address the issue of reasonableness.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, those from my noble friend Lady Coffey—which I have signed, as she referred to—and those in the name of my noble friend Lord Jackson, as well as Amendments 222, 223 and 218A. I hope I have covered all of them. I also support this group in more general terms. I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as declared in the register, in particular that I am a significant shareholder in a listed business, so I am an employer, and that I am a member of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

I want to address what is a fundamental attack on one of the rights under the Human Rights Act by which we incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into this jurisdiction. There is a fundamental democratic right not to be forced to support a political party, either unwittingly or by coercion—though I am not by any stretch of the imagination suggesting that this is by coercion. My noble friends have referenced financial services and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced issues with data protection. We know that there are major problems with fundamental infringements of people’s rights when we have opt-out scenarios. People unwittingly continue to subscribe to pay when they should not do so.

Unlike my noble friend Lady Coffey, who politely said that she was surprised by this government proposal, I am shocked, because some noble Lords on the Government Benches have as much knowledge of human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights as I do. They will know that, under Article 11, there is a right to free association. We are guaranteed both the right to associate freely and the right not to be compelled into supporting associations or political causes.

This has been the subject of a number of decisions in the European Court of Human Rights. I know the Prime Minister has talked tentatively about whether we will remain part of the court, but for the time being we are and therefore have to abide by its laws and decisions. It made it very clear in a decision called Young, James and Webster v United Kingdom in 1981 that compelled political donations are incompatible with Article 11, unless free and informed consent is given by the individual.

There may be those on the Government Benches who think that that is fine because it is covered by the period of notice and the person can then opt out, but it does not cover that. There is no mechanism at all in the Government’s proposals to facilitate any refund. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis; I see that he is surprised by that comment, but there is no refund mechanism. The way that the measures are currently drafted means that there is a minimum notice period for an individual to be notified of their rights to opt out of up to eight weeks. After that, one payroll cycle is allowed before the opt-out takes place. That means there is the possibility of three months’ worth of subscription or levy being taken from an individual employee to contribute to the Labour Party. Let us not beat about the bush: this is a compelled donation to a political party.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness permit an intervention? As my noble friend Lord Prentis mentioned, there are 48 unions affiliated to the TUC; 13 of them also affiliate, subscribe and contribute to the funding of the Labour Party, and 35 do not. Most of those 35 have a political fund which they use to support their campaigning, but not to make contributions to the Labour Party.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that assistance. I therefore look forward to the amendment put forward by the Government to exempt those 13, given the law that I am explaining and the attack on the freedom of association that should be maintained in this country.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Will the noble Baroness permit me to intervene? She spoke about Article 11 of the European Convention and freedom of association, and the right to join a trade union and be a member for the protection of one’s interests. This is spelled out in Article 11.1. She mentioned the case of Young, James and Webster v the United Kingdom, which established that there is a negative right not to become a member of a trade union, as well as a positive right to become a member. However, the European Court of Human Rights has never held in any case that a member of an organisation, a political party or a trade union can opt out of a particular payment that that organisation is making.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, but he is wrong. The European Court has ruled that it is not possible. Article 11 does not permit compelling any citizen of this country, or any member of a trade union, to make a payment by political association. That is simply not correct.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Let me put it more respectfully: I disagree. That is not what the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 11 demonstrates. There is no right, if you are a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to opt out of any contribution or expenditure it makes on any particular objective. There is no such right established under Article 11. You can opt out of being a member of the organisation, but you cannot opt out of what it has decided to spend its money on. All you can do is exercise your rights under its constitution to object or decide it should be spent on something else.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

The noble Lord is, very respectfully, making interventions which do not follow the law. I will quote a couple of other cases because that may assist the debate: Sigurdsson v Iceland, and Sorensen and Rasmussen v Denmark. The noble Lord can join the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and whether or not he opts out is not a matter for this debate. We are talking about the freedom to join a trade union, and the asking of those who have signed up to be a member of a trade union to contribute to campaigning funds—political funds. It is that political association—the taking of funding for that political association—which infringes the Article 11 right.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Forgive me, but those two cases do not demonstrate that. I am familiar with this jurisprudence; I suggest that the noble Baroness read the cases again.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I understand that in this House people sometimes disagree, and perhaps, respectfully, that is happening here. I can give way as many times as the noble Lord likes, but it is plain from the case law and the jurisprudence, and from how Article 11 is taught at law school, where I have taught it as a guest, that this is how freedom of association applies.

After an opt-out has been introduced, there is no refund mechanism available to cover the period during which the funds will be taken by 13 of the trade unions and passed to the Labour Party. At least we are now agreed that 13 of the unions will be giving the funds to the Labour Party. In those circumstances, we are compelling people to support it. It is because the Human Rights Act and the European Court jurisprudence intervened—that was part of the conversations when the opt-in was considered. Looking at the contributions, financial or otherwise, made during that period, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, for drawing our attention to the decrease in political funding that has ensued because of the change. We know that that is why this change back needs to be made, but that does not make it right.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Cash Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in a previous life, I used to work in further education with many young people who were non-traditionally successful. In more current times, I have worked on matters relating to prison reform and I am very interested in former prisoners gaining employment. In all the instances of working with young people who did not have traditional qualifications or were trying to get into work, or with former prisoners, you were in a situation where you were talking to local employers and asking them to take a punt—a risk—on people. You would say, “Look, the worst that can happen is that you try this person out, it doesn’t work out and no one’s lost anything, but actually I’ve got every faith they will be brilliant”, and so on and so forth. You had to say, “Take a risk”, and I am afraid that in all the responses from employers they are saying, whether we like it or not, that the Bill—if enacted as it is presently constituted —will mean they become risk averse and will not take risks on a former prisoner or a young person who is a bit of a scally. So it is key to assess social mobility.

In addition to that group of people, one of the key ways in which work contributes to social mobility is often through young entrepreneurs or young people who, again, might not be conventionally the kind of people who will pass the Civil Service exam, will not necessarily fit in as an ideal employee and might be slightly eccentric or risk-takers, but who will set up their own micro-business. We know that they are the kind of people who might well be successful, although sometimes they might not be.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, there have been a lot of amendments tabled about micro-businesses—not SMEs, as they are traditionally still quite large businesses whereas micro-businesses have around 20 staff, or even two, three or four. If you talk to young entrepreneurs—the sort of young men who drop out of college but set up semiconductor manufacturing organisations, like some people I know, a builders’ business or a small hairdressers’ business—they realise that many parts of the Bill, which I have opposed throughout, will affect them. They do not have huge HR departments, they are not lawyers and they do not know what they are going to do, but they will be held liable for swathes of regulatory rules mandated by the Bill about the way they run their micro-businesses.

Those people are part of the great success of social mobility. They start out and make a success of it, but now it might not be worth it. They are not always poor and impoverished people. It can be young people making good through small businesses.

If it is the case that this is scaremongering about the worst fears or people just being paranoid, fair enough. But this Labour Government, of all Governments, should want to assess whether the Bill inadvertently, not intentionally, damages social mobility via employment. I therefore urge the Minister to accept this harmless but important amendment.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who covered quite a few of the points I planned to make. I want to speak specifically about young people.

Speaking very recently in front of a committee, Employment Minister Alison McGovern said that

“the situation for young people is a big worry for me at the moment”

and that:

“A lot of our young people—nearly 1 million—are effectively on the scrap heap”.


Those are not words I would have chosen myself; they are her words to a cross-party committee.

We have heard a lot of statistics during today’s debates. I will just add a few more. There are 1 million people not in education, employment or training, which includes a lot of young people. In addition, we have massive numbers of people receiving sickness benefits. All these young people will be a risk for employers.

The Minister is quite right that there has been an uptick in new businesses starting, but there is a serious downturn in the number of jobs created; unemployment is rising year on year, month on month since this Government took power; and the tax rises in the Autumn Budget are beginning to really kick in. We have seen that in the written submissions by numerous business organisations to the Government, other groups and Peers in this Chamber, begging—pleading—with us all to make their case about the significant costs they are already facing due to the national insurance rises. We can see it in real time. This amendment is a request to monitor the situation and come back with an impact assessment on perhaps the most vulnerable people in our society.

To show that these young people really want to succeed and want to have an opportunity, I will read the Committee a couple more numbers that the Minister is probably already well aware of. Some 60% of young people under the age of 30 would love to start a business, 9% of them have done so and 18% more of them would like to do so this year. These are the most vulnerable young people in our society. They are our future, as our demographics are getting older, and we are going to become more and more reliant on the economy that they generate. I have said it before, and I will say it again and again in this Chamber: Governments do not create growth; businesses create growth. We are now looking to these young people to start businesses and take risks on employing others. I urge the Government to, at the very least, come back having monitored that there is no impact on them and no further impact on the loss of employment that could ensue.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, about letters. I assure him that it is no coincidence that when we make a commitment and say that we will write, we write. I make sure that my officials write to everyone to whom I have promised a letter within 10 working days. If the noble Lord has not received letters from us, I welcome the challenge of being put on the spot to ask why the letters are not there.

I have a couple of points. I am a firm believer in social mobility. When I exited my business, some 20 years ago, I was very much involved in a social enterprise that went into state schools to ensure that state pupils were able to get out of their shell, be better and make something out of their lives. I am a firm believer in social mobility, and this Government take social mobility seriously. We do not just talk about it; we action it.

To support our commitment to ensuring that everyone, no matter their background, can thrive, we will commence Section 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in England:

“Public sector duty regarding socio-economic inequalities”.


As an example, the socioeconomic duty will require specific public bodies to actively consider how their strategic decisions might help to reduce the inequalities of outcomes associated with socioeconomic disadvantage. We are also now taking forward work to make sure that commencement of the duty in England is as effective as possible in driving efforts across the country to break down barriers to opportunity and making sure that there is no glass ceiling on people’s ambition.

I refer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We debated unfair dismissal and probation periods on day five of Committee, which was 21 May. We debated sick pay on days two and three of Committee, which were 8 and 13 May. We have debated some of these points at length.

I refer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about some of the 1 million young people who are not in employment, training or education. We recognise that, and we are doing something about it. Since the general election, 500,000 more people are in work. At same time, we are improving access to NHS appointments; some 3 million people have been seen by medics in NHS appointments.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

I would like some clarity regarding the employment numbers, because unemployment has been rising and is higher. We know from a number of City firms that graduates are struggling to get jobs, even in supermarkets. We have 33% fewer jobs for graduates. I just want the Minister to clarify the increase that he referred to and where that is coming from.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that remark. I will get officials to write, setting out the detailed analysis of where this unemployment is and where new jobs are being created. I want to make absolutely sure that we get this right. We have already improved the NHS waiting list, and something like 3 million people have already accessed their appointments.

On the point about the impact assessment, which I will not labour, this analysis, as I have set up in many preceding groups, will be done. That includes social mobility. There is no point me standing here and repeating what I have just said. All this will be done. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 313.