Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meyer (Con)]

Unions; thank you. Remove flexibility and you remove opportunity. This will especially attack young people looking for their first job. We will end up with more workers’ rights but fewer jobs. That is why we need to examine this Bill and take account of all of the amendments—or, possibly, just scrap the Bill altogether.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support—

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I remind noble Lords that we are in Committee, not at Second Reading. We have heard a few speeches now that have strayed a little from the precise content of the amendments that we are speaking to. I urge noble Lords to concentrate on those amendments rather than making Second Reading speeches so that we can get on and make progress.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for reasons of transparency and clarity. As we have heard today, there is too much being added to the Bill. We have not had proper sight of the Government’s amendments until it is too late. How can any business plan for the future with this hotchpotch of a Bill changing by the day?

On top of that, I echo what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said and I would add a competitiveness and growth purpose here. We had it in the Financial Services and Markets Act. It helps to focus people’s minds on the law, on the overall purpose, on what we mean by the economy we run and on what its aims are.

I cannot agree with the noble Lords opposite who point out, with different conclusions, that our labour laws are streets behind those of European countries. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I believe that the dynamism in Britain’s economy is due to it being a competitive market economy—one that has historically been open to trade and competes and, for that reason, can offer job security and good wages on a competitive basis. Part of that is a flexible labour market.

I am worried that this Bill—particularly given that the purpose is not economic growth and competitiveness—will stultify and freeze growth and, as a consequence, the labour market. The people who will suffer will be workers themselves, who will not get jobs or job security. For these reasons, I support the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

I close by remembering a German economist who worked under Chancellor Merkel in her global economics department at the time of the discussions around whether Britain would remain in the EU or leave it. This economist implored Britain to stay, because, without Britain, Europe would have a frozen economy, its labour market would lack dynamism and its competitiveness with the wider world—with the Asian and global markets—would stultify. It therefore seems very bizarre that we are trying to put the clock back on labour market legislation and stop the flexibility which should be at the heart of any dynamic market economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is with some trepidation but some pleasure that I follow that speech. I rise to speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name, and to offer support to Amendments 7 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Goddard, although he will speak to those on his own account.

Speaking on the previous group, I said that there should be a change in the polarity of the guaranteed hours offer from an obligation to offer to a more streamlined right to request. We have heard in the previous two speeches that the aim is for this offer to be made to people who want it rather than there being an obligation to make it to everybody, when we know for a fact that a large number of people who will get the offer will not want to take it up. It is unnecessary activity when there is plenty to do in business. It is a very simple principle, and I genuinely do not think it subverts the intention of the Bill, in the same way as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was trying not to subvert the purpose of the Bill but to help it succeed while helping business at the same time. In a sense, that reflects the point I made before withdrawing Amendment 1. It is really asking the Government to have some understanding of how these things will be delivered on the ground, in the workplace. That is why the previous speech was so helpfully revealing.

I think that a large part of the early part of this Bill is designed to deal, in essence, with a number of employers who the Government have in the back of their mind as not doing the right thing and not achieving what we would all like to achieve. I understand that. Unfortunately, it is dragging the whole business programme, from microbusinesses right up to huge businesses, into a series of practices to crack those particular nuts. Later in Committee, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will introduce Amendment 318, which targets the sort of employer who I think the Government have in their mind as bad or exploitative. It would create, in essence, a new class of employee, the dependent contractor, which is in fact in many cases what we are starting to look at. It would sharpen the regulatory focus, particularly on some elements of gig economy employers, but avoid the heavy-handed approach that we are in danger of using with this Bill.

Amendment 4, and I think there are a couple of others that are very similar, would simply reverse that polarity to: if employees ask for it, the employer is obliged to deliver it. Some obligation on employers occasionally to remind their employees that they are entitled to ask for this would help the process.

As for the rest of the group, I will listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, when he comes to his amendments. I think much of this will be addressed also when we get to the issue of freelancers and to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, so I imagine this is not the last time that we will have some elements of this discussion, but some sign from the Government Front Bench that they understand that something should and could be addressed in this area would be a good starting point.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 3, 6 and 9 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I also support Amendment 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, but for different reasons. I will not speak on that, but I like the idea of a low-hours contract. I will speak about zero-hours contracts, because I do not believe they are getting a fair look in.

These amendments would give workers the right to request, rather than putting an obligation on employers to guarantee hours. I think they are worth while and worth supporting. In the labour market this year, there are 33.9 million people employed. Of them, 1.3 million are on zero-hours contracts. There has been an increase since 2000 of 805,000 people on this type of employment contract. This is 3.1% of employment in the UK. Most are young people in the 16 to 24 age group. This is a popular way of working; the figures speak to that. There has been far more significant an increase in this type of contract than in the overall type of working arrangements chosen by employees and their employers.

Much of the popularity lies in the flexibility on both sides. The evidence is that the majority of people on zero hours, 60%, do not want more hours, although some, 16%, do. Amendments that would allow an employee to request guaranteed hours as distinct from obliging the employer to guarantee certain hours seem more in tune with people’s wishes. Of those on zero-hours contracts, around 1 million are young people. However, 946,000 16 to 24 year-olds are not in employment, education or training; that is around 50%. Yes, people on these contracts may work fewer hours than other workers—I gather the average is around 21.8 hours a week compared with 36.5 hours for all people in employment—but is it not better that there are jobs which people want and can get, particularly young people who may not yet be in the labour market or who may have been thrown out of the labour market or left it for one of the many reasons we hear about it? I am afraid that it seems from the Government’s approach that they do not think so.

This Bill and Clause 1 must be seen in the overall context of the party opposite’s approach to labour market and economy reform. Not only is the NIC tax hike on the productive sector along with the decrease in the NIC threshold taking £24 billion out, affecting 800,000 businesses and their ability to employ people and offer opportunity to the 16 to 24 age group, but other costs have been piled high, one on top of the other, since the party opposite came to power. Of those employed in December 2024, 27.8 million were in the private sector and 6.14 million in the public sector. If employers are obliged to move to guaranteed hours, that will most likely serve to cut the number of people productively employed under these arrangements, with a corresponding decrease in output and growth. Surely these amendments speak for themselves, and a Government whose priority is to increase economic growth should accept them.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as laid out in the register. I regret that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. As someone who has been an employer for over 40 years for various small businesses, and knowing that these amendments were coming up, I spent the weekend speaking to small and medium-sized businesses, particularly the small businesses in my home city of Leicester. All were very concerned about the impact that the Bill may have, if it becomes law, in providing a set amount of guaranteed hours.

I come from the home care sector—that is one of my businesses—which really does work on contracts in which we do not, and cannot, guarantee hours, simply because of the nature of the job. We do not know when people will require care or for how long, how long they will be in hospital for, or whatever. The hospitality sector is in exactly in the same place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, it a pleasure to support my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Londesborough and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, on Amendment 5 and their other amendment.

Small businesses and microbusinesses form a vital component of our national economy. These enterprises, while often agile and innovative, are particularly vulnerable to regulatory and financial pressures. Like all businesses—I should declare that I work for a very large American insurance broker—these enterprises have had to absorb the recent increases in the national minimum wage and adapt to the changes in national insurance contributions legislation. However, unlike larger businesses, they often lack the structural resilience and financial buffer to absorb such changes with ease. The impact on them is therefore disproportionate. This amendment proposes a sensible and measured opt-out for SMEs from additional obligations stemming from the proposed changes to zero-hours contracts—specifically, the move towards tightly prescribed guaranteed hours. As the Government’s own impact assessment acknowledges, these reforms are likely to have a disproportionate cost on small businesses and microbusinesses. I stress that this is not speculation but is drawn directly from the Government’s impact analysis.

Small businesses and microbusinesses span a wide range of sectors, but many are embedded within the UK as world-renowned creative industries that bring global acclaim and substantial economic benefit to this country. Many are driven by the energy, passion and commitment of individual entrepreneurs and small teams. I have had the privilege of speaking with several such business owners during the course of this Bill, and a recurring concern has emerged: the smaller the business, the harder it is to digest and manage such legislative change. Some have gone so far as to tell me that they are considering closing their operations altogether. That is a deeply troubling prospect. It is no exaggeration to say that measures such as these, if applied without nuance, risk undermining the very entrepreneurial spirit that we so often celebrate in this House.

There seems to be a regrettable habit forming on the Government Benches of legislating in ways that hinder rather than help the economic engines of this country. This approach is not conducive to national growth. It is not conducive to competitiveness. It is not conducive to job creation. It is certainly not conducive to easing the burden on the Exchequer—quite the opposite. Driving small businesses to closure will reduce tax receipts and increase demand for state support. We need to encourage investment, not chase it away.

Can the Minister explain clearly why this legislation must apply so rigidly to a critical sector of our economy? Why must we impose further burdens on the very businesses that we rely on so much for our innovation, employment and growth? Is there no room for proportionality and no scope for recognising the distinct challenges that are faced by the smallest enterprises? What I have said applies, to a great extent, to the middle-sized companies mentioned in Amendment 282, tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt of Wirral.

I leave your Lordships with a quote from the Spirit of Law by Montesquieu:

“Commerce … wanders across the earth, flees from where it is oppressed, and remains where it is left to breathe”.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and the other amendments in this group. I do so as an employer, and my interests are declared in the register.

I am a very small employer, in a not-for-profit company. I am therefore one of the microbusinesses to which my noble friend Lady Noakes has referred—those which have zero to nine employees. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said: smaller businesses will find it very difficult to afford the costs which this Bill will impose upon them.

Small businesses and the employers in them are not the adversaries of those we take on. Many small businesses, including a number in the digital sector, are start-ups—some started in that garage, about which Hermann Hauser once spoke. They build up their teams and develop by commitment. Each member of the team taken on is an asset—not just an expensive potential asset but a cost to begin with, in time and in the compliance of dealing with every member of the workforce. Such businesses do not have large HR teams or sometimes any HR teams. There is a cost in the salary and in trying to keep the employee by continuing to raise the salary as often as one can. There is also a cost in the investment of time.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

There is a clear solution here. As currently written, the Bill offers some scope for exemptions to the duty to offer guaranteed hours, such as in seasonal work. However, I plead that that is, certainly at the moment, a vague provision, and we need explicit regulation to define full-time students as a category of workers who are exempt from this duty. The regulation could specify that students on zero-hours or low-hours contracts are excluded from the obligation to be offered guaranteed hours, thus ensuring that universities, student unions and seasonal employers are not burdened by requirements that simply do not fit into the nature of student employment. This would ensure that employers can continue to offer flexible work to students without the threat of penalties or unnecessary costs, and it would also allow students to continue working in a manner that fits their academic schedules and personal needs, rather than forcing them into fixed hours that they cannot meet. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly support this amendment in the name of my noble friend. I am an employer, and I have declared my interest in the register. I founded and was the executive director of a think tank for over the best part of a quarter of a century, and now I am research director there. We continue to employ students on a flexible basis. As your Lordships know, many universities have changed their timetables. Some are taking much shorter summer breaks, some have started working more flexibly and many work remotely for certain classes. Postgraduate and undergraduate students welcome the opportunity to train, get a foothold in the world of work and understand what happens there. They learn disciplines. They learn the discipline of work, timetabling and deadlines. But we have to be flexible. Terms can be busy. There can be things such as essay crises, or a postgraduate student may have an extra schedule to fit in, and of course we will accommodate that.

We have devised a good work programme. I am speaking only to give the Committee an example of the damage this will do, particularly to the students. We devise a work programme so they can work remotely and do research when they have free time. They want to earn money, and both parties are flexible. I, particularly as a former academic, recognise that their work in the university, their teaching and their essays come first. This suits all parties. We have had full-time staff who have come to us with good degrees, stayed three or four years and then gone on to do a professional training course, perhaps in law or accountancy. They, too, want to come back and continue with the work that they have brought to a high level, and they will be paid accordingly. There is no exploitation in this market; rather it is mutual gain.

It is a great pleasure for me to see young people. I have had students from inner London universities whose family had no habit of third-level or even second-level education, who came from families from abroad, who used to ask for time off during their time to take their granny to the hospital in order to interpret for her. We gave them opportunities, and it is a great pleasure to see that they have done very well as a result. Some of the work placements are organised directly with the university, and for others students write in themselves. I beg the Government to listen to this amendment and take heed, because the Bill will do untold damage to the life chances of students and their capacity to earn and keep afloat when they are paying for their studies.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, this debate takes me back to my own student days and the work that I did as a student. It was not very glamorous, I have to say. I did the overnight shift shelf-stacking at Gateway, which set me up, obviously, to be a Peer in your Lordships’ House. I also did a stint at McDonald’s. That was valuable experience in terms of socialising, learning life skills and the important opportunity to meet different sorts of people.

I believe that this Government are fair-minded and decent in the way they wish to protect the interests of working families who want the certainty of being able to put food on the table and earn a decent wage. I think we all believe that that is very important as an imperative. However, the mark of a good piece of legislation is the ability to answer the question, “What problem is this solving?” Another mark of good legislation is the ability to be flexible in carving out some parts of a Bill where the effect of the Bill will be disadvantageous to a group. I think that this is one such example and that the very important points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral should be taken on board by the Government.

Remember that this is a student generation that has lived through the trauma of Covid. Many students and graduates have had to start their working career not being able to socialise in an office or a factory or out on site but at their kitchen table with their laptop. My problem is that employers who, broadly speaking, are not wicked and rapacious but want good people to join their business, make money for them and grow themselves as people and individuals and workers, will not take a risk with this legislation. This goes through the whole of this legislation. Employers are going to be significantly more risk-averse if they are going to be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to certain groups, including students. I think Ministers should give that consideration.

The reason that this is a good amendment is that it recognises that we have a very complex, fast-moving labour market and that young people are making decisions and value judgments about their work, employment, training, skills, knowledge and experience that I did not take 30 years ago and my parents certainly did not take, as you were generally in the same job for the whole of your working life, but—I would not use the word “promiscuous” necessarily, but I cannot think of a better word—younger people now are a bit more promiscuous in the decisions they take, and therefore they value that ability to enter into a flexible contract. In my time, I would not have expected a guaranteed hours contract. I would for someone aged, say, 35 or 40 who had a family and had to provide for them, but I think my noble friends have made a good point that this amendment would allow the Government to carve out this particular group. I do not think there is anything in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment that definitively makes the case for keeping students in this group, and for that reason I would like the Minister to give active consideration to this amendment. It is a sensible amendment. It is not a wrecking amendment. It is designed to improve the Bill. It recognises the real-life consequences and issues that may arise from the Bill: in other words, fewer young people having the opportunity to work and fewer long-term employment opportunities. For that reason, I am pleased to support my noble friend’s very good amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29 and support my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 27. My amendment probes the Government’s intended meaning for the phrase “reasonably believed”, which relates to short-notice cancellation of shifts. This phrase may seem innocuous at first glance, but it carries considerable weight in determining whether workers—particularly those in insecure or temporary arrangements—are entitled to compensation when a shift is cancelled, shortened or otherwise fails to materialise. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a reasonable belief in this context, we risk leaving both worker and employer in an uncertain and potentially contentious position. A test that lacks definition can quickly become a source of dispute rather than a resolution.

To be clear, my intention is not to impose overly prescriptive language on the Government, but rather to seek clarity on how this standard is to be understood and applied. For example, it is not enough for an employee to assert that they are expecting a shift to proceed even when the hirer has not provided written confirmation. What factors should we consider in assessing what is reasonable? Should they include previous patterns of communication, the urgency of the situation or a reliance on verbal assurances? Clarity is not a luxury that employment law has—it is a necessity. Vague thresholds serve no one, least of all those trying to navigate an already precarious labour market. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide reassurance that the Government’s use of this term is underpinned by clear guidance, sound reasoning and a fair balance between the interests of workers and agencies alike.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 22, which would allow the duty to provide reasonable notice not to apply in certain cases, and Amendment 24, which would do likewise for the duty to provide compensation under new Section 27BP(1). The Bill’s approach is likely to damage the effective working of the labour market, for which any sensible law needs to take account of the delicate balance between the needs of a business, which needs a workforce, and those of a workforce, which depends on a business succeeding to provide work and income for the future.

If a Bill does not account for exceptional circumstances, it becomes a straitjacket on all parties. In the case of this Bill, in providing for exceptions to guaranteed-hours, reasonable notice and compensation obligations, it should take account of the difficulties businesses have to navigate to keep afloat and continue to make a success of things, as well as contribute to the whole economy and the country’s overall welfare, provide jobs for the labour market, and offer opportunities for people to work, earn and, sometimes, get their first job on the jobs ladder.

We understand that businesses have both quiet periods and busy periods—such as hospitality events—where they need extra hands. A business must allow for periods of extra business as a matter of course—some of these are predictable, others not. Businesses know there are times when cover is needed with no notice, such as when a team member is off sick or at a funeral, but by the same token they need to be able to avoid adding to their problems and costs when they are a victim of circumstances that unexpectedly change. Yet the Bill requires the employer to give notice of changes and make provision for compensation if a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened without sufficient notice.

These amendments simply ask that a Government can make regulations so that the duties under new Sections 27BI and 27BJ need not apply. That would give power to a responsible Government to ensure that there can be exceptions, so that businesses are not burdened with the costs and time involved in the tribunal process and potential compensation payments in cases where, due to unlikely and unforeseen circumstances, the guaranteed-hours work was not available at short notice.

We have already heard examples, but no business is exempt from the difficult changing circumstances with which they contend. Given the burden that the business sector will face under the guaranteed-hours clause, a Government will have few tools at their disposal to tackle what could be an unfair obligation—one that might be mitigated by circumstances in the normal course of events—to exempt the reasonable notice required for changes or cancellations that have an impact on the business, and the compensation obligation, which will add unfair costs to a business.

I will take three sectors—each very different—to illustrate a potential example. The first is the retail sector, where extra help is needed to deal with a delivery and prepare it for the shelves overnight. What if the delivery van does not arrive, or the motorway is closed due to an accident or roadworks? The business has little or no notice of the failure, yet it will lose custom and income on lost sales. None the less, there is no provision in the Bill to allow for it to give less than what, under the measure, will be reasonable notice, or to protect it from paying compensation.

In the care sector, extra hours may be needed to help with certain residents needing extra support, or someone due to arrive on a given day. What happens if the person dies or the resident falls ill, has a heart attack and must go to hospital right away? There is no notice of that, and the extra work does not materialise. The care home will lose income on its empty room and overhead, yet payment will be expected. Where is the money to come from—the local authority, the care recipient, or the estate if it is a death? What will the care home do to tide over an income shortfall when having to pay its suppliers for everything from food and cooking to linen, room cleaning and care?

The CEO of the Carers Trust explains that social care providers are often forced to rely on zero-hours contracts because of a “lack of funding” from local authorities. She says:

“If zero-hours contracts are banned”—


or, I would add, made more difficult or costly—

“social care providers must be given the funding to afford the increased costs that brings”.

The CEO of the National Care Forum says that

“these measures must be accompanied by the financial and wider support necessary for providers to implement them, as well as interim measures to boost care worker pay”.

These changes must be reflected in its funding so that it can continue to do its vital work. So are the Government prepared to make a commitment to cover the costs that will be incurred if these clauses go through unamended?

Another example would be a conference organiser where the IT system fails. Despite a service contract in place to repair it instantly, nothing can be fixed because the failure lies elsewhere: a cyberattack or an energy blackout. This can happen overnight. The business loses its data, it loses customers, who are unable to pay an entry price, and it loses an overhead. Depending on how long it is before the system can be got back to normal, it may lose so badly that, ultimately, if the problem recurs, it may have to curtail operations and overheads. Without the amendments allowing the Government to provide for exemptions from the clause, there will be higher costs that may ultimately lead to the failure of the business.

There are enough uncertainties and costs for employers without making these worse, but the obligations of the Bill and these clauses could add significantly to costs and complications. Who will pay these extra costs? We know that this Government have been in the habit of saddling the taxpayer with additional costs in respect of workers in the public sector but not for businesses or charitable trusts, or indeed independent schools in the case of imposing VAT. What about the care homes taking local authority work? What about the costs of the uncertainties of the Bill itself? Although the compensation clause stipulates that compensation will not exceed pay for the lost shift, we do not yet know what the amount will be, what “short notice” is supposed to mean and what is meant by “qualifying shift”. We have to wait for regulations.

There are good reasons for these amendments. If we want businesses and the labour market to flourish, and to enable businesses to navigate the unwelcome outcomes of unexpected problems preventing expected workloads without adding to their costs, there are good reasons for the Government to accept them and for the regulations to respect the spirit in which they have been made.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 28, which replaces the test of reasonable belief with that of formal confirmation. I mentioned earlier the work done by the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts when it reported in 2018. It also examined the issue of compensation for short-notice cancellation of shifts. It emphasised in its report that there would need to be fairly rigorous record-keeping. It said that both employers and employees would need

“proof a shift had been offered”.

That speaks to the content of Amendment 28. It does not seem to me to be sensible to have something that rests solely on reasonable belief, because that is impossible to prove and would result in difficult questions being put to an employment tribunal. Although I am obviously not in favour of imposing bureaucratic requirements on employers, this is one area where the legislation should point towards there being some formality of record-keeping so that there can be no dispute about whether shifts have been offered or cancelled.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, my main concern with the changes to statutory sick pay in this Bill is the impact on smaller businesses, which is why I support the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which provide for rebates for SMEs. Of the two amendments, I prefer that of my noble friend Lady Coffey because it clearly undoes the harms that Clause 10 will cause.

I could not find much data on how much businesses actually pay in statutory sick pay, but I suspect that, unless an employer is unlucky enough to get an employee who has long-duration sickness, most will be paying relatively little at present, because absences are mainly for less than four days. What the data does show is that most sickness absences are for minor illnesses, which are unlikely to exceed three days. The average days lost per worker per year in 2023, which is the most recent data I could find, is just short of eight days. Among smaller and micro-businesses, that falls to around five days.

Extending the days for which payment is made is likely to increase the number of days lost to sickness, as the current incentive to work if the illness is mild will simply disappear. The Government say they have no idea what the behavioural impact of the changes will be—whether positive or negative—but I am prepared to bet that there will be far more short-duration absences, which will qualify for statutory sick pay, than there were before.

If I am right that most SMEs do not currently pay much in the way of statutory sick pay, the changes in the Bill will straightforwardly increase their costs. An average small business of between 10 and 49 employees has about 20 employees, which means that the average for a small business will be to pay for at least 100 days of sickness that they do not currently have, which would amount to around £2,000 in additional costs each year, even if no additional sick days were taken, which I doubt. That is not a huge amount per business, but it adds up to many billions of pounds across the whole economy. It also, of course, comes on top of the jobs tax and the very significant increases in the national minimum wage, which leads me to the likely real consequences of this change on top of the others. Put simply, SMEs will not hire workers unless they absolutely have to. We can already see evidence of that from the surveys of smaller businesses and in the weakening labour market—my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom gave us an up-to-date view on that. It is only going to get worse.

Furthermore, all those groups that we as a nation want to get back into work, in particular those who are long-term sick, will simply not be attractive to employers. Any hint of an illness record in a job applicant’s background will count against them, because no employer would want to take on the additional costs that would automatically come with that employee.

I am sure that I do not need to remind the Committee that SMEs employ nearly half the private sector work- force. A reluctance to hire among SMEs will kill growth and opportunities for many of the groups that we need to be employed in this country. There is a simple way to solve this problem, set out in Amendments 73 and 74. The Government would be wise to go down that route.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 71A and 71B in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Amendment 73 in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a rebate scheme.

Amendments 71A and 71B propose a sensible modification to Clause 11 and strike a more affordable approach for a business paying the employee for time not worked, as well as for the compliance and record-keeping involved. I say “more affordable” rather than “fair” because many businesses—particularly small and micro-businesses, as we continue to hear in Committee —will struggle to stay afloat and in business, given the juggernaut of additional costs, burdens and increased obligations imposed by this Bill. That includes those in this clause and those in previous clauses that we have discussed.

In Clause 11, such costs are to be imposed for those below the lower earnings limit, as we have heard, which will add to the extra costs paid by employers. They will potentially open further problems raised in the impact assessment, the modelling for which suggests a rosier picture for business than the available evidence warrants but also raises questions of behavioural response. Indeed, that consideration was a fundamental principle addressed in the welfare state proposals by Sir William Beveridge in his blueprint Social Insurance and Allied Services in 1942. The original National Insurance Act was framed as a contributory scheme with strict conditions on benefit to avoid creating perverse incentives.

The impact assessment for this measure—which models outcomes on the basis of a variety of factors, including some unproven assumptions—contends that there is evidence suggesting that overall sickness absence may be reduced but, on the basis of evidence considered from other countries, says that it is

“possible that regulation changes induce a behavioural response”

and that

“studies from other countries have found that the incidences of sickness absences are higher when sick pay is more generous. There could be an increased number of sickness absence days taken due to improved financial protection”.

We can read that in whatever way we like, and we have heard different interpretations of more generous statutory sick pay, but it is incumbent on the Government to return to some of the original principles in the national insurance system in this country and to think further about not creating perverse incentives. There will now be days for which the employer will pay for which there is absolutely no productivity gain.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in particular to Amendments 83 to 85, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Clause 20, on harassment by third parties, although well-intentioned, has triggered this batch of amendments, none of which is perfect. Most seek to damage limit the Bill or bring in exemptions.

I will focus on the exemptions proposed in Amendment 85 and declare up front a relevant interest, in that I hold a significant minority stake in a rural community pub in mid-Wales. As we have already heard, the hospitality sector is low margin and struggling with a range of issues, including shortages of staff, smoking bans, competition from supermarkets, the rise of home entertainment, big tech and social media. Pubs specifically have had a horrendous time. In England and Wales alone, we have lost 13,000 pubs in the past 25 years and, as we have heard, each and every week another 10 close their doors for the final time.

Now this Bill expects the owner or the bar manager, often on low pay and inexperienced, to take on the role of a conversation arbiter or chat monitor in case a customer says something to their drinking or dining pal that is overheard and deemed offensive by an employee. To be clear, I accept that employers should step up if their customers or clients are being offensive to their staff. Yes, they have a responsibility to their staff’s welfare and to their code of conduct, but is legislating in this way the answer? It leaves so many questions, on a subjective level, of what is offensive and what is not.

That brings me to the second sector proposed for exemption by Amendment 85: sports venues. This is where Clause 20 threatens to become unworkable. This struck me only yesterday while I was in the London Stadium, with 60,000 others, watching West Ham stumble to yet another home defeat, this time against Nottingham Forest. There was a lot of anger in the crowd and much of the language could be described as vulgar or offensive. Others would call it passionate, fruity, spiky or humorous, but these views could be heard—or, importantly, overheard—by club officials, security staff, stewards, the police, bar staff, programme sellers and burger flippers, all of whom are employees of the club, the stadium, or various contractors and subcontractors. These views, in the space of 10 minutes, included the manager’s IQ being questioned vigorously and frequently; savaging of the players and their work ethic; forthright suggestions that the referee’s assistant should book multiple appointments at Specsavers; and, finally, the referee himself being repeatedly accused of practising self-love.

I am choosing my words carefully and not quoting directly in order to meet this House’s Code of Conduct, which I respect and have signed up to, but if I did not and repeated some of the profanities I heard yesterday, I would be in trouble. Here is the thing: Parliament, as an employer, would not currently be taken to a tribunal by a colleague, a doorkeeper or a Hansard employee who found my language offensive, but that could change if this Bill has its way.

The point is that most workplaces are covered by a code of conduct or employer’s handbook that sets out the markers and helps sort most of these incidents without the need for dispute litigation, employment lawyers or, indeed, tribunals. Much of this is driven by common sense and human decency, and the mutual interest of employer and employee to ensure a productive and harmonious working environment. Clause 20 threatens to undo much of that. I ask the Minister and this Government to seriously think again.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I rise to support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes to Clauses 20 and 21. Both noted, as have other noble Lords, the impact these clauses will have on small businesses already struggling under a juggernaut of burdens, particularly those introduced since last July.

I begin with my noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to Clause 21, which, as she noted, amends the Equality Act 2010. These amendments, Amendments 89 to 96, would require regulations to specify the steps an employer needs to take to prevent the harassment of an employee and to cover all forms of harassment so that, provided those steps are followed, the employer is protected from liability. This change is reasonable and proportionate, in that it would oblige regulations to specify the steps needed to protect employers from liability to claims. It is a matter of fairness and good law that a measure should be clear about the duties under it, rather than leaving it to litigation.

The measure also has precedents, such as health and safety regulations in which employers’ duties are set out. In the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 the main duties are to identify risks, assess them and reduce them. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 require employers to provide adequate lighting, heating, ventilation and workspace and to keep them in a clean condition—and so on throughout the health and safety regulations of the 1990s. As if to egg the cake, we have the HSE’s guide on the steps needed to manage risk, which sets out step by step the process for controlling health and safety risk, in line with the regulations to identify hazards, assess risk and so on.

My noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments to Clause 21 would ensure that employers know what is required in respect of preventing harassment, which matters in itself and is germane to good law. I therefore support them.

I also support Amendments 83 to 88, to Clause 20, in the names of my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes. They address what is and is not required of employers in protecting their employees; clarify harassment to exclude

“the expression of an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social matter, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive”;

exclude the hospitality sector, university settings and sports venues so the obligation on the employer does not apply; exclude indirect harassment; take account of the employee’s perception of the circumstances and whether it was reasonable to have the effect; and take account of whether it was an isolated incident. These are all important amendments that have a great deal of support across the Committee.

Noble Lords have already explained how Clause 20 could undermine freedom of speech. We are not speaking of an employer’s liability for direct harassment by a third party, such as customers or clients, against an employee. That is covered by Section 40 of the Equality Act 2010. Rather, the clause being amended has the effect of making the employer liable for what third parties say when speaking among themselves, and which is then overheard by an employee. This might occur in a bar, restaurant, shop, the foyer of a cinema or theatre or on public transport. Customers in a restaurant or a bar might be discussing the latest immigration figures, the likelihood of yet more unsustainable migration into the country, the shortage of housing, schools and hospitals, ever longer waiting lists for a place or a bed, or an inability to understand English. To hold an employer liable for a private conversation among customers overheard by an employee is wrong. It would bring the law into disrepute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

There is harassment, and what we are debating now is third-party harassment. Obviously, tribunals would have to take into account the practicality of enforcing third-party harassment, and I have been trying to set out the grounds on which it would be considered either reasonable or unreasonable. That would have to be considered case by case, but nevertheless the issue is very different from an employee’s absolute right not to be harassed directly in the workplace.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am a bit puzzled as to how the tribunal will measure this alleged harassment, given the different interpretations that could be put on it. There are some conflicts, as we have heard today.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thought I had explained that in my description, and I do not really want to have to repeat it. I explained the grounds that would be considered when comparing harassment with acceptable behaviour.

Amendment 85 also seeks to significantly reduce the scope of Clause 20 by excluding the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education. This would create a disparity and a hierarchy of protections across employers and sectors, leaving swathes of employees without equal protection. This cannot be justified, given that employers in these sectors will be required only to do what is reasonable, and this will depend on their specific circumstances.

Amendment 86 seeks to reinstate the three-strike rule that was repealed in 2013. However, as I have explained, an isolated or one-off incident is much less likely to amount to harassment than continuing acts. The recent Free Speech Union campaign against this clause stated that

“when the Equality Act was originally passed, it included a clause making employers liable for the harassment of employees by third parties, but it was repealed in 2013 because it proved to be so costly and difficult for employers to comply with. We mustn’t make the same mistake again”.

We agree that we should not make that mistake again. We cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would wish to impose on employers the unnecessary costs and burdens that this amendment would bring. By contrast, the Government’s approach will make it simpler for employers to understand their obligations and will ensure that victims can be confident that they are protected by law.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I think that is a slightly odd question coming from the supporter of a Government who are not coming forward with either intangible or tangible benefits in monetisable ways. Were that in the impact assessment or the economic analysis of the Bill, I would defer to the noble Lord’s argument, but neither of them are there. Frankly, it is difficult for us to make a value judgment on the balance of obligations and responsibilities between the workforce and the employer when the data is not provided. I think the noble Lord has probably made my case. With that, I support the amendment from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral in proposing this impact assessment and thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for making the case so persuasively from the Front Bench. I shall simply pick up on a few points that were made in the amendment and his speech. The amendment asks for an impact assessment on free speech. Proposed new subsection (1) asks for an assessment of Sections 19 to 22 of this Act on employers. Proposed new subsection (2) says:

“The assessment must report on … the impact of sections 19 to 22 on free speech”


and include

“an assessment of the likely costs to employers”

of these sections, which must include types of occupations at risk and proposals for mitigations.

I want to comment on this amendment in the context of universities. I spoke earlier in Committee about the mitigations a university might take in its rules and in the checklist that it hands out to potential candidates for a place who want to come to that university to study and who are asked to abide by certain arrangements or rules. These rules will, if the employer and the university follow what they are required as trustees of a charity to follow, protect the costs: whatever endowment of funds the university has, it will have to follow caution. I have no doubt that undergraduates or graduate students coming in for postgraduate work will be asked to promise not to complain, or be overheard doing so, or speak ill of lecturer A, whose lectures they may not approve of, may think are no good or whatever, as happens in normal intercourse in a university.

One of the standard things you will hear as undergraduates leave the room is, “What a rotten lecture that was” or “Isn’t it interesting that such a subject didn’t touch on the kernel of the matter?” or whatever they think is important. This is the sort of education we want to impart. We want students to question and challenge. We want them to make the case against what they have heard and to think about it. To make an employer liable for a student doing what a university education should encourage—we encourage it at school too—seems to me silly. We should have an impact assessment of what will happen and what sort of steps a university will take to curtail that freedom to argue or to criticise an employee of the university. We should ask for an impact assessment. It would not be very difficult to consult universities and find out exactly how they would get around this potential liability as employers.

The same goes for mitigation and the costs which will be incurred. For example, take the costs to an institution such as a university of fighting a claim in an employment tribunal. The member of staff concerned, against whom the criticism has been made, will be on tenterhooks all the time. They may be distracted, may have to continue to give evidence to the employer, and so on, with a lot of back and forth. As for the employers, think of the staff costs, counsel charges, legal charges, administrative costs and committee costs they will incur, and the time that will be spent on that rather than on running their universities to do what they ought to do—to educate undergraduates and do research. This is the most moderate request for an impact assessment that I have heard. Noble Lords would be well advised to agree that we need an impact assessment, both on free speech and the likely costs—particularly the costs of going to a tribunal and waiting for all that period.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, have my name on Amendment 97, which would introduce yet another impact assessment. I know that so many impact assessments have been proposed in relation to the Bill that it has become a bit of a cliché, but I am especially concerned that this one is taken seriously because the third-party harassment sections of the Bill are ill thought out in a way that could lead to unintended consequences.

One noble Lord a few moments ago asked why there was a desire for an impact assessment rather than thinking of the potential positives of the Bill. The response of the Government in relation to concerns about Clause 20, for example, which is to say that there is nothing to see here—no problem at all—is an insufficient way of responding to some quite detailed scrutiny that has been put forward. If there is any exaggeration of the potential problems, an impact assessment should be able to resolve that for us.

I will focus largely on Clause 20, looking first at its potential cost to employers. That is especially important given that the Minister’s counter to my remarks earlier was that Clause 20 will be good for business. The Government’s own assessment advises that the total economic impact of complying with Clause 20 will be under £10 million and will have negligible economic impact on businesses. That is irresponsible; some might go so far as to call it misinformation. For example, that assessment says that the cost of familiarisation with the Bill and its ramifications will be £30 per medium business and only £19 per small microbusiness. I am not sure where these woeful underestimates come from or what they are based on, but if noble Lords have never met an employment lawyer, I can assure them that that is an unlikely figure.

We need a serious cost-benefit analysis. Let us consider what this section of the Bill requires businesses to do. Employers must show that they have taken all reasonable steps; that sets a high threshold for preventive action, as we heard earlier. Let us think what that means. There are direct costs for the initial implementation of anti-harassment policies, including familiarisation with the new regulations and checking exactly what their legal liabilities will mean. As we have seen during this debate, it is not necessarily as clear as day what the Bill requires.

As we have been arguing, if you are a small microbusiness trying to concentrate on being a business and trying to grow bigger, having to study the Bill and work out what your liability will be could be quite time consuming, nerve-wracking and so on. They will have to seek out third-party and legal advice—no doubt, there will be lots of consultants queuing up—because, as responsible businesses, they will want to safeguard themselves from the financial risks of not complying. One of the main risks they will be trying to ensure they do not have to deal with is the possibility of employment tribunals.

In what seems like an entirely arbitrary figure, the Government predict that only 30 employment tribunals a year will come from these clauses. There is no explanation as to how the Government reached that figure, and it is certainly completely at odds with industry experts who expect that Clause 20 alone will see an increase in employment tribunals of 15%—in other words, an additional 14,750 cases a year. As we heard earlier in a different context, already in 2023-24, employment tribunal courts received 97,000 cases, up from 86,000 the year before. That is an increase of nearly 13%. More and more people are forced into employment tribunals for a variety of reasons.

This Bill threatens to create even more cases—an unknown figure because it is a new provision. The Government are saying that it will be only 30 a year, but that is just making it up. There is, at least, an attempt in this amendment to try to work it out. According to the chambers of commerce, the cost of one employment tribunal is, on average, about £8,500, and if a claimant is successful, there is no financial limit to the compensation in a harassment case. Imagine you are a business worried about what is going to happen: this clause will lead to risk-averse and overcautious behaviour, not detailed in the Bill, to try to avoid being held liable. Some of us fear that this is what this kind of over-regulatory, precautionary approach will lead to.

Businesses will not be able to be slipshod about their potential liability. Smaller SMEs and microbusinesses —often with no dedicated HR or EDI offices—will need to think about employing new staff dedicated to protecting them from claims and giving them advice. The idea of a whole new generation of HR and EDI staff roles in every business in the country is frightening enough, but, anyway, it has nothing to do with their core businesses. Let us also note that the average salary of an EDI officer in the UK is £42,084.

I want also to stress why an impact assessment must include which occupations might be at particular risk of third-party harassment claims through no fault of the employer and the impact, specifically, on free speech. These parts of the amendment are very important because we were asked earlier in a different group why there had been a focus on hospitality, sport and universities. There may be other sectors but, in a way, this is an assessment to see which sectors would be affected. It also asks for an impact assessment on free speech. As we have heard, the Government simply deny that there will be any impact in relation to free speech. I disagree, but let us scrutinise it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made the point that we should not worry about free speech because it is protected by the convention on human rights. She cited a number of clauses. It is true that, on paper, none of us should be worried about free speech; our free speech in this country is fully protected. And yet, daily—I stress, daily—there are more and more instances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who is not in her place, indicated earlier, in which free speech is under stress in this country. More and more people are walking on eggshells and are, in many instances, getting sacked or disciplined for speaking their minds in workplaces, so I am not convinced by “Nothing to see here, don’t worry about it, all is well”.

Earlier, the noble Baroness—

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

In short, I strongly urge the Government to reconsider the wording of Clause 27, and to recognise the impossibility of consultation in these circumstances and that the need to provide for statutory redundancy pay for employees is already fully taken care of in existing legislation. Awards from employment tribunals for failure to consult—whether they require an extra three months’ or 90 days’ pay, or six months’ or 180 days’ pay—will double these payments or more. They will, in many circumstances, remove money owed to both suppliers and the taxpayer.

[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.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

In general, I want women to have a fair shot in the workplace. This clause is doing nothing to help them.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I am against Clause 31 standing part of the Bill. The 2010 Act protects against gender and other types of discrimination. It replaces earlier Acts, as your Lordships will know, including the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The principles of equality are commonly supported. The aims are those on which people agree and under which employers are bound. Section 78 of the Equality Act stipulates that:

“Regulations may require employers to publish information relating to the pay of employees for the purpose of showing whether, by reference to factors of such description as is prescribed, there are differences in the pay of male and female employees”.


We have an Act that is commonly agreed on and obeyed, and known by those to whom it is addressed.

Clause 31 proposes to add a new Section 78A after Section 78, which stipulates:

“Regulations may require employers to … develop and publish … an ‘equality action plan’”


in respect of gender and equality,

“showing the steps that the employers are taking in relation to their employees with regard to prescribed matters related to gender equality, and … publish prescribed information relating to the plan”.

This will oblige more compliance, more bureaucracy and higher costs on employers—and it is unnecessary because we have the law.

We have just been listening to the discussion of the strategic defence review. We are going to have to spend a lot of money on defence. There are going to be lots of demands on the public purse. To oblige more compliance and bureaucracy on employers at a time when things are tight will not be a great help to the other demands on the public purse. It is not only about compliance and bureaucracy; much worse than that it leads to something beyond the principles of the Equality Act. It prompts institutions in practice to devise and interpret action plans that result in a 50:50 balance between men and women, and steps will be taken to achieve that level playing field and to discriminate positively.

Take the example of academic shortlisting, where, in order to achieve a 50:50 balance, things can be so ordained at the shortlisting stage in order to appoint women, and as they are so ordained, discrimination takes place against men and appointments are made not on merit but on gender. This results in action plans under which men are discriminated against. It is also unfair for women because, once positive discrimination comes into play, women too suffer. The women who are appointed are perceived to have been appointed not because they come first on merit, or in a fair competition, but on account of their gender.

I shall comment briefly on new Section 78A(4), which sets down that

“matters related to gender equality include (a) addressing the gender pay gap, (b) supporting employees going through the menopause”.

New Section 78A(4)(a) is too broad. Take the case of a male and female employee appointed at entry level to similar positions. They start with the same salary, but one may do far better than the other, be given far more responsibility and be promoted eventually to a higher role. How is the gender pay gap to be addressed, given that the talent, resourcefulness and ability of one employee naturally results in more responsibility and higher payment?

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has already mentioned new Section 78A(4)(b), which has no place in the workplace. It is discriminatory in its assumption that women need special help at certain times of their life. It also violates the professionalism of a good workplace in treating the personal as public, and it puts the employer into a discriminatory role in requiring special support for a select group of employees, rather than acting as a dispassionate employer who treats all employees well and fairly.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the proposition that Clause 31, on equality action plans, should not stand part of the Bill. We meet tonight with the knowledge that the OECD has downgraded the UK’s likely GDP for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said, I think I am right in saying, that it was not the intention of the Government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of the Bill. This is an example of exactly that.

I am very concerned about this clause, because it is very widely drawn and relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled, or laid before the House, once the Bill becomes an Act. I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Is it really the duty and responsibility of a Minister in the sixth-biggest economy in the world, a mature economy of 68 million people, to impose by ministerial fiat, in primary legislation, the minutiae, the weeds, of

“the content of a plan”

for every business that has more than 250 employees,

“the form and manner in which a plan or information is to be published; when and how”

that plan is published, and, in new subsection (5)(d)—maybe I am being obtuse, but I do not even understand the meaning of this—

“requirements for senior approval before a plan or information is published”?

What does that even mean? Does it mean the chief people officer, the chief executive, the managing director or what?

It would be much better were the Government to use their energy, and the good will that is behind significant parts of the Bill, to work with people such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others to develop professional, timely briefings for employers. But they are not doing that. They are instead insisting, in the Bill, that they will direct these equality action plans, irrespective of what type of business is being transacted and whether it has a workforce of 251, 25,000 or 250,000.

In fact, the clause does not even define “employee”, “employer” or “descriptions of information”. It fails to define them and says that those details will be reserved for regulations to be laid after the Bill gets Royal Assent. New subsection (7) is also very opaque when it states:

“The regulations may make provision for a failure to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise than as an offence, by such means as are prescribed”.


Again, that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what it means or what sanctions will be in place and available for Ministers to lay down in regulations. New subsection (6) states:

“The regulations may not require an employer, after the first publication of information, to publish information more frequently”.


It does not say “must not”, so Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications of and changes to these regulations.

For all those reasons, this is an unnecessary clause. It will add costs and administrative burdens. It will certainly take a significant amount of time, for instance, to get in specialists in human resources as consultants to draw up these plans on perhaps a 12-monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative time and take away from employing people, for the bottom line and profit, which will impact employability. For that reason, I support the proposition that this clause should not stand part of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s remarks. I agree with every word.

I vividly recall the change in this country, in 1979, when union power was such that people were frightened of starting businesses or to go to work. Murdoch took a brave stance to take the unions head on and, after 1979, the country emerged with much greater strength, economic certainty and prosperity. As a result, people like me chose to start a business in this country. That was because of the economic prosperity created by Thatcher’s Cabinet and team. Any attempt to go backwards rather than forwards is very depressing and disappointing.

My noble friend Lord Jackson is of course right that Clause 55 is the kernel of the Bill. It is an important clause that reveals why the Bill is so inappropriate and badly drafted, and it needs amendment or, if not, not to stand part.

I refer to the British Chambers of Commerce, an independent organisation which, as we know from Second Reading, criticised the Bill because of its lack of consultation, because of its greater restriction and penalties for firms that want to make workforce changes but, most importantly, because of the greater responsibilities, costs and complexity for employers. The Bill includes some of the most significant and widest range of changes to employment laws for decades.

The Government’s own assessment suggests that the legislation will cost businesses almost £5 billion a year, and that the SME sector will be impacted most. This is at a time when, just in the last couple of months, businesses have come to terms with the dreadful, unnecessary and wholly growth-destroying national insurance increase. It is literally putting businesses out of business. Your Lordships do not have to believe me; just look at the last insolvency statistics, which show record figures of insolvency, particularly for CVLs—creditors’ voluntary liquidations. People are throwing in the towel; they are not prepared to carry on business when they are faced with these increased costs for employing people and for properties and business rates, which the Bill imposes on all businesses.

My particular concern is with the SME sector. We debated this at Second Reading, and I complimented the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on starting a small business. He therefore knows and understands this, but many people on the Front Bench of the Labour Party do not have that experience and expertise and are not aware of the damage this will do. These amendments are vital, particularly to try to exempt small businesses—and, if not small businesses, micro-businesses—from these onerous requirements.

To take it to the point of absurdity, and to declare an interest, I personally employ one person—do I have to give that one person a piece of paper when they join? It looks like I do. Will I then be told by the Government that I have to give that person a statement “at other prescribed times”? What does that mean? It means that when the unions are short of members, as they invariably are, and they need to raise more money —we know where that money largely ends up—they will say to employers, “Right, you’d better give all your staff a statement to tell them that they have the right to join a union”, and encourage them so to do. It is on the point of absurdity.

The BCC goes on to say:

“the scale and scope of the changes is huge, with many feeling they are being rushed through at breakneck speed … Firms are particularly concerned about the lack of detailed consultation on the Trade Union changes, especially when the Government’s own assessment was so vague about the impact”.

It rightly points out that:

“Overall, there is a lot in the Employment Rights Bill that reinforces much of what good businesses already do. But the fear remains that certain elements could create huge costs for firms and damage the UK’s ambitions for growth”.

I repeat the request made to the Government Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to cite businesses—SME businesses in particular, but actually any businesses—that are in support. Richer Sounds is not a good example. Julian Richer sold Richer Sounds to an EOT—it is a co-operative. One of the firms mentioned last time was Nationwide. That is not an SME, and the Co-op is certainly not. So where is the support for this? Please can we exclude this extremely vague “at other prescribed times”, which is without any limitation or cap? If it said “annually”, that might be a start. Can we also exclude both SMEs and micro-companies from these onerous requirements?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that seek to mitigate the impact of Clause 55, which amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by inserting a new section with a

“Statement of trade union rights”.


I support, in particular, Amendment 205 by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would apply the statement only to larger companies. We have heard very good arguments as to why this should happen. I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would leave open to employers the option to decide whether to apply the statement under the new Section 136A. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would mean it does not apply to smaller employers and those with fewer than 10 employees, as well as her amendment that probes why such a statement should be given at times other than the start of the job. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, put forward some good potential reasons.

This a very bad clause. I oppose it for two reasons. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on the Front Bench, who has stated that it should not be part of a Bill, certainly not in 2025. Such obligations interfere with the professional balance of duties and responsibilities in a business between employer and employee. The employer must promote the best interests of the business and, with the directors of the company, employers are bound to do so.

Employers are also bound under employment law. The 1992 Act, which this clause amends, already strikes a balance between the role of trade unions in the workplace and the employer. It sets out that the employer or business recognise trade unions that meet certain criteria, engage in collective bargaining, provide information to the unions and respect those engaged in lawful industrial action. We already have recognition of the responsibilities of employers to trade unions in the workplace; a balance has been struck, and it has worked, by and large, very well.

The interests of the business will also involve treating all workers not only legally but fairly and professionally. It should not involve employers being obliged, as the new Section 136A stipulates, to give a written statement that the employee has the right to join a trade union at the start of the job and at other prescribed times. It should also not be left to politicians, as the new section states—the Secretary of State at the time—to prescribe what information is included, what form the statement takes, in what manner it should be given, and whether regulations prescribing anything for the purpose of this section may make different provision for different purposes.

Are we making the law or are we leaving it to some executive authority to make something up on the back of an envelope and prescribe it through his or her officials in government? This is not lawmaking, and this Parliament should challenge this sort of power being given to a Secretary of State to do what he or she may like. This not only adds a layer of bureaucracy but brings uncertainty to businesses and adds costs, from which smaller businesses at least should be spared.

The individual choices that employees make should not be anticipated by presuming that union membership is an assumption that both employer and employee make. That undermines the freedom of both parties to have a non-politicised atmosphere and implies that a business will be run in an atmosphere of expected confrontation instead. It suggests that freedom is being undermined. Yes, it does not require an employee to join the union, but if an employer presents a new employee with this statement, what on earth is the employee to think except that this is what should be done in order to get on in this business?

The second ground for objection, however, is more general. Obliging businesses to make such a statement politicises the internal arrangements of business. Trade union membership may or may not be something individuals choose, but we must recognise that trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party; they founded the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be dominated by former union members—or perhaps continuing union members. At certain times of Britain’s history, trade unions have dominated many workplaces and paralysed public services. Indeed, we see that continuing this year in Birmingham, with the paralysis in relation to bins and the failure of the council to deal with the Unite union. They have stopped the productive activities of the British people in industry and in business, undermining the economic success of the whole country and the ability of people to earn a decent wage or salary.

I am afraid they have undermined freedoms and have undermined the democratic decision by the people of this country to live without fear—fear that their child’s school will be closed by strikes, fear that their university lectures may be cancelled because the union has called a strike, and the fear of many working people that they cannot get to work and earn their money because the railways are strike-bound. This clause should not be in the Bill. It undermines the freedoms that were fought hard for by Conservative Governments since 1979 to restore freedom in the workplace, with a fair balance between trade unions and working people.

When I first came to this country in 1979 as a student, one of the members of staff of my college told me, “I am the sole earner in my family now. My husband had to join a union because of the closed shop. He couldn’t get a job without joining a union. Now that he has joined the union, he has been told he can’t work. This is why I, for the first time in my life, am voting for the Conservative Party and Mrs Thatcher”. Conservative Governments have successfully and successively restored order to the economy, allowed this country to prosper, allowed people to get jobs, helped entrepreneurship and growth, and helped Britain to no longer be the sick man of Europe. People voted for that. We should not turn the clock back to a day when we are chipping away bit by bit at those rights, so that people will not have the freedom to earn and this country will not be able to pay its way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling Amendments 205, 206, 207 and 208. I acknowledge that the noble Lord introduced the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness. I will also address the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, on their opposition to Clause 55 standing part of the Bill.

I am sorry that the tone of the debate has somewhat deteriorated this afternoon. I thought that we were having a reasonable, grown-up conversation until now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, because he admitted that what he was saying were his prejudices—and that is certainly what it sounded like. He was talking about a period 50 years ago, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, the world of work has changed significantly since then. As we absolutely acknowledge, we now have outdated employment processes and huge levels of exploitation, including a climate where it is not easy or encouraged to be a member of a union. That is one of the issues that we are seeking to address here.

I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who tried to give us a talk about democracy, that this Government were elected with a huge win on a manifesto to introduce the legislation that we have before us today.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I do not know that a mandate of 33% of the electorate is indeed a very strong mandate for overturning the reforms that have brought stability to the workplace.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We can have a long discussion about that, but if we are talking about mandates, it may well be argued that probably Baroness Thatcher did not have that kind of mandate either. The fact is that we won that election with a huge majority, and I am very sorry that the party opposite lost so badly. They might want to reflect a little bit more on why that was, because some of the issues that noble Lords have been talking about in relation to the state of our economy are exactly what we inherited from the previous Government. Those issues are absolutely the result of that Government’s economic policies and not ours. We have been taking great steps to improve the situation. While I am on that issue, I should say that, as a result of this Government’s actions, we had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 at the start of this year; we have done three trade deals in three weeks, with India, the US and the EU; interest rates have been cut four times—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, my Amendment 214 is designed to provide an effective remedy against an employer which defies an order of the CAC to provide trade union access. This is a situation where the trade union has applied to the employer for an agreement for access and been refused. The trade union has then gone to the CAC and succeeded in obtaining an order for access, which the employer has defied. The employer has had the opportunity to appeal to the EAT and has either declined to appeal or has had its appeal refused. In that situation, the Bill merely provides that a union can apply for a fine to be paid, not to it but to the CAC. That is no real deterrent and no incentive either for the union to enforce the CAC award, knowing that it will not result in compulsion for the employer to obey the order of the CAC. My amendment provides enforcement by way of a High Court injunction. That is an established procedure often used against trade unions for breach of their obligations in relation to industrial action. Some equivalence is surely justified here.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support Amendments 212 and 213 in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I agree that a 24-hour notice period is necessary, particularly for small businesses, because access to the workplace by third parties can be disruptive. Visitors calling unannounced can disrupt a carefully organised schedule between an employer and his or her employees. The 24-hour notice period would allow employers to prepare for a visit and to reschedule certain tasks. I support exempting smaller businesses from some of these arrangements, because it is very hard to organise smaller businesses with third-party interruptions.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and others. This clause strikes horror in my heart. The idea that someone could come into my business, access my premises with no notice—good luck with that, because I sit in a room on my own—or even worse, access my systems and my server, which are all heavily password-protected because I am regulated, strikes horror not just in my heart. I can assure the Minister, who says that she has consulted business groups, that she will see surveys coming out in the very near future that show the fear, horror and dislike that small businesses have of this Bill, and in particular the clauses we have been debating tonight. I hope she will have the opportunity to meet again with business representatives and listen to what they are saying.

The draftsman on this Bill is working in another era. What does physical access to a business mean? I like the clauses restricting this for smaller businesses, because most small businesses do not have a physical presence. In many businesses, literally tens of thousands of them, the employees work from home. They might have a WeWork office where they meet every now and then, but it is meaningless to give right of access to most small businesses. If we then go to right of access to digital communications, that implies, from the wording I have read, that a trade union official would have to be given the passwords to enter the systems.

What protection is there? What indemnities are there to ensure that this is not abused? We know that abuse happens, particularly in these days of cyber fraud, where someone who has accessed the system could take advantage. Obviously, I am not suggesting that that is going to be prevalent or happen in the majority of cases by any means, but I do not see any protection for small businesses should that happen.

It seems to me that the whole concept of access is misconceived. I would quite understand it if the legislation were drafted to require an employer of any size to pass messages to an employee—I would understand that; it would be reasonable—but can the Minister explain to us why she is demanding access to both physical and digital assets of small businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendments 208A, 209, 209A, 210, 210A, 211, 212, 213, 213A, 213B and 214.

Before we get into the detail, I will frame my remarks by pointing out that we have heard previously in this debate in quite heated tones a discussion of the role of trade unions in our society. From our perspective as a Government, and from my perspective—for what it is worth, I have been a member of a trade union all my working life—progressive legislation and reform, which we on this side have always tried to pursue through working with the trade union movement, have done much to improve not just the world of work and the rights of workers but the economy as a whole. We are proud of this progress and history. This Bill represents a further stride towards a successful, mature framework for employment relations in this country.

It is important when we talk about striking the balance between employers, unions and workers—in particular, between employers and workers—that we do not equate the two as having equality in terms of power dynamics. That is often missed from this debate. Many employees, whether they work in Amazon’s warehouses, an SME or a microbusiness, do not necessarily feel that they have the same equality of relationship with their employer as their employer has with them. That may be natural, but one of the roles of a trade union or employee representative is to level that playing field. It is always important when discussing trade union rights to bear that in mind.

In Amendments 209, 211 and 213, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are seeking to exempt smaller businesses from Clause 56. The right of access is a key part of our wider commitment to strengthening workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership, participation and dialogue. My noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway ably illustrated why, in some cases, trade unions do not need any improvements to access because they have a perfectly good and amicable working relationship. It is worth noting that in roughly 30% of the cases referred to the CAC the applications have been withdrawn because there has been a voluntary agreement, and that is a very good thing to see. However, there are cases where there is not that level of co-operation and access, which is why the Government are legislating to provide it.

We have heard in debates on previous groups that noble Lords on the Benches opposite think that trade unions are a good thing and have a role in the workplace. I absolutely take them at face value on that. To have that role in the workplace, they need to have access to workers. We cannot be starry-eyed about this; not all employers behave as responsibly and open-mindedly as we all believe they should in creating access for employees to their representatives. That is why we are discussing these bits of the Bill tonight.

The policy we have developed has been designed to be fair, consistent and workable for all employers. We will consult on specific details of the framework before they are set out in secondary legislation, including with the CAC, and we encourage businesses and unions to share their views. I understand the points around legal ambiguity raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, but, in the previous group, we discussed the levels of granularity and specificity in a particular statement that it is proposed that employers should give to employees about their rights to join a trade union. I posit that, if we had had the level of detail that the noble Lord suggested, we would have had a similar level of discontent from Members opposite. That is of course their right, but I make the point gently that you cannot have it both ways.

I turn now to Amendments 212 and 213B. Amendment 212 would require that trade unions provide a request for access to a workplace in writing, and with more than 24 hours’ notice from the requested date and time that access would happen. Amendment 213B would introduce two additional factors for the CAC to consider when making a determination on whether access should occur: first, the method, frequency and timing of the access requested, and, secondly, whether the purpose of access could be reasonably met without physical entry into the workplace. The Secretary of State will, by regulations, be able to set the time period in which an employer is required to respond to a request for access from a trade union, as well as the form that the trade union’s request must take and the manner in which it is provided to the employer.

I will respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, around the difference between this sort of trade union activity and organising for industrial action. As far as I am concerned, it is pretty obvious that this is about organising for recognition, where the legal conditions can be met, and indeed organising for recruitment and awareness for other very reasonable trade union activities, such as promoting health and safety at work, which we all agree is important and worthwhile.

The Secretary of State will also be able to set, through regulations, the circumstances the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made, and we will invite all interested parties to provide us with their views on these matters when we launch our consultation. To pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he may find that 24 hours after the consultation is deemed to be just right, or indeed too short a period. That is the reason for this consultation, rather than just prescribing everything at this point in time. If we had prescribed it in the Bill, and it was less than 24 hours, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would not be at all happy.

Amendment 214 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The proposals in this amendment would make declarations by the CAC under new Section 70ZI(5) enforceable, as if made by the High Court, opening a greater possibility of an employer being found to be in contempt of court. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that new Sections 70ZH and 70ZK, which were introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, already provide for a strong remedy against employers who do not respect these new rights of access, mainly in the form of CAC orders but ultimately backed by serious financial penalties when necessary. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said, these need to be serious financial penalties and they need to have heft. The new sections that were tabled on Report in the other place say that penalties can be linked to various metrics, such as annual turnover or, indeed, the number of workers employed in the liable entity. In the case of large companies, that would make a very serious penalty indeed. We do not want them to be fined; we want them to grant the access to trade unions and trade union representatives that their employees deserve. In our view, the available remedies are already powerful and proportionate. The Government do not consider it necessary to go beyond these.

Lastly, I turn to Amendments 210, 208A, 209A, 210A and 213A. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, are seeking in Amendments 210 and Amendments 208A to 213A to exempt digital forms of communication from the right of access policy. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that can be found in new Sections 70ZA(4)(a) and (b) in the Bill as it left the other place. This clause was designed for the modern workplace and with various working practices in mind. It is important that this clause provides for a digital right of access to ensure that unions can reach workers who may not work in a physical workplace, such as home workers or those who work in a hybrid manner. In my opinion, if I may be so bold, the noble Lord, Leigh of Hurley, answered his own point. As he acknowledged, in some businesses, it is not as simple—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am a bit puzzled about how access to digital can work side by side with the protections we have for data security.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I was going to mention it later, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that existing data protection legislation will continue to apply. I do not want to say that shrouds were waved, but there were a lot of quite fanciful hypotheses as to what digital access might involve. To be frank, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested—sorry to pick him out—it could simply mean that employers are, through their own email system, obliged to cascade a message from trade unions to their employees without the trade unions having direct access to the systems at all.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the Minister’s introduction to my amendments. I accept that the Government want to go for 2% as the lower limit, but I found the Government’s explanation of my other two amendments, which require a minimum of three people, very strange. The Minister said, “It’s not the way it’s been done before, so we shouldn’t change it now”. If she were to apply that principle to the Bill, we could strike the whole thing out and be done with it.

The reason for proposing the change is that it is sensible. It is just not sensible to put a company, particularly a small company, in a position where one employee can trigger this process. A minimum of three is not a big figure; it is just saying that there needs to be more than one, and three seems to be the right place to start. I know it is not the way that it has been done; that is why I put in an amendment.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a few words in support of Amendments 215AZZB to 215AZZD, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe. These are to Schedule 6 and I am responding to the Government’s amendments to this schedule, which qualify who may take part in a ballot, to ensure that those workers in the union before the close of the ballot may vote. These amendments address those who join after the application date but before the close of the ballot and newly hired workers within the bargaining unit. Amendment 215AZZD aims to ensure that the CAC is satisfied that the exclusion of new employees would not materially affect the outcome of a ballot or undermine democratic fairness. Amendment 215AZA would ensure that new workers who join the bargaining unit after the application date are not automatically disregarded for the purposes of recognition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the amendments seeking greater transparency for trade union members on where their money goes.

I support the retention of the status quo—so that people have to opt in—and maintaining the changes we saw made in 2016. I do so because these are moderate amendments. They do not attack the existence of the status quo or the political fund, which is, as is often announced on the websites of the unions, a campaigning fund. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that it is made clear by UNISON and Unite to new members, when joining, what their fees are for. Certainly, it is clear to the public that some members are affiliated to the Labour Party, and some of the funds of political campaigning will indeed go to the Labour Party. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that 13 were affiliated; I had the figure of 11 in my head, but that is only a small difference.

None of that is under attack; that is a subject for another debate. I would like to stress to your Lordships why I support the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This area has been very contentious for a century, and every single attempt to reach a settlement has involved compromise. Although one may think that the opting-in arrangement of the 1927 Act was against the interests of the trade unions, one has to remember that that was in the wake of the General Strike of 1926 and that the Conservative Party, which was the party of government, would not follow the inclination of many of its Back-Benchers—and, I think, one of its Front-Benchers, but I will not say whom —to get rid of the political fund. The Prime Minister of the day said, “We will not fire the first shot”.

That was an attempt to find a compromise, so that the trade unions could keep their political fund, continue to contribute to the Labour Party—which was a founder party and recognised as such by the Conservatives—and continue to campaign on the issues they judged important for their members. I agree that they have done great work, through their membership fees, on pensions and so on. Much of the settlement on the national insurance system not only drew on trade union knowledge and experience in practice but used their funds to nationalise —which I think was a less good idea.

We should have a spirit of compromise and reflect the compromise that was made in 2016. If we go down the route that the Government propose, I hope that the party on my side will again seek to bring in a compromise, because the laws of this Parliament should be made in the interest of transparency for all those affected by them. That goes for trade unionists in the workplace, who should have to opt in to a scheme in the interest of transparency. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief, as the dinner hour is upon us and there are—as we say—strangers in the House.

While I recognise the importance of transparency to inform members’ choice regarding funds, this group of amendments raises serious questions about proportionality. Amendments 216YC and 216YD would introduce notably higher thresholds for political resolutions, requiring support from a majority of all eligible members, rather than just those voting, and mandating new resolutions every five years. These are significant changes from the current practice. Likewise, Amendments 221 and 223—expertly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—seek to reduce opt-out notices from 10 years to one or two.

While the intention behind these proposals is clear, the impact warrants careful consideration. Other issues have been slightly sidetracked. There are fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address head-on. These issues are at the nub of trade unions and political funds, so we need some clarity on them from the Dispatch Box.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral to require an impact assessment on the effect on the emergency services. That is proposed in Amendment 254, which seeks to insert proposed new subsection (4) to Clause 75; and in Amendment 255, on the ability of the services listed in the 1992 Act to provide minimum service levels with a new Section 75, requiring an impact assessment.

As noble Lords will remember, the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 enabled the Secretary of State to set minimum levels of services in essential services, so that employers could give notices to trade unions that their employees must comply with Section 234B. Specified services included health, fire and rescue,

“decommissioning of nuclear installations and management of radioactive waste”

and border security. These are vital areas of the public services and, indeed, often incorporate private sector services too.

The noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady and Lady Coffey, both pointed out that the Act was not drawn on, but it is my view that it acted as a leverage, as has already been pointed out. I support also what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said: given time, the Act would have come into its own. It was not given time, partly because the Opposition, who were then in pole position to take over from the Conservatives at the next general election, made it clear that they would repeal it and fought tooth and nail against the Bill throughout the debates.

Clause 75, to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 for minimum service levels in these sectors, will appear, as has been said, to many people in this country as an irresponsible act of Government. They see that, every time the Labour Opposition is about to come to power or has the chance of coming to power, the trade unions ramp up their campaign, often calling strikes and causing chaos in the public services—some emergency services included—thus providing the Labour Government with the springboard to measures such as the present one, and indeed the present clause.

However, even if it served as leverage, the chaos was mitigated as a result of the 2023 Act, with schools kept open, rail services running reliably, if not quite as frequently, and hospital treatments taking place. Given the militancy of the unionised workforce mainly in the public sector, employers there may not particularly relish serving workplace notices, but there may be an incentive, and it may be necessary to give employers in the public sector an incentive or an instruction to do so. Right now, the issue we and the public face is, will we have our emergency and essential public services for which the country as a whole pays handsomely through its taxes for such services? Will people have a right to the benefit of the service they pay for?

Being an employer is not an easy job; it is a hard one: one of constant interaction and agreement with employees on whom the success of any enterprise depends, be it a business or charity or the public sector. It may be necessary to have such a requirement, as was stipulated under the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, to bring employers who are not minded to go that extra mile to find an agreement to some dispute. It might be necessary to have that if there is no other incentive in place, and very often, in publicly paid for services, there is no incentive for an employer to go that extra mile.

Moreover, the prevalence of industrial action, with the disproportionate impact on the public sector and emergency services, must owe something—and does, in my view—to the prevalence of a proportionately large group of the public sector being unionised: almost 4 million, 3.9 million, in 2025 and 3.8 million in 2024, of the 6.4 million trade unionists.

This figure indicates that we are dealing with a potentially militant public sector union membership of around 50% who can hold our country to ransom if there is not a requirement for minimum service levels. This is not a very fair deal for employers who may want that extra muscle which the law has given to reach some agreement, and for the employees to reach an agreement also.

By inserting a requirement for an impact assessment, we shall at least be encouraging information to be supplied to taxpayers and the public, so they too can lend their voice to the need to mitigate the damage done by the lack of availability of treatment in hospitals and the damage done to children’s education, to border controls and to fire services, not to mention basic rail travel to go to work and earn a living, which is perpetuated by Clause 75. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendments, and I urge the Government, even if they are determined to bring forward this unnecessary clause, to allow the public to judge the impact by producing an impact assessment.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to this group of amendments, which introduce various review provisions linked to the operation and impact of measures in the Bill. Amendments 254 and 255, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seek to ensure that the consequences of key provisions, particularly around the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act and the content of Clause 75, are properly assessed after implementation. While post-legislative scrutiny can be helpful, there is a balance to be struck between evaluation and reopening the substance of the reforms.

I shall also speak to Amendment 258, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately unable to be here today. His amendment would require a review of the impact of Part 4 on small and medium-sized enterprises within six months of Royal Assent. I am sure he will be delighted by the number of voices that have joined in support of that approach today, because this is an important proposal. Small and medium-sized businesses do not have the legal departments or HR infrastructure that larger organisations enjoy. Clarity, simplicity and practical support are essential if those firms are to understand and comply with new duties under employment law, particularly where industrial relations are concerned. This amendment would help to ensure that legislation worked in practice for the full range of employees it affected, and I hope that the Minister will give it due consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe’s amendment to ask for an impact assessment that details the number of days lost to strikes in the 12 months since the Act was passed and in the previous 12 months. He spoke about the repeal of elements of the 2016 Act and about the ONS statistics.

Part of the reason why we need an impact assessment on the number of days lost to strikes is because, as my noble friend said, we have no evidence. This Bill, in particular aspects of Part 4, is likely to increase the number of strike days. I say that because the main problem with many of these clauses is that they undermine the balance between the employer and the employee, which my noble friend Lord Fuller spoke about as both a public sector and private sector employer. They remove the arrangements on a number of accounts which allow for a balance to be struck between the interests of employer and employee, and for agreement to be reached.

The clauses also remove the inducements and encouragements to avoid industrial action. We spoke earlier about Clause 73, on protection against detriment for taking industrial action: new Section 236A gives workers the right not to be subject to detriment as a result of official and protected industrial action and stipulates that an employer may not take action, and may not refrain from an action, to prevent the employee engaging in legitimate industrial or protected action. Yet excluding the employer’s ability to give inducements to workers for not taking protected industrial action where others do, is in fact prohibiting actions by the employer to hold back or to encourage workers not to take such action. One example might be to offer a bonus or withhold some extra benefit.

There are very good reasons to avoid strikes, not least for the good of the whole economy and the good of this country. Employers and employees should be given a level playing field, and many of the measures taken by the previous Government since 2016 and before then, all of which are in the 1992 Act, allow for that level balance to be struck between both parties. But many of these measures will encourage industrial action, which is not to the good of workers, employers or to the country at large. An impact assessment would at least provide the evidence that the country so badly needs if we are to start putting pressure on the Government to restore the balance in this delicate arrangement between both parties.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, for their contributions. I will be brief; I do not want to stand between noble Lords and their dinner break.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his Amendment 262. We have already debated impact assessments at great length and I will not repeat the same arguments. Any industrial action is regrettable and all parties have a duty to seek a resolution to such disputes. Failure to do so is basically a lack of management and leadership by all. We have also debated the repeal of the 2016 Act in previous debates. I will not mention that either. Furthermore, it is a manifesto commitment.

Despite its good intentions, the amendment would impose a review procedure that in effect repeats what the Government already intend to do. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the impacts of these policies on workers, business and the economy are considered, and that analysis assessing these impacts is published. Our impact assessment also outlines a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation.

As noble Lords will see from the impact assessment, our Employment Rights Bill could have a positive direct impact on economic growth, helping to support the Government’s mission for growth and ensuring that we raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. The Bill is expected to benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country by saving them up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work.

To conclude, I reassure your Lordships that we already have robust plans in place to assess and review the Bill’s impacts, including on industrial action. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to discuss the impact assessment further still stands. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 262.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Finally, we must recognise that a new labour market enforcement body will not operate in a vacuum. It will have to co-ordinate with the Health and Safety Executive, ACAS, local authorities, employment tribunals and various devolved institutions. If the new agency is established without proper integration planning, it risks creating confusion over jurisdiction, further delays in enforcement and diminished accountability. All these factors point to the same conclusion. Before Parliament approves such a substantial structural reform, we must understand exactly what we are doing, how much it will cost, what outcomes it will produce and what risks it entails. The public deserve no less. The labour market is too important, too foundational to fairness and dignity in this country for us to legislate blindly. What assurances can the Government offer that smaller, compliant businesses will not face disproportionate scrutiny while those engaged in serious abuse slip through the net? How will the Government ensure that the agency has the right balance of investigative power and sector-specific knowledge, rather than becoming a generic enforcement agency? I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I support the lead amendment in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom to exempt a new Government, for up to three years, from the labour market enforcement strategy of their predecessor for the reasons set out so ably by my noble friend Lord Hunt. I also support Amendments 274 and 278 for a new clause after Clause 140 to review the effectiveness of enforcement and compliance with relevant labour market requirements as in Part 1 of Schedule 7 before the new agency is set up and for the costing of such a new body before it is set up.

The new fair work agency proposed by the Bill to bring together existing functions of enforcement is unknown territory. Today, to enforce a limited number of employment rights, official powers are used by four different agencies: the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, HMRC and the Health and Safety Executive. The proposed new fair work agency bundles these—and new responsibilities under the Bill—into a single, untried and untested body. In general employers are quite familiar with HMRC and HSE, which provide advice as well as having enforcement functions. At the moment, we have the benefit of experienced bodies with whom employers are familiar and an ability by each body to be precise and knowledgeable about the subject on which it is an enforcement officer. We also have the advantage of different horses for different courses. Now, the plan is to move to an unknown, inexperienced entity with all the start-up costs that entails and without the precision focus which the present bodies have, because what is proposed is a one-size-fits-all model.

The enforcement of the laws will be differently framed with different aims by the current bodies. GLAA will have a different focus to that of HMRC, although some of the functions may overlap. I therefore suggest, in the interest of the taxpayer, that there is a need for a costing of the new body before it is set up and for a review of the effectiveness of the outcomes of present arrangements for enforcement and compliance to see how they stack up. This should be done before any steps are taken to put in place a new body. For these reasons, I heartily support Amendments 274 and 278.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak on the issue of the labour market enforcement strategy in support of Amendment 274 to which I have appended my name and to build on the excellent remarks of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the specific points raised by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. For transparency, I declare that I have been a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development for more than 20 years. The CIPD estimates that the People Skills HR support service which it has mooted, working with ACAS, would cost about £13 million under the new regime when this Bill becomes an Act. We already know, following on from my noble friend’s comments, that the cumulative cost of the existing bodies doing similar work, with analogous workstreams, is about £40 million.

Amendment 274 is important because in this country we have a strange anomaly. Unusually for an advanced country, we generally do not put the architecture of scrutiny and oversight in primary legislation. I want to know how this agency is going to be accountable in terms of the costs, who it employs, its policies et cetera. No doubt the Minister will say, “Well, once it becomes an Act, there will be what was the Business Select Committee, or there might be the National Audit Office, or there might be the Public Accounts Committee”. But we are being asked to sign a blank cheque for this without knowing how precisely this agency is going to operate and, most fundamentally, at what cost. We have not seen a detailed impact assessment focusing on the work of this body. On that basis, I ask the Minister specifically how he sees the process of accountability working and whether there will be any work by his department, and Ministers more generally, to work out what the costs are likely to be.

I accept at face value that this Government are committed to reducing the regulatory burden, particularly on small and medium-sized enterprises. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leong, will bend the Minister’s ear on that, having come from the background that he came from as a champion of small businesses from the Labour side. It is therefore not unreasonable for us to ask what the cost will be and how we will be able to hold this agency to account once it is established.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and—in absentia—Lord Fox, for tabling Amendments 271ZZA, 274, 277, 278 and 328. Before I go any further, I think we all join the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, certainly from our Benches, in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the very best and speediest of recoveries. We hope to see him back in his place at the earliest opportunity.

I will speak first to Amendment 271ZZA moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. This amendment is unnecessary, as Clause 91(3) provides full discretion for the Secretary of State to revise the labour market enforcement strategy at any time, including following a general election. That means that a new Government are not locked in. They can act swiftly, decisively and in line with their mandate. Were the party opposite to win power again sometime in the distant future, however difficult that is to imagine, its hands would not be tied by these proposals.

Of course, businesses, workers and enforcement bodies all benefit from clarity, consistency and strategic continuity. Automatically scrapping an enforcement strategy, just as the Government are finding their feet, risks creating exactly the kind of disruption we should be avoiding. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, the Bill is about strengthening our ability to tackle non-compliance and exploitation in the labour market, including, in the very worst cases, the scourge of modern slavery. The intention and mandate of the fair work agency are to catch the bad actors, not to trip up the good guys. This amendment risks instability rather than accountability.

Turning to Amendments 274, 277, 278 and 328 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Fox, I want to be absolutely clear that the Government are committed to effective, transparent enforcement of workers’ rights. The creation of the fair work agency is a major step forward and we want to get it right, but these amendments are wholly unnecessary, duplicating myriad reports and recommendations over several years. By our count, there have been 33 government reports and strategies about the effectiveness of labour market enforcement over the past nine years. One could argue that this subject has been reported and scrutinised to death. The Director of Labour Market Enforcement produces an annual report and strategy that reviews the effectiveness of the labour market enforcement system. These documents are available in the Library of the House.

Additionally, our impact assessment for establishing the fair work agency sets out the current running costs of the enforcement bodies and initial estimates of set-up costs for the agency. I also refer noble Lords to reviews published by previous Administrations, including the Taylor review, which assessed the labour market enforcement system and found it wanting.

Ongoing oversight of employment rights enforcement is provided for in Clauses 91 and 92. They require the Secretary of State to publish a three-year labour market enforcement strategy and annual reports, which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. To address the question of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, they will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way, which could well involve scrutiny by a Select Committee in the other place.

While the Bill does not explicitly require that the enforcement strategy and annual report address the agency’s funding, I can confirm to the Committee—and to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, in particular—that the annual report will indeed include an assessment of the fair work agency’s budget and how this has been spent.

Turning to Amendment 328, establishing the fair work agency is not and should not be contingent on its reporting. I remind all noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that this was not only a Labour Party manifesto commitment; it was the policy of all the major parties at the general election to introduce a single enforcement body in some shape or form.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Just because one side of the House or the other—or, indeed, both—brought it in does not necessarily mean it is the right policy. Does the Minister not agree that, if we have a chance to review some of the weaknesses in inherited policy, it is a very good time to do it? The 2017 Taylor review, on which some of the then Government’s policy was based, focused particularly on the most vulnerable workers and certain categories. It was not a very wide focus.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

We have had a fair amount of scrutiny of the wider proposal, rather than the Bill’s specific fair work agency proposals. As I said, over the past nine years since 2016, there have been 33 different strategies and reports, including—but certainly not limited to—the Taylor report. This is not an area that has not been considered and scrutinised to some degree. I also say to the noble Baroness that the Single Enforcement Body—as it was called by the previous Administration—was the policy of successive Conservative- led and Conservative Administrations. I am not going to intrude on the great policy disagreements on that side of the House. We feel it important to establish the fair work agency and to ensure that we have strong enforcement of labour market regulations. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 271ZZA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 271ZB I will speak also to Amendments 271ZBA, 271ZD and 273LA in my name. Amendment 271ZB ensures that the powers being granted to enforcement officers under this part of the Bill are used proportionately and only in response to the most serious breaches of labour market law. Without this amendment or something very much like it, we risk handing enforcement officers sweeping powers to enter business premises with very little constraint.

As currently drafted, Clause 94(1)(a) grants enforcement officers the authority to “enter any premises” for “any enforcement purpose”. That is an extraordinarily broad power. This amendment would limit such warrantless powers of entry to those paragraphs of Schedule 7 that deal with the most serious forms of labour market abuse, namely child labour offences, the failure to pay the minimum wage, unlawful deductions from wages and exploitation through forced labour. These are the areas where strong enforcement action is absolutely justified.

However, is it appropriate that the same powers—entry without warrant or consent—could be used to check whether someone forgot to keep a copy of an employment agency contract on file or perhaps miscalculated a payslip by a few pounds? We must not lose sight of the bigger picture. The vast majority of employers want to comply with the law; they invest time and money in doing so. However, if we allow overly broad enforcement powers, we risk creating an atmosphere of distrust, regulatory overreach and disproportionate intrusion, particularly into smaller businesses which may not have the resources to constantly defend themselves against investigatory overkill. The Government say they want better enforcement, and so do we, but good enforcement is not the same as unchecked enforcement.

Turning to Amendment 271ZBA, as currently drafted, Clause 95 restricts the power to enter dwellings to those occasions where a warrant is issued by a justice. This is a well-established and necessary safeguard, reflecting the heightened privacy interests we attach to a person’s home, but there is a conspicuous gap in the safeguards applying to entry into non-dwelling premises, such as business premises, offices or other places of work.

Clause 94 grants enforcement officers wide powers to enter any premises for enforcement purposes, without the same explicit requirement for a warrant or judicial authorisation, unless it is a dwelling covered by Clause 95. This gap means that, unlike the protections for residential premises, business premises can be entered and searched by enforcement officers without prior judicial approval. This is a significant and unwarranted imbalance. The intrusion into a business, especially a small or medium enterprise, is a serious matter. Entry and seizure powers can disrupt operations, damage reputations and create an atmosphere of suspicion.

That is all quite apart from the rather sinister nature of this power. For many small businesses, their premises are their livelihoods. The difference between a home and a business may be one of degree, but the right to protection from arbitrary state intrusion should be similarly robust. Judicial oversight ensures that these powers are used only when there is a legitimate and evidenced basis for entry, and it prevents abuse or overreach.

The requirement for a magistrate to authorise a warrant is a safeguard that protects due process, proportionality and the rule of law, and is of course very well established. It requires that enforcement officers demonstrate reasonable grounds and the necessity for the warrant. That is not a bureaucratic hurdle; it is just a check that balances the state’s legitimate enforcement interests with individual and business rights.

On Amendment 271ZD, as it stands, the appeal process focuses primarily on the accuracy of the sums claimed or the penalties imposed. It is essential that underpayments and penalties are correctly calculated and justified, but this narrow scope overlooks a critical element: the manner in which enforcement powers are exercised.

Enforcement officers hold significant authority when issuing notices, including entry, inspection and seizure powers. However, these powers must be exercised lawfully, proportionately and with respect for those affected. This amendment allows tribunals to consider whether enforcement officers have acted beyond their legal authority or used their powers excessively or unfairly. It further empowers tribunals to cancel or vary notices where misconduct or disproportionate enforcement is found and to award compensation as appropriate. This is not only a matter of protecting businesses and individuals from overreach but is vital to maintain public confidence in the enforcement regime. When enforcement is perceived as fair, transparent and accountable, compliance will improve and the number of disputes will reduce.

On Amendment 273LA, at this stage, the Bill does not define who enforcement officers are in any detail—we started this discussion on Monday—nor does it set any clear limits on the powers they may exercise when carrying out their functions. This lack of clarity is deeply concerning, especially given the serious nature of the enforcement powers being proposed, which include entry, inspection and seizure of documents and property. It is vital to establish unequivocally that enforcement officers, who are not police offices and do not have the training or mandate of the police, must not be allowed to use physical force or authorise others to do so. The use of force is an extreme measure that can be justified only in very specific and regulated circumstances, and generally only by trained law enforcement personnel. The amendment simply ensures that enforcement officers cannot resort to physical coercion, which is not appropriate for officials tasked with regulatory enforcement in the labour market. That is a matter of basic human rights and dignity. It is also a safeguard for businesses and individuals who may otherwise be subject to intimidation or physical harm.

I have absolutely no doubt that Ministers on the Government Front Bench have no interest in physical coercion being a part of these powers. In that case, they should accept this amendment because, if they do not, the implication is clear: they accept that physical coercion is acceptable. I do not believe that is what they want and I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I declare an interest as a director of a very small business—a think tank.

As an employer, the idea that we have no warrant or judicial oversight of an enforcement officer’s intrusive visit to a business to seize or take copies of documents and to check up is intrusive on the time and output of the business. It is also an infringement of a business freedom to conduct the business to the best ability of those in the office or the business.

Both clauses in fact contain very intrusive proposals. As my noble friend pointed out, one of the things that is deeply worrying about them is we do not know who the enforcement officers will be or exactly what their powers will be. We have seen, even with the best trained police force in the world, the Metropolitan Police and local police forces, a certain amount of over-zealousness in pursuing certain types of crime. Therefore, with an untrained and unknown quantity and with such powers, we need very clear limitations, and we need to focus on the most serious crimes and those outlined in these amendments. For those reasons, I support both the amendments in the name of my noble friend.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling amendments relating to the fair work agency’s powers. Clause 94 introduces a single power to enter business premises and inspect workplaces. The noble Lord’s Amendment 271ZB would limit this power to such an extent that effective enforcement of the legislation, including the national minimum wage, would be extremely difficult. We are not amalgamating labour market enforcement into one single agency to diminish its effectiveness. This amendment would, in effect, prohibit the site visits that most minimum wage investigations rely on and bring an end to a system of state enforcement that has worked well for 25 years. The result would likely be an increase in claims to the employment tribunal. Given the noble Lord’s concern about employment tribunal capacity, I urge him to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 271ZBA. While powers of entry are generally exercised on a consensual basis, in some situations it is critical that officers are able to carry out their duties quickly, particularly if they suspect that giving advance notice could give rogue employers time to destroy or tamper with evidence. None the less, in response to the concerns raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, an officer will not enter a premises if a person is not present but will instead notify the person to rearrange a time to enter the premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, mentioned, a warrant could be issued by a justice only if they are satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for entry, and judicial oversight ensures that warrants are granted only when appropriate, protecting businesses from unwarranted inspections while enabling legitimate investigations.

Clause 128 and Schedule 8 were added to the Bill to put in place appropriate safeguards relating to the execution of warrants. As I said, this approach will continue under Part 5 of the Bill, but with additional safeguards, such as needing a warrant before exercising powers to enter a dwelling. Extending this warrant requirement further to include all business premises would be a disproportionate and retrograde step in enforcement terms. It would introduce additional powers and bureaucracy, and create an unnecessary burden on the warrant system.

Amendment 271ZD is unnecessary. There are already extensive safeguards in the Bill around the use of investigatory and enforcement powers. These safeguards are designed to ensure that the use of enforcement powers is lawful and proportionate. In addition, enforcement officers are highly trained and carry out investigations under a strict code of conduct.

Clause 107 largely carries over the existing appeal grounds from the notice of underpayment regime contained in the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, which, as I said, has been functioning successfully for over 25 years. In fact, I recall debates in previous days of Committee around the effectiveness of minimum wage enforcement and the fact that not enough rogue employers have been named and shamed. The process as it stands is well known and understood by businesses and individuals. Changes risk adding confusion and uncertainty, leading to additional complexity and litigation.

Amendment 273LA would constitute a drastic downgrade in labour exploitation enforcement. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority can and must occasionally use force under PACE powers to rescue victims of modern slavery and tackle serious labour exploitation. Indeed, it is through the use of those powers that we saw two modern slavery convictions and 13 slavery and trafficking risk and prevention orders in the last reporting year of 2023-24. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as is currently the case, the use of PACE powers will be strictly limited to a small number of officers, as set out in their letters of appointment, and subject to stringent IOPC oversight functions and complaints and misconduct procedures.

I am sure the whole Committee will agree that we must tackle the scourge of modern slavery. The Bill is designed to strengthen employment rights in a clear, coherent and enforceable way. Unnecessary additions or alterations, however well-meaning, could compromise that aim. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, for his intervention, because I was about to raise a similar point. It has been a long time since, as a policeman, I applied for a warrant, but we did not routinely notify the intended recipient of our visit that we were about to do it. I do not buy the argument that that would see an awful lot of documents destroyed or anything that they might have been pre-warned being removed from the premises—they would not know. I do not see why it should be different for enforcement officers and the police, who obviously are, in some cases, investigating much more serious crimes.

On the use of force arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, deployed, surely the point is that these powers are being extended and, yet again, we are relying on future guidelines, comments or statements that will be written into their terms of employment. I simply do not believe that that is enough. The public deserve the reassurance of having this in the Bill or, at the very least, clarified in a Dispatch Box Statement.

As we bring this debate to a close—my noble friend Lady Lawlor, I think, homed in on this point—the fundamental concern that underpins all these amendments is that the Government have not yet provided a clear definition of who the enforcement officers will be, what precise powers they will hold, and what training or accountability measures will govern their conduct. The absence of clarity is not a minor oversight; it is a significant gap that leaves businesses and individuals vulnerable to potential overreach and misuse of authority. Enforcement officers will be vested with extraordinary powers of entry, inspection and seizure, but we have no clear picture of the safeguards that will be put in place to prevent abuse.

These amendments are not about obstructing enforcement or denying the Government the tools that they need to tackle serious breaches of labour market law; on the contrary, we recognise the importance of robust enforcement. However, enforcement must be lawful, proportionate and accompanied by proper oversight and accountability, or it will risk losing public trust.

We have sought to introduce reasonable limits on when and how enforcement—

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that, in addition to the problems he has raised, there is a very great danger of vexatious claims being made without evidence, and of disproportionate actions and intrusions taking place as a result?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend; that is one of the reasons that we are seeking more clarity in the Bill. As I said, without transparency, accountability and a clear definition of what the powers will be—they are unarguably vague —all those concerns remain. It is disappointing that the Government have not fully recognised the risks inherent in the broad powers envisaged by the Bill. We argue that the Government should, at a very minimum, provide clear guidance on these roles and responsibilities and on the limits of enforcement officers. This subject is so important that I think we will have to return to it. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Looking at Clause 113, I am put in mind of the pre-exploration exhortation of Colonel Kurtz: “The horror! The horror!”. As an employment lawyer looking at this clause, I can say that it is a complete Horlicks. It is truly bizarre. Can the Minister say why this power is required? Who should decide whether the Secretary of State should intervene in a person’s right to bring proceedings? Why should that choice be taken away from them? If the Secretary of State decides to bring proceedings, how would the Secretary of State compel the person who did not want to bring proceedings to give evidence in their own claim that they are not bringing? Why would the judge decide that the claim should be allowed to succeed, in the absence of evidence from the person whose claim it is?

Then there is the question as to why the taxpayers of this country should bring proceedings in the name of somebody who does not want to bring them, possibly against a public sector employer who then has to pay to defend those proceedings to make an award of damages to a person who does not want to claim damages. All this is absolutely beyond belief.

Furthermore, I noticed that it is a discretion:

“the Secretary of State may, in place of the worker, bring proceedings about the matter in an employment tribunal under the enactment”,

which appears to relate to any enactment in the entire employment canon. There is no explanation as to the test the Secretary of State is going to apply in making that discretion. That exercise of discretion will plainly be subject to judicial review. If the Secretary of State chooses not to exercise their power, no doubt there will be satellite litigation in the High Court—brought by the unions, I suspect—as to why the Secretary of State has not chosen to bring a claim on behalf of somebody who they think should have had their claim brought by the Secretary of State. Applying the usual tests, I suppose it will be said that it was irrational not to bring the claim or it was in breach of some legitimate expectation that their claim would be brought. It seems to me that that whole delight now lies before the Committee as to whether there should be litigation on behalf of somebody who does not want to litigate.

This is simply an absurd and inverse world of mirrors that, frankly, Lewis Carroll in Through the Looking-Glass would not have believed was possible. The lunacy of it is notable in Clause 113(5), whereby a worker can appeal against the outcome in a claim when he did not even want to bring a claim. This is so badly thought out that it should clearly be withdrawn.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I follow my noble friends by supporting the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe and voicing very strong opposition to Clause 113. I could not believe it when I read this clause. I could not believe that a third party—the Secretary of State—could bring proceedings on my behalf to a tribunal if I did not want proceedings brought. Nor did I think that subsection (6) was worthy of any government Bill. One could go through the whole of this clause and find something very wrong with it on many grounds.

There are many reasons why a worker may not want to proceed with a claim. He or she may not wish to bring proceedings because of the hassle involved, the delay, the stress to themselves and their family in waiting for the tribunal—which can never hear a claim quickly—the potential impact on his or her reputation, or a perfectly natural desire by an employee to settle things amicably with their employer. There are many individual reasons: family reasons, personal reasons and professional reasons. What right have we to give the Secretary of State powers to override that basic individual liberty in order to bring a case which someone may not want to be brought?

One can only wonder why such a clause is there—that the Secretary of State can bring proceedings, presumably, against a worker’s will or inclination. We can only assume that this may be due to workplace political pressures exercised by others in the workplace, perhaps by union members who want these cases brought as test cases and for the taxpayers to pay, or by others who have the ear of government.

This is a very sectional Bill in the interest of one vested interest group. I have said it before during proceedings, but it is not for the Government of this country in a parliamentary democracy to sectionalise the law in favour of one interest group or another. Clause 113 is particularly dangerous, and I support my noble friends’ amendments to it. I hope the Government will not proceed with it.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I support the comments made, particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. This is an extraordinary clause; I am not aware of anything else on the statute book like it.

My practical question to the Minister is: if the Secretary of State takes it upon himself or herself to go to court on a worker’s behalf, and the worker is strongly against that, what will that do to the relationship between the worker and the employer? It could absolutely devastate that relationship, because the employer will greatly resent the fact that the Secretary of State is taking proceedings on behalf of the worker, even if the worker has said that they do not want those proceedings brought. This is not good for industrial relations at all.

I really urge the Government to rethink this. What are its practical implications? How will it work in practice if the worker is against it? Will they be called as a witness by the Secretary of State, if necessary? Will they then be a hostile witness? It is all a complete and utter mess, I am afraid. I was not planning to speak on this, but this is an extraordinary clause and I urge Ministers to drop it completely.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 279GA would introduce a sunset clause to ensure that the extension of time limits for bringing employment tribunal claims is subject to periodic parliamentary oversight. I will speak also to Amendments 330ZA, 330D and 334A in my name.

I have tabled these amendments along with my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom because I believe that the state of the employment tribunal system is deeply concerning and urgently requires our attention. The proposals before us introduce a range of new rights for workers, including the critical right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of employment. We must therefore confront the uncomfortable truth that the current tribunal system is simply not prepared to handle the additional burden that this Bill will place upon it. Indeed, we have heard from a respected law firm that there is broad consensus among legal professionals that the employment tribunal system is, in its words, the “biggest problem in the legal world”.

The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that tribunal cases will increase by around 15% as a result of these reforms, yet I must ask how this figure has been calculated. Given the scale of the backlog we are currently witnessing, can this be anything other than a gross underestimate? The reality is that, by extending the time limits within which individuals can bring claims, the Bill itself may actively incentivise an increase in the volume of cases. If people have more time to bring claims, it is only natural that more claims will be submitted—claims that must then be processed by a system that is already groaning under enormous pressure.

To put this in perspective, we are currently facing, we are told, an employment tribunal backlog of nearly 50,000 cases. This backlog has now reached record levels, with preliminary hearings being scheduled as far away as April 2026, and full hearings not likely to take place until well into 2027. This must be a crisis. A delay of this magnitude means that justice for many is effectively denied. When someone has to wait years for their case to be heard, the protection that the law is supposed to afford becomes little more than an empty promise.

The causes of this backlog are clear. There is an acute shortage of employment judges. There is insufficient funding. There is inadequate administrative support. Although the Government have pledged to recruit hundreds of new judges, the practicalities of ensuring that those judges have the necessary expertise and that adequate administrative support is in place remain significant challenges.

That is why I believe these amendments are vital. They do not seek to block or delay the introduction of important workers’ rights, but they instead insist on responsible, measured implementation. It is essential that before these new rights come into force an independent and thorough assessment is conducted to evaluate the capacity and effectiveness of the tribunal system. This assessment has to address current delays, judge numbers, funding and the likely impact of this Bill’s provisions on tribunal caseloads. Moreover, the Government must commit to implementing all necessary measures identified in this assessment to reduce the backlog to a manageable level, specifically to fewer than 10,000 outstanding claims. Only then should these rights be activated.

This is all about ensuring that, when workers exercise their rights, they have access to a tribunal system capable of delivering timely, fair justice. Additionally, the amendment regarding the extension of time limits for claims rightly insists that this measure cannot come into effect until the Senior President of Tribunals certifies that the system can handle the expected increase in cases without further lengthening hearing times. Without such a safeguard, we risk compounding the problem and turning an already overstretched system into something unworkable.

There is another important point that I must raise. Nowhere in the Government’s impact assessment is there any explanation of why the option of introducing a right to claim unfair dismissal between day one and two years was not considered. If the intention is truly to balance the employment relationship and provide fair protections, why do we have to leap to day one? This decision is not just a legal technicality; it carries real risks. One such risk is the disincentive it creates for employers to hire workers who may be perceived as risky or less secure in the labour market—such as individuals with a history of mental health challenges, younger workers or others on the margins of employment —by exposing employers to potential unfair dismissal claims from the very first day. This Bill may inadvertently make it even harder for these vulnerable groups to find work in the first place. This would be a tragic and unintended consequence, compounding insecurity rather than alleviating it.

We have debated at length the potentially vast powers of the new fair work agency, its funding and the role it might play. However, many questions remain. Will the fair work agency with its undefined enforcement officers and unclear operational framework genuinely take on the enforcement of workers’ rights in a way that meaningfully reduces the burden on the already overstretched employment tribunals? Or will tribunals continue to bear the brunt of this increased workload without adequate support or relief?

I now look to the Government to provide this House, workers, businesses, law firms, and no doubt the tribunals with some assurance, clarity and ideally a timeline for the day-one rights provisions in this Bill. Perhaps this is the moment when the Minister will at last share with us, at least in draft, the implementation plan that we have heard so much about during the course of this Committee. Will she please undertake to ensure that we have the implementation plan before we reach Report?

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 279GA for a sunset clause. I perfectly understand the reason for extending the period in which employees can make claims, but I am quite sure it will increase the burden on the tribunals. We have heard about the very long delay, with even preliminary hearings not scheduled until April 2026, and these delays have continued for some years. People going to tribunal sometimes have to wait more than 18 months just to have the preliminary hearing. If numbers increase, as they are likely to, as my noble friend suggested, it is going to put far more pressure on the tribunals. The parliamentary oversight proposed and the sunset clause must take account of that.

Not only is there no point in law in having a claim left unsettled for years, but it is very bad for business to have the uncertainty. It is very bad for employees and their lives to be subject to such delays and uncertainties in what is going to happen to them professionally, because taking a claim to tribunal is not an easy matter. It can be expensive and full of obstacles. Not knowing how it will pan out is very worrying for people. For businesses, being subject to constant pressures of claims in a tribunal, whether they are justified or not, brings insecurity and a lack of confidence.

For these reasons, I think this moderate request for a sunset clause and coming back to Parliament for an affirmative vote are a good proposal, and I hope the Government will listen kindly to it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing these amendments, but I say to him that the problem he has described so vividly was one we inherited from the previous Government. We are acutely aware that these issues need to be addressed, and I share his desire to ensure that the employment tribunal system can manage its existing caseload and the potential increase from the Bill’s measures. I assure your Lordships that we are working across government and with business and the unions to identify ways to improve a system that we inherited that is not working currently for anyone.

We are already recruiting more judges and legal case workers and providing additional resources to ACAS. On top of that, we are considering other things, such as the role that the expanded fair work agency could play in reducing the time spent awaiting costly and lengthy tribunal claims.

I would be delighted to receive any constructive suggestions from the noble Lords on this issue, but it would be entirely disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers’ rights contained in the Bill dependent on the kind of review that their amendments propose. It would be wrong to take workers’ rights to challenge unfair practices away from them when they are not to blame for the backlog that we are currently grappling with.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Lord is seeking to add a sunset clause to this measure, which, as he well knows, would undermine the policy intent. However, I reassure him that it is our intention that the implementation plan, whose arrival we all anticipate, will be made available shortly. I reassure your Lordships that the Government will closely monitor the impact of extending time limits on the employment tribunal system. We intend to conduct a post-implementation plan for the Bill within five years of implementation. This will provide enough time to assess the policy’s effectiveness and gather sufficient data for evaluation purposes, meaning that the amendment is unnecessary. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw Amendment 279GA.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

The Minister made reference to the number of judges that the Government are busily recruiting so as to help the backlog, and this is part of the Government’s response. Of the 35,000 extra civil servants recruited since March 2024—these are the March 2025 figures—how many are judges, and how many of them will be in the employment tribunal service? I do not expect the Minister to have the figures to hand, but I would be pleased if she could write to me.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, 50 new fee-paid employment judges were appointed in 2024-25, and a further three recruitment exercises to further increase capacity are now being undertaken in 2025-26.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

The costs imposed by this Bill will far outweigh any benefit brought about by the minimum wage increase. While a small number of workers may see modest increases thanks to the minimum wage, many more will miss out on wage increases, as businesses have to manage their increased costs. Moreover, the jobs that might have been created by new businesses entering the market, often with higher productivity and higher wage positions, will simply not exist. I urge the Minister to undertake and commit to conduct a thorough assessment of the impact of this legislation on the issues that I have sought to highlight in this group of amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, calling for an impact assessment requiring an independent analysis on different measures. I have added my name to three of them. Amendment 310 asks for an impact assessment on business, new entrants and start-ups, while Amendment 311 asks for a productivity impact reporting, and Amendment 319 asks for a new clause on assessing the impact of the regulatory burden on businesses.

Amendment 310 would require an impact assessment on new business entrants and small start-ups, including the impact of administrative and financial costs. Why do we need this? We know from ONS data that the story of business start-ups from 2016-17 to 2023-24 was one of steady increase, from 664,750 new start-ups in 2016-17 to 800,000 in 2022-23. We know from other data, from an analysis for NatWest bank and the Beauhurst Group, that for the last calendar year 846,000 new businesses were registered, bringing the total to a record high of 6.63 million last year. Just under one-third of that, 248,000, in the first quarter was, sadly, a figure not sustained by the end of the year, with a 25% drop in business formation as the year progressed.

Of course, headline figures should be read with caveats entered. Here are just three. Quite a few new companies do not survive their first or indeed their second year. One tech and computer entrepreneur once told me that you would expect in his sector at least one or two failures until you got to a success; it was almost the necessity to fail that brought success. Difficult circumstances, such as an economic slowdown due to exceptional causes or external shocks, may have an impact on new start-ups taking off. Indeed, some companies will simply be reformations of existing organisations and businesses.

These may be the ordinary reasons why we see start-ups not doing so well, but one common obstacle to getting a new business off the ground or making a success of it is the burden of too much of the wrong—and unnecessary—regulation. The Government and the public will need to know the impact of this measure, after a year or at a period to be agreed between the Government and opposition parties, to see whether the decline in new applicants that we saw at the end of 2024 will continue in the first year of operation and, if so, what steps we may need to take to mitigate this. New businesses are our lifeblood. They help replace the stock of zombie businesses which go out of business and rightly fail in the competitive economy to which my noble friend Lord Hunt alluded.

This Bill, as others which the Labour Government have proposed or enacted since 2024, penalises employers and businesses and introduces a device of damaging politicisation and ideologically driven changes to favour certain vested interest groups over the interests of business, the whole UK economy and the people of this country, who depend on a strong, prosperous and competitive economy to find and keep a job to pay their bills and to pay the tax revenue on which their public services depend.

The Bill’s burdens on all will impose a multitude of additional costs—through employee rights without corresponding obligations or duties, and additional duties and costs on employers—uncertainties, as many of the proposals in the Bill will be decided by regulation, and costs to businesses trying to plan. They weigh the law against and involve cost and compliance burdens for an employer or business, as my noble friend has explained, not only in respect of the rights of employees but through procedures that vary from record-keeping and handling equality action plans in Part 2 to the new law on industrial relations, which is in favour of trade unions and changes or repeals measures that have been around since 1992 and, by and large, have brought peace and harmony to the labour market of this country and the prosperity we need.

These burdens will make for grave uncertainty, given the range of powers that will be exercised, as I have mentioned, by a Minister who may reflect the ideological bent of the current Government to direct their powers against business, employers and the UK economy in favour of those who pay for the Labour Party through political funding—we have had many a debate on that in this Chamber. They are to be finalised through consultation and announced later. Surely, it is not too much to temper such militancy by giving the public and the Government of the day an analysis of what the costs of the regulatory burdens will be so that any adverse impact can be measured and mitigated.

Amendment 311 calls for an assessment of the impact of the Act on productivity. My noble friend has said that the Government recognise in their own impact assessment that the productivity gain will be small. UK productivity is already significantly lower than that of our competitors in the G7—the US, Germany and France—but we will discuss international competitiveness later so I will not speak on that now. However, as a result of this Bill, we expect productivity to decline further by sector and by employee. We know that around 70.9% of workers in the UK work in firms with labour productivity below the mean. It is very difficult to envisage that productivity will increase as a result of the regulatory burdens in this Bill.

If growth is the aim of this Government, we need to increase productivity dramatically. This will not be achieved through an ever-shrinking workforce and the contraction of business activity; at my last count, our labour market had lost 115,000 workers since this Government came to power. Nor will it be achieved by burdening business—and, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned, its capacity to invest in new people, plant and technology—by increasing the money needed to pay for the extra compliance and regulatory costs of this Bill, rather than investing in the production of goods and services, and the training of the people who produce.

I support this amendment, as I do the others, so that we shall have a real measure, based on independent, impartial data, that will shed daylight on the impact of the Bill on these three counts and help the people of this country—and the Government—to press for change, should we need it.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the Committee of my interests in both consultancy and the hospitality industry. I have really come to help the Government on this bit of the Bill, because the problem they have is that very few of those who are working on the Bill run businesses. I have run businesses all my life, except for the time when I was a Minister, and, as I read the Bill, I am very concerned that it has been written by people who have not run businesses. They do not understand the damage that they do to employment and new business. I hope every Minister will admit that to themselves, whether or not they have run businesses and met these problems. Have the civil servants who advise them, or the political advisers from their parties, run businesses and seen these problems for themselves? If the answer is “Not much”, “Not many” or “Not overall”, surely they ought to see whether they have got it right.

Frankly, I do not think they have got it right, but I am very happy to be proved wrong. I do not think they have got it right because I know what has happened in the businesses with which I am associated. I know that we are employing less, because that is the only way we can pay the increased demands on employers. I know that the balances that we have to make now are not to the advantage of staff recruitment. Above all, I know that if I were starting a new business, the temptation not to do so would be very much greater because of the complications that the Bill, and previous actions of the Government, place on us.

That puts me in a position in which I do not think the Bill is, in large measure, a good one. But I am prepared to be proved wrong if, by clear investigation, we look at the results of what happens and take account of it. The problem is that if this Government are going to carry out effectively many of the policies with which I agree—more than I agree with some of the policies on this side of the House—they must prove to the public that they listen and are prepared to look at the facts.

I came to this debate to plead with the Government not to say, “Oh well, this is what we are told by people and we think it is a good idea. It fits in with our obligations and our attitudes”. Instead, they might say, “We will argue in both the House of Lords and the House of Commons, and at the end of it we will see whether we were right. We will see whether the Opposition were right or we were. If we show we are right, we have a really good position to say to the public, ‘There you are, we said we were right and we have been proved right’”. They might say now that they are not even going to find out whether they are right, not going to measure it and not going to accept these amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and I disagree on most things. Both of us, though, think that it would be a good idea to check to see where we are. I do not understand why representatives of the trade unions are not getting up and saying to the Government, “Look, we think we’re right and we think you’re right, so check it and independently show that it is right”. Instead of that, the Government are admitting, frankly, either that they do not know or that they fear they would be proved wrong. I want a Government who are brave enough to say, “We’ll actually put it to the test. We’ll actually accept these amendments and we’ll find out who’s right. If we’re wrong, we’ll change it. If we’re right, we’ll crow like mad over those people who told us we were wrong”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I, together with my ministerial colleagues, speak to businesses every day, whether they are tech companies, other businesses or whatever. Yesterday, I had a conversation with Small Business Britain, and we talked about this Bill and most of its members have confidence in this Government. We talk to all businesses.

I come back to Amazon: basically, what it means is £40 billion. It is creating 4,000 new jobs across the UK, which is a major boost to our tech and logistics sector. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows that business confidence is at a nine-month high, with a rise in hiring expectations among businesses. This is proof that our plan for change is working. Britain is open for business, and the world is taking notice. There is simply nothing more I can add to the noble Lord’s argument. This analysis—and we will continue to do impact assessments—will be done, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 310.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I just clarify whether he said that 90,000 jobs were created in the first quarter of 2025, or was it 290,000? I missed the exact figure. It is my understanding that, in the first quarter of last year, with which the comparison has been made by the Minister, there were 248,000 new entrants. The Minister spoke of new jobs, but our impact assessment is on new entrants to the market and there were 248,000 in the first quarter of last year. If the 90,000 refers to new jobs as opposed to new entrants into the workforce, that is a different comparison.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say this again. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created. Business creation was up by 2.8% over last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s excellent amendment, as we reach the end of Committee. Before I get into the substance of that, I will offer some praise. Noble Lords know that, last week, I took issue with the Government Front Bench about the potential lack of response to letters from individual noble Lords who had raised specific points during Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, who is no longer in her place, took some issue with that, resiled from my analysis and said that it was not the case. However, over the last few days, I have received a plethora of epistles from the Government in my email. As Private Eye may have said in the past, are those two occasions by any chance related? That was my praise; I thank the Government for coming forward with those letters and we will hold them to account when we reach Report. I am grateful for small mercies, nevertheless.

I commend to the Government the excellent report of the Social Mobility Commission, State of the Nation Report 2024: Local to National, Mapping Opportunities for All. I probably say this at every juncture, but my noble friend’s amendment is helpful, because there is a cross-party consensus that we should all be working to help young people in particular into work, innovative employment, and skills and training. As we all know, and as has been found by apolitical third parties such as the charity the Sutton Trust, which focuses on improving social mobility, there are disparities across the country. There are sectoral and geographic disparities, and disparities in people’s backgrounds, race, ethnicity, age et cetera. As far as is practicable, we should be designing legislation that tackles issues around improving life chances, training and skills, and innovation.

More fundamentally, we need to be designing legislation that tackles endemic, entrenched inequalities, and that is what this amendment is about. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is absolutely right that this is about opportunity cost. Many employers, given the chance, will try to help young people by giving them a chance to improve their life chances and skills, and by paying for their exams and training, et cetera—via apprenticeships, for instance. But the legislative regime will be such that they are encouraged not to employ that person, because they may have a disability, may be late to the employment market or may not be socialised—they may not understand the protocols of going to work each day, of being on time and of being dressed smartly, which are very basic things that we take for granted. That risk aversity, employers not wanting to employ those people, will have a negative effect as the corollary of this Bill.

Ministers have a chance at least to engage with this amendment and, when we come to Report, I hope to accept it; it would make a real difference to the lives of people who find it tough to enter and stay in the employment market. I encourage Ministers to look at the report to which I referred, and at the work that has been done to support the Bill and its laudable objectives. My noble friend offers this amendment in good faith in order genuinely to improve the Bill. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will look on it favourably and incorporate its ideas into the finished Bill.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I could not support this amendment more; I heartily support it. A social mobility impact assessment is vital.

I want to illustrate this with a few brief words on the retail sector. My noble friends have referred to the many reasons why people are excluded from employment in the retail sector, such as a lack of social mobility. When this Bill was coming forward last year, the British Retail Consortium expressed great concern and doubt about its ability to offer jobs. The BRC indicated that 61% of those consulted said that the Bill would reduce flexibility in job offers, 10% were unsure and 23% said that it would have no effect.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Lawlor Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I will pick up on a few of the points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt to support Amendment 335 wholeheartedly. In principle, I am in favour of sunset clauses because they help us to focus on a Bill not once but twice, as they will pass legislative scrutiny twice over, and they encourage us to make better law. There are very practical reasons for Amendment 335. We have a 4.4% unemployment rate—or we did up to November last year—and it is increasing, with 1.7 million people in this country unemployed.

This Bill, as we have heard time and again—I know the Government disagree, but the figures speak for themselves—will increase the cost of and burdens on employing people, restrict job entry and limit new posts being advertised. The number of job vacancy adverts is decreasing. Since the Government came to power, the tally I mentioned earlier—I am sorry to repeat it—is 115,000 jobs lost. At this rate, there is a very good reason to support such an amendment. I hope the Government will take on board that we must consider a sunset clause in case unemployment rises and employment levels go down significantly in three years’ time.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for tabling Amendment 323C and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for Amendment 335. I pay tribute to the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in this area. I reassure the noble Lord that, despite Amendment 323C’s positive intentions, it effectively repeats what the Government already intend to do.

Our impact assessment sets out a clear plan to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Bill and its secondary legislation, following standard government practice. This approach will help us assess how well the measures are delivering on their objectives, inform future policy-making and review the real-world impact on all stakeholders, whose contributions we recognise as vital to the strength of our economy. As is standard practice, in line with our Better Regulation Framework obligations, we also intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the Bill within five years of Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time to assess the policy’s effectiveness and gather sufficient data for evaluation purposes.

In the case of the fair work agency, ongoing oversight of employment rights enforcement is provided for in Clauses 91 and 92. They require the Secretary of State to publish a three-year labour market enforcement strategy and annual reports, which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Secondary legislation made under the provisions in this Bill will also be subject to the requirements in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 regarding proportionate monitoring and review.

In addition, where further detail will be set out in secondary legislation, the majority of statutory instruments will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing both Houses to consider them in detail and providing Parliament with sufficient opportunity for scrutiny and debate. Furthermore, the Government will consult on many of the details to be set out in secondary legislation, listening to the expertise of business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that the details of the regulations are appropriate to the current needs of the labour market.

On Amendment 335, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we want to ensure that workers have these rights for life and not just three years, as the noble Lord proposes. As a result, we oppose his amendment. As is typical with employment legislation, further details on many of the policies in the Bill will be provided through regulations after Royal Assent. We will begin consulting on these reforms in 2025, seeking significant input from all stakeholders. We anticipate this meaning that the majority of reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026. We are committed to getting the detail right. This means listening to and incorporating a wide range of views into our policy development.

While headline statistics, such as employment and unemployment rates, may appear strong by historical standards, millions of workers are stuck in low paid, insecure and poor-quality work that is detrimentally affecting their financial stability and health. The UK’s productivity slowdown is more severe than in other advanced economies. A fragmented labour market and too much insecure work are holding back growth and investment. We also lag behind the OECD average on employment protections, and we have paid the price. The UK economy has not grown at the average rate of other OECD economies in the last 14 years, missing out on £171 billion-worth of growth. Average salaries have barely increased from where they were 14 years ago, and the average worker would be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading into the 2008 financial crisis.

This Bill will ensure a fairer, more equal labour market and deliver wider benefits to the business environment by improving well-being, incentivising higher productivity and creating a more level playing field for good employers. Consider a few of the changes it will bring: over 10 million workers in every corner of the country will benefit; increased well-being alone could be worth billions of pounds a year; there will be less workplace conflict, which costs UK employers about £30 billion a year; and up to 1.3 million employees will gain a new entitlement to statutory sick pay, increasing total sick pay by £400 million per year.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the way businesses are perceiving this, but, as my noble friend Lord Leong said, business confidence is actually rising. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows business confidence at a nine-month high, with rising hiring expectations among businesses. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that a sunset clause would create business uncertainty at the very time when we want to build on that confidence. The industrial strategy, which we published yesterday, has been welcomed by all sectors of business and will help to build that long-term strategy for growth.

Given the benefits the Bill will bring for workers over the long term, we oppose the noble Lord’s amendment and will continue to promote growth for businesses and the level playing field for good employers. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Norton, to withdraw Amendment 323C.