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.