Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

I congratulate all four new Members on their maiden speeches today. I also thank the many Members who have raised the importance of introducing paid leave for carers; having experienced being an unpaid carer myself, I have lived the very realities of working while caring.

I welcome the Bill as a significant step forward for workers. I will, however, be focusing my remarks on where it falls short: in addressing sexual harassment and violence in the workplace. A 2023 TUC poll revealed that three in five women have experienced sexual harassment, bullying or verbal abuse at work, with the figure rising to almost two-thirds among women aged 25 to 34. Four out of five women do not report the sexual harassment they have experienced, and many workers leave their jobs rather than report it. The End Not Defend sexual harassment campaign highlights that young women, disabled workers and those from BME backgrounds are disproportionately affected due to their overrepresentation in precarious employment. This underscores the urgent need for the measures outlined in Clauses 19 to 22.

Although amending the Employment Rights Act 1996 to protect whistleblowers and requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment are positive moves, these measures may not go far enough. Limiting interventions to sexual harassment may leave victims and potential victims of other gender-based violence in the workplace outside the Bill’s protection. Questions also remain about how non-compliance will be enforced. By amending the Equality Act, the Equality and Human Rights Commission is understood to be the regulator here. However, as it stands, it has limited enforcement powers, and its mandate to regulate only sexual harassment limits its ability to address the health and safety implications of violence against women in the workplace.

A more effective solution would be to treat gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace as a health and safety issue. Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers already have a duty to protect employees’ health and safety. By amending that Act, we could ensure that gender-based violence is explicitly covered as an enforceable health and safety measure overseen by the Health and Safety Executive, which already has the authority to inspect, fine and prosecute employers for non-compliance. That would offer a structured and enforceable approach to safeguarding employees, particularly women, from violence in the workplace. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, earlier noted concerns in relation to the clauses on harassment. However, the Health and Safety Executive has a track record of providing training and guidance, so this could be an alternative way forward.

Despite years of Government promises, according to a critical report published by the National Audit Office in January the epidemic of violence against women and girls continues to worsen. To end this behaviour in the workplace, we must confront misogynist culture directly. His Majesty’s Government’s goal to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade demands nothing less.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. I would appreciate further clarification on the enforceability of non-compliance under Clauses 19 to 22, as well as measures to address gender-based violence at work. I also look forward to engaging with all Members on this topic in Committee, as well as on paid leave for carers, improving paternity leave and addressing the gaps in sick pay.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

These new additional entitlements are not being kind to people. They are not being kind to a generation of young people who are watching economic inactivity in their homes. Of course, there will be people who need to be specifically categorised with physical ailments and, of course, there are people who are really very sick, but, with a 50% mental health sickness rate, I urge the Government to reflect again on these clauses.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 72 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, which I and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, have signed. This amendment would require a review of the rate of statutory sick pay ahead of His Majesty’s Government’s 2025 Autumn Budget. It requires the Secretary of State to determine, following that review, whether the rate should be changed and to publish a Written Statement setting out the reasons for that determination.

It is important to remind ourselves what this amendment entails. As noble Lords are aware, statutory sick pay is a government scheme requiring employers to provide most employees in the UK who are absent from work due to sickness with a minimum level of pay during that period of absence. Statutory sick pay —SSP—is £118.75 per week, following an increase last month, which an eligible employee can receive for the days that they are ill and not working, except for the first three days of that sick leave. To be eligible, one must be classed as an employee and have done some work for the employer, earn at least an average of £125—previously £123—per week, and have been ill for more than three days in a row. It is only on that fourth day that they receive SSP.

The scheme as it stands is ineffective and causes hardship. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, according to the TUC, 28% of employees receive only basic SSP when ill, meaning that they are reliant on this very small weekly amount during that period of illness. The TUC adds that

“there are 1.1 million workers earning below £123 per week who are not eligible for SSP”,

with most of those workers being women.

Considering also the penalty of a three-day delay until an eligible employee can claim SSP, it is clear that reforming SSP is both necessary and overdue. I therefore welcome the provisions under the Employment Rights Bill that will see SSP payable from the first day of incapacity to work by way of Clauses 10 and 12, and the removal of the lower earnings limit—that is, the requirement to earn at least £125 per week—through Clauses 11 and 13. However, Clauses 11 and 13 also set in legislation that the rate of SSP will be set at the lower of £118.75 or 80% of the employee’s normal weekly earnings. That payment is extremely low by international standards, as we have heard from many noble Lords. It is one of the lowest rates in the OECD.

If you were to divide this amount by a typical 40 hours worked by full-time employees in a week, this would provide under £3 per hour to employees who are ill. Of course, many workers work more than 40 hours per week, decreasing this hourly amount even further. But in the context of rising housing costs, food prices, energy bills and household bills, such a small payment is inadequate to meet basic living standards. I ask your Lordships: do we believe that those people can survive on £3 an hour? That is an important question that we must consider when we look at this amendment.

In fact, in the context of universal credit, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that to afford the basic household essentials, a single adult requires at least £120 a week and a couple £205 a week. It is clear that a review of the adequacy of the SSP rate is crucial to ensure people are not plunged into poverty just for becoming ill, which is something that happens to all of us. Proposed new subsection (7), in Amendment 72, makes provision for the Secretary of State to ensure that no employee receives less statutory sick pay than they would have received before the Bill’s enactment, as a result of changes under Clause 11. This is important because according to the TUC, an 80% replacement rate as under the Bill will see 300,000 workers entitled to a lower rate of SSP than currently. Many of these individuals work for multiple employers, work part-time and receive low wages. According to the Safe Sick Pay campaign, three-quarters of those impacted will be women. Disabled people will be disproportionately affected, almost half of whom are aged between 20 and 54.

Using the SSP amounts in place before April, the Safe Sick Pay campaign outlined the example of an employee who will now lose out. That employee, working for multiple employers, earning £123 a week, would have received £116.75 a week of statutory sick pay because they earned above the lower earnings limit. Following the Bill as it stands, that same employee will see a 16% reduction in their entitlement and receive only £98 a week, as this would represent 80% of their earnings. Many workers, particularly those in low-pay positions, already struggle to afford the shortfall caused by SSP when ill. Increasing that shortfall will make it more unlikely that workers will have adequate savings to mitigate the loss of income. Proposed new subsection (7), in Amendment 72, provides a way for the Secretary of State to rectify this situation and ensure that no one is worse off as a result of SSP changes made by the Bill. It is vital that His Majesty’s Government do not intentionally or unintentionally cut sick pay for hundreds of thousands of workers.

I will now briefly turn to some of the other amendments and the debate on this group so far. Amendment 73 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, call for the establishment of a scheme for reimbursement of statutory sick pay costs incurred by companies with fewer than 250 employees. This is an interesting proposal, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, although we have yet to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on the practicalities of such a proposal.

I feel very strongly that mental health is health, and that this is not just to do with those facing mental health conditions; it goes wider than that. It is important to note that this is about all workers who have been signed off from work; there are lots of different reasons why they might be ill, including those relating to mental health.

The aims of these amendments differ from those of Amendment 72, which seeks to address gaps in the Bill concerning adequate sick pay for workers—gaps that cause some concern, especially the consequential effects on low-paid workers. I hope that, in responding, the Minister addresses my concerns: the adequacy of the SSP rate as set out in the Bill; the effect on low-income workers, without relying on the welfare system to offset that effect; and whether His Majesty’s Government will commit to a review of SSP rates, so that workers are not punished by measures in a Bill which is expected to strengthen their workplace rights.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn. In so doing, I declare my interests as an employer and as the father of a four month-old son.

The amendments in this group seek to deliver a fairer, more modern and more economically rational approach to paternity leave in this country. They are modest in scope but transformative in impact. They are not about political ideology; they are about justice, equality, family well-being and economic prudence.

The case for action is overwhelming. Today in the United Kingdom we grant mothers 52 weeks of maternity leave. Fathers receive just two weeks and are paid a mere £187.18 per week for it, which is less than half the national living wage. That is not support, it is a symbolic gesture, and one that fails our families, our economy and our vision for a truly modern and inclusive society. As we have heard, the UK has the least generous paternity leave system in Europe and we rank 40th out of 43 OECD nations. While 22 OECD countries offer six weeks or more of well-paid reserved paternity leave, the UK offers just 0.4 weeks of full-time equivalent paid leave. Is that the legacy that we wish to defend?

The amendments seek to correct that imbalance. They would do three vital things: make statutory paternity pay a day-one right, just like paternity leave will be under the Bill; increase paternity leave from two weeks to six and raise the rate of pay to 90% of the father’s salary, capped at median earnings; and require transparency from large employers by mandating the publication of their parental leave policies. Each of those proposed reforms is supported by robust evidence, each is economically justified and, perhaps most importantly, each is backed by overwhelming public support.

The Government rightly propose to make paternity leave a day-one right, yet they do not extend that logic to pay. What message does that send—that a father may take time off but must go without income to do so? Incidentally, it is worth noting that that is currently the arrangement in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps if the Government are about fairness and workers’ rights, as they purport to be, that may be something that they wish to take up with the commission.

Research shows that the biggest barrier to fathers taking paternity leave is affordability. Nearly three-quarters of those who cut their leave short did so because they could not afford to stay off work any longer. What use is leave if it is unpaid?

Why six weeks, and why 90% pay? It is because we know, from the experience of countries such as Sweden, Germany, Spain and beyond, that reserved well-paid leave for fathers leads to profound benefits for families, for women’s equality, for children and for national prosperity. OECD data shows that, in countries offering fathers six weeks or more of well-paid leave, the gender wage gap is 4% smaller and women’s labour force participation is 3.7% higher. Why? It is because shared caregiving allows mothers to return to work sooner and on fairer terms.

However, this is not just a women’s issue; it is a fairness issue for all parents, and smart economic policy. The economic argument is striking. Closing the gender pay gap could boost UK economic output by £23 billion, while increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% pay could generate an immediate economic benefit of £2.6 billion. That is based on sound modelling endorsed by reputable analysts, including the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Moreover, 90% of businesses surveyed by the CBI say that inclusive workplace practices help them to attract and retain talent. Nearly three-quarters of employers that offer enhanced paternity leave report higher productivity—we were discussing productivity rates in this country in earlier groups; this is a solution to help that—and employee engagement. So let us discard the myth that this would be a bureaucratic cost; in truth, it would be a smart investment for business.

Let us also remember the human case. Better paternity leave benefits children. As my noble friend Lord Bailey said earlier, children with engaged fathers show higher academic achievement, greater resilience and stronger social skills. It benefits mothers: when care is shared, women can more easily return to the workplace and pursue their careers. It benefits fathers: longer paternity leave leads to better mental health—something that we also heard about earlier—stronger father-child bonds and more engaged parenting throughout childhood. If we want to build a society where men are not just allowed but expected and supported to care for their children, then this is the place to start.

The public are with us on this point. Some 81% agree that more generous paternity leave is good for families and for the country. Support crosses party lines: Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and Reform all back this measure. This is not a fringe issue; it a mainstream demand and a moral necessity.

We have what is perhaps a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape the way this country supports fathers, mothers and children in their earliest days together. The proposed amendments are reasonable, grounded in evidence and long overdue. I urge the Government to accept them.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, who made a compelling case for these amendments. I rise to speak in strong support of Amendments 139 and 76, tabled respectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister.

The UK’s statutory paternity leave—just two weeks, paid at £187.18 per week—is the most limited in Europe. In many OECD countries, six weeks’ leave at the equivalent of full pay is standard. By comparison, our offer is inadequate and outdated.

Eligibility for paternity leave is also restricted. It requires continuous employment with the same employer for 26 weeks before the 15th week prior to the due date. That excludes many fathers, especially those in insecure work, the self-employed, or those working in gig economy roles. Many are forced to take unpaid leave or use holiday just to be present at the start of their child’s life.

The impact is significant. The TUC reports that over half of families struggle financially when a parent takes paternity leave, and one in five do not take the leave they are entitled to, mostly for financial reasons. Research from Pregnant Then Screwed found that 70% of fathers who did not take their full leave had to cut it short due to cost.

This is not just about finances; it affects bonding with the child and support for the mother or birthing partner, and it reinforces gender inequality in unpaid care. The lack of accessible leave for fathers limits shared parenting and is a contributor to the gender pay gap and future pension pot inequality.

The Employment Rights Bill includes provisions to address some of these issues. Clauses 15 and 16 remove the qualifying periods for unpaid parental and paternity leave. Clause 17 removes the requirement to take paternity or adoption leave before parental leave, allowing paternity and adoption leave to be taken following shared parental leave. However, these clauses fail to tackle the low level of statutory paternity pay, or to extend fathers’ and second parents’ leave entitlement past two weeks.

While the Labour Party committed in its manifesto to review the parental leave system more broadly, the Employment Rights Bill provides an opportunity in the here and now to implement changes that would make a real difference to families and people considering having children. The noble Lord, Lord Bailey, mentioned the lower birth rate—an important context that we must take into account in considering in these amendments.

Amendment 139 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, offers a practical and immediate step forward. It would require statutory paternity pay to be a day one right, removing unnecessary barriers for thousands of working parents.

Amendment 76 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would mandate a comprehensive review of paid parental leave within six months of the Bill becoming law. Importantly, it sets the terms of that review: to consider a statutory, non-transferable period of paid leave for second parents, to raise pay levels, and to include the self-employed.

This is not merely a social issue; it is an economic one. Many noble Lords have mentioned the modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Centre for Progressive Policy, which suggests that increasing paternity leave to six weeks at 90% of earnings could contribute £2.68 billion to the UK economy by supporting more mothers to return to work and encouraging shared care from the outset.

Countries with more than six weeks’ paid paternity leave have significantly smaller gender pay and participation gaps, as we heard in the international examples shared by a number of noble Lords during this debate. The benefits are clear, and the public support reform—only 18% believe the current two-week offer is sufficient.

Other amendments in this group have been powerfully spoken to, such as Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and Amendment 127 from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, which both propose extended leave and fairer pay.

The case for reform has been compellingly made in this group. The Employment Rights Bill offers a real opportunity to modernise paternity leave, benefiting families, the economy and gender equality at work. I urge the Minister to consider the strength of the arguments presented today and to respond with the action that it deserves.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in the name in my noble friend Lady Penn.

I would like to think that the birth of any child is an important day in the eyes of the father as well as the mother; yet, when it comes to the parental leave granted by companies, they are treated very differently: up to 52 weeks for the mother and two weeks for the father. On this basis, as we have heard, the United Kingdom compares very unfavourably with other European nations. In addition, 22 OECD nations offer more than six weeks, paid at the equivalent of 100% of salary.

The Government’s weekly rate of statutory pay, for the two weeks that it is paid to fathers in this country, is currently the lesser of £187.18 or 90% of average weekly earnings. This is a modest amount by any measure, given that the average full-time working man is paid just under £700 per week.

We have heard from other noble Lords of the benefits to fathers themselves, as well as mothers and children, when fathers are permitted to spend longer with the family in the early period of a child’s life.

I wish to draw on my personal experience. As I have said before, the company that I work for—Marsh, a very large insurance broker—now has a mature policy on paternity leave. Fathers are allowed to take up to 16 weeks’ leave, and the company ensures that they continue to be paid the equivalent of 100% of their salary during their time away from the workplace. Importantly, their job remains open for this period to facilitate their return. This benefit was not available to me when my sons were born in the 1990s—unlike the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I have not yet reached grandfatherhood.

The time allowed must be taken within 52 weeks of the birth of the child, or children in the event of a multiple birth. I am sure that our competitors offer something similar, as competition for staff is an ongoing issue, and benefits count enormously in any discussion should a member of staff wish to change employer. Such a policy helps to define the culture of a company that cares not only for itself but also for the lives of its colleagues.

I do not believe that Amendment 128, which asks for parental leave policies to be published by large companies, is making an onerous request; indeed, publishing them would enable meaningful comparisons, inform jobseekers and encourage best practice across industry. I support it.

As I mentioned in an earlier group, happy staff tend to do good work. This is certainly a stressful time in any family’s life, and the mental health of staff is important, as we have heard today from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington and others. It is one thing for a large company with the ability to cover a colleague’s workload to offer such a period of paternity leave, but this is obviously more challenging for smaller companies.

I am not suggesting for one moment that all companies should offer such generous periods of paternity leave as my own, much as I would have enjoyed it in my time. The birth of any child is, I hope, an exciting experience. It is also, in my experience, a somewhat nerve-wracking one, which can be ameliorated by parents being able to spend more time together during this period.

Two weeks of paternity leave is simply not enough. I encourage the Government to extend the statutory period for paternity leave to six weeks, as suggested in Amendment 127, and to provide a more generous level of salary. I hope that this will encourage fathers to take off this period, which, as I have demonstrated, is exceeded in some workplaces.

Finally, I will look briefly at Amendment 139, again in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn, on which I have changed my opinion during this debate. I believe that companies of all sizes feel that day one paternity leave is a step too far when the new employee has not even walked through the door. However, if the Government insist on this, it seems only right that fathers should receive statutory pay as a minimum. Companies obviously still have the opportunity to decide whether to go further, as would be the case for employees who have been part of the workforce for a certain period of time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 134 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She has highlighted that there is a glaring gap in our welfare system. It fails to provide adequate, immediate support for parents whose children fall seriously ill. Although the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act rightly recognised the need for non-means tested leave and pay when a child is critically ill at or shortly after birth, that protection vanishes as the child grows older. Parents whose children fall seriously ill beyond the neonatal period are left navigating benefits that are not suited to the immediate support they require.

Currently, there are only three options available for parents seeking that financial support. The first is universal credit, which is means tested and not easily accessible. The second, disability living allowance, was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. It can only be applied for three months after a diagnosis and then takes an additional 20 weeks—approaching half a year altogether—to process. DLA is also a requirement for claiming a blue badge—just to give an example of how long this process takes. The third option is 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave taken in four-week blocks within a calendar year.

So, there is a gap from day one to day 90 before a parent can apply for financial help. In these cases, it appears families face an impossible choice—financial insecurity or being at their child’s side during the most traumatic moment of their young lives. This amendment addresses that gap, providing a grant to the parents of a chronically sick child from day one. The grant will be limited to the first one to three months, and approved quickly by the consultant, with a renewal every month.

According to data from the Treasury, there are approximately 4,000 children each year who could be expected to have a hospital stay of two months or more. The cost of caring for a chronically ill child is estimated to be around £750 per month. According to estimates by the charity It’s Never You, if the Government were to provide two months of support during this gap period, it would cost around £6 million—a significant amount, but at the lower end of national spending in revenue terms compared with many of the options talked about today.

This amendment seeks to extend the principles of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act to children up to the age of 16 in cases of serious illness. It builds on a clear precedent and introduces a compassionate, practical solution—non-means tested support—at that moment of crisis.

The impact on employers will be minimal, affecting, as I have stated, only a few thousand families a year. But the benefit to those families would be profound. This is precisely the kind of change where legislation can make a life-changing difference at very little cost. I urge the Government to consider this amendment, which is in keeping with the spirit of this legislation.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, before I deliver my remarks in relation to the amendments that I have signed, I will add my support to the amendment on miscarriage leave from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. My Plaid Cymru colleagues in the other place also supported that amendment, so I am glad to see that it has made its way to this House, too.

Amendment 135, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would establish carer’s leave as a paid entitlement. I will keep my remarks brief, but I speak from lived experience. I became an unpaid carer at the age of 12. I know what it means to juggle education, work and caring responsibilities while having to repeat my story to NHS staff, college tutors, employers and the DWP. The obstacles I faced are not unique. I know that a number of carers who I spoke to in the past, and continue to do so, continue to face these obstacles. Those experiences led me to campaign on those issues, and I am proud to have influenced positive policy changes in Wales that make life a little easier for young carers trying to stay in education.

Amendment 135 would help build a safety net for the millions of people with unpaid caring responsibilities —people like I once was. The Government have made it clear that getting people back into work is a priority, and they also recognise that unpaid carers’ inability to work costs the economy £37 billion a year. Supporting carers to enter and stay in employment must therefore be seen not only as a social priority but an economic one. Introducing paid carer’s leave is not an expensive proposal. Modelling by Carers UK suggests it would cost between £5.5 million and £32 million per year, depending on the rate of compensation. Set against the cost of lost productivity, high turnover and pressure on health and social care systems, this is a modest and worthwhile investment.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes]

99: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;(vi) threats of violence.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures. (3D) In this section, “persons working in their workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for signing Amendments 99 and 100. As I open the debate on them, I look forward to hearing from all Members who would like to engage on this very important topic of tackling workplace gender-based violence and harassment.

First, I thank the Minister for meeting me ahead of today to discuss these amendments. I am grateful for the engagement on this matter and hope that it continues. I also thank a number of organisations for their support in the drafting of the amendments: the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Rights of Women and the Workers Policy Project. The formation of the amendments began with the Private Member’s Bill to the same effect tabled by my Plaid Cymru colleague in the other place, Liz Saville Roberts, who is below the Bar today. Finally, I thank Mr Richard Spinks for sharing his personal story. Mr Spinks has experienced the most devastating consequence of the inadequacy of protections against gender-based violence in the workplace in the tragic loss of his daughter, Gracie, and I am thankful to him for showing his support for these amendments.

Amendments 99 and 100 attempt to tackle those very inadequacies in employee protections. By amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Amendment 99 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments and policy development. It would provide recognition and prevention training to all employees. Amendment 100 would mandate the Health and Safety Executive to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and issue guidance for employers in collaboration with relevant bodies.

The prevalence of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace across the UK shows that interventions such as these amendments are unfortunately absolutely necessary. The Government Equalities Office’s survey in 2020 found that 29% of those in employment reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or workplace environment in the previous 12 months, and only 15% reported it. A 2024 study by Sheffield Hallam University found that sexual harassment is particularly high in traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated industries, and highest in hospitality. Given that workers may be unlikely to recognise some of their experiences as sexual harassment, these numbers are probably much higher in reality. This is also true of gender-based violence, psychological and emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse, stalking and harassment, and threats of violence. In fact, 56% of calls to Rights of Women’s sexual harassment at work advice line are made up of reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control.

However, despite the UK ratifying ILO Convention 190 in 2022 to enhance worker protections against workplace violence and harassment, there are significant gaps within our legal framework to protect workers from those kinds of harm. The status quo is deeply lacking, and we are currently failing our women as a result, such as in the case of some 100 women, according to the police, who have accused Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed of offences including multiple counts of rape and attempted rape. Despite being owner of the Ritz Paris hotel and Fulham Football Club at the time, he was never held to account.

My mind turns also to those eight people, most of them current or former BBC staff, stalked by former BBC radio presenter Alex Belfield, who was also sentenced to a five-and-a-half-year term for harassing four people online, and Gracie Spinks, who was killed by a former male colleague, Michael Sellers, after having reported his obsessive behaviour towards her to her employer, Xbite. The inquest into Gracie’s death found that seven other Xbite employees had received unwanted attention from Sellers, with most consequently leaving their jobs while he continued to work for the company until dismissed in February 2021. Many said the company was aware and had spoken to him about his inappropriate behaviour.

Incidents such as these show the dangers of employer inaction under current regulations, and His Majesty’s Government are not absolved of this, with sexual assault, harassment and abuse having taken place at the Ministry of Defence, according to 60 senior women in 2023. The reluctance of employers—and that includes public bodies—to address such behaviours directly endangers people’s lives.

I understand that it is His Majesty’s Government’s belief that the worker protection Act 2023 has addressed some of these regulatory gaps. I, however, disagree. That Act was introduced to tackle the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace by creating a preventive duty requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in their workplaces. That is a commendable effort, but there are key issues with that legislation.

First, an automatic investigation into a breach of this duty takes place only after an individual successfully brings a claim of sexual harassment. This severely limits the preventive function. Secondly, it excludes other forms of gender-based violence in the workplace, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse, which form part of the recommendations of the ILO 190. It is clear that there is real need for legislation that requires employers to proactively create a safe work environment, one that addresses wider gender-based violence. The Employment Rights Bill is a good vehicle to bring about this change, cementing further the need to address sexual harassment and violence in the workplace as the employment-related issue that it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for that, and I hear what he says. But I stress here, with all the current legislation in place, that there must have been cases before us that we can learn lessons from. What we need to do, and do better, is use “black box thinking”, where we can learn from what has happened and hopefully share with other regulators what works and what may not have worked, so that we can address a problem rather than bring in more legislation. We can look at what has been successful and share those successes among other enforcers as well.

I conclude by saying that the Government remain committed to raising awareness of this important issue. I can confirm that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, has already met with Minister Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, and we continue to work with them to try to see how we can come together on this. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I am grateful to those who have shown support for these amendments and also those who support the outcome these amendments are trying to achieve. I will reflect on what we have discussed in this debate today, ahead of Report.

On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a “gender-responsive approach”, I can clarify what that entails. The amendment addresses the different situations, roles, needs and interests of women, men, girls and boys in the design and implementation of activities.

As we have hit on during this debate, the status quo is clearly not working. I know that the Minister outlined in his response the preventative measures being put on to employers. But, as I have explained, those preventative measures are not actually preventative, because you have to prove your sexual harassment claim in order for it to be a breach. Even in the language we use about what is currently in place, it is not preventative. I welcome further discussion with the Minister following this, and hopefully we can come to an agreement on how we can bring this forward within the wider approach.

I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to bring back further amendments on Report. I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate and that we can engage further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 99 withdrawn.