Employment Rights Bill

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I will speak to the amendment, especially about the Bill being rushed through without full consultation.

On 13 May 2014, I tabled a ten-minute rule Bill on the Prohibition of Unpaid Internships, as Members will see in volume 580 of Hansard, column 593. On 14 November 2016, I tabled a private Member’s Bill, the National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships)—volume 616 of Hansard, column 1156. On 27 October 2017, Lord Holmes of Richmond tabled the Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition). And on 5 February 2020, I co-sponsored the Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) Bill introduced by Alex Cunningham, the former Member for Stockton North, now retired.

Despite unpaid internships being mentioned in the Government’s policy documents on work, they are not in the Bill. The Government have said that they will tighten up the ban, but there is no ban on unpaid internships—they exist, as they did in the last Parliament, not least with many a Member on the opposite side of the House. If there were such a ban, it would not have to be mentioned in policy documents.

A ban should have been brought in alongside the Bill. There will be a lot of hubris on the Government Benches about bringing forward a landmark employment Bill, with Labour Members saying the Conservatives did nothing, despite all the evidence laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in his excellent opening speech. [Interruption.] It is all very well burying one’s head in the sand, but every one of the Bills I brought forward got kicked into the long grass, not least my private Member’s Bill, when the only Labour Member present was the shadow Minister. If Labour MPs had turned up, we might have been able to get a closure motion, but they decided not to. That has been the story throughout. If the Deputy Prime Minister does want the Bill to go through, she needs to fight off whatever it was that stopped it each time; I always started out with the commitment that it would happen, and then somehow people were convinced not to do it. I say that in a constructive way to the Deputy Prime Minister, who I know very well.

An intern should be defined as a worker. We were talking about an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 that says that work experience is important, but after 20 days or four weeks in work, an intern should be treated as an employee. Work should always pay, and if someone is contributing after that period of time, they are adding something to the business.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fundamental approach behind the Bill should be one of pragmatism rather than tribal ideology?

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend; pragmatism is important when we talk about business. In that spirit, there is a pragmatic reason why the Bill should not be given its Second Reading today—perhaps at some point it should, but I fear it has been rushed through to meet the spin about the first 100 days.

I would wager that few Labour Members today had plans to talk about unpaid internships, which is a very important issue. I could talk for a very long time about unpaid internships, as I have for hours in this Chamber previously. To ensure equal opportunities for young people, the issue of internships is vital, but it is one that is sadly lacking from the Bill. That speaks to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton: the Bill has to some extent been rushed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I congratulate those hon. Members who delivered their passionate and authentic maiden speeches today.

I am proud, like so many Members, to represent a constituency that is home to so many small and medium-sized businesses, which comprise the backbone of our local economy. I am deeply concerned that the reforms in the Bill will hurt both businesses and employees, as well as damage the economic growth that the Government claim to be striving for. The previous Government introduced and raised the national living wage, ending low pay and ensuring that work always pays more than benefits. They banned exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts, banning businesses from stopping workers on a zero-hours contract having another job, and delivered 800 jobs a day from 2010. The Conservative Government also introduced shared parental leave, giving more choice to families. We introduced new regulations on shared parental leave to give families more choice over how they take parental leave following the birth of a child.

Changes to business regulation need to strike a careful balance, but Labour’s Bill gets it wrong and will instead make it harder for businesses, damaging job creation and economic growth in the process. The Labour party has introduced a Bill at pace that does not strike the correct balance. As a result, our economy will be less competitive and growth will be hindered. Those warnings come not just from the Conservative Benches, but from across industry. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce highlighted how

“The proposed new rights to a tribunal access from day one will inevitably lead to more settlement agreements to avoid a lengthy and costly tribunal process, placing more burdens on businesses.”

The changes to employment law risk “fuelling long, complex litigation”, according the Recruitment and Employment Confederation.

There are a few parts of the new Bill to which I would like to draw attention. The likelihood of drawn-out dismissal processes has already been referred to. There is the question of how poor performance will be proved. There is the unnecessary right that will be given to trade unions to gain access to workplaces. On zero-hours contracts, many employers and employees do not want guaranteed hours and a minimum threshold. On flexible working, there is the material change proposal, a reasonableness test that will make—

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech highlighting the fatal flaws in the Bill. Does he agree that the Government’s own impact assessment on the economic implications show that it will be a disaster for small businesses, not just in Bromsgrove but in Fareham and Waterlooville? The costs that will be borne by businesses will cripple investment, strangle job creation and further stagnate growth.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for her intervention and agree wholeheartedly with her points. The Bill will inhibit economic growth and ultimately bear down very heavily on those the Government claim they are trying to protect.

The reforms will prevent businesses from hiring new people and expanding. The Institute of Directors has warned that 57% of businesses are less likely to hire due to measures in the Bill. There are concerns that the Government have not carried out a consultation on collective redundancy, and have failed to outline why they view those proposals as beneficial. Make UK, an important industry body, has warned that the regulations will “significantly increase” red tape for businesses that are forced to make redundancies, and UKHospitality, which represents thousands of businesses on which many of our constituencies rely for their economic vitality, has said that for 90% of workers on zero-hours contracts, those are the desired contracts for them.

What we see here is a generational shift in employment law that will ramp up grievances and disputes and entrench unproductivity. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman), pointed out, it will make it easier to strike and send us back to the 1970s, supporting militant unions. It will increase the number of strike hours in public service, and, as Unite the Union has pointed out, it is like Swiss cheese: full of holes. I hope that, as the Bill progresses through Parliament, the Government will listen to both the Opposition and industry in order to limit the damage it will cause businesses and working people.

Employment Rights Bill

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Sewards]

We will always pay attention to the arguments made in the other place, but I place more credence on the arguments made by life peers—people who have been appointed because of their expertise and not because of the family they were born into. However, I appreciate that that point has been well made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on.

Along with the fact that the Government have already compromised in good faith on the Bill with trade unions and businesses, and that those businesses and their representative organisations have welcomed what we have put in the Bill and called on us to pass it today, we were elected on a promise to get this Bill passed into law. Fire and rehire must be banned. Exploitative zero-hours contracts must be ruled out. Day one rights for parental and bereavement leave must be rolled out, and sick pay must be improved. Whichever way the House votes on these amendments today, I implore the hereditary peers in the other place to do the right thing, get out of the way, let this Bill pass and make work pay.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The impacts of the Bill in its current form are already being felt: 71% of businesses have raised serious concerns, with over 90% of small business owners expressing deep worries, resulting in 67% of companies preparing to halt recruitment. We already know that the Government do not understand business. That has been demonstrated clearly through the string of damaging policies trailing behind them, from the national insurance changes that are crippling the hospitality sector to the family farm tax that is undermining our national food security. Aspects of this Bill are no exception, the prime example being the complete removal of the employment tribunal cap on unfair dismissal compensatory awards.

As of June 2025, 515,000 open claims were in the system, and the numbers continue to rise. The employment tribunal system is inundated. It is overwhelmed and debilitated by cases, leaving thousands facing intolerable delays. Rather than addressing the issue through action that would significantly help working people—

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I wonder whether the hon. Member accepts that, as a number of colleagues have drawn to the House’s attention, the current system has a perverse incentive that pushes people towards a more complicated tribunal system that seeks to identify discrimination, rather than a simpler system of unfair dismissal, because of the cap. This measure is more likely to keep claims within the simpler, more streamlined and quicker system of unfair dismissal, thereby helping with the very problem that we all accept is real.

[Bradley Thomas]

I was just about to get to the point that I wanted to make: removal of the cap will make matters significantly worse. To put it plainly, it will open the floodgates for senior executives to pursue multimillion-pound claims that will further congest the courts. For many companies, the dismissal process for senior executives is fundamentally different from that used for other employees, in many cases as a result of strategic complexities relating to board involvement. Unlike the structured procedures applied to the wider workforce, senior leaders are seldom afforded opportunities such as performance improvement plans before removal. The Bill creates a significant liability and establishes a direct financial incentive for senior executives to pursue employment claims.

[Paul Waugh]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the moment, compensation for racial, sexual and disability discrimination, and for whistleblowers, is uncapped? What is the difference between that and being unfairly dismissed?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I am making. Currently, there is no financial incentive for very senior executives who cannot exercise any leverage over things such as pay and equity, and the Bill risks clogging up the system. The CEOs of large UK corporations earn a median salary of over £4 million, compared with the £118,000 cap on unfair dismissal claims, so high earners have little incentive to lodge claims. Remove the cap and that incentive becomes glaringly obvious.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will make progress.

The idea that removing the cap will lead to anything other than a surge in cases is pure fantasy. This lack of understanding shows why the Government must listen to those who know how business works and recognise the devastating consequences that the Bill will have for companies and, crucially, for workers, rather than branding themselves champions of working people while advancing policies that benefit only high-fliers.

[Graham Stuart]

Labour colleagues shake their heads as my hon. Friend lays out the blindingly obvious. That goes to show why introducing a measure at the last minute during ping-pong is inappropriate and precisely why the House of Lords is right to say that we must consider this fully. It is quite obvious that Labour Members do not want to understand it; they obviously do not understand the implications.

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank my right hon. Friend, who makes his point eloquently, as usual.

The Government must abandon the measure. If they are really on the side of workers, the best thing they can do is abandon this measure—and abandon the Bill in its entirety.

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group—an unremunerated role.

The Bill has been the subject of 14 months of debate and scrutiny, and it should have received Royal Assent months ago. Let us not beat around the bush about why we are here tonight: the Bill has been deliberately delayed by some Members of the other place who disagree with the principle of what it seeks to achieve and with the electoral mandate behind it. The amendment that came from the Lords last week represents the last gasp of that approach, testing the limits of the democratic decision-making process and the constitutional relationship that binds these two Houses. This is no longer solely about workers’ rights; it has become a challenge by unelected peers to the primacy of the Commons and the greater legitimacy that our constituents lend us temporarily.