Employment Rights Bill

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point. Another great provision in the Bill is that right to sick pay, which is so important and would have been so important for many care workers during the pandemic.

In my mind’s eye are those women sitting at that bus stop in the cold. Two other people I met who were also care workers—one lives in High Etherley and the other in Etherley Dene—told me similar stories. They did not vote for me. They did not vote for anybody, because they did not believe that anybody could fix their problems. They just told me that their lives were tough. They had to pay for their own uniforms. They were not really getting the minimum wage for their work. They felt disrespected by everybody. They felt vulnerable and left behind. But I made them a promise that if I came to this place, I would speak up for them. I am doing that today and I am voting for them today.

Finally, the Employment Rights Bill is not just good for workers; it is also good for businesses. So many family businesses in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Crook and Barnard Castle all tell me the same thing. They tell me how much they enjoy contributing to our local economy and how important it is to them that they are a responsible, decent employer. But they tell me how tough it is when there is a race to the bottom. They want employment rights strengthened. They do not want the watered-down version coming to us from the Lords. They want the full-fat version of this Bill, because they know it is good for their workers and good for their businesses.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

I would like to start by thanking all Members who have contributed to the debate, but especially the new ministerial team and senior Ministers across the Government who recommitted to this legislation in public, and especially to the previous ministerial team who advanced the Bill as it went through the Commons.

In my constituency, of the six key pledges on our leaflets, this was the one that got the younger generation interested and engaged. They were worried about where they would work, how they would work and how they would get ahead in life. The vast majority of young people across this country are aware that the path to a better life comes through the workplace.

What do we see when we look at these Lords amendments? It is another week, another paltry attempt by the Opposition parties in the Lords to undermine my constituents’ rights at work. A couple of weeks back, there was an Opposition day motion that told my constituents that if they worked behind a bar, they should have fewer rights than if they worked behind a desk. These amendments are just another feeble attempt at watering down a popular and generationally crucial piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that when Conservative Members oppose day one rights, they are not really worried about the day on which the rights start; they are actually opposed to the rights. That is why many of them cannot muster an argument that is about more than, as he says, spreadsheet efficiency.

[Euan Stainbank]

I agree, especially if we look at unfair dismissal. The issue is not the cause of the dismissal; at its core, this is about denying people recourse. If a worker cannot claim unfair dismissal because of the two-year threshold, their recourse is substantially weaker. The course of the conduct is not changed simply because a worker has been in a place of employment for 23 months, as opposed to two years.

This issue is real and corrosive. I have had young people in my constituency office who have experienced this issue, especially in the run-up to consideration of this Bill. There has been a course of conduct in the workplace that has resulted in them wanting to leave, or somebody wanting to force them out, and this issue makes it substantially easier for bad employers—not every employer, of course—to force an employee out. It does not change the nature of the conduct, or what we should be tackling, which is poor employment practices.

I do understand the concern that has been raised, but a two-year threshold often leads to workers, early on in their careers, being taken out of the workplace without process or prior warning. Their only right of recourse, as I have said, is taking the employer to court through a far weaker form of redress that is often time-consuming, exhausting, fruitless and restrictive, and so deters them from pursuing their rights.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many small businesses are fearful of day one rights because they worry that they might take someone on, only for it to become apparent within a few days that they are not appropriate for their business, and they then fear an employment tribunal for procedurally unfair dismissal, and the costs involved. The result of granting day one rights is that small businesses will be less likely to employ more people, and far less likely to employ people at the margins of the labour market, such as someone recently out of prison or someone with mental health problems. The Bill will increase unemployment.

[Euan Stainbank]

I have to disagree with the characterisation of the Bill as increasing unemployment. We have heard the same about other measures. To tackle the hon. Gentleman’s point about somebody coming into a workforce and not being cut out for it, which I have seen happen in hospitality and retail industries, I believe that is addressed by the probation provisions in the Bill.

[Michael Wheeler]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend that the probation period is the core of the answer to the question from the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Does my hon. Friend agree that a large part of the fear we see is due to scaremongering and misinformation spread by Opposition Members?

[Euan Stainbank]

I agree on the misinformation being put out about hypothetical situations, which are often talked about when we discuss hospitality.

I recognise the point being put forward for small businesses, but I also recognise that those businesses have the right to a probation period, and to other employment models, such as part time working. I have seen that happen quite frequently.

[Sam Rushworth]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservatives bequeathed us an economy in which more and more people were moving out of work and becoming long-term sick? A lot of that sickness was driven by mental health disorders— in particular, anxiety, worry and stress, which are driven by an insecure labour market. Does he also agree that the measures in the Bill to make people safer and more protected at work will improve mental wellbeing and productivity, and be good for economic growth?

[Euan Stainbank]

I fully agree that the economic benefit of security in the workplace is evident. I have worked in some of the most insecure industries in hospitality, and people trying to rush themselves back into work was a severe issue, especially just after the pandemic, because they did not have another source of income. If they had to isolate, there was financial support, luckily, which was just about enough to cover wages for a period, administered by local authorities. However, there were still a lot more people who tried to drive themselves back into the workplace. I remember coming back after a 10-day isolation period after having covid, and I could tell that I was not prepared physically or mentally to re-enter the workplace. It did make me think that I wanted to call in sick. It is then substantially more difficult for someone to re-enter work, especially in high-intensity industries. We often forget how physically intensive hospitality and retail workplaces, where people are working on zero-hours contracts, can be.

[Laurence Turner]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case. I rise merely to support what he is saying. About a decade ago, the University of Manchester published research that found that being in forms of insecure employment may be more damaging to health than being unemployed.

[Euan Stainbank]

That is substantially clear. I would add the concern that long-term sickness translates into long-term unemployment, which is often seen in the most insecure workplaces. We often think of people burning out in a very high-stress, high-income job, but it happens right through our labour market. In my experience, it has led to devastating consequences, but those are personal stories that I do not have the permission or time to go into.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)]

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to get through his speech, and I very much respect the position he has taken, but I have to fundamentally disagree. We Opposition Members have been accused of scaremongering and of misinformation, but what does the hon. Gentleman say to the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of British Industry, all of which have said that because of the Bill and the regulations it will impose, employers will be letting go of staff, and that there will be a damaging consequence to employment and jobs? Does he think that that is misinformation and scaremongering, or is that just expert voices urging caution about the Bill?

[Euan Stainbank]

To address the point about substantial issues facing businesses, I acknowledge that is the case at the moment. We are not talking about energy costs or business rates, but I have a local business improvement district on my high street and I am well aware that it is talking about the costs that are put on business.

This Bill is a fundamental rebalancing in favour of workers, and frankly that would have to happen, irrespective of economic conditions. We need it to get people to believe that work pays again, because sadly much of my generation have not had that perception of work for too long. They may have seen other avenues—easier, passive income that does not come from hard graft, and from learning skills that are needed at a fundamental level.

The problem is that the entry point to work for many young people has been casualised and is insecure, and often it does not seem as though there are any prospects. I believe the Bill will change that perception substantially. To go back to doorstep conversations, this was one of the pledges in our manifesto that got young people engaged and thinking about how politics could fundamentally change their life and their experience in the workplace.

Turning to Lords amendment 1, I want to Members to put themselves in the mind of somebody experiencing a zero-hours contract for the first time. The hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) made some reasonable points about the right to request, rather than the right to have a contract that reflects hours, but in my experience of who zero-hours contracts are meant for in society, they are extensively given to the younger generation at the entry point of their career. There is a fundamental flaw in the concept of a right to request. Someone may be in their first job behind the till at Argos, or at a pie kiosk, or at a hotel bar or a restaurant—I do not have to imagine it; this is essentially my CV, prior to entering politics, all done in the last 10 years. At age 18, people do not necessary know their rights beyond what their mum and dad tell them, and this is a point I have heard addressed by several Members.

Imagine a person who, after years of zero-hours contracts, reliance on casualised working and low pay, is in an industry that is still adapting to the Bill’s provisions. They ask for a contract that reflects their hours, rather than what they would be entitled to under the Bill if we reject the amendment. How likely would they be to press the issue with their employer in this market? How likely is it that somebody will bang their fist on the table and say, “I want the contract that I can request, rather than the one I am entitled to”? People often want to make a career in the retail and hospitality fields, but how likely are they to do so if they cannot get the hours they are entitled to, or foresee their income for the coming year? They can get a contract that reflects the shift that they are putting in.

The problem with the amendment is that it shifts the power dynamic ever so slightly back to the employer, when the legislation quite rightly tips the balance in favour of the worker—the working people who have endured the acute impacts of a pandemic. I lost my job and my ability to privately rent, and I had to move back home, aged 20, in a cost of living crisis.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about tipping things in favour of the employee. How important is that, when we have heard of employees who have been exploited through zero-hours contracts, and who cannot say no, or pay their bills? Some people, especially young women, have been sexually abused at work when they try to adjust their contracts. These measures are a vital part of the legislation.

[Euan Stainbank]

I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention. That dynamic is apparent in the workplace, from the smallest perceived grievance all the way up to the very serious criminal allegations she refers to. It is a power dynamic that we need to address through the Bill. Zero-hours contracts put far too much power in the hands of the employer over the employee.

To address the point about notice of cancellation, I have worked as agency staff, and have been told not to come in the night before a shift. It is demoralising, quite frankly. In the workplace, it alienates people from colleagues they have had a good laugh with the day before. They may have worked closely beside them and said, “See you tomorrow”. Most good employers know that and do not cancel shifts the night before. Sadly, short-term cancellation has increased, especially post pandemic. This is something I endured, having lost my job during the pandemic picking up takeaways.

Imagine young parents working payslip to payslip who have to arrange childcare on a Friday night and are then sent a text at 3 am on a Saturday by their boss that says, “Don’t bother coming in on Monday.” Are we seriously saying that that gives them enough time to arrange their life and that it is fine to arrange their life around the employer, or should we rightly acknowledge that it is insufficient to provide legitimate flexibility? It is a cover for the rare but corrosive practices of bad employers. We must keep this purpose in mind during the consultation with Ministers. That moral clarity should negate the need for a lengthy consultation.

Employment Rights Bill

Euan Stainbank Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

There is a balance between the employer and the employee. If the fit is not right, it is better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end, and that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment.

There are very significant concerns. The lack of clarity about probation periods, which the Minister mentioned, and exactly what they mean, risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills. We can compare that with the provisions in the amendment tabled on unfair dismissal.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment that would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours. Amendment 1B would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wished to receive guaranteed hours offers, but they would be able to opt back into receiving guaranteed hours offers at any time. That reasonable and balanced approach would relieve employers from having to issue guaranteed hours offers each reference period to workers who may simply not be interested in them, while ensuring that those who wished to receive such offers could continue to do so.

The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many workers are struggling with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many people value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable for those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have both security and flexibility.

Specifically, small and medium-sized businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. The Liberal Democrat amendment that was debated in the Lords is in line with our long-standing policy that zero-hours and agency workers should have the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a request that employers could not unreasonably refuse. We believe that measure would maintain valuable flexibility and benefit both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly are not interested in them, imposes a significant burden that does not benefit either side.

As with all workplace rights, employees should be supported to exercise a right to request guaranteed hours without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace. The unified fair work agency being set up by the Government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees received that protection and support. This approach would still give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers.

Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, so I will once again speak in favour of Lords amendment 48B. The sustainability of so many companies, such as farming businesses, depends on getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning that can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into jeopardy. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafés and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Lady define what rights somebody working behind a desk in this place should have under amendment 48B that somebody working behind a bar in this place should not?

[Sarah Olney]

They are different kinds of work with different work patterns, requiring different skills and experience. I am not entirely certain what point the hon. Member wants me to respond to.

If a different regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances. We continue to call for businesses that are especially reliant on seasonal workers to be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support amendment 48B.

On trade unions, I again speak in favour of Lords amendment 62B to maintain the status quo, in which a 50% ballot threshold is required for industrial action. The Government’s proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in the vote. That is bound to raise questions among the public about whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. That would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. We should maintain a robust process for launching industrial action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely. It would leave workers unable to reject overtime, even if they were knackered, having already done 60 or 70 hours that week.

That brings me to Dave, a plasterer working on one of my local building sites. He is technically self-employed, but in reality he is also on a rolling zero-hours contract. Some weeks he earns enough to keep his mortgage, and some weeks he earns enough to put aside a little bit of money for Christmas; other weeks, he earns nothing at all. He is told to stand down when winter hits and work slows, with no pay, no notice and no safety net. That insecurity is corrosive and affects not just finances, but families, health and morale on jobs.

Let us be clear, the public are firmly with us. According to the TUC’s 2025 mega-poll, support for guaranteed-hours contracts sits at over 70% across the regions and nations of the UK. This is not about denigrating businesses and business owners—many are fantastic and provide great opportunities—but without the bill, unscrupulous employers will continue to sidestep responsibility and run a race to the bottom.

Arguments are made that these measures would impose burdens on business, discourage hiring and risk flooding employment tribunals. Those concerns should not be a pretext for hollowing out protections and should instead ensure that workers know how much they will earn each month so that they can plan and live their lives. Sara and Dave, who I referred to earlier, are just two names; behind them are thousands of lives blighted by unfair employment practices. Sara and Dave will not mind me saying that they are not young. Despite what the Opposition want us to believe, zero-hours contracts are not just exploitative for the young; they are exploitative for many other people in our society.

People deserve the right to security. I urge colleagues to reject these Lords amendments, which would weaken the Bill, because fixed-hours entitlement is not a radical idea but a basic standard of decency in the modern world of work. If we really mean it when we say in this House that we respect working people, we must deliver laws that protect them.

[Euan Stainbank]

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud, experienced hospitality worker of six years. I have proportionate respect for the work of the other place on the Bill, and am once again bemused and frustrated on behalf of my constituents that this generational, fundamental and basic common sense bit of legislation is once again before us, along with the hill that many in other place seem to want to make a stand on.

It is apparent that after years of stagnating living standards, job No. 1 for the Government was to make work pay again, tipping the scales in favour of working people and, especially for the younger generation who have been discussed today, recapture a work ethic and value of work that I worry had been lost during the years of Tory Government. Why, then, does the other place insist on Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120, which would remove the day one right on unfair dismissal? That is once again telling young, predominantly lower paid and insecure British workers in hospitality, in factories and on work sites across our constituencies that their continued employment and income is precariously balanced on the benevolence of their employer, not on the value of their labour.

That feeling is real every day that this measure is not on the statute book. Young men and women are being bullied, prodded and pushed out of their jobs by the small minority of bad employers that do exist across our constituencies. I have had kids in their first jobs straight out of school, further education or higher education—this was their first chance—tell me that they were sacked in the weeks prior to two years of service. Looking at Lords amendment 106 from my perspective, I see no reason why that same circumstance would not then occur a few weeks before six months of service.

[Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that good employers have nothing to fear from anything in the Bill and that many good employers will embrace these measures, as indeed many do?

[Euan Stainbank]

When I listen to businesses in my constituency I find, as I am sure every Member of this House does, that they are worried across the piece for a number of reasons and have been for a number of years. Yet many good employers do not rank this in their top five concerns coming forward, and especially not the employers that I worked for in the hospitality and retail sector. Actually, they see the benefits in keeping workers for longer and having more security in knowing who their workforce is. That was a major concern for the hospitality and retail sectors that I worked in, especially on coming out of the pandemic, and not being able to keep staff was also a major cost.

On unfair dismissal, if we accept the amendment, we will leave people without a legal right of action when they are unfairly dismissed. We must reject it; it is an unfair proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, who I like very much, for giving way on that point. He is clearly a massive fan of the Employment Rights Bill. The people of Falkirk are watching him, so would he like to commit to them that if, having passed the Employment Rights Bill, unemployment goes up and therefore we have fewer workers with fewer rights, he will resign from his seat?

[Euan Stainbank]

I make the commitment to the people of Falkirk that the quality of their work, especially for younger people, will go massively through the roof. Younger people in my constituency who have been subject to insecure work, low pay and zero hours contracts have seen the quality of their work diminished, so my guarantee to the people of Falkirk is that the quality of work will go up. I think other Members referred to this, but it is a cheek for Tory Members to talk to post-industrial communities such as Falkirk, which were savaged by the Thatcherite Government. They will get absolutely no credence in my constituency.

I say to those on the Opposition Benches that they have time to change their mind. They can back the Government today, get the Bill passed without it being watered down and stop the attempts that are perceived, at least in my constituency, as an attempt to betray young British workers who are doing the right thing, going out and earning their way. For too long under the Tories, those workers have lost the belief in the quality and opportunity that work provided. They will see massive benefits from the Bill. Make work pay and get this done.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

For the final Back-Bench contribution, I call Anneliese Midgley.