Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of a very large American insurance broker.

This Bill is deeply concerning, especially considering the recent legislative changes, such as the £25 billion raised through national insurance contributions and the 6.7% increase in the national living wage coming into effect next week. These developments are already creating significant challenges for businesses. Together with the regulations in this Bill, they highlight a troubling anti-business and anti-growth stance that risks undermining the foundations of the business community.

While the Bill aims to support workers and create a fairer society, it comes with substantial costs for many businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises. These businesses will struggle to absorb these additional expenses without negative consequences. The key question is: how can businesses continue to grow and create jobs when burdened by such regulatory costs?

One of the many provisions in this enormous Bill is the introduction of a separate legal status for probation periods, alongside the removal of the qualifying period for unfair dismissal. This means businesses could face tribunal claims even during an employee’s probationary period. Although the Government have proposed a lighter-touch approach for probation, the details are yet to be fully determined and will depend on future consultations and secondary legislation. With tribunal waiting times already long—18 to 24 months—it is crucial to ensure that weak claims are dismissed promptly to avoid further strain on businesses. Whatever happens, it is more cost.

Moreover, the Bill introduces reforms to zero-hours contracts, including the right for workers on low-hours contracts to receive a contract reflecting the hours worked in the previous 12 weeks. However, the definition of low hours remains unclear and this uncertainty adds complexity for businesses in managing their workforce. Additionally, the Bill suggests allowing businesses to offer fixed-term contracts during high-demand periods instead of permanent contracts. If regulated effectively, this could help businesses better manage fluctuating demand. However, shifting the responsibility on to businesses to track when such rights are triggered and to offer contracts adds another layer of administrative burden. The Bill’s provisions on dismissal and re-engagement could also complicate restructuring efforts, potentially limiting a business’s ability to adapt to changing market conditions, such as office relocations or adjustments to working conditions.

I will only briefly mention the “Harassment by third parties” clause, which my new noble friend Lord Young of Acton has addressed so well. I believe it puts businesses in a near impossible position in trying to protect their colleagues and staff. It is essential that we find a balance between protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that businesses remain competitive, innovative, agile and responsive to the challenges of a rapidly changing domestic economy.

These changes, combined with the risks associated with permanent contracts, reduced flexibility in workforce restructuring and higher compliance costs, create a challenging environment for businesses. The Government must ensure these policies do not stifle the growth and job creation that the country needs. The anti-business and anti- growth narrative emerging from these legislative changes requires careful scrutiny. We must ensure that businesses are not overwhelmed by unnecessary bureaucracy and red tape. A thriving business environment is not only beneficial for businesses but also essential for the broader economy and the growth that this country desperately needs.

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

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords to stick to the time of four minutes. Thank you.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I also support these amendments from my noble friend and other noble Lords. It would be really helpful if the Government took a hard look at this. I spoke to coffee shop owners over the weekend, and to a very small business that is trying to manufacture British products in this country. They are all very worried about how they are going to cope with the burdens that will be placed on them.

It may well be useful for the Government to go back and look at whether they can make an exception for small businesses up to a certain number of employees—maybe three, maybe five and at least for those that have no ability other than to reach out and pay for very expensive advice, which often they cannot afford. These small businesses are at the heart of our high streets in local communities. They add value and are familiar to customers. The very small business—the micro-business, but particularly businesses with 10 employees or less—should be exempt from this Bill.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that, but IKEA is pretty supportive of the overall intention of the Bill and of the national minimum wage, which is obviously outside the scope of the Bill, such as what we are doing on zero-hours contracts, other short-term contracts and all that. I will write to the noble Lord with further details on the various clauses that it supports.

Various noble Lords asked about the impact assessment. The benefits of the Bill that were published by the TUC show that even modest gains from reforms to workers’ rights will benefit the UK economy by some £13 billion. Opposing this, the impact assessment says that the costs to business would be some £5 billion or 0.4% of employment costs. The benefit is huge, and economists have done research on this.

I cannot agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, who says that start-ups and scale-ups definitely generate employment. It is absolutely right that we have to support them and I strongly believe that the Bill does support them.

Various noble Lords mentioned day-one rights and difficulty in recruiting employees. Remember that, when you run a small business, yes, it is very competitive to employ your first employee: sometimes you have to compete with the big companies in matching salaries or even benefits. I believe passionately that the Bill puts SMEs on a level playing field with large companies, where they can offer the basic benefits in the Bill.

Sometimes we asked: why are we excluding SMEs because it is so difficult for employers to recruit, and why should employees in SMEs not get day-one rights? My answer is: why not? Why should they not get day-one rights? As I said, they are the people who work for the owners, for the owners to make the profit. Without them, the owners will not have a business, so it is very important that they are supported and I believe strongly that good businesses provide fantastic support to their employees.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that it is the difficulty in recruiting that is the real problem for small and micro businesses; I think it is the fear of recruiting. That is a really different point.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I might turn that around and say that, if I am looking for a job, I have a choice of big or small companies. I am taking a chance and a risk working for a very small company. I am not sure whether that company will last. That risk works two ways. I strongly believe that most people work for companies not because of what the company does but because they look at the owner or the founders and whether they want to work with such people. At the end of the day, the employees will also be taking a chance on the employer.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I shall speak to Amendment 66 in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson, who is unable to be in his place today due to a long-standing family commitment.

Clause 9, on flexible working, will make a huge difference to working people, including those with caring responsibilities. Many of us know all too well and very personally the daily juggling-act miracle that working mums especially are expected to perform. Anything that makes their lives easier has to be welcome. Flexible working has the added benefit to business and for the wider economy of making it easier for carers to both enter the workforce and stay there. This will help close the gender pay gap, reduce child poverty and help keep mothers and babies healthier.

Amendment 66 seeks to address the concern that, to be effective, those new rights must have teeth. I know that my noble friend Lord Watson would want to acknowledge the support of Maternity Action and the National Education Union in preparing this amendment. Amendment 66 would require the Business and Trade Secretary to review and publish a statement on the adequacy of the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award where an employer has not followed its obligations in dealing with an employee’s flexible-working request.

Currently, employees have the right to request flexible working, but employers can refuse on a wide range of listed grounds. Clause 9 boosts employees’ rights by introducing a reasonableness requirement, meaning that employers will be permitted to refuse a statutory flexible-working request only if it is reasonable to do so on one or more of the listed grounds. This new requirement is a positive step towards making flexible working the default. The problem is about the maximum compensation which an employment tribunal can award when it upholds an employee’s complaint about how an employer has treated their flexible-working application.

Currently, the maximum compensation that an employment tribunal can award is eight weeks’ pay, capped at £719 per week, which is a total of £5,752. This low compensation cap does not reflect the devastating cost to a worker where that flexible working has been unreasonably refused. Maternity Action and trade unions have documented how unreasonable refusals effectively force employees—particularly many new mothers and other carers—out of their job, often into lower-paid and less secure work or out of work altogether.

Flexibility should be a two-way street for the employer and worker, but in the real world too often it is mothers who are paying a high price. Set against the expense of legal representation, the low level of compensation available deters mothers from pursuing a flexible-working complaint through an employment tribunal. Their only meaningful recourse may be an indirect sex-discrimination claim against their former employer for which compensation is not capped. However, such claims are often long, complicated and extremely stressful. It is much better to send a signal that the Government are serious about enforcing flexible working rights so that employers are encouraged to do the right thing in the first place.

In the Bill’s impact assessment, it is stated that an aim of the changes in Clause 9 is to allow an employment tribunal to scrutinise whether the decision to reject a flexible working request was reasonable. For that to be effective, penalties should be introduced that reflect a substantive failure to act in accordance with a new reasonableness requirement. The Government’s aim of making flexible working the default is very welcome, but I hope my noble friend the Minister will consider bringing forward an amendment on Report or provide reassurance that other routes will be taken to ensure that the new right to flexible working is one that will be enforced in practice and that workers who are unreasonably refused such arrangements get adequate compensation.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Penn. I declare an interest that I work for Marsh, a very large insurance broker in this country and around the world. I run a team of between 30 and 40 people. Within that team, I have all sorts, sizes and cultures—you name it. Of that team, all the married women—I should say, the women with children—have some sort of flexible way that they work with us. I can tell noble Lords from my own experience that unhappy staff do not do good work; it is 101. Happy staff are very likely to do very good work. One of my main jobs is to keep my team happy, and I am given immense flexibility to do it. Without this amendment, it is less easy. I rest my case.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, which was so ably enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I think that the amendment is neither fish nor fowl really. It is perfectly possible, as I understand it, for the Government to have already addressed this issue and, by statutory instrument, to set differential rates for compensation at employment tribunal. It seems rather a waste of time, and not necessarily a good use of ministerial time, to put in primary legislation another review.

My substantial issue is also that this, again, tips the balance are much more towards the worker, unreasonably, and away from the employer. I think that is to be deprecated, because that is what we have seen in so many aspects of this Bill. This leads me to conclude something else as well. On a risk-based assessment of whether you would wish to employ a person, an employer may very well conclude—it may, unfortunately, be an encumbrance of being a female employee or potential employee—that “We do not wish to employ that person because she may apply for flexible working, and it is better to employ someone else”. This is particularly because of the risk that, in going to an employment tribunal, after already having believed they had behaved in a reasonable way, they would be subject to a potential substantial monetary fine, which will impact on their bottom line. That is not good for those workers. It is not for the women who wish to work and have flexibility.

I broadly agree with the idea of reasonableness in applying for flexible working. That is how our jobs market and employment regime works now. Many women do want flexible working, and it is absolutely right that employers reasonably consider that. But I think this amendment is a step too far, because it will have the unintended consequence of making it more likely that women will not be employed because they may ask for flexible working. I think it is otiose: it is unnecessary, and it will not add to the efficacy of the Bill.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathcarron (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 83, 85, 86 and 88 in my name. I am sure noble Lords will have noticed that, after the Second Reading of this Bill, media reports the next day focused disproportionately on what was reported as the absurdity of employers being held responsible for employees who are offended by third parties in situations in which the employers had no control over who said what, to whom, when, why or where. The “where” aspect is important, because this also applies to real or imaginary offence taken by employees off-site of the employer’s premises. It was rightly reported the next day as an Alice in Wonderland proposal, where the whole concept of responsibility is turned topsy-turvy. Another reported it less kindly as “bonkers”, and yet another as a new way for unscrupulous lawyers to make a killing.

One can only imagine the fresh media ridicule to which your Lordships’ House will be exposed if it allows Clause 20 to go through unamended. Of course, it is no ridicule for employers, or taxpayers where this happens in the public sector, but potentially a very expensive and time-consuming burden on them, and wide open to vexatious misuse.

Amendment 83 would the remove employers having to be responsible for their customers being overheard talking about matters of the day. If the proposers of the Bill had visited a pub, for example, they would know that a pub is a Parliament in which customers have just as much right to discuss the ways of the world as we do here in this Parliament.

Amendment 85 refers to the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education settings. To give an example close to home of why it is needed in the hospitality sector, let us say that I invited someone to visit me here in your Lordships’ House and this person did not have English as his or her first language. Let us say, further, that my guest had stopped off at the Red Lion on the way here for refreshments, and that, after our meeting, I took him or her down to the River Restaurant for a quick meal. If this guest happened to see that one of the items on the menu was a curry, and remarked to the unprotected-characteristic employee serving the curry that no one in England knows how to make a proper curry, and if that remark was overheard by a chef with a protected characteristic, then the overhearing person could take real or vexatious offence, and the House of Lords could be taken to the tribunal, or more likely, after several months and thousands of pounds, there would be a pre-tribunal taxpayer-funded pay-off.

I am sure that noble Lords do not need reminding that such vexatious claims are a significant contributor to the 50,000 tribunal case hearings and one-year waiting-time backlog. We would indeed then be laughing stocks for allowing our own legislation to be used against us like this, or even to exist at all in the wider context.

That Amendment 85 should apply also to sports venues would be obvious if the proposers had attended any sports event, where support for a competing individual or team is necessarily enthusiastic and often boisterous. The crowd’s speech is so impossible for the venue employer to control that, if a protected-characteristic steward took offence at a remark aimed indirectly at an official, the employer would inevitably raise waivers with the organisers, who might quite reasonably think the whole idea is not worth the candle, and so unintended consequences would strike again. This is what we recently saw with the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act, leading to long-standing local events—in one case, a 150 year-old local flower show—being cancelled because it was caught in the collateral damage of well-intentioned legislation, just like this part of the Bill that we are discussing now.

Amendment 85 also seeks to exempt higher education settings, where, surely, hearing and coping with diverse opinions is what education is supposed to be about. Amendment 86 seeks to remove any offence taken by casual overhearing if that happens just once, by applying a rule that would rely on the offender causing offence on purpose rather than by mistake, casually, or—with the recent enormous rise in employees whose first language is not English—doing so through an understandable lack of familiarity with the language, with its nuances, subtexts, sarcasms and ironies that a native speaker would understand.

Amendment 88 seems the most reasonable of all, removing the overhearing aspect of the legislation, which is the one most open to vexatious claims, and for which, surely, no employer can reasonably be held responsible in any foreseeable circumstances.

I hope that, after hearing all the arguments against Clause 20, the Government will agree that these amendments would remove the most egregious parts of it and bring an element of reality to bear on these unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstances in which employers might find themselves.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 83, in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, and others in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I would like to reflect on the practical implications of these amendments for companies that regularly receive visitors in the course of their business. As noble Lords may be aware, I work for Marsh, an international, American-owned insurance broker. We are fortunate to welcome clients from across the globe—individuals from many cultures with diverse values—who come to London to discuss their insurance needs. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, noted, at Marsh we are guided by a strong internal code of conduct known as The Greater Good. This code outlines our organisational values and individual responsibilities. It is built on three pillars: “Win with integrity”, “You are never alone” and “Speak up”. These principles are designed to ensure a safe, respectful and inclusive environment for all our employees wherever in the world we operate; it matters not whether it is London or Singapore.

However, while we can uphold these standards internally, we cannot reasonably expect all visitors to our offices to be bound by the same code, much as we might wish it. Nor can we predict or control every comment made in the course of a conversation. Is it truly fair or practical to hold a company liable for remarks made by a visitor that may touch on political, moral, religious or social matters, as we have heard, and are not indecent or grossly offensive but might none the less be perceived as offensive by an employee or another guest? Such a standard would place an impossible burden on businesses, not just in hospitality and so on. It is simply not feasible to monitor or pre-empt every interaction that takes place on our premises.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I stand with some trepidation at this stage to support very much the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and indeed I support the other amendments in this group.

We have to think that any company—large, small, charity, whatever it may be—that hires a new employee takes a calculated risk. They are unknown. The company hopes that the individual, young or more mature, will integrate well into the company culture and be capable of handling the expected workload with the appropriate training needed.

I understand the Government’s position, as mentioned in a previous day’s debate on the Bill, that the employee also takes a risk when starting a new job or changing careers. They too must be confident that the role aligns with their skills and aspirations. A probationary period exists to serve both parties. It allows the employee to assess whether the role suits their interests, skills and abilities, while giving the employer time to evaluate whether the employee fits before making a long-term commitment. Is that unreasonable?

In my own place of work, I have seen this very much in practice. In fact, when I returned to work, I had a six-month probation period, and I had worked for them for 25 years before that. We once hired a seasoned practitioner with considerable market experience. However, for various reasons, they did not pass their probation. Should that individual be entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said? From the employer’s perspective, they are simply trying to safeguard their business, its culture and its ability to deliver results for clients. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as we have just heard and as, I think, the noble Lord accepted.

Is it right that an employee should be granted full employment rights from day one, when both sides are still in a learning phase? Is it fair that a company could face the threat of an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal if the probationary period is not successful, on which we have had a lot of discussion? Whatever happens, should it go towards that phase? Should it never reach the employment tribunal? It is a gruelling process for both parties, and an expensive one—emotionally, culturally, and potentially in the pocket.

The Government rightly seek to stimulate growth, as mentioned by the Minister on the previous group. For that to happen, businesses must feel confident in hiring. But, if the terms of employment are too burdensome, companies may hesitate to expand their workforce. It is imperative that the economy is prevented from becoming stagnant or, worse still, contracting. I simply do not understand why this clause is in the Bill. It does not propose anything that helps growth in this country.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

The noble Lord pointed to the daunting process that faces an employer potentially facing an employment tribunal accusation that would damage perhaps their reputation, as well as the daunting issues that also face the employee who is considering going down that course. My noble friend made some emphasis on that point.

The debate has been conducted as if this is a hugely common threat: indeed, as if it is a threat that, potentially, is going to do tremendous damage to our economy. But could I just point to the scale of the issue? In 2023-24, there were just over 5,000 unfair dismissal cases referred from the Tribunals Service to ACAS for the conciliation processes that my noble friend referred to. What is the size of our workforce in the British economy? Is it 25, 26, 27—

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

Thirty-four million workers. Five and a half thousand cases. Why is the number so small? It has been suggested that it is because an employer’s immediate response is to offer a settlement to buy off the prospect of a tribunal. Some may make that judgement, but, given the evidence my noble friend has referred to about the unlikelihood of applicants succeeding with their claims, that does not seem a very wise response to give. There may be some, but for the individual, it seems to me, more daunting factors influence them to hold back because it is so painful and potentially stressful that they are reluctant to take their case in the first place.

This whole Bill is about giving people at work in Britain more confidence and there needs to be some sense of perspective about the scale of the issue we are talking about. Five thousand people.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

I am aware of a case of a small company that has got rid of four individuals in view of the legislation because those individuals are not doing a good enough job, but it could live with them if it had the ability to get rid of them. What it cannot face the thought of is having to go down any form of tribunal route or indeed threat thereof. That is not what we are trying to do with this Bill; we are trying to prevent that. We do not want to see those individuals leave employment. That is not what we want, and that is where it could lead a lot of people.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is one of the most important parts of this legislation, and I am very conscious of the Labour Party’s manifesto and its success in the election last year. However, at the same time, this is the same Government who want to increase the employment rate to 80%, which has not been achieved in a very long time. If we go back in history, we see that the Blair-Brown Government did not make changes to go to zero or day-one rights in the same way. Yes, they changed it from two years to one year. The coalition Government later changed it back to two years.

Yet we are now seeing—as has already been pointed out elegantly by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in response to some of the comments raised on the Government Benches—that this is the Government’s own impact assessment. If we look at the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment of these proposals, we see that it gives a very strong red rating on this element and suggests that, basically, there is no evidence that they are in any way needed.

There are aspects here of “What is the problem that the Government is trying to address?”. Lewis Silkin solicitors point out that if the only changes to be made were those referred to and we were still to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy read out, the different approaches on fair dismissal in the tribunal, the Government could just put forward a statutory instrument based on the existing power of the 1996 Act. However, they have not done so in the Bill; they are seeking to go much further in a variety of ways in Schedule 3. That is why I share the concerns of many other noble Lords who are worried about the unintended consequences. Nobody can believe that a Labour Government would want to see unemployment rise or more people on benefits, or not tackle the challenge of people not in education, employment or training—

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose Amendments 132 and 137. Both of them seek to expand the list of organisations recognised in law to represent workers. Amendment 132 relates to representation in reaching settlement agreements, while Amendment 137 refers to representation in hearings at workplace disciplinary and grievance hearings.

At present, the law specifies that individuals can be supported by trade unions, fellow workers or, in respect of settlement agreements, lawyers or other qualified people from, for example, the respected network of citizens advice bureaux. Both amendments propose that the right to representation be extended to professional bodies specified by the Secretary of State, and Amendment 132 refers in particular to CIPD members. I have to say I am genuinely puzzled about which other professional bodies would wish to take on this new role.

In short, the law should rest where it stands. Workers should be represented, where they are present, by workers’ organisations—trade unions—that, where appropriate, can provide legal representation. The CIPD is widely respected as an organisation of HR professionals, but it essentially represents employers’ interests and would surely be conflicted if it were to take on this very different role.

I know my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley is motivated by a wish to ensure that people working in small and medium-sized businesses without trade union representation should have relevant expertise available to help resolve difficult workplace issues. I support that aspiration, but ACAS—which I chaired for six years, to declare an interest—has the responsibility and the independent, impartial expertise to conciliate in such matters, and a considerable track record of success in doing so. Far better to ensure that it has increased resources to provide this vital service in the interests of both parties in any such dispute, rather than muddying the water on the issue of who is competent and appropriate to represent workers. I hope that both these amendments will not be pressed.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, it seems that, yet again, the noble Lord, Lord Barber, and I are not going to quite agree. I support both these amendments, particularly the one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer.

I would like to look at the amendments from the point of view of the employee. When an employee finds themselves in a disciplinary or grievance hearing—we heard from my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough earlier—it signifies a profound breakdown in their relationship with their employer. It is a moment fraught with stress, uncertainty and fear; one where an individual may feel their professional life is unravelling before them. They may question how they will continue to support their family, whether they can afford to remain in their home, and what their future may hold.

Large corporations, such as the one I work for, have the benefit of HR departments to guide them through such proceedings, ensuring that their position is well-organised and profoundly represented. I have had the dubious pleasure of having to make people redundant; it is not fun, even with HR beside you, but they had nobody. In smaller companies, personal relationships between employer and employee can add an additional layer of complexity to the situation. In either case, the individual facing the hearing is often isolated, and struggling to recollect past events and present their case clearly.

These amendments, particularly Amendment 137, propose a fair and practical position: the right to have the assistance of a certified individual—someone equipped to review the facts dispassionately, organise events in logical sequence and provide the employee with a much-needed sense of reassurance. As we have heard, the trade unions already fulfil this role, particularly in large companies. However, many employees, myself included, choose not to join a union for a variety of personal reasons. The absence of union membership should not mean a lack of support in such critical moments. This amendment would ensure that every employee, regardless of union affiliation, has access to a certified individual who may provide guidance when facing disciplinary proceedings, fostering a fairer and more balanced process. For this reason, I support these amendments to uphold the right of fairness in our workplaces.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for introducing their Amendments 132 and 137.

As has been said, not all workers have or want access to a union representative. In fact, the latest statistics that I have from the Department for Business and Trade suggest that only 22% of all employees are unionised. Not all workers have access to or can afford legal advice, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Pitkeathley, pointed out, those in smaller workplaces or those performing more precarious roles. Allowing trained, certified HR professionals to provide advice could help ensure that more employees are supported when making important decisions about their rights.

It is important to recognise the valuable support already available through organisations such as ACAS—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Barber—citizens advice bureaux and others, which provide free and impartial advice. This amendment complements those services by seeking to expand the range of qualified advisers accessible to workers. The principle of widening access to competent support is a reasonable one, especially where safeguards are in place through certification by recognised professional bodies. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, if nothing else, that ought to serve to ease pressure on employment rights tribunals, which, as we have discussed many times over the course of this Committee, are stretched to breaking point.

I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, that that was a classic case of the TUC advocating for a closed shop, and I applaud him for that. However, not so many employees are now members of trade unions, as I have pointed out, and the majority of trade union members are in the public sector.

The question of genuine independence will be critical, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that. I would also say, perhaps to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, that, without wishing to quibble too much with his amendment, I think that as currently written it gives the Secretary of State rather too much discretion in determining what is a professional body. If he wants to have a think about that, I am available for a chat.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has pointed out, this idea was in both the 2022 Green Paper and in the paper that the Labour Party published during last year’s election. Clearly, there is an expectation that this needs to be addressed in this huge Bill, the main purpose of which, as I have said to this Committee before, could have been achieved through a statutory instrument.

However, one of the important things in the amendment, which has been carefully written by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, sets in place the idea that:

“The right to disconnect does not apply where … a worker is on call or standby duty and receiving appropriate compensation for such duty”.


In trying to get into this debate, which is a fair debate to have, we find that the legislation already addresses the majority of situations where this would already happen, and so all that would happen if this were to become law is that contracts would be written in such a way that, in effect, if necessary, everybody would be on call—which would not be a desirable outcome.

I want to build on that. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to a variety of anecdotes and his personal experience. Personal experience matters in considering how a good employer can act. For what it is worth, in my private office, which was very busy, and in my parliamentary office when I used to employ people, I required everybody to have their “do not disturb” setting on. The setting works such that if somebody really needs to get hold of you—if you are a Minister, say—switch will get through to you eventually. I have to say to the people on the Front Bench that that is the case even if you do not have your phone on. Those situations are already addressed.

One of the things the Bill is trying to do overall is to get that balance. However, it is fair to say that not everything needs to be put into legislation. It is about having a positive relationship, and some of that can be done through ACAS and in other different ways, such as guidance. Trying to micromanage every single relationship that the millions of workers have directly with their employer risks overcomplicating things. The fear that I have, given that this is in the Government’s manifesto, which they seek to put in place—it will be interesting to see how they want to make this happen—is that this will make for very tricky legislation. Although there may be instances where this would work, ultimately, it comes down to employment tribunals and somebody else’s judgment.

For what it is worth, we have an evolving variety of workplaces. A lot of people who used to work at home have now come back to the office so that they can leave their job behind, as opposed to feeling that they will open something up after dinner or whatever.

I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how the Government are planning to fulfil their manifesto commitment while trying to make sure that they do not micromanage every single element of how a job can be done in the workplace.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness said, because this is about fairness and making sure life works. There are a lot of companies, big and small, where, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working. However, there are a number of instances—including somewhere like where I work—where I do not think this would work.

I will just give your Lordships one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge insurance broker. We had a client in the United States who by 5 pm had not decided whether to renew his insurance contract in London. If he had not renewed it by 1 June—which I guess was a Sunday—he would have had no insurance on that specific part of his business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word—he was probably out and about with the phone in his pocket—and the call came through at some time after 9 pm. Looking at the way the clause is drafted, I am not sure whether that would be considered enough of an emergency to get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak. Equally, that company might have had to stop working, doing whatever it was doing in the oil and gas industry—I know that will not endear me to the noble Baroness, but that is a fact. But we had to bind that insurance contract once we got the order. It was all ready to go; it was just a question of sending a number of emails to say that it was done. So there are huge swathes of the country where it is in fact in place already, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has said, but in some of the big City environments where you are working across time zones particularly, it is extremely difficult to enact.

On working from home, we all worked at home for some time; personally I loathed it—I am back in the office almost as much as I can be. However, I have members of staff who like working at home, and, let me tell your Lordships, they know how to turn themselves off when they do not want to talk to us anymore, and they are good at it. So they should be, and I respect them for it. But if you really need them, you can always find them.

Finally, you can turn the damn machines off. Be it a telephone, a computer, an iPad or whatever it is, there is an off button out there. Certainly when I was a child, we were told never to call anybody after 9 pm, and that was friends and family. So there are some unwritten rules out there that are already very effective.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for introducing us to a fascinating debate. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, put us in touch with the real world, and then my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Ashcombe reminded us about what happens in real life. I suppose I have immediately to declare my interest as a practising solicitor. My phrase, which I always used to share with Albert Blighton, was that I was available 168/52. The number 168 is 24 times seven. So you quickly appreciate that, as a solicitor, you have to be available all the time.

When I won the contract to represent cricket with the England and Wales Cricket Board, they wanted to know whether I would be available on a Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match, and I said, “Yes, of course I would”. So it is very much up to the individual to make themselves available.

When I was asked to join the Front Bench in the House of Commons in 1977, I do not think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an Adjournment debate, even though it might have been at 3 am, which it was on one occasion. Therefore, you set your working parameter in the way in which you develop your own workaholic tendencies, but you should not expect it of everyone, and I think that is what the amendment is all about.

Do you have the right to disconnect? Although I am sympathetic to the idea that you should be able to switch off, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, put in context, when the Bill is already introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around shift notice periods, payment for cancelled shifts and wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, we have to be very cautious about layering on yet another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation.

The noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal, giving workers a right not to respond to emails or calls outside their contracted hours, but in reality, as the Government have quickly realised, despite what they may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions. What does “working hours” mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, in customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted, and in businesses operating across time zones?

Employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs. This would add yet another administrative requirement. There would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect, a consultation process, enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims. So, we must ask: is this really the right moment to introduce such sweeping regulation?

The Bill already creates new rights and obligations that will take time to bed in. There is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effect of this amendment would be to increase that uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly. A blanket legislative approach risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught, especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I expect the bigger employers, if they know about this legislation—although we are hearing from a lot of the employers’ representatives that a lot of their members had not even heard about the day one rights until very recently—will probably put their HR departments and lawyers on it. I am concerned about the smaller ones, which is why I am sympathetic to the amendments in this group on micro employers and small employers. Otherwise, this could start to become a very expensive business. It is yet another reason why the Government generally do not seem to understand the chilling effect that not only their economic policies but legislation such as this will have on the recruitment of people to jobs.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I had no intention of coming here today to speak until I had dinner last night. Having put in a day’s work, I thought it was time to come here and express an opinion.

I would like to describe that situation last night. It follows on from a lot of what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley said and the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. This friend of mine, whom I have known for 30 or 40 years, is a small businessman in Bath, down in the West Country. He said to me, “Mark, we have a major problem coming. I have friends in similar places who run small businesses”—he runs a business of some six or seven people. “We are all talking together, because that is how we transfer knowledge, and the number of us beginning to think about throwing in the towel is significant. I want you to know about it”.

If this change were to happen, it would affect the poor employees of these businesses. There is nothing inherently wrong with these businesses but there is, as we have heard, more and more legislation coming upon them. It is the employees who are going. The domino effect through local economies is too much for these businesses. These small guys have to employ lawyers, HR experts and so on. I work for a company where we have those in house. They are just getting to the end of their tether. They do not want to stop, but I hope that Amendments 205 and 207 will help prevent that sort of thing happening and another nail in the coffin for these small businesses, which are really struggling as they think about the hassle of going on.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the provision of employment rights. The essence of the group is about requiring employers to provide workers with a written statement of their trade union rights. Even after seven hours, I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, describe a romp through the 1970s and the bad old days of the Labour Party bringing the country to its knees and almost losing the car industry. He failed to skip into the 1980s, when the Government did destroy an industry—the coal industry—and did immeasurable damage to the trade union movement, which it has taken decades to recover from and is at the heart of the Bill. It is a direct result of actions taken by a certain Government in a previous life. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have been here since the start of the debate and listening. As the Companion says, it is courtesy to be here at the start of the debate to listen to the opening speeches and then the winding up speeches. There seems to be real departure from that by Members, who just wander in, make contributions and wander out.