Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, rather than being the third party, I think I am the 59th party in this debate.

Somewhat repetitiously, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger, Lady Gray and Lady Cash, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on their maiden speeches. Without being seen to pick one from the other, I was struck by the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, made about the benefits of having spent time running a pub. Straight after graduating, I became the manager of a busy bar in north London. I learned about people, and more importantly learned about employing people, because it was the first time I had started to employ people. It was a great lesson. You can learn a lot in places like that.

This has been an interesting debate. We have heard very disparate views. On the one hand, maybe the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Hendy, put the pole in one place and, on the other hand, almost certainly the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, placed the pole in another. Your Lordships’ task will be to work out where this Bill lands between those two poles. It is going to be a tough job in Committee.

This Bill undeniably sets out to meet a manifesto commitment that the Government very clearly articulated during the election. Unfortunately, one aspect of that commitment was to deliver it within 100 days. The nature of what we are discussing has suffered from the lack of rigour in preparation. That is clearly evidenced by the number of amendments that the Government themselves have had to bring—and also by the lack of detail and the number of consultations that are outstanding.

For that reason, those of us on these Benches will work closely on not just the intent but the detail of this Bill. An awful lot of detail is missing, and many of the real details are still out for consultation or are awaiting codes of conduct that will be set out in regulations that we have yet to see, so it is going to be quite a hard Committee.

However, before descending into that detail, we should reflect somewhat on the purpose of this legislation. We Liberal Democrats agree that there is absolutely a need to ensure that exploitative employment is dealt with. There is no doubt a need to do that, and we support that objective, but I hope that when this Bill leaves your Lordships’ House, it will be more widely equipped to help improve employer-employee relations and, yes, to deliver fair work, but also to create conditions for growth. If it is to do that then there is a long way to go to achieve it.

I have been a member of a trade union, and I have been part of executive management of businesses that have worked very constructively with trade unions, but that is not the only model for employer and employee. A central criticism I have of this Bill is that it seems to disregard the fact that many—I would suggest most—businesses maintain strong and beneficial relationships with their employees without the need for union involvement or intervention. As a starting point, this Bill seems to have an air of suspiciousness about the functioning relationships with which normal businesses go about their business. We have to go back and get away from the idea that one size fits all. There are a lot of different hybrids that work in business, and this legislation should facilitate them all equally. Further, there needs to be more recognition of employees as individuals rather than as members of unions. A fact of life is that, whatever the Government think, the vast majority of employees will not be in a union, at least in the private sector. We need to think about how that works.

The tone of this legislation is, perhaps unsurprisingly, very legalistic. An awful lot of lawyers have been involved in it. There will certainly be more employment tribunals if it passes as drafted. I emphasise that every time a case goes to a tribunal, both sides have already lost. We do not want to push things. In answer to the sedentary interjections from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the fact is that it will push things into a legal process; that is what I meant.

Given the uncharted nature of this legislation, we will rely on case law for years to come to define its boundaries. The noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, and others talked about equal rights legislation. Years and years of case law enshrined how that worked in the workplace. If the tribunals and the courts are so tied up, that case law will be very slow in coming. We have to be clear in our definitions so that we are not relying on those definitions for this Bill to function properly when it becomes an Act. We know that the tribunal system is already overloaded, with waits for rulings measured in years.

Also, ACAS will have an important role to play, not just on the policy side but with its mediation work. Will its funding be increased to reflect this extra burden? My guess is that the tribunals and ACAS will not be funded properly, which will cause administrative sclerosis, uncertainty and long waits for cases to be heard. How we are going to resource the Bill, if and when it becomes an Act, is something that needs to be taken into consideration.

I turn to some of the central points of the Bill. My first questions will be around the legal definitions of zero-hours contracts. A lot of work needs to be done to tighten definitions so that we know what we are talking about and what we seek to achieve. The addition of agency workers further complicates this point. There are fundamental decisions that we cannot wait for the legal process to deliver.

As this Bill passed through the Commons, the Liberal Democrats introduced a number of amendments that we will present to your Lordships’ House. For example, Daisy Cooper MP proposed a new clause to publish a review of the impact of Part 4 of the Bill on SMEs. Liberal Democrat MPs expressed concern about placing unreasonable burdens on SMEs. They duly called for clarity on aspects such as probation periods at an early stage due to the significant impact this will have on small businesses.

As the noble Lord, Lord Browne, noted, this is a complicated Bill. Should any small business person have had time while running his or her firm to listen to the Minister’s introduction—very able as it was—its complexity would certainly have alarmed them. It is daunting legislation for all businesses, but particularly smaller businesses. I fear that the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors stand to face some of the biggest challenges that the Bill could launch.

I caution against conflating the contents of this Bill with productivity and growth by citing international examples. There is a difference between correlation and causation, and we perhaps should not go too big on that. We should use a different measure—what is right to do, rather than the supposition that it may or may not deliver growth.

As we heard from the triumvirate opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Freyburg, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty—there needs to be a proper understanding of the role of freelancers and the self-employed within the workplace. Where do they sit within this Bill, and what should or could their contractual rights be?

It is also clear that the Bill needs to focus more on the future of employment, and here we should look at closer alignment with EU positions—for example, on AI involvement and algorithm-directed employment. These have been discussed in the past but they are not included in the Bill. I hope that the House will debate this, and that the Minister will be forthcoming on these future issues.

Then there is the fair work agency and how it will operate. There have been alarming reports in the press, which may or may not be true, but it is clear that we need to flesh out how this agency will work. How will it supplant the work of the Treasury and, possibly, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority? Will it have access to the same data the Treasury has, bearing in mind that this is confidential tax data? Before we reach Report, the Government should publish full proposals for this agency. We cannot approve it sight unseen. Furthermore, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, the preponderance of delegated legislation will have to be addressed either by your Lordships or, I hope, by the Government in advance of that process.

The Spring Statement saw the biggest reduction of assistance to working carers for a decade. As my noble friend Lord Palmer set out, we will seek to strengthen provisions on carer’s leave. We will also address parental issues, such as the absence of provisions on miscarriage bereavement leave. We will propose increasing the length of paternity leave and making it more flexible, which I hope will please and be supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn.

As my noble friend Lady Kramer set out, we will table amendments that seek to act on whistleblowers and on the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. I share the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and others on the need to protect workers from harassment.

To conclude, I am anxious that the Minister does not dismiss the negative words that she has heard today as being purely political chipping. There are genuine practical problems that we need to address in your Lordships’ House, and I hope we can take forward that practical approach as we go into Committee. Liberal Democrats believe that the lack of detail in the Bill does not facilitate certainty and stability for businesses or workers. That is what we need for growth: certainty and stability. There are huge holes in the available data and detail supporting this important Bill. Much of that detail is floating in the many consultations or as yet unpublished codes. We need to have advanced sight of the important levels of detail that will flesh out the skeleton of this Bill.

Like many, I fear the overall effect that this Bill will, or could, have on small and medium-sized businesses, particularly through the introduction of much complexity and the threat of cases being taken to many more tribunals. It is friction, and these businesses do not need yet more friction in what is already a very difficult trading environment. In the main, this Bill takes a one-size-fits-all approach to addressing genuine problems in the workplace, and it does not look far enough forward on future employee issues. That said, we look forward to discussing this issue in Committee.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to—(a) improve the fairness and security of employment;(b) facilitate cooperative arrangements between employers and workers, including the protection of workers’ rights and wellbeing;(c) make provisions about pay and conditions in certain sectors; (d) facilitate constructive workplace relations between employers and workers representatives, including trade unions;(e) make provisions about the enforcement of labour market legislation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Clause at the beginning of the Bill to set out its overarching purpose and provides a framework for understanding the aims of the legislation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I will also speak to Amendments 283 and 327.

In February 2023, Keir Starmer launched Labour’s five missions. The first is to get the UK’s economic growth to the highest sustained level in the G7 by the end of Labour’s first term. I need hardly remind your Lordships that it is with that mission, and the four others, that the Labour Party went on to win the general election with a majority. Since then, the Government have unwisely raised employers’ NICs and introduced this Bill. It is through those lenses that business views the Government’s attitude towards it.

Amendment 1 is an attempt to set this legislation in context, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for also signing it. It was quite difficult to come up with wording that the PBO would let past its eagle eyes, but I am sure that the Minister will not find much of this objectionable. For example, proposed new paragraph (a) sets out the need for “fairness and security” as drivers for the Bill; I am sure the Minister will agree with that. Proposed new paragraph (c) is well represented in this Bill, as large parts of it set out new rules around trade unions.

However, I will spend some time discussing proposed new paragraphs (b) and (d). I cannot read this Bill without the feeling that it envisions just two states of employment—happy workers represented by unions and abject employees working in non-unionised concerns—but, of course, that is not true. Even in the very welcome conversations with the Minister, there seems to have been little recognition that the vast majority of people in this country are in employment where the facilitation of co-operation agreements between employers and workers is not automatically dependent on their union status. Let us remind ourselves that, for most people, those co-operative arrangements work pretty well, and that the proportion of UK employees who are trade union members is around 22% in this country. Constructive workplace relations can be forged in many ways other than via direct representation of employees by their unions.

When the Minister generously gave her time to meet with me on this Bill, she explained that discussions between government, employers’ organisations and the unions had been constructive and amicable. I am sure they were, but those selfsame employers’ organisations have also raised serious alarm over this Bill. The British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the IoD, the FSB and Make UK all sent a joint letter, which I am sure all noble Lords have received and read. The B5, as it is known, is not alone: all manner of industries—including hospitality, food and drink, and employment agencies—have raised serious concerns about the Bill. The telling phrase in the B5 letter is:

“For us the challenge has never been what the government wants to achieve, but the unintended consequences of how they implement it. Unfortunately, the Bill locks in several irreversible policy directions that will force business to make difficult choices between jobs, investment and growth”.


The Minister may well say that she is getting equally forceful lobbying from the unions. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, will provide ample evidence of that with his later amendments. She may say that the Government are pitching this Bill in the middle of these respective positions—and she may claim, on that basis, that the Bill is in the right place. However, Governments are elected not to work out the average position of policy but to make the right decisions. I ask the Minister to take on board the concerns of business and, importantly, to recognise that there are issues in this Bill, which, if not addressed, will impede the Government’s chances of delivering their mission of economic growth.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of the UK economy, accounting for a huge proportion of the business population and employing approximately 16.7 million people—around 61% of private sector employment, according to data from the Federation of Small Businesses. In that regard, the Minister should recognise that the impact of many of the measures in the Bill will disproportionately affect small and medium-sized businesses. These smaller businesses have neither the administrative horsepower nor the reservoir of human energy required to meet the collection of tasks that the Bill will introduce. Given their economic footprint and vital role in local communities, SMEs must be central to the purpose of the Employment Rights Bill. Placing SMEs at the heart of the Bill’s purpose offers an opportunity to foster better employment relations while supporting enterprise, resilience and long-term growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, may be relatively new to this House, but she is not wrong that purpose amendments are often the source of great opprobrium across your Lordships’ House—and I am afraid I am something of a serial offender in that regard. But the aim of this amendment has certainly partially been achieved, in that I think we have started the process of flushing out some of the issues.

I have a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and I think she gave a very spirited speech, but I think that she gave a spirited speech to the speeches that came after hers and not to mine. If she reads, in tomorrow’s publications, the words of what I said, I think she will find that at no point did I speak against the Bill. I was seeking through this process to achieve two things from the Benches opposite. First was a recognition that there is much work to be done to bring employers into this process, and I did not hear that empathy from the Benches opposite or from the Minister. The second point on which I was seeking recognition is that a lot of this legislation is arriving late. The Minister said she would give this House an adequate time to consider it; it is already too late for it to be adequate time, because this stuff is arriving well past due date. We are not getting adequate time on the programme that we are currently getting, and there needs to be a recognition of that. If the Government want to reach across the House and support all the good things in the Bill, then they have to have some empathy about the things that are wrong with it and with the process of the delivery. That was my main purpose in this purpose amendment, and it has not achieved that purpose to date. I hope that, going forward, we can get some recognition of what is required.

On Amendments 283 and 327, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who I think got my point: we need an operator’s manual for the Bill. The Minister absolutely cemented the reason why we need one, because she then went on a journey across several different bits of legislation and all sorts of codes and practices and stuff. If I am sitting in the HR department of one person in a business of 12 people, I need a guidebook that takes me to the right guides and the right legislation. The information may already exist, but I do not need to go on a website trawl to find it; I need a signpost that takes me to the places that I need to know to operate this legislation when it becomes an Act. That is what Amendment 283 is seeking to achieve. If this stuff already exists, then it will not hold up the process; it is merely a question of bringing it together and saying, “You get this bit there and that bit there”. The more that can be done within a code of practice to deal with that, the easier it will be for businesses to comply, and the easier it will be to avoid a proliferation of tribunals, which I am sure no one in this House is seeking to achieve. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I urge the Minister, if not to accept this amendment, at least to commit in Committee to including a clear definition of low-hours contracts on Report. If the low-hours threshold is set at the right level, the Bill will indeed succeed in addressing potentially exploitative practices—which, as noble Lords on the other side of the Committee have rightly pointed out, good employers want to be addressed as much as they do. The Bill can do so without dismantling the legitimate employment practices that work—for our economy, for our service industries, and, most importantly, for millions of working people across the UK. In that spirit, I commend Amendment 8 to your Lordships.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is with some trepidation but some pleasure that I follow that speech. I rise to speak to Amendment 4, which is in my name, and to offer support to Amendments 7 and 15 in the name of my noble friend Lord Goddard, although he will speak to those on his own account.

Speaking on the previous group, I said that there should be a change in the polarity of the guaranteed hours offer from an obligation to offer to a more streamlined right to request. We have heard in the previous two speeches that the aim is for this offer to be made to people who want it rather than there being an obligation to make it to everybody, when we know for a fact that a large number of people who will get the offer will not want to take it up. It is unnecessary activity when there is plenty to do in business. It is a very simple principle, and I genuinely do not think it subverts the intention of the Bill, in the same way as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was trying not to subvert the purpose of the Bill but to help it succeed while helping business at the same time. In a sense, that reflects the point I made before withdrawing Amendment 1. It is really asking the Government to have some understanding of how these things will be delivered on the ground, in the workplace. That is why the previous speech was so helpfully revealing.

I think that a large part of the early part of this Bill is designed to deal, in essence, with a number of employers who the Government have in the back of their mind as not doing the right thing and not achieving what we would all like to achieve. I understand that. Unfortunately, it is dragging the whole business programme, from microbusinesses right up to huge businesses, into a series of practices to crack those particular nuts. Later in Committee, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will introduce Amendment 318, which targets the sort of employer who I think the Government have in their mind as bad or exploitative. It would create, in essence, a new class of employee, the dependent contractor, which is in fact in many cases what we are starting to look at. It would sharpen the regulatory focus, particularly on some elements of gig economy employers, but avoid the heavy-handed approach that we are in danger of using with this Bill.

Amendment 4, and I think there are a couple of others that are very similar, would simply reverse that polarity to: if employees ask for it, the employer is obliged to deliver it. Some obligation on employers occasionally to remind their employees that they are entitled to ask for this would help the process.

As for the rest of the group, I will listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, when he comes to his amendments. I think much of this will be addressed also when we get to the issue of freelancers and to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, so I imagine this is not the last time that we will have some elements of this discussion, but some sign from the Government Front Bench that they understand that something should and could be addressed in this area would be a good starting point.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 3, 6 and 9 in this group, tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and supported by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I also support Amendment 8 tabled by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, but for different reasons. I will not speak on that, but I like the idea of a low-hours contract. I will speak about zero-hours contracts, because I do not believe they are getting a fair look in.

These amendments would give workers the right to request, rather than putting an obligation on employers to guarantee hours. I think they are worth while and worth supporting. In the labour market this year, there are 33.9 million people employed. Of them, 1.3 million are on zero-hours contracts. There has been an increase since 2000 of 805,000 people on this type of employment contract. This is 3.1% of employment in the UK. Most are young people in the 16 to 24 age group. This is a popular way of working; the figures speak to that. There has been far more significant an increase in this type of contract than in the overall type of working arrangements chosen by employees and their employers.

Much of the popularity lies in the flexibility on both sides. The evidence is that the majority of people on zero hours, 60%, do not want more hours, although some, 16%, do. Amendments that would allow an employee to request guaranteed hours as distinct from obliging the employer to guarantee certain hours seem more in tune with people’s wishes. Of those on zero-hours contracts, around 1 million are young people. However, 946,000 16 to 24 year-olds are not in employment, education or training; that is around 50%. Yes, people on these contracts may work fewer hours than other workers—I gather the average is around 21.8 hours a week compared with 36.5 hours for all people in employment—but is it not better that there are jobs which people want and can get, particularly young people who may not yet be in the labour market or who may have been thrown out of the labour market or left it for one of the many reasons we hear about it? I am afraid that it seems from the Government’s approach that they do not think so.

This Bill and Clause 1 must be seen in the overall context of the party opposite’s approach to labour market and economy reform. Not only is the NIC tax hike on the productive sector along with the decrease in the NIC threshold taking £24 billion out, affecting 800,000 businesses and their ability to employ people and offer opportunity to the 16 to 24 age group, but other costs have been piled high, one on top of the other, since the party opposite came to power. Of those employed in December 2024, 27.8 million were in the private sector and 6.14 million in the public sector. If employers are obliged to move to guaranteed hours, that will most likely serve to cut the number of people productively employed under these arrangements, with a corresponding decrease in output and growth. Surely these amendments speak for themselves, and a Government whose priority is to increase economic growth should accept them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak on this group but the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has painted a horrific picture of the impact of zero hours on some workers. For some people I know who have been on the receiving end of zero-hours contracts, sometimes it has been even worse. I know of people who have been required to turn up at work at 4 am for a shift and been sent home again at 5 am, so I know how bad this is. However, my noble friend Lady Verma makes a strong argument as to why just removing all the measures, which would happen by virtue of the Bill, would also have a detrimental effect.

So far, I have not heard from those on the other side a response to the argument put forward by my noble friend Lord Wolfson, which is that we have to find a way forward on this matter that addresses the employment rights issue, which the Minister has said is the purpose of this legislation, but also allows business to deliver the kind of economic growth that the Government are also saying is the purpose of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, is not in his place at the moment, but we have to take heed of the point that he made in the debate on the first group: we should not be in a situation where this is a stand-off. Hopefully, through some responsiveness and empathy from the Minister, we will find ourselves in a position where the Bill will not have a detrimental effect on business but will address the worst work practices, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Barber.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think I am allowed to come back in Committee. I want to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, because I probably did not articulate terribly well what I was proposing. I certainly was articulating a right to request, but I was also assuming there would be an obligation to meet that request, given certain thresholds that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was talking about. It would not be an option for the employer as long as the request was within those thresholds. I suspect that is not what the noble Baroness thought I was proposing, and I just wanted to set the record straight.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 8. I commend my noble friend Lord Wolfson on his excellent speech, bringing the reality of employing so many people into the heart of this debate, along with the constraints and the concerns being raised, while still recognising that I understand why so many people consider casual work and zero-hour contracts to be particularly poor when people are trying to have certainty of employment over some time. I also support Amendments 7, 12 and 13—in essence, any amendment that refers to specifying the reference period in the Bill.

I say that because, when thinking of 26 weeks, I think in particular of the hospitality industry in coastal areas. There are a number of employers around the country who literally shut down their businesses, or move to a much lower level of needing people, at certain times of the year, and then, in the summer, are desperately trying to find people. We need to give flexibility. The 12 weeks simply does not recognise that, as has been referred to. It is perfectly usual for people to work at different points throughout the year, potentially in on annualised-hours contract, but varying the number of hours expected to match the demand of customers requiring a particular service. I fear that the 12 weeks does not address that sort of business.

Across the country, 2 million people work in the hospitality industry. It is one of our biggest industries, and for many families it is key to how they support their household income. For the flexibility that employers want, and—thinking of how many people lose their childcare at certain times of the year—for employees to have flexibility around their hours worked, bringing in casual staff is a key element in how employers keep those businesses going.

There is another element that needs thinking through. While I appreciate that the Government seek to reduce the number of agency and bank workers in the NHS, let us not get away from the fact that, unfortunately, many NHS trusts are actually terrible employers. A lot of people leave or reduce their permanent contracts because they simply cannot get the flexibility that they need working in the NHS. That could be for caring reasons, for all sorts of people—it does not matter whether it is men or women; people provide care to their families and to their friends. I am concerned, and I intend to discuss further with NHS Professionals how this will impact on the NHS fulfilling its expectations for people right across the country. I appreciate that it is not simply NHS Professionals; many individual trusts have their own bank. That is intended to provide flexibility based on need, and recognises that simply not everybody can work the NHS shifts expected.

Thinking of the 26 weeks or the 12 weeks, I am also concerned that, at the other end of the Corridor, 650 Members of Parliament are all individual employers. They have to sign contracts, which are provided, but when people are ill or go on maternity leave, MPs can and do take people on through certain term contracts. I am concerned that there will be unintended consequences for the provision of services. As a real example, if you had to guarantee hours beyond when the employee came back, you could end up in a situation that you simply could not manage.

It is for those reasons that we need to think very carefully about the reference period when we are considering the different employment situations that small employers find themselves in, as well as the large sectors, such as hospitality and retail, which have already been discussed.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not welcome me back as well, but I am coming to terms with that disappointment. To briefly refer back to the first group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made some comments about the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and had I not had to leave before we got to that group, I fear I was going to subject the Minister to a somewhat satirical analysis of that particular amendment—but, frankly, the letter did a much better job than anything I could have done.

I ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to take that letter and that response and discuss it with 10 people responsible for HR in businesses of different sizes to ask them what they think of it, then perhaps they could tell us what the result of those discussions were. I absolutely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe: it is beyond parody that that algorithm should lead to that sort of calculation that any company is expected to make. There has to be a simpler way of getting the same result; that is what we should be thinking about.

I was somewhat intrigued by the degrouping strategy. We have amendments on guaranteed hours in the previous group, this group and the next, which is why I reserved the small comments I have to just this group. I have tried to pick through the bones of what we heard. There are some bones, and I should like the Government to comment on them.

I point to the use of language by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. On one side they are talking about flexibility and on his side they are talking about evasion and escape. Thereby hangs the problem of the debate that we might be having overall in your Lordships’ Committee. When we are talking about escape and flexibility, we are not using the same language. We have to try to find a way to bridge that divide in culture that we are dealing with. If we were doing conflict resolution, that would be the starting point.

Where I do agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is that we should not be looking to create a two-tier situation. We have to create a system that works for employers across the board. However, the noble Lord’s point was that it would extract a huge number of people from the benefits of the Bill were we to exclude. We have to work hard to ensure that the micro-businesses are not disadvantaged by what we are seeking to do, rather than exempt them from it. That is our view from these Benches.

Back to those bones: I look to the Minister to recognise that there are businesses that have lumpy—perhaps I should say fluctuating—demand. Some of these businesses fluctuate predictably—they are cyclic. Christmas comes at the same time every year, so we always have roughly the same amount of bulge. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out, for others that lumpiness can come with the weather. I want the Minister to recognise that these businesses exist and then for us to explain that a number of issues have already come up around how to manage a workforce fairly while being economically sensible to the business within this lumpiness and fluctuation. We had groups on the first day in Committee, we have these groups, and we will have more.

I would like to sit down with the Minister to understand how the Government envision the Bill allowing businesses that know that they will have lumpy, fluctuating demand to manage a workforce. What will be the fair approach, in the Government’s view, and the economic approach, in businesses’ view, to ensure that there is a win-win? This should not be seen as an evasion or a flexibility but as an opportunity to bring things together and make them better for business and employees, because the two are completely linked in this. We have to cross that divide and sit down with the Government, to work out how flexibility comes into this and how a business will manage this process properly, while delivering the fairness that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put forward.

Can those of us who are interested sit down with the Minister in a seminar where she explains how, if the Bill goes through as it is, businesses with lumpy and fluctuating demand, whether seasonable or variable, can manage that going forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 to Clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, that the detailed analysis of the algorithms by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, was presented only on the basis of a request for a detailed analysis of where those arguments came from. There was a much simpler version, which my noble friend gave in his verbal response, so there is more than one version of that challenge.

Amendment 20 seeks to allow employers to propose changes to permanent contracts issued after a guaranteed-hours offer within six months of acceptance, as long as there is a genuine material need in business operations. I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not required. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, the zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prevent employers offering their workers variations to their contracts following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer as long as the variation does not amount to subjecting the worker to a detriment. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Londesborough, the noble Baroness Noakes, and other noble Lords, that the Bill does have the flexibility that should reassure businesses that the zero-hours provisions can be changed. As we debated previously, when talking about zero-hours contracts in the context of, for example, individuals such as students or those with caring responsibilities, those who are offered zero-hours contracts will be able to turn the offer down and remain on their current contract.

Going back to Amendment 20, employers will still be able to propose and make changes to their workers’ contracts after they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, including in the sectors such as hospitality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, refers. This can be done following the usual process of negotiation and agreement between employers and workers. It would be subject to the terms of the workers’ contracts as well as existing and new legislation, such as the provisions on fire and rehire. Adding a provision stating that employers can propose variations—something that they will already be able to do—while considering only a limited number of matters may risk creating legal confusion. It may, for example, inappropriately suggest that variations can be proposed only in these circumstances or suggest that other provisions of legislation that do not include similar wording restrict employers’ ability to propose variations of contracts when this is not the case.

Amendment 21 seeks to make provisions that employers may still make redundancies where these are based on genuine business needs and not linked principally to a worker’s right to guaranteed hours. I am again pleased to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is not necessary. The zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prohibit dismissals by means of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. There are some restrictions on selecting an employee for dismissal by redundancy because they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, but this is not what the amendment seeks to address.

The Bill otherwise creates protection only against detriments and makes dismissals automatically unfair in very limited scenarios—including, for instance, where the principal reason for the dismissal is an employee accepting or rejecting a guaranteed-hours offer. If an employer wished to make an employee redundant, they would be required to follow the required processes in line with the terms of the employee’s contract and with employment law relating to individual or collective redundancies, to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This amendment would not substantially change the effect of the provisions, as the zero-hours measures in the Bill do not prohibit dismissal by reason of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. But it could create unhelpful doubt as to how the legislation on redundancy already operates.

Amendment 19A seeks to list in the Bill a number of factors and circumstances that would need to be considered when determining whether it was reasonable for an employer to give a worker a limited-term contract. I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Under the guaranteed-hours provisions, it is reasonable for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract would terminate after that task has been performed—for example, waiting at tables at a wedding—or the worker is needed only until an event occurs or fails to occur, after which the contract would terminate. This could include a worker covering another worker who is on sick leave or a worker needed only for some other kind of temporary need that would be specified in regulations, the contract expiring in line with the end of that temporary need.

--- Later in debate ---

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned seasonal workers. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, described the “lumpy” demand. We are aware of fluctuations in demand for seasonal workers, and we will take this into account when designing the regulations on the definition of temporary need. This is a novel right and, by defining temporary need in regulations, we will be able to react dynamically to changing employers’ practices and respond to circumstances where employers identify genuine temporary needs that are not covered by a specific task or the occurrence of an event.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her partial response, but will she reveal the draft of those regulations while we still have an opportunity to debate them? Secondly, I think she was going to talk about consultation and so I ask what question that consultation will be asking.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will write to noble Lords about when the regulations will be available. This may well be part of the implementation plan, which is still awaited. Noble Lords can genuinely take it from me that they will receive it as soon as it is available.

We will consult on the contents of the draft regulations and engage with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether we could have further discussions about this. Of course I am happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply, because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility they seek is already in the Bill in its different formulations of wording. But I am happy to have further discussions about this.

I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were looking for the draft regulations. I do not think I need to remind the Committee of my declaration of interests; at Second Reading, I reminded the House that I am still a practising solicitor. It is no accident that, last week, City AM—a newspaper circulated widely through the City—said that the Bill is the biggest boost for the legal profession that anyone had ever seen. Many more lawyers will be needed to wade through the complexities of the Bill.

In particular, as my noble friend just pointed out, we are constantly debating the Government’s power to introduce regulations, but Parliament is not allowed to see those regulations when it passes the primary legislation that gives Ministers the power, after consultation, to do whatever they wish whenever they wish to do it. We are going to have this time and again in this series of debates. Surely it is right that, if the Government are taking the power to introduce detail—in particular by amending primary legislation—we should see that detail, if only in draft, before we decide to give that power to Ministers.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I do not know whether I am allowed to intervene on this, but I wonder whether the noble Lord heard the Minister say that the Government are consulting on draft regulations. Perhaps he might ask the Minister to share those draft regulations with us during the process of consultation.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I completely agree and am very grateful to the noble Lord, who introduced the whole concept of “lumpy”. As well as “lumpy”, we are all talking about “flexible” and he also said “fluctuating”.

This has been a very helpful debate. I particularly enjoyed my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea describing the history of the introduction of the minimum wage and how it gave rise to zero-hours contracts in the first place. It is a reminder that we have to be careful every time we take a key step down the road to creating more employment law, as we have to be mindful of the consequences.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that we have to keep thinking of the start-ups and scale-ups, and the effect that this legislation will have on them. It was good that my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us of the truth behind the Low Pay Commission 2018 Report that small and micro-businesses, as she put it to the Committee, need flexibility. My noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us that one’s job quite often depends on whether it is raining, as she put it. I think it was Mark Twain who once wrote that, in England, everyone talks about the weather but no one ever does anything about it. It is a fact that demand often fluctuates according to the weather and this was a good reminder of that.

I welcome the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. His four points were key; I accept them and will carefully ponder each one—particularly his point about escape routes. Our purpose—mine and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom—is to ensure that we do not need escape routes, because we will get a law that fits the way in which the economy can grow and be more competitive. That is what it is all about. It is not about short-term contracts being the answer here and another form of contract being the answer there. Most employers want stability so that they can look forward with confidence.

How right the noble Lord was to remind us of the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. It must surely be a worry in his mind as to the effect this onerous Bill will have on those small and medium-sized enterprises looking to grow and expand that do not have an HR department that can set out for them exactly the way ahead through all the bureaucratic routes they have to follow. They want to be able to grow and expand without carefully checking which rulebook applies. They, of course, always allow bereavement leave. All the employers I have known, when there was a tragedy in a member of their workforce’s family—I am not talking about just my clients but across the whole sector—did, of course, allow people time off. Therefore, we should not be establishing rigidity.

This is where I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we do not want a two-tier system. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on our previous Committee day, there are various tiers already in the tax system. The exemption I sought in Amendment 21 surely does not in any way undermine the rights of workers but gives the Bill the flexibility it needs to succeed in practice. We have heard in this debate and from businesses across the country that a rigid one-way system for guaranteed hours simply does not reflect the way in which large parts of our economy function. Retail, hospitality, tourism, logistics, seasonal industries—all rely on flexible staffing, and they operate in environments that can shift rapidly, sometimes overnight.

I plead again with the Minister that these amendments provide a narrow, principled route for employers to propose changes: not to walk away from commitments but to respond when there is a genuine and material change in business operations. No retaliation, no loopholes, just a basic safeguard to ensure that businesses are not locked into obligations that are no longer viable.

Let us be honest, if employers are not able to make changes in response to real pressures—a drop in demand, a loss of control, over-capacity—they are far less likely to offer guaranteed hours in the first place. That is not speculation; it is what we are hearing from so many of those making representations about the Bill at the present time. The result is clear: fewer jobs offered, fewer guaranteed hours and fewer opportunities, especially for the very people who rely on flexible and part-time work. That means young people, students—who we will come to in a moment—workers with disabilities, carers and, of course, those trying to get their foot on the ladder.

Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sharpe that it would be helpful to sit down with the Minister and her colleagues to see if we can find a way through. Otherwise, we shall have to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Yes. I had to turn up at 5 am and then read the news.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am excited by the noble Lord’s anecdote, as I was by other noble Lords’ anecdotes, but would he perhaps concede that that was several years ago and the employment market, and indeed the student body, might have changed somewhat since then?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 28, which replaces the test of reasonable belief with that of formal confirmation. I mentioned earlier the work done by the Low Pay Commission on zero-hours contracts when it reported in 2018. It also examined the issue of compensation for short-notice cancellation of shifts. It emphasised in its report that there would need to be fairly rigorous record-keeping. It said that both employers and employees would need

“proof a shift had been offered”.

That speaks to the content of Amendment 28. It does not seem to me to be sensible to have something that rests solely on reasonable belief, because that is impossible to prove and would result in difficult questions being put to an employment tribunal. Although I am obviously not in favour of imposing bureaucratic requirements on employers, this is one area where the legislation should point towards there being some formality of record-keeping so that there can be no dispute about whether shifts have been offered or cancelled.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in the main, this is a reasonable debate—or, rather, a debate about “reasonable”. We have yet to hear the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on Amendments 22 and 24, which sit outside the theme of the other amendments in this group, which I expect to be about Henry VIII powers. We shall see.

My noble friend Lord Goddard proposed his amendment, and I am here to speak to my Amendment 27. My amendment is about the definition of “reasonable notice”, and what that means. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, proposes a different time for reasonable notice in his Amendment 21A. Either way, this is an opportunity for the Minister to walk us through what the Government are thinking around reasonable notice.

My noble friend set out a probing amendment to ask about “reasonably believed”, and in Amendment 28 the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, essentially seeks to replace that. If the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is an official spokesperson for the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I can see many reasons for adopting something that is clear—albeit bureaucratic. I never thought that I would hear the noble Baroness speak to bureaucracy. However, somehow being able to show that belief is backed up by documentation may well prove to be essential in the good managing of workers’ relationships.

--- Later in debate ---

With Amendment 27, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Fox, wishes to set the period of short notice at 48 hours. This would mean that only workers whose shifts are cancelled, curtailed or moved less than 48 hours before they are due to occur would receive payments for short notice. The Government are committed to consulting with businesses, trade unions and all other stakeholders on the appropriate amount of time to be considered “short notice”. We will set in regulations the exact time period within which workers will be entitled to short-notice cancellation payments, but we have said in the Bill that it will not be more than seven days.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

These are probing amendments; they are designed not for us to tell the Government what we think, but for them to tell us what they think. Simply knocking our argument down does not really achieve that objective. Secondly, as I predicted in a sense, the Government have set up a consultation process, but they have already ruled out the offer of 24 hours from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and disparaged 48 hours. What other things have they ruled out before the consultation has been completed?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

To a certain extent, we are not ruling anything in or out. We are basically saying that we will be consulting with all stakeholders. I take the noble Lord’s point—yes, the amendment says that, and I am responding to the amendment by saying that we will be undertaking further consultation and bringing forward regulations in due course.

I believe the noble Lord wishes instead to provide that a right to short-notice payment will arise only where the worker has received formal confirmation that they will work the shift from their employer, or, in the case of agency workers, hirer or work-finding agency. The Government’s view is that it would be overly prescriptive to specify that the right to short-notice payments arises only in cases where formal confirmation has been provided. While in many cases, a reasonable belief will arise only where the worker has received confirmation in writing from the employer that they will work the shift, different businesses have different practices when arranging shifts, and it would not be appropriate to adopt a universal, one-size-fits-all approach.

For example, when a worker agrees to work the shift after being contacted individually to work it, they would likely reasonably believe that their agreement corresponds to them being needed to work the shift, if it is standard practice that they will be needed to work despite additional confirmation not being provided. So, it is fair that the worker in this scenario should receive a payment if the shift is then cancelled, as they expected to work it and may have incurred costs preparing to do so. It would also be overly burdensome for the employers to have to provide confirmation where this would not otherwise be needed in order to be confident that they will have staff for that particular shift.

The Government believe that, in most cases, it will be clear to both the worker and the employer, or the agency worker and the agency or hirer, whether the worker was expected to work a shift. The Government will also publish guidance to help with interpretation. As a last resort, where disputes cannot be settled, employment tribunals will be able to determine whether a worker had a reasonable belief that they were needed to work a shift with a result that is fair. We wish to retain this flexibility to allow for the broad range of circumstances that may arise.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I apologise for intervening again. That is a really helpful response, because it confirms my fears. The less specific the supporting documentation is around what is reasonable, the more likely it is that this is going to go to a tribunal in order to define what is reasonable. We all know that this will take a great deal of time and a lot of money, and it will leave uncertainty probably for years before such time as a case is heard. Do the Government accept that, by being more specific in the first place, they can avoid this greater, costly uncertainty?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am not sure about that. Basically, we do not want to be too prescriptive and define what reasonableness is, because it varies from case to case and company to company. There needs to be that flexibility there.

Amendment 29 is a probing amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, which seeks to add a power into the Bill to make regulations setting out factors that determine whether a worker reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. The Government tabled an amendment during Commons Report stage to ensure that a worker will not be entitled to a payment for a short-notice cancellation, movement or curtailment of a shift unless at some point prior to that they reasonably believed they would be needed to work the shift. This is considered appropriate because it is only where a person reasonably believes that they will work a shift that it is reasonable for them to prepare to work and incur costs as a result.

This amendment was necessary to eliminate the risk of workers taking cases to tribunals and making claims for shifts they did not reasonably believe they needed to work. This is particularly important in situations where an employer offers a shift out to multiple people, for example if they organise shifts through a large WhatsApp group. In cases like this, we want to be clear that people should receive cancellation payments when they are told they are not needed at short notice only if they reasonably believed they would work the shift in the first place.

For example, as set out in the Explanatory Notes, if there is an established practice of “first come, first served”, and an individual says they will work a shift after they have seen that another individual has already done so, they should probably not expect to work that shift. Even where a shift is offered only to one worker, they should still reasonably believe they will work it in order to be eligible for a short-notice payment. For example, if an employer offered a shift four weeks in advance, and the worker accepted the shift only two hours before the shift, it seems less likely they should expect actually to work that shift.

These are the kind of scenarios the Government considered when making the amendment; however, there are other scenarios where issues about this may arise. The Government wish to avoid being overly prescriptive by setting out factors in regulations, given the range of scenarios where this may be relevant. Instead, the Government consider it more appropriate to leave it to tribunals to determine on a case-by-case basis and we want to ensure that tribunals maintain flexibility to do so as they consider appropriate.

Before I conclude, I will answer the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about reasons outside of employers’ control. With better planning, employers need not cancel as many shifts, but it is not right that, when there is uncertainty, the entire financial risk rests with the workers. We really need to have a fair balance, and the Bill offers exemptions as a possibility for that. We will consult on that; however, any exemptions are likely to be narrow, as we do not believe that workers should take the whole financial hit.

I hope that I have been able to persuade all noble Lords and provide assurances on the Government’s wider commitment to consult with stakeholders and businesses. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

On a number of occasions, the Minister set out that the Government are consulting. What is the timetable for that consultation, and when can we expect the results from it?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Although the noble Lord expects me to give him a specific timeframe, I cannot do so now. I will consult with my officials and come back to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Perhaps I might intervene briefly on this group. I support Amendment 63 but, like the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I wonder whether it is too modest in scope. As I said when I spoke on the last day in Committee, I am sympathetic to the kinds of effects that zero-hours contracts or some of the different kinds of practices that we see now have on employees in these businesses, which are often at the lower end of the pay scale.

However, I am very struck, by listening not just to this debate but to the debates on the various different things that we have been discussing this afternoon, that what we do not seem to be taking account of—or rather, to be more specific, what the Government do not seem to have taken account of in bringing forward this legislation—is that a lot of the practices that they are trying to remove or mitigate are the consequence of other things that have been introduced in the past which have been well intentioned in support of low-paid workers but are now creating other things. For instance, although it is going back some time now and various other things have happened since, I think about the arrival of tax credits when Gordon Brown was Chancellor. That led to people wanting to reduce their contracted hours because of the impact on their various benefits.

So when I hear people say that some of these measures—or, rather, the removal of some of these practices and various other things in the Bill—start to disincentivise people either being offered more hours or whatever, I worry that, given the way in which the Bill has been introduced and what feels like inadequate assessment through the proper stages—Green Paper, and all that sort of thing—we are creating yet more problems, which will then lead to the need for yet more legislation, which will never get to the heart of what we are trying to do here, which is to create an employment economy that is fair for employees and people do not feel that they are being exploited but have the flexibility that they need, and where employers, too, have the freedom and independence that they absolutely need to be able to employ workers and grow their businesses to contribute to the fundamental agenda, which is a growing economy that is fair to everybody concerned.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is another one of those divided-off groups. I am going to speak to impact assessments and reserve what I say on tribunals for the next group. There is a danger when talking about the existence of and the need for impact assessments that we start providing our own impact assessments. I am afraid that many of your Lordships fell into that trap. I will try to avoid it, so I will not be commenting on what should be in an impact assessment; I will be commenting on why we need improved impact assessments. Some of the Government’s amendments have already been debated. I was not able to be here during that part of the process, but, on reading the debate, I saw that it further illustrated that, with each layer of new amendments, changes are coming to the Bill and complications and reflections are being added.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, before he gave us his impact assessment, made I think his most important point, which was to bring up the findings of the RPC on the existing impact assessment. That is before all the changes that have come and before the Bill changed substantially between the Commons and your Lordships’ House, and therefore, unscrutinised to this point. I am very much in the camp of the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough: if we are going to redo an impact assessment, we should do it properly. We should go back and produce one that is meaningful, that the RPC can endorse and that we can use meaningfully in the next stages of this Bill.

I am not sure how many of your Lordships worked on the then Professional Qualifications Bill. I suspect that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, may at least be one. Sometimes the then public procurement Bill is used as an example of Bills that come half-baked—or, in that case, not even in the cooker—but actually the best example is the Professional Qualifications Bill. That Bill differed from this one in that it started in your Lordships’ House, but it came to your Lordships’ House full of things that needed to change, full of drafting points and full of extensions and amendments, and the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who was the Minister, stood where the Minister is today and said, when we came to the end of Committee, “Well, my Lords, it is clear that we have to take this Bill on a holiday”. And that is what he did. He took it away for four months and came back with a Bill that was properly drafted. The “i”s had been dotted and the “t”s crossed and we were able to make a reasonable piece of legislation to pass to the Commons for its work.

We have some time. This is a flagship Bill. It had to be introduced within 100 days because that is what the Government told the world. I understand that. But it is very important that we get this right. The Minister should start thinking about vacation plans for the Bill between Committee and Report, so that things such as the impact assessment can be delivered to your Lordships’ House. Those of us who want the Bill to succeed will then be sure that it has a chance to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Baroness has said. The Bill has gone through the other House and been scrutinised line by line. We have also taken the point on board here and we will continue with further consultation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

When I talked about taking the Bill on a holiday, I was not joking; I was serious, and it would be quite nice if the Minister would take it seriously and respond.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I take the noble Lord’s point. At the rate the Bill is going, we may reach recess before we come back again to discuss it further.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, just when I was getting worried that everybody was going to agree, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, popped up to rescue us. In his objection, it seems that the noble Lord has second-guessed the findings of the impact assessment that we have not had yet, which will add to the level of fines if his point that it will help workers more than employers is correct. On that basis, he was admitting that the fine is already too low, so I am not sure where he was going on that. He then drifted into a critique of the principle of flexible working.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will not give way. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Had I been a little more organised, I would have signed her amendment.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Will the noble Lord stop interrupting me?

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will the noble Lord give way very briefly at this juncture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

If I get to a point where I feel like it, I will. At the moment, I would like to develop my point.

The issue in Amendment 64 was dealt with very well by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and then picked up subsequently by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. This is commonly thought of as a soft policy—a one-sided policy about giving people things—but both speakers touched on the harder edge to this, and I would like to emphasise it too. This is good for the economy. It is an economic hard edge. We have millions of people who are not working and not able to work. Some of them will never work, but many, with more flexibility and the right amount of help, will be able to work. It is, quite rightly, the Government’s objective to bring as many of those people into the workforce as possible, and flexible working is one of the important tools that will enable us to do that.

I am broadly sympathetic to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Watson; there is no problem in assessing the impact of tribunals. But during the debate on the last group I promised to bring in a wider point on tribunals: unless we clear up the tribunal system, it will not matter what the level of sanction is, because it is going to be years before that sanction is brought. It becomes a meaningless activity, particularly for the employee but also for the employer. As I have said before, every time we go into a tribunal, both sides lose. We have to find ways of moving the system faster and eliminating issues within the system that are clogging it. That is why I asked the Minister for a proper meeting to go through the whole issue of what the Government are planning to do with tribunals—not on just what the Bill does but on how they are going to flush the system through and get it working properly.

If the Government do not do that, a huge lump of the Bill will fail, because it will be years and years before any of the sanctions are brought and before—as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leong—case law becomes an important element of how we define what “reasonable” means. If we have to wait two or three years before we get that ruling, how many more unreasonable things are going to happen in the meantime? This is a vital point, and I very much hope that the Minister responds to it. I will now give way to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. Not for the first time, he has mischaracterised what I said. It is very clear, and I was quite emphatic, that I support reasonable requests for flexible working. So I would be obliged if the noble Lord did not wilfully misrepresent what I said barely five minutes ago, although I know that, being a Liberal Democrat, he is not always acquainted with the actuality.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I was about to, but I clearly will not now, so the noble Lord can fly for that one.

Flexible working is an important tool for getting people back in the workplace and keeping them there. We should be grateful for the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, tabled, and I hope the Government are sensible enough to adopt their version of it at the next stage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I will ask one simple question: what is flexible working? Perhaps the Minister could reply to that. I have a lot of sympathy with what has been said; I have always encouraged people who want to work part time, dual workers and so on. I have worked at a senior level in business and in government, both as a civil servant and as a Minister, and the truth is that you have to show some flexibility when things are difficult. That is what my noble friends are trying to capture in the amendment they have put forward.

We need to try to find a way through on this, to encourage flexible working. However, we also have to consider the needs of the employer. That will be true in the business sector—which I know—in the enterprise sector, in the charities sector and of course in government. It is a very important debate and any light that can be thrown on it by either the Minister or my noble friend Lord Murray, with his legal hat on, would be very helpful.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this debate has been more interesting than I expected. In looking at Amendment 65, we should acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, with his former ministerial responsibilities, had considerable interaction with the services that he described, so we should take him seriously.

In Amendment 65A, he sets out certain sectors. However, in seeking to deliver unambiguity, I think he has introduced new ambiguity. Sector-specific exemptions are bringing their own problems. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Murray, what a journalist is. Is it a card-carrying member of the NUJ or is it someone who blogs and calls themselves a journalist, or a group of people? That is just one example of the ambiguity that a sector system brings in. So I am drawn to the idea that we have something like subsection (1ZA) in Clause 9(3).

If noble Lords are worried about the wooliness of it—I am not sure that was the word that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, used—we can work to firm that language up. But to describe the job, rather than try to think of every single job title we want to include in primary legislation, is a better way of going about it. If the description is too difficult to nail, I am sure it is not beyond the wit of us all to find a better way of describing it.

Had the noble Lord, Lord Murray, been here a little earlier, he would have heard the shortcomings of the tribunal system being well exercised, and some comments from the noble Lord to the effect that the MoJ is looking at it. To return to that point, in my speech on the last group I asked for a meeting, so perhaps the Ministers could facilitate a meeting with interested parties on the Bill and the MoJ to find out how it is moving forward on tribunals; we need some line of sight on that. It is something of a capitulation if we say, “The tribunals are no good, so we’re not going to make the right legislation because they won’t be there to uphold it”. We have a duty to make the right legislation, to put it in place and to make sure that the tribunals can deliver.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I share much of what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says. But the point I was making was that the answer from the Government is, “We’re going to provide imprecision in this legislation, and we’re going to let the employment tribunal sort it out and tell us what it means”. My point was twofold. First, that will take far too long because of the chaos in the tribunal system, and secondly, structurally, the employment tribunal cannot give an answer to that at first instance because it is not a court of record.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Those are good points. Again, had the noble Lord seen an earlier episode of the soap opera of this Committee, he would have heard noble Lords from all around talk about firming up imprecision, which is why I talked about firming up the imprecision of that list of attributes rather than trying to produce a list of businesses and activities that somehow should come into this—an impossible job, frankly. Of course we should have a war on imprecision but, in the end, there are going to be some things that tribunals rule on that will be important, and we need to have the tribunals active and quick to do so.

To some extent, there is an element of creativity around the fungibility of some of these criteria—I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, made that point. If we have some flexibility of interpretation, schools and other organisations that want to hang on to valued colleagues will find a way of using it in order to do that. If we start to rule out professions or rule in very hard and fast rules, we lose the opportunity to retain and attract certain groups of people. I understand the point made, that the more of that fungibility there is, the more so-called imprecision, and there is a balance between the two. That is why I still think that if we have ideas around new subsection (1ZA), that is the way forward on this rather than a list of jobs.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling this group of amendments related to flexible working.

Amendment 65 would exempt security services from the flexible working measures we are introducing through the Bill. These measures include ensuring that employers refuse a flexible working request only where it is reasonable to do so, on the basis of one of the business grounds set out in legislation and requiring that they explain the basis for that decision to their employee. I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the existing provision the Government have made to safeguard national security in relation to flexible working.

I will explain the measure taken in the Bill. Clause 9(7) brings the flexible working provisions into the scope of Section 202 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Section 202 states that if in the opinion of a Minister the disclosure of information would be contrary to national security,

“nothing in any of the provisions to which this section applies requires any person to disclose the information, and … no person shall disclose the information in any proceedings in any court or tribunal relating to any of those provisions”.

By bringing the flexible working provisions under the scope of Section 202 of the 1996 Act, the Government have already taken the necessary and proportionate steps to protect national security. To respond directly to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, we have indeed engaged with, discussed and agreed this approach with the intelligence services.

--- Later in debate ---

The purpose of statutory sick pay is to provide a temporary financial safety net for workers when they are unable to work due to illness and not to allow workers to accumulate more benefits than they would have earned had they been able to work. This amendment seeks to close that loophole by ensuring that no employee can claim more than the maximum entitlement they would receive from a single employer during a period of illness. Our aim is not to deny sick workers their rightful support but to ensure that they do not receive excessive benefits by claiming across multiple jobs. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the minute hand of legislation is approaching the blessed relief of adjournment, so I am going to reserve what I have to say about statutory sick pay to when I speak to Amendments 73 and 74 in the next group, in which I think some issues of the costs are addressed. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I have come up with amendments that are broadly similar, and I think it would be more appropriate to speak there.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have moved on and that we are now debating the Bill’s important provisions to improve the provision of statutory sick pay for millions of people across the country. I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 on this topic and speaking to them. These amendments would significantly change the statutory sick pay measures in the Bill.

The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship. Strengthening statutory sick pay is part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring that the statutory net of sick pay is available to those who need it most. These changes are important. Estimates indicate that up to 33% of influenza-like illnesses are acquired in the workplace. One sick employee coming into work can lead to 12% of the workforce becoming sick, according to WPI Economics’ modelling.

The changes to remove the waiting period and lower earnings limit from the SSP system will therefore benefit employers by reducing presenteeism, which in turn can lead to overall productivity increases and can contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff. This can help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, and also contribute to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I will turn first to Amendments 68 and 70. Removing the waiting period is essential to ensure that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover from being sick, regardless of whether they are an agency worker. Removing the waiting period will also better enable phased returns to work, which evidence shows can be an effective tool in supporting people with long-term health conditions to return to and stay in work. This change should help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, contributing to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I regret that the noble Lord’s amendment would make this more challenging, as it would mean that employees would have to take two consecutive days off to be eligible for statutory sick pay. I do, however, understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the impact of the waiting period removal on businesses, but if employers have the right policies and practices in place—and most good employers do—the risks of inappropriate absenteeism can, of course, be mitigated. Crucially, the additional cost to business of the SSP reforms is around a relatively modest £15 per employee. We have been lobbied from both directions on these provisions because, for example, many on our own Benches would say that the rates we are proposing here should be much higher. I am sure they will make their concerns heard at some point during the passage of the Bill. It is not a great deal of money—as I say, it is £15 per employee—and it is certainly aimed at the lower rate that could be available.

On Amendment 69 regarding agency workers, one of the fundamental principles of the Bill is to ensure that people who work through employment agencies and employment businesses have comparable rights and protections to their counterparts who are directly employed. Amendments that limit the entitlement of agency workers would undermine this objective and have no reasonable justification. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that employment agencies have more of an arm’s-length arrangement with their agency workers, but I would say the opposite: in fact, employment agencies are in a powerful relationship over their agency workers, meaning that those workers are less likely to abuse such a scheme.

Amendment 71 seeks to limit the maximum entitlement of SSP for employees with multiple employers so that they would receive no more statutory sick pay than they would be entitled to if they worked for only one employer. However, this would be administratively very complicated to deliver for businesses, particularly SMEs, and carries a high risk of SSP being miscalculated and employees being underpaid. It would particularly harm the very lowest-paid people who are working a limited number of hours. I also question the necessity of such an amendment. As it stands, employees with more than one job can already receive SSP from their employers if they earn above the lower earnings limit. The measures in the Bill will not change that, and I regret that this amendment would impact only the lowest-paid employees.

That is all I have to say on this issue at this stage, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

All right; thank you.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a very interesting debate. I will try to reflect on what I have heard as I speak; that will make my job quite difficult and probably make my speech completely incoherent, but I will do my best.

We closed last week with a couple of de-grouped Conservative amendments. I promised to reserve what I would say on statutory sick pay for this group, which means that I am unlikely to speak on the next group. Last week the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, spoke firmly against the Government’s proposed changes. I have seen evidence of businesses arguing strongly either for the status quo or for a two-day threshold.

I am not a behavioural scientist, but I can read a room politically. The party that is sitting on a huge majority in the Commons has made it very clear where it stands on this issue, and that has been reasserted by some of the even stronger comments we have heard from the Benches opposite. Businesses have drawn the same conclusion. Many of those I talk to are seeking ways to ameliorate this, rather than eliminate it, which is probably unlikely.

I was interested to hear the noble Lords from the Conservative Front Bench speak to Amendments 71A and 71B. Their version of amelioration appears to be to reduce the amount of SSP, or at least severely limit it. We heard a different story from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady O’Grady, who set out why SSP is important and why the rate is meaningful. To contextualise poverty, we are talking about the poorest people who are working people but still extremely poor. It is difficult to overestimate the generosity of this scheme, but that is what I have heard from several on the Conservative Benches. This is a very modest offer. With her statistics, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set it out very clearly, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

Before I talk to my own Amendment 74 and Amendment 73, I will deal with the others. In Amendment 75, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, call for a reviewer to report within two years. I mentioned there is a subsequent group which also has impact assessment amendments in it. I am not really sure why we are debating them separately. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am going to mention 74A to 74C, which have been shunted into a separate group. Taken together, there is a slightly curious mismatch of timings: Amendment 75 is after two years, 74B and 74C after six months and 75A after a year. I agree that there do need to be impact assessments following whatever your Lordships decide, perhaps on a more systematic calendar than the ones suggested.

I am interested in the pre-emptive impact assessment. For the benefit of your Lordships’ Committee, it would be good to hear the Minister spell out the detail of the impact assessment of business on the current proposed measures. If, as the Minister says, the costs will be relatively modest, the costs of Amendment 73 or 74 would also be relatively modest, which takes me to the point in question.

As we have heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she and I have come up with very similar suggestions in terms of amelioration, which is what I was talking about earlier. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I slightly prefer the version from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but that is not the point—this is not a competition. We would like to sit down with the Government and thrash through a way whereby a rebate scheme can be reintroduced. This seems to be the sensible approach. We care deeply about SMEs—they drive a huge part of our economy. This is a way of making sure that they do not get disadvantaged as employees get what they deserve as SSP. That is what I am asking for from these Benches. Very sensibly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Noakes, and others supported it. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive noise about that and we can sit down and have that conversation.

Today, we have heard that SSP is absolutely vital for a section of society who are already massively disadvantaged. We should not be drawing lines and pushing them further down. We should be finding ways of making sure that they are not disadvantaged even more and, at the same, we should find ways of making sure that our SME sector is not also disadvantaged.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a really good debate on these issues, and I hope that I can do justice to all the questions and points that have been raised.

I begin with Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, on independent reviews into the effects of SSP reforms on small and medium enterprises. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published on 21 November 2024 and can be found on GOV.UK. This considered the likely direct business impact of the SSP changes, including on small and medium enterprises. In the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that delivering these measures will cost businesses a modest £15 extra per employee. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of the SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

I draw attention to the Keep Britain Working review. We asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead this independent review, which will consider recommendations to support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces, support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence and retain more disabled people and people with health conditions.

While I am speaking about the variety of illnesses that people on sick leave incur, let me address the issue of mental health absences, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the Bill. The Bill is intended to improve the experience of employees at work, so measures such as flexible working, guaranteed hours and protection from harassment could—we believe will—reduce stress at work, potentially leading to fewer incidents of burn-out and better employee mental health, and therefore fewer related absences. For us, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor.

Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a rebate scheme to reimburse SMEs for the cost of SSP for the first four days, although I think she clarified that she meant three. I thank her for her interest in SSP, and of course I appreciate her extensive knowledge and experience in this area, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As previously mentioned, regarding waiting days, the changes we are making to SSP will cost businesses around an additional £15 per employee, a relatively modest amount in comparison with the benefits of reduced presenteeism and the positive impact that this will have on our lowest paid members of society. As the noble Baroness may recall, we previously delivered SSP rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. This was abolished due to SMEs underusing it, and feedback that the administrative burden was complex and time consuming. So I suggest that a rebate scheme that covered only the first three days of sickness and absence would also be quite administratively burdensome, both for businesses to claim and for the Government to process.

Previous SSP rebate schemes also did not encourage employers to support their employees. We know that employers having responsibility for paying sick leave helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able.

Sticking with the theme of rebate schemes, Amendment 74, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would introduce an SME rebate scheme for the whole duration of sickness absence. I reiterate the points I made earlier about the limited cost to business as a result of SSP changes and the experience of previous rebate schemes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that we have moved a long way from the Beveridge system of social insurance. The costs and the mechanisms are very different now.

A rebate for the full cost of SSP could cost the Government up to £900 million a year. I do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time. We will be considering the findings of the aforementioned Keep Britain Working review, which is expected to produce a final report with recommendations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, challenged me to keep talking about this, and of course I am very happy to do so.

Amendments 71A and 71B were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As they may be aware, the Government consulted on what the rate of SSP should be for those who currently earn below the lower earnings limit. There was no clear consensus from stakeholders on the percentage. The Government believe that the 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to the lowest paid employees when they need to take time off work to recover from illness and limiting the cost to business. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, if we are not careful, we will be penalising the very poorest in our society.

Crucially, the total amount saved by business, if the rate were set at 60% compared to 80%, would be around £10 million to £30 million per year. That is about a £1 difference per employee per year, or less than 0.01% of total spending on wages annually by businesses. On the noble Lord’s Amendment 71A, which would set the rate at 60% for the first three days of a period of incapacity for work, the amounts potentially saved by business become even smaller, with the difference in cost being a matter of pennies. Given the minimal savings for businesses, the complexity for employers in administrating different rates is difficult to justify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It would be very useful if she could share it with the other Front Benches as well.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. We have had a very important debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, because we have not really spent enough time worrying about the people who are just unable to cope. Working conditions have changed so much. Stress-related sick leave is a huge issue, as is what the noble Baroness referred to as “losing the habit of work”. These are issues that we have to think about very carefully.

There is an important and complex issue of so-called presenteeism, which deserves greater attention in our discussions about workplace health and productivity. I came across some research—perhaps the noble Baroness had this in mind—carried out by Robertson Cooper: its 2023 data, drawn from over 3,000 UK respondents, revealed that almost two-thirds, 60%, of employees reported working while they were unwell, so-called presenteeism, in the last three months. That is an important issue, which has to be taken into account in any impact assessment.

The distinction is essential because not all forms of working while unwell are inherently harmful. Some, such as pragmatic or therapeutic presence, can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. The challenge lies in identifying when presenteeism becomes detrimental and ensuring that workplace policy, including statutory sick pay reform, supports businesses in managing that balance effectively.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the finding of the Regulatory Policy Committee. We just need to be aware of the severe criticism that was meted out about a Bill that is making such profound changes while in the gloom of uncertainty, because no one can be actually sure what effect these changes are going to have.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We are planning and conducting the review within the first year of the Labour Government.

It would be premature to make further legislation in this space before the parental leave review has taken place. We will, however, take my noble friend’s ideas and concerns into consideration, and I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on the review.

Before I conclude, we understand the concerns raised by—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister exits the review, it clearly reflects on a number of the issues in the Bill. It would make an awful lot of sense, if the Government are going to do this within the first year—which, by the way, is not very much longer—to be able to present us with the findings of that review so that we can reflect them in what we bring back on Report.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I will speak to my officials and write to all noble Lords accordingly regarding the review.

We understand the concerns raised by micro and small businesses around proposed day-one rights to paternity leave. Those employers often work with very lean teams and tight margins, so any perceived increase in entitlement can raise questions about costs and continuity. Introducing day-one rights is about fairness and consistency. It ensures that all fathers, regardless of tenure, have the opportunity to support their families at a critical time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the speeches that have been made, particularly on kinship care, but recognise the challenges that carers face. I am sure that the debate on remuneration for carer’s leave will continue. I am contributing on this group because of Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. I would say that it is quite odd for this to have been grouped alongside the other issues, recognising the very serious situation of pregnancy loss. Before the noble Lord spoke, I was not aware that this was relating to an inquiry at the other end. I have only just started reading aspects of that report, so I am not as fully informed as he was in presenting this. However, there are some issues here that I am concerned about.

Thinking through this, only three other countries in the world include parts of pregnancy loss in terms of being formally considered for bereavement leave. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is important to recognise that we would still be quite a considerable outlier. It needs careful consideration. I am not dismissing it in any way, but I am conscious that the Government responded on 25 March and I am slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen an amendment tabled. I appreciate that some of these things take a bit of time, but I had hoped that in Committee we would be able to consider what the Government were going to table in this regard.

As the Government have set out in their response to the committee and as is set out in ACAS guidance, a number of these issues are already covered in terms of pregnancy or maternity-related illness. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about this becoming a potential HR issue. It is discriminatory for any such illness in any way, including miscarriage, and molar pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy would be covered very straightforwardly by that.

I have a particular concern about proposed subsection (2B)(a)(iv) in his Amendment 81, which widely casts the net of any medical abortion. It is already recognised that any abortion after 24 weeks is automatically covered in bereavement leave. The same is true of stillbirth, which, in the UK, is considered to be the loss of a pregnancy at 24 weeks and above. The two are not causal or directly related—obviously, there is a correlation in the timing. It just so happens that we have our current abortion limits, with certain exceptions, up to 24 weeks. So I am concerned that, in effect, proactive abortions taken up to 24 weeks would be covered in this amendment. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government in their response, because, as I have said to the House already, I have not yet had the chance to read the entire report from the Women and Equalities Committee.

On proposed subsection (2B)(b), I say that I have had many friends who have, not always successfully, had children through IVF. Thankfully, many people do, but they recognise when they enter into it some of the challenges they definitely will face in trying to have a child by IVF. As it stands, on average, the success rate for a woman below 38 is about 35% for any particular embryo-transfer loss. Once a woman starts to go over the age of 40, that falls—it has gone up from 2012 from an 8% to a 10% success rate in 2022. That careful consideration needs to be thought about by the Government and your Lordships in this House when we decide to extend certain entitlements, while recognising the heartbreak that can happen at certain moments in people’s lives in these particularly sensitive moments. I am conscious that this is a sensitive issue to bring up at this point in the Bill.

I do believe that I would like to understand this in more detail. I will take the time to do some more research myself, but I am very keen to hear from the Government quite where this is stretching. I appreciate they have given a certain kind of wording to the House of Commons Select Committee on this point, but the provision of further details to the Committee here would be very welcome.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all speakers from your Lordships’ House for what has been an excellent debate. It is a genuine pleasure for me to participate, hopefully quite briefly.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, gave a moving speech, which was made more moving by the knowledge that Sarah Owen is at the Bar today, and I thank both of them for their contributions, but especially Sarah.

Amendment 81 has our support, not least as a catalyst to try to have the sort of debate we need and the careful consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also alluded to. I hope it can start to move things forward.

We also support Amendment 134, which was so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This again is an important issue that we want to have more conversations about following this debate.

My noble friend Lord Palmer gave a very spirited and strong advocacy for kinship care, and that was supported across the House—here is another area where there is an absolutely clear and present need for carers to be officially brought into the carers’ community.

The point on fostering was also well made by my noble friend, as was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about short-term fostering as something we should seek to bring into that. All these amendments are, in a sense, broadening the scope of carers and where we should be considering. For all of them, I hope the Minister will be able to stand up and say “Let’s have a debate following this particular group. Let’s talk with interested parties to see how some or all of this could start to be moved forward”.

I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I focus on paid carer’s leave. I had the great honour of piloting Wendy Chamberlain’s Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House with, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the strong support of the Conservative Government. During that time, I had a chance to meet a lot of carers and a lot of employers of carers—big companies such as Centrica, which the noble Lord mentioned, and much smaller companies. They all set out the advantages of having a proper, strong relationship with their carers and the starting point, which we established through that Private Member’s Bill, of unpaid carer’s leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to my noble friend with more details. We will cover some of the issues on carer’s leave in the round later in my speech, but I thank him for his intervention.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

With all due respect, this Bill is full of situations in which the consultation for its implementation is yet to be completed. Having adopted a principle in primary legislation, one more consultation would hardly stain the integrity of this Bill. If the Government wanted to, they could very well take on kinship care and fill in the details later—that is what they are doing with the rest of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 82 in the name of my friend and former colleague, the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, which I have signed. I declare an interest as a paid non-executive adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service. I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I intend to focus in a disciplined way on the amendment, unlike some colleagues.

In London, the Metropolitan Police, the UK’s largest police force, has, in recent years, been unable to recruit police officers to the level it has been funded for, and is now unable to recruit full-time regular police officers because of budget constraints. The Labour Government’s community policing guarantee, to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood police and Police Community Support Officers, appears to be challenging, given that the Metropolitan Police accounts for about 19% of all UK police officers and about 25% of the UK police budget.

One low-cost way to recruit more community police officers is to take a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer measure to encourage members of the public to become special constables, such as that proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment. As of March 2023, the contribution of special constables was saving an estimated £85 million to £90 million a year in policing delivery, according to government statistics.

The Minister may well say, as Ministers are prone to do—for example, on the issue of humanist weddings—that while they agree in principle with the amendment it needs to be part of a holistic approach to volunteering generally; that the Government will consider this and bring forward such legislation in due course, if necessary; but that they do not want to create an uneven playing field. However, if they intend to meet the 13,000 uplift in community police officers, they need to create an uneven playing field, providing more of an incentive for the public to volunteer to be special constables than to be any other sort of volunteer.

In any event, the playing field is already uneven, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, in that in 2018 the Government—albeit a different Government—amended Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to include four groups of volunteers in another part of the criminal justice system, such as independent prison monitors. The reason was to attract applicants in full-time employment, who tend to be younger, and thereby improve the diversity of these volunteers, who tended to be skewed in favour of older age groups.

Not only do the police need fit, younger people to volunteer to be special constables but, particularly in London, they need local volunteers who know and reflect the diversity of the communities in which they will serve. The proportion of special constables from minority backgrounds currently serving is higher than it is among regular full-time police officers, and with the added incentive that this amendment would provide, we have the prospect of recruiting more ideal volunteers, who know and reflect their local communities, as special constables.

Were these not good enough reasons to support this amendment, given the current issues around police culture—highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, in her report on the cultural issues facing the Metropolitan Police—recruiting more officers from minority backgrounds, working part-time and hence less influenced by existing negative aspects of police culture, would assist in changing those undesirable aspects of police culture and increase public trust and confidence. Not only would the public see more police officers who look like them; they may recognise them as members of their local community.

The special constabulary has also proved to be a fertile recruiting ground for the full-time regular force, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, providing an opportunity for those from minority backgrounds in particular to try out policing before making a full-time commitment to it. Recruiting more volunteer special constables could also lead to improving the diversity and local representation among the full-time regular police force.

As with the changes made in 2018 to the 1996 Act, there are compelling reasons to extend Section 50 of the current Employment Rights Act to special constables, and I enthusiastically support this amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we could hardly have expected two more expert speakers to propose this amendment. This is another case where society is getting something on the cheap and, even though it is a different argument from the one about unpaid carers, it is another way where, in fact, we are not recognising the value that society is getting from these people who work as special police officers.

I really want to hear what the Government say on this and I hope it is not the sort of answer that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested it might be but is something rather more constructive that can come forward the next time this Bill comes up.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I would very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his important amendment in this group and for the valuable context he gave in his opening remarks, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for speaking so eloquently to it as well.

They are both right. Special constables play a vital role in our communities and, as they pointed out, they serve alongside other police officers, offering their time and their skills to protect the public and contribute to the safety and well-being of society at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just pointed out, society benefits from their work.

It is often overlooked, though. For many, being a special constable is something they do alongside other regular employment. These individuals are already balancing their professional lives with the demands of policing and, as has been pointed out, that can be both challenging and rewarding.

I could bore on for hours about how valuable special constables were when I was policing in Hong Kong—but I will not. I welcome this amendment and believe it represents a small but significant way to better support those who give their time to serve our communities by ensuring that special constables can fulfil their duties without facing conflicts with their employment obligations. We would be sending a strong message of support for public service generally, as well, of course, as for special constables. So we are very minded to support this amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness when she was speaking. However, I refer her to Section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, with which I am sure she is familiar, as an EHRC commissioner. That is where the relevant test is set out.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. It is difficult to know where to start, so I thought I would do so with a couple of parish notes. To the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I say that the young man who was on the other end of her call was required by contract to read out a script. If he had deviated from the script, he would have been dismissed. The noble Baroness was not guilty of harassment, but of a lack of empathy concerning his contract. To the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I can report that hummus is for sale in the Co-op in Bow. Indeed, following the cyberattack, that was about all it had for sale. To the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I say that were he taken to court in the circumstances he describes—though I think that unlikely—for being grumpy in a football ground, all he would have to do was say where he was, and the judge would let him off on mitigating circumstances.

When the noble Lord, Lord Young, was announced as a peer I was very pleased, because I thought he would add something to your Lordships’ House from which we would benefit. To a great extent, that has revealed itself today. Through a cleverly and carefully constructed straw man argument, he has set up today’s debate. That straw man has been paraded, hoisted aloft, by a series of speeches either wittingly or unwittingly misapprehending the purpose of Clause 20. Before I begin to discuss that, though, let me say that I have been worrying about the use of the word “banter”. That word causes me to worry, and I will explain why to the noble Lord, Lord Young. For as long as I can remember, it has been used as a defence: “It was only a bit of banter”. It was only a bit of banter, but what was it? It has been justifying racism, sexism and homophobia since time immemorial. I was very surprised, therefore, that a man who understands words in the way the noble Lord, Lord Young, does, should use that phrase. The alliteration may work; but I am not happy with the word “banter”.

As I understand it, the point of the Bill is not the noble Lord’s straw man of policing personal conversations; the point is to take on the problem of workplace bullying by customers and users of particular facilities, and ensure that the employers adequately defend the workers, particularly those who have to interact with the public and who may otherwise feel exposed.

I would like briefly to drag this debate into the area of the practical reality for many people, often young, who work in industries where contact with customers is unmediated. After graduating, I ran a bar for a year, and I know what it is like for people working in those environments. They are largely in service industries—the very industries that some of your noble Lordships seek to absent from the Bill. My understanding of this part of the Bill is that it aims to protect people from having to withstand unreasonable behaviour. If we were to throw out that objective in the way that some of these amendments suggest, that would be to declare that we do not care about the plight of those employees and how they are treated.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about the customer always being right. That is one of the problems. In the past, bosses have taken the side of customers against employees because they need the trade. In a way, the clause seeks to address that. There are other potential economic benefits, too. For example, many people talk a lot about recruitment problems in the service industry. One of the ways of enhancing such jobs would be for potential recruits to know that their employer has their back. Many good employers already do that; but everybody needs to know that there is an expectation across the board that they will be protected.

To echo my cry at the start of Committee, we need to see how the Government expect this to operate. Here, I join forces with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. We need to see what the draft regulations will look like and understand how the guidelines will interpret those regulations, so that your Lordships can be calmed and brought down from the current position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Was the noble Lord in the Chamber at the beginning of the debate?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I was—I was sitting over there. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for speaking after him. I am sure he is welcome to speak after me if he disagrees with anything I have to say.

Obviously, I am a barrister, as are many of the contributors this evening. I practised in the employment tribunal and in human rights, and I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Joint Committee wrote to the Government in respect of the Bill, expressing concerns that were reflected by the Equality and Human Rights Commission: in particular, the potential for a conflict between the right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by Article 10—as we have heard from various noble Lords—and the Article 8 right to a private and family life. That balancing exercise would be difficult for many employers to carry out.

The previous iterations of measures of this type included safeguards which have been omitted from the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out. In the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 there was a measure that sought to place a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees, and which is now Section 40A of the Equality Act. During its passage through Parliament, that Bill included provisions which sought to introduce a duty on employers to prevent non-sexual harassment of their employees by third parties. That was Clause 1 of that Bill, as brought from the House of Commons. That provision failed. It would have required all reasonable steps to have been taken to prevent harassment of the employee, solely because they did not seek to prevent the expression of an opinion in circumstances where the conduct constituting harassment involved a conversation in which an employee was not a participant.

In short, the Government have so far failed to answer the question from the Joint Committee about their reasoning for not including a similar carve-out for overheard opinions in the new duty in Clause 20. That was echoed in the original iteration of the Equality Act 2010, passed by the previous Labour Government, under Section 40(2) to (4). That would have required an employer to be liable for third-party harassment where they had failed to take such steps as would have been reasonably practicable to prevent the harassment. However, to be liable, the employer would have had to have known that the employee had been harassed by a third party on at least two other occasions.

The Government have decided not to adopt the same three-strike policy taken in the equivalent provisions or in the earlier potential measure proposed in the 2023 Act. Instead, we have a rule-making power that is said to provide what steps are to be regarded as reasonable. To my mind, that sits uneasily with the mandatory terms set out in new subsection (1A). For those reasons, it should not be part of this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I presume that it is where employees are based here in the UK, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Baroness and clarify that.

In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. The Government are on the side of workers, not abusers. We will ensure that workers have the fair protections at work that they deserve. I therefore ask that Amendment 83 is withdrawn and that Clause 20 stands part of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I asked the Minister to set out in detail how future regulations and these clauses will work in practice. I hope she is able to take that on board between Committee and Report.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will attempt to update your Lordships’ House on these issues at the time the noble Lord has suggested.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. That a Lucas can agree with a Cromwell demonstrates the healing power of time—it has taken only 400 years.

I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 101. I very much like the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because it would draw in what happened to my friend who went through the NDA process. I like Amendment 147 because, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, this should all be about producing better behaviour. You want an incidence of bad behaviour to lead to better behaviour, not to disguise and cover-up. That ought to be the fundamental drive of the process.

To add a couple of sidelights, I am told it is very much current employment practice to ask, when taking a reference from a previous employer, whether an NDA has been signed. If the answer is yes, you take that employment no further—so NDAs can be really damaging things to sign. It is therefore important that someone signing one has achieved the fully informed consent that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, referred to.

Another aspect of obscurity is in tribunal awards. I note, for instance, that tribunal awards that really criticise what has gone on in a school remain private. They never get sent to Ofsted. We ought to be using that tribunal process and what it has discovered to produce change. Where these things cannot be made public, as is often the case, they ought none the less to get into the system in a way which encourages better behaviour in future.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, said—I apologise if I have mispronounced her name—most if not all speakers have worked on these two important and connected issues for years. That has been reflected in the quality of the speeches we have heard. It also reflects the fact that progress has not been made. We need to make progress here.

The traditional approach from Ministers in situations such as this is to say, “These are important issues and we agree something needs to be done”, and then either “We need more consultation”, as my noble friend pointed out, or “This is not the right vehicle for these issues”. Those are the two excuses that will be given. The point on consultation has been well made by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. As for whether this is an appropriate vehicle, just look at this Bill. It is well over 300 pages and covers almost every aspect of employment. To say there is no room in this Bill—I am pre-empting what may or may not be said—would be wrong. There is more than enough space in this Bill to cover these issues.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, said, this was debated in the Commons and my honourable friend Layla Moran also had an amendment on this issue, but the Bill came here without it. The safe way of making sure that this can survive contact with a very large majority at the other end is for the Minister to take this on and put it in the Bill on the Government’s behalf. We have heard a lot of excellent speeches from the Minister’s own Benches, as well as across the Floor. Clearly, we can all agree on both these issues. The Minister should stand up and say “We will take this on, work with all interested parties and produce two amendments for both of these issues” to address what has clearly been going on for too long without being resolved in legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that this has been an extremely interesting debate. I thank all noble Baronesses—they are mostly Baronesses, with some noble Lords—for their contributions. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, deserves singling out for her very thought-provoking introduction to this group.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral pointed out in the previous group, every individual should feel safe and supported in their working environment. We recognise that NDAs have deviated from their original purpose, which was to protect trade secrets and intellectual property, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, pointed out. They have been abused in some circumstances, particularly where they are used to silence the victims of misconduct, which includes sexual harassment.

However, we must also acknowledge there are some cases where NDAs may serve a legitimate purpose. Some individuals may wish to resolve disputes privately, without the need for public disclosure. It is important, therefore, that we do not take a blanket approach but instead consider the context in which NDAs are being used. Many of the amendments acknowledge those simple facts. Having said that, we also need to consider the wider impact that NDAs might have—for example, in cases of medical malpractice. How can society and the medical profession learn from mistakes that are not made public?

It is clear that further scrutiny of NDAs is essential. The potential for abuse cannot be ignored, and we must ensure that any agreement entered into is fully informed and entirely voluntary. I will briefly speak as a non-lawyer, because I was particularly taken by Amendment 281, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I was rather shocked that such an NDA might exist even under the current regime. How can one sign a legally binding document that prevents the disclosure of a breach of the law? With apologies to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I say that only the legal profession could manage the perverse logic to invent such a thing.

As we have seen, particularly in the NHS, whistle-blowers are often the individuals who bravely speak out against wrongdoing, misconduct or unethical practices that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their courage in raising concerns is critical to maintaining trust and ensuring that the organisation remains committed to the highest ethical standards.

Both noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the NHS. I looked into this earlier, and in one high-profile case, the NHS spent over £4 million on legal action against a single whistleblower, including a £3.2 million compensation settlement. This sparked criticism from Professor Phil Banfield, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who argued that whistleblowing is often not welcomed by NHS management. He emphasised that NHS trusts and senior managers are more focused on protecting their reputations than addressing the concerns of whistleblowers or prioritising patient safety. That is clearly a very unacceptable state of affairs, and that example alone suggests that the Government should take these amendments extremely seriously.

I am sure that the Minister is about to stand up and offer to have further discussions on this subject. We will pre-empt her and volunteer to take part in those discussions. There is clearly much more work to be done in this area. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.