Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu

1B: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) From the date on which this section comes into force, after the end of each reference period the employer must send the worker a written notice explaining their right to receive a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1) and giving them the opportunity to decline such an offer.
(1B) If the worker does not respond to the notice, or responds to confirm that they wish to receive an offer, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1).
(1C) A worker who is sent a notice under subsection (1A) may at any time ask not to receive any further notices or offers, after which the employer must not send further notices or make offers under this section.
(1D) A worker who has asked not to receive notices or offers under subsection (1C) may notify the employer that they wish to start receiving notices and offers again after the end of the next reference period, after which the employer must act in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B).”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think I am right in welcoming the Minister, noble Lord, Lord Collins, to the Bill. I too missed all of Report and so I thank my noble friends Lord Goddard, Lord Palmer and Lady Kramer for picking up the pieces. The Minister and I find ourselves at an interesting point in the Bill’s progress—the sharp end—when we come down to a small number of key issues. These issues are nevertheless crucial.

The Government have not been short of advice since the last time the Bill was discussed in your Lordships’ House. Some 13 major business organisations wrote to the Minister. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development set out issues in a report and, just a couple of days ago, the Resolution Foundation—an organisation not unfamiliar with the Treasury—set out serious concerns.

These and other warnings come at a time when unemployment is rising and job vacancies are falling; when inflation continues to be worse than most of our international rivals; and when growth is, at best, stagnant. None of these warnings came from organisations that are antipathetic to the lot of workers. Nevertheless, we should leave this to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who put it best when he said that Britain faces a “growth emergency”.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will go into more detail on some of those reports, so I will not attempt to undercut him. The unifying theme from all these commentaries is that the Bill is likely to—or will have, in most cases—a chilling effect on our economy. The Bill contains 173 statutory instruments and still awaits the outcome of dozens of consultations—for example, we await the conclusion of the consultation on notice periods that the Minister set out.

Even when the Bill gains Royal Assent—assuming that it will—no one will actually know the details of what it will do. This creates an environment of deep uncertainty, which is the enemy of investment and which leads to expansions being delayed and new hires being put on hold. At a time when things way beyond the control of national governance are running amok, this Government are wilfully adding something else to the uncertainty that business faces. They could control this, but they are instead adding more uncertainty. That is at the heart of our concerns.

As we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will introduce his Motions E1 and H1 in this group, and I will leave it to him to explain their intention. However, the need to place a qualifying period and initial period of employment in the Bill is an important concern on these Benches. As it stands, the Bill will remove this provision entirely. The noble Lord can expect our support should he move to a vote.

On Motion H1, we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right to focus on the need to properly understand and delineate how work organised seasonally should and could affect certain rights. This is largely absent from the primary legislation. Once again, we are going to rely on statutory instruments. I am not necessarily 100% convinced by the noble Lord’s wording for this amendment, but the intention is correct, which is why we will support him. Perhaps the Minister could take onboard this uncertainty and demonstrate how certain key regulations following on from the Bill will operate to manage the irregularity of seasonal work, while still making sure that such work pays for employees.

I turn to the detail of our Motion A1. A feature of the Bill is that laudable aims have sometimes been delivered clumsily. An example is in trying to tackle the important issue of zero hours, and we share the Minister’s aim to make sure that every employee has the right to move from zero hours to guaranteed hours. Nothing we have ever said or proposed in this House has undermined that from the start.

We support the aim that after a reference period those on zero hours should be entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours from their employer. Our original amendment, which the Commons rejected, sought to avoid the necessity of employers being compelled to calculate and make that offer from the outset. We understand—and heard—some of the issues that were raised: that it is difficult for certain employees working with certain employers to get past that first stage, initiate the contact and make the ask. Therefore, rather than reassert the amendment we tabled before, we have amended it. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did a better job of explaining it than I am probably going to do now.

In essence, we should start off and stay the same as the Government require. In other words, once an employee passes the reference period, the employer will be required to offer guaranteed hours. After that, if the employee indicates that they are not interested in that because they want to remain on zero hours, the employer will not be compelled to keep reoffering guaranteed hours, time after time, as each reference period is passed. Under the Bill, the process of calculating those hours has to be redone each time. That may seem trivial; certainly, for large employers, it probably is. However, for the smaller and medium-sized employer, it is an added burden that does not need to be there if the employee does not wish to leave zero hours.

The aim of the amendment is to make sure that both sides are managed well and have the opportunity to change. The employee can opt back in to being made those offers if and when he or she requires, and a letter from the employer will remind them of that opportunity. I am happy that the Minister wants to continue to talk about this, and I am very happy to continue to talk, but to do so, we need to agree Motion A1. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, I am also very grateful to the Minister and his new colleagues for their time during the past couple of weeks. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.

There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.

The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.

Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Motion N1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and declare that I am still a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney, east London.

In over 10 years of teaching, I have encountered tens—maybe not hundreds—of TAs, technicians, IT staff, catering staff, site staff and all the support staff who make schools function. My subject, product design, is entirely reliant on technicians. They set up and prepare materials, maintain equipment and teach skills to us and the students.

I have seen technicians who had to be hunted out from one cigarette break to another to do their job, and those who have used the school’s 3D printer to print a better 3D printer, to print a better 3D printer, and so on. Support staff are not all the same. Some are quite happy to do the basic 8 am to 3.30 pm job and are content to be paid for that, while others will take on extra responsibilities and duties.

I had one very fine technician who would not go into the classroom while students were there, because he used to be paid extra for a teaching role, but the Government abolished it. Quite rightly, he would say that if he was not paid to do the job, he would not do it. I have also seen technicians paid well over the going rate because schools could see that they were irreplaceable; otherwise, their job would have to be done by teachers who had neither the skill nor the time.

At the moment, these decisions rest with heads of department, who can make them. Schools need that flexibility. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, very sensibly creates a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, as in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, meaning that all get a decent wage, but those who put in extra time and effort get rewarded. Should she be minded to test the opinion of the House, I will be with her.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on making progress, along with the cosignatories of that amendment. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson, who have realised a lifelong dream of putting children back to work on the railways.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Less—or more—prosaically, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has set out the issues here doggedly and in detail. I still feel that we are in a “he said, she said” situation, and it is extremely difficult to unpick how this will work. I assume—I am sure—that the statutory instruments and the rules will probably fill in the detail. We on these Benches will wait to hear what the Minister says but we are not currently minded to support the noble Baroness.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the progress he has made on a very valid point he raised earlier in these debates. I also say to my noble friend Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: my goodness, they must be chuff-chuffed with the result. It has been a major step forward.

I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Barran on making some compelling points. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to them and rethink the approach that he outlined earlier. We were greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing his personal experience to bear on this problem.

If my noble friend wishes to test the opinion of the House, certainly, on these Benches, she will have our support.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 47B in lieu—

47B: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the right to be accompanied
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the feasibility of expanding the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
(2) The report must consider in particular—
(a) whether the categories of individuals permitted to act as a companion under section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 should be expanded;
12 Employment Rights Bill
(b) the potential benefits and risks of such expansion for employers and workers;
(c) any safeguards that may be necessary in relation to confidentiality, independence, or professional standards of proposed companions;
(d) the impact on access to fair representation, particularly for workers not represented by a trade union; and
(e) the potential impact of any expansion on individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, which may include—
(a) representatives of workers and employers;
(b) professional bodies;
(c) legal and employment rights experts;
(d) organisations with experience of supporting workers in grievance and disciplinary processes;
(e) organisations representing individuals with protected characteristics.”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, but I will speak to this Motion a little, to set it in context and perhaps put down some markers for the discussions that will be happening with the Secretary of State.

Responding to the spirited work of my noble friend Lord Palmer, this House voted overwhelmingly on Report, with cross-party support, to expand the right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a trained companion. The provision was removed by the Government in the other place because of concerns about potential increases to cost, complexity and length of such hearings. The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Government’s position, because there is no evidence to support it; in fact, there is excellent evidence to the contrary that trained companions reduce cost, complexity and escalation. We hear this from organisations that already accompany workers on a non-statutory basis, and we can see it in the research of ACAS and in other academic areas.

None the less, this amendment in lieu presents a reasonable compromise, as I think the Minister has conceded. It would allow the Government to conduct a proper review into the creation of a new category of trained companion, at which point any concerns could be properly examined. In the spirit of working collaboratively, I hope that we can now move forward on this and that, instead of frustrating this process, we can develop one that is a proportionate step to enable the Government to examine this issue properly and finally take into account the experiences of the vast majority of its own voters, let alone the country, who are not members of a trade union and still need support in times like this.

I turn briefly to Motion M1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and spoken to by his colleague, which would reinsert a Report stage amendment requiring that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in a ballot participate. We continue to support this amendment, which would maintain the status quo.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I speak briefly to support, from the perspective of teachers, the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Of course, teachers and other front-line caring professionals carry immense responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, which brings with it considerable legal obligations that few other professions face. Employers in schools are rightly duty-bound by safeguarding law to investigate every allegation, however unfounded it may later prove to be. As a result, teachers are far more likely than most to face formal hearings during their careers.

The number of allegations is rising sharply, with data from Teacher Tapp, which surveys about 11,000 teachers every day, showing that, in the last academic year alone, allegations against teachers increased by around 35% compared with the previous year; that figure rises to nearly 60% in schools with the highest proportion of pupils on free school meals. As we have debated earlier, in this Bill and others, technology is changing the landscape, with an ability to create ever more complex complaints using artificial intelligence.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said already, this carries a human cost but also a financial cost, with suspended teachers remaining on their salaries while schools fund cover. Some local authorities are spending hundreds of thousands pounds each year on suspended staff awaiting hearings, and still more when flawed procedures lead to tribunal claims.

The right to be accompanied by someone trained to provide calm, professional support is not an indulgence but a practical safeguard. The strength of feeling in the profession is clear and almost unanimous: according to Teacher Tapp, 97% of teachers believe they should be entitled to a trained companion, whether or not they belong to a union, and almost two-thirds say they would wish to have legal representation. This speaks volumes about the professional anxiety that teachers and other school staff face when formal allegations arise.

I hope very much that, when the Minister comes to close, he can confirm that this review will look closely at how accompaniment rights operate in practice, including teachers and other school staff within that to make sure that those who dedicate their lives to educating and caring for our children are treated with the fairness, dignity and compassion that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.

In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.

I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.

Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.

I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.

We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.

Motion G1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and of course I welcome the new team to the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, will recall that we had pretty much the same debate in 2016, albeit that we were facing in different directions.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced the debate on 23 July, which was day 4 of Report, about disclosure of payments made from a political fund. This is key, because if union members are going to have, in effect, an opt-in/opt-out arrangement changed, they need to know what the political fund is used for. When I pushed the Government on it, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said:

“My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000”.


I challenged her, and said:

“I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed”.—[Official Report, 23/7/25; col. 281.]


The noble Baroness ignored my comment, and we carried on to a vote on whether payments made by the political fund should be disclosed to the certification officer and members of the union in respect of their own money, as has previously been the case.

On 29 August, over a month later, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wrote to me with what was described as a corrections letter, which, while lacking in my opinion an appropriate apology, confirmed my assertion that this Bill removes the duty of unions to disclose the detail of expenditure from their members or anyone else. Accordingly, it allows the union bosses to spend their members’ money from the political fund exactly how they like, with no one able to see where the money is spent. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, just said that political funds are controlled by their members; he then said that those funds are accountable to members. I take issue with that.

My concern is that the vote on this issue took place on the basis of information and assurances given to your Lordships’ House at the Dispatch Box which the then Minister—not the current Minister, I emphasise—has now admitted were factually incorrect. It may well have swayed some noble Peers. This seems a very unsatisfactory situation, as it allows a vote to have taken place on incorrect information and assurances.

In the end, my amendment was defeated by 18 votes out of 360 Peers’ votes cast. I ask the Minister to explain this situation from the Dispatch Box so that we have a clear record of what has happened and so that legislation may be revisited at a later date. I ask noble Peers to bear this in mind when considering whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to advance a different argument from that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is rather more philosophical and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He mentioned “inertia”, and inertia sells.

Right across this House, your Lordships have worked on legislation that has sought to remove the perils for consumers trapped in deals and situations which are too difficult to get out of. We have made it easier for people to change their bank and to switch utilities. Those of your Lordships who lived through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will remember clearly a big debate about the automatic rolling over of subscriptions. Rather than the arguments that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I cleave to those that we heard from the proposer of this Motion. There is an element of liberalness and freedom about individuals choosing, rather than having to choose not to, which is what is asked by this change.