Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Bad employers will be bad regardless of what the Government bring in because they will find ways of circumventing the legislation that is being introduced here. There needs to be more thinking around what we want to see as greater flexibility. I firmly believe in flexible working, but I believe that should be a contract between the employer and the employee; it should not be for government to mandate what needs to be done.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 7 in this group, as well as my Amendment 15. I also apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I am walking somewhat of a tightrope this evening. For 15 years, I was a senior shop steward for the GMB as a national negotiator. I also have my own company with 20 employees. I do not think that I will be able to cope with the ramifications of some of this legislation. Also, I have some guests up in the Public Gallery: they are small business men who employ people. Dinner could get quite difficult if I say the wrong thing in the next 10 minutes, which I hope I will not do.

My first amendment would set the initial reference period for the right to guaranteed hours to 26 weeks, to give flexibility to industries that rely on a seasonal basis for operating and employing people. It would also give greater flexibility to the labour market itself. When Members see this amendment, they automatically think of seasonal workers as fruit and veg pickers harvesting crops, but nothing could be further from the truth. Work has changed. We are now essentially a service-led economy, with no more enormous factories employing thousands of workers every day, producing goods to export across the globe, clocking in and clocking out, as I did back in the 1970s. Flexibility is the key, and work/life balance for many is crucial. The days of the nine to five are well and truly over, in my opinion, especially for small businesses. That flexibility is not only for the agricultural industries but for tourism, retail, hospitality and events—things that bind our country together.

We welcome this Bill. One could argue that it is 30 years too late; that was probably the time when unions were most under attack, when our beloved Margaret was in charge. Perhaps that was when people should have risen up, but we are where we are. However, the Bill should be proportional and reasonable; those are the two things that we would wish to persuade the Government to embrace, through not only some of our amendments but those of other parties. Reasonableness and proportionality are what we are proposing. We will support the Bill, but its architects must accept that the labour market has evolved. Flexibility for workers and protecting workers’ rights go hand in hand.

I will now speak to my Amendment 15. Other amendments in this group have rightly raised challenges regarding the right to be offered guaranteed hours. My Amendment 15 strikes a necessary balance between protecting workers and allowing flexibility for genuine short-term employment situations. This amendment would not undermine the main principles of the Government’s legislation. Instead, it would make a reasonable accommodation for short-term contracts while maintaining safeguards through proper disclosure requirements and strict time limits.

For seasonal workers, this amendment offers significant advantages. It would increase their employability, as businesses could confidently offer work during peak periods without complicated hour guarantees that extend beyond the season. Many seasonal workers prefer concentrated work periods with higher hours, allowing them to earn more money during these limited timeframes. Additionally, this flexibility would enable workers in industries such as tourism, agriculture and entertainment to secure multiple seasonal positions throughout the year, improving their overall financial stability. Many industries in our economy, including agriculture and education, are connected to seasonal events. We need this practical provision.

I urge the Minister to consider this amendment, or at the very least be cognisant of the challenges these seasonally dependent sectors face. If this legislation is designed correctly, we can arrive at a set of provisions that will protect workers while acknowledging the realities of our diverse job markets.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Fox and I met Amazon a couple of weeks ago in Portcullis House. Amazon employs 75,000 people in the UK and is not unionised. It has evolved its own democratic in-house solutions. I am not commenting on that, but it shows that, sometimes, legislation is not the only way to protect people at work, guarantee earnings and pay reasonable rates. That is the kind of bigger picture thinking that this Bill is missing.

[Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the hugely important issue of zero-hours and short-hours contracts. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, said, well over a million people in the UK work on zero-hours contracts. In sectors such as retail, it is also common for workers to have a small number of guaranteed hours but to work the equivalent of full-time hours.

These arrangements are not a win-win for worker and employer. More than eight in 10 zero-hours workers want regular hours of work. Without guaranteed hours, workers do not know whether they will be able to pay their bills or organise their caring responsibilities. The flexibility is invariably on the employer’s side. Research has shown that more than half of zero-hours contract workers have had shifts cancelled at less than 24 hours’ notice. Many experience being sent home mid shift and very few are compensated. The vast majority of those who ask for guaranteed hours are turned down, so I fear a right to request would not resolve that issue.

There is also significant evidence that employers do not use zero-hours contracts just as stopgaps but will often park workers in these insecure arrangements long term. Two-thirds of zero-hours contract workers have been with their employer for more than a year, and one in eight for more than a decade.

As well as causing financial uncertainty and disrupting workers’ private lives, this distorts workplace relations, with workers fearful of challenging inappropriate conduct in case it leads to them losing their work. Recent accounts of poor behaviour at McDonald’s branches, where zero-hours contracts are prevalent, included a 17 year-old reporting that she had been asked for sex in return for shifts. Also, when employers rely on zero-hours contracts, what incentive do they have to invest in skills? The answer is: little or none, with predictable consequences for productivity.

The Bill implements measures first developed by the Low Pay Commission, with the support of both trade union and employer-side representatives. An employer will have to offer a contract based on a worker’s normal hours of work in line with a 12-week reference period. That gives a clear indication of a worker’s usual hours while evening out peaks and troughs. Any period longer than that, such as 26 weeks, would simply allow employers to park workers on a zero-hours contract for a prolonged period.

The Bill contains powers for Ministers to specify the notice period for shifts that employers must give to workers and compensation for cancelled shifts, and these are an essential part of the package. Currently, workers on variable-hours contracts bear all the risk of any changes in demand, and they are usually low-paid workers who can ill afford the sudden changes to income.

In the House of Commons, the Bill was amended to ensure that those rights also apply to agency workers. That is crucial in order to close the loophole that could have led to employers hiring zero-hour staff by agencies and entirely subverting the intent of the legislation. I know the TUC would strongly oppose any amendment that would exempt agency workers or fixed-term contract workers on variable-hours contracts from these provisions.

Employers will still be able to put in place arrangements for coping with fluctuations in seasonal work—for instance, via fixed-term contracts. What will change is that workers will not bear alone the burden, in reduced wages, of sudden changes in demand. The current situation allows manifest injustices to take place. It is time that we level up the labour market.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a valuable debate; I agree with the Minister. Indeed, I welcomed her admission that zero-hours contracts work very well for students and are valued by them. I was interested in the TUC survey. All the surveys I have seen so far tell this Committee that full-time students do not want to lose zero-hours contracts.

It may be that the Minister will say, “Why is this amendment necessary, because they will not request full-time employment?” However, under the Bill, the employer has to work out how the business will be able to offer someone on a zero-hours contract full-time employment as and when they request it. It comes later, of course, when we are moving amendments, that we can say that it should not be the duty of the employer to give the opportunity of full-time employment; it should be the right to request full-time employment. What I think we are arguing about is whether all employers will have to go through the process in advance of any request being received. Under this legislation, they have to work out how they will be able to respond positively to an offer.

My noble friend Lady Lawlor shared the real-life experience and the way in which various students have taken advantage of these contracts. But what if they are not going to be offered them and given the opportunity of working as and when, in the flexible, lumpy way they want to organise their studies, as my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, pointed out? I thank him for going down memory lane; it was a fascinating glimpse of life as a stacker. I suppose all of us will remember what we did as students. I volunteered. I crossed Whiteladies Road in Bristol and offered my services to the BBC. The BBC took me on as a freelance newsreader.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

As everybody does.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

With this amendment, I am trying to discover what the Government mean by “reasonable notice”. This is another area where I imagine there are some draft regulations around, but if the Government could give us an insight into what that phrase means now, I should be most grateful. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29 and support my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 27. My amendment probes the Government’s intended meaning for the phrase “reasonably believed”, which relates to short-notice cancellation of shifts. This phrase may seem innocuous at first glance, but it carries considerable weight in determining whether workers—particularly those in insecure or temporary arrangements—are entitled to compensation when a shift is cancelled, shortened or otherwise fails to materialise. Without a clear understanding of what constitutes a reasonable belief in this context, we risk leaving both worker and employer in an uncertain and potentially contentious position. A test that lacks definition can quickly become a source of dispute rather than a resolution.

To be clear, my intention is not to impose overly prescriptive language on the Government, but rather to seek clarity on how this standard is to be understood and applied. For example, it is not enough for an employee to assert that they are expecting a shift to proceed even when the hirer has not provided written confirmation. What factors should we consider in assessing what is reasonable? Should they include previous patterns of communication, the urgency of the situation or a reliance on verbal assurances? Clarity is not a luxury that employment law has—it is a necessity. Vague thresholds serve no one, least of all those trying to navigate an already precarious labour market. I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to provide reassurance that the Government’s use of this term is underpinned by clear guidance, sound reasoning and a fair balance between the interests of workers and agencies alike.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 22, which would allow the duty to provide reasonable notice not to apply in certain cases, and Amendment 24, which would do likewise for the duty to provide compensation under new Section 27BP(1). The Bill’s approach is likely to damage the effective working of the labour market, for which any sensible law needs to take account of the delicate balance between the needs of a business, which needs a workforce, and those of a workforce, which depends on a business succeeding to provide work and income for the future.

If a Bill does not account for exceptional circumstances, it becomes a straitjacket on all parties. In the case of this Bill, in providing for exceptions to guaranteed-hours, reasonable notice and compensation obligations, it should take account of the difficulties businesses have to navigate to keep afloat and continue to make a success of things, as well as contribute to the whole economy and the country’s overall welfare, provide jobs for the labour market, and offer opportunities for people to work, earn and, sometimes, get their first job on the jobs ladder.

We understand that businesses have both quiet periods and busy periods—such as hospitality events—where they need extra hands. A business must allow for periods of extra business as a matter of course—some of these are predictable, others not. Businesses know there are times when cover is needed with no notice, such as when a team member is off sick or at a funeral, but by the same token they need to be able to avoid adding to their problems and costs when they are a victim of circumstances that unexpectedly change. Yet the Bill requires the employer to give notice of changes and make provision for compensation if a shift is cancelled, moved or shortened without sufficient notice.

These amendments simply ask that a Government can make regulations so that the duties under new Sections 27BI and 27BJ need not apply. That would give power to a responsible Government to ensure that there can be exceptions, so that businesses are not burdened with the costs and time involved in the tribunal process and potential compensation payments in cases where, due to unlikely and unforeseen circumstances, the guaranteed-hours work was not available at short notice.

We have already heard examples, but no business is exempt from the difficult changing circumstances with which they contend. Given the burden that the business sector will face under the guaranteed-hours clause, a Government will have few tools at their disposal to tackle what could be an unfair obligation—one that might be mitigated by circumstances in the normal course of events—to exempt the reasonable notice required for changes or cancellations that have an impact on the business, and the compensation obligation, which will add unfair costs to a business.

I will take three sectors—each very different—to illustrate a potential example. The first is the retail sector, where extra help is needed to deal with a delivery and prepare it for the shelves overnight. What if the delivery van does not arrive, or the motorway is closed due to an accident or roadworks? The business has little or no notice of the failure, yet it will lose custom and income on lost sales. None the less, there is no provision in the Bill to allow for it to give less than what, under the measure, will be reasonable notice, or to protect it from paying compensation.

In the care sector, extra hours may be needed to help with certain residents needing extra support, or someone due to arrive on a given day. What happens if the person dies or the resident falls ill, has a heart attack and must go to hospital right away? There is no notice of that, and the extra work does not materialise. The care home will lose income on its empty room and overhead, yet payment will be expected. Where is the money to come from—the local authority, the care recipient, or the estate if it is a death? What will the care home do to tide over an income shortfall when having to pay its suppliers for everything from food and cooking to linen, room cleaning and care?

The CEO of the Carers Trust explains that social care providers are often forced to rely on zero-hours contracts because of a “lack of funding” from local authorities. She says:

“If zero-hours contracts are banned”—


or, I would add, made more difficult or costly—

“social care providers must be given the funding to afford the increased costs that brings”.

The CEO of the National Care Forum says that

“these measures must be accompanied by the financial and wider support necessary for providers to implement them, as well as interim measures to boost care worker pay”.

These changes must be reflected in its funding so that it can continue to do its vital work. So are the Government prepared to make a commitment to cover the costs that will be incurred if these clauses go through unamended?

Another example would be a conference organiser where the IT system fails. Despite a service contract in place to repair it instantly, nothing can be fixed because the failure lies elsewhere: a cyberattack or an energy blackout. This can happen overnight. The business loses its data, it loses customers, who are unable to pay an entry price, and it loses an overhead. Depending on how long it is before the system can be got back to normal, it may lose so badly that, ultimately, if the problem recurs, it may have to curtail operations and overheads. Without the amendments allowing the Government to provide for exemptions from the clause, there will be higher costs that may ultimately lead to the failure of the business.

There are enough uncertainties and costs for employers without making these worse, but the obligations of the Bill and these clauses could add significantly to costs and complications. Who will pay these extra costs? We know that this Government have been in the habit of saddling the taxpayer with additional costs in respect of workers in the public sector but not for businesses or charitable trusts, or indeed independent schools in the case of imposing VAT. What about the care homes taking local authority work? What about the costs of the uncertainties of the Bill itself? Although the compensation clause stipulates that compensation will not exceed pay for the lost shift, we do not yet know what the amount will be, what “short notice” is supposed to mean and what is meant by “qualifying shift”. We have to wait for regulations.

There are good reasons for these amendments. If we want businesses and the labour market to flourish, and to enable businesses to navigate the unwelcome outcomes of unexpected problems preventing expected workloads without adding to their costs, there are good reasons for the Government to accept them and for the regulations to respect the spirit in which they have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, as we now move to consider reasonable notice in agency work, I will speak to Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.

Unfortunately, and despite all their show of consultation, I believe the Government have failed to realise how agencies operate in the labour market, so once again the drafting of the Bill shows the failure of a one-size-fits-all approach. The challenge we face in the context of the Bill is clear. Work-finding agencies operate in a highly dynamic and often unpredictable environment, where the flow of information from hirers is essential in matching workers to available shifts.

This brings us to the core concern. Agencies often rely on information from hirers about the availability and cancellation of assignments. Without timely and sufficient details from hirers, agencies cannot predictably or properly fulfil their role. Therefore, any new obligation to provide reasonable notice for agency workers must consider the time taken for agencies to receive this confirmed information and make the necessary arrangements and assessments.

Regulation 18 of the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003 lays down that an agency cannot

“introduce or supply a work-seeker to a hirer unless the agency or employment business has obtained sufficient information”

to assess the suitability of the worker for the role in question. The issue here, therefore, is straightforward. Agency workers often find themselves without income as a consequence of cancellations initiated by hirers, yet agencies are held financially liable for those decisions, even though they have no control over the cancellations.

To illustrate the risk, let me provide a scenario. A work-finding agency places an agency worker with a hirer for a shift. However, due to unforeseen circumstances, the hirer cancels the shift at short notice. The agency, having no control over the cancellation, is still required to compensate the worker. The financial burden therefore falls on the agency, despite the cancellation being the decision of the hirer.

How will this amendment help to ensure that small and medium-sized agencies are not disproportionately impacted—that is what we seek to do here—bearing in mind the financial responsibility associated with hirer-induced cancellations, particularly when the business in question may already be financially vulnerable? Do the Government believe that it is justified to place the financial burden of a cancellation or curtailment on the agency when the failure to provide notice lies entirely with the hirer?

I believe that the Minister understands the complexities of the agency-worker relationship, but the Bill in its present form does not make proper allowance. How do the Government propose to monitor and enforce the full accountability of hirers for failures in notice arrangements? This is an issue that has to be faced, given the rigidity of the legislation we are required to consider under this Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, which seek to clarify the framework governing agency workers, and I have some sympathy with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this matter. It seems to me that a third person looking into this process will see the Labour Party trying to protect employees and give them 100% rights and the Conservatives trying to ensure that small and other businesses have a level playing field to employ, create jobs and grow the economy, which I thought was the Government’s objective. I wonder why, with this employment Bill, we cannot get a little closer to dealing with the mechanics.

The answer that the Minister gave to my probing amendment baffled me. I wanted to get up to ask him to explain what he said to me. Millions of people who listened to it or who read Hansard tomorrow will not have a clue. As my lumpy noble friend has said in previous debates, we seek clarity before the Act comes into power. We need to know these things. I spent four years on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. The watchword on that committee was quite clear: do not give Ministers unfettered powers. What is in the tin of a Bill is what it says on the front of the tin of a Bill. I wonder whether this tin will say “tomatoes” but when you open it, you will have carrots—a problem for somebody that does not eat carrots.

Running through this group of amendments, we on these Benches are trying to bring the parties together to understand that it is a two-way thing. I have been a committed trade unionist for 25 years. I have also run a business and employed 20 people. Those two things are compatible, but they are complicated, because you have different pressures from a different standpoint. As with all legislation, we try to move it through by being sensible and finding common ground for what the trade union movement wants, what the Government want and what employers want. I had guests in yesterday who were asking about the Bill. I roughly outlined it, and they could not believe it. They employ 30 people. They said, “We can’t afford HR, we can’t afford lawyers, we can’t afford for people to take us to tribunals. We just want to employ people, make a small profit and grow the business”. I cannot understand how this has become so complicated.

On Amendment 33, concerning the interpretation of “reasonable notice” when shifts are offered to agency workers, the aim appears to be to require agencies to make offers promptly once details are confirmed by the hirer and all the checks have been completed. While this may be an attempt to bring greater clarity, I question whether that proposal and that language fully address the practical realities of agency work. The intention may be sound, but there is a risk of replacing one form of ambiguity with another. That said, for agency workers some degree of predictability and transparency is important and long overdue.

Amendment 36 introduces the idea of joint liability between work-finding agencies and hirers when a shift is cancelled or curtailed at short notice. There is merit in exploring whether a shared responsibility could lead to fairer outcomes, particularly when neither party should be able to shift all risk on to the other. Equally, it is important to consider how such provision would work in practice and whether it risks disincentivising the use of agency labour altogether.

Amendment 37 proposes that compensation should be triggered only when a shift has been formally confirmed, rather than relying on the more subjective “reasonable belief” test. I appreciate the effort to bring objectivity to a murky area, but workers should not be left guessing whether an assurance from an agency amounts to a genuine commitment. We need to understand how this might interact with the fast-moving nature of some temporary staffing such as seasonal work or that connected with the weather. Ambiguity in the current framework serves no one, least of all the workers.

Finally, Amendment 38 provides that the agency would not be liable to pay compensation where the hirer fails to give appropriate cancellation notice. This is arguably a fairer allocation of risk, as agencies should not be penalised for the failure of others. However, it must be clear that such changes would not weaken the overall protections intended for the worker.

While these amendments raise important issues around the treatment of agency workers, I am not yet convinced that they strike the right balance in all aspects. There is a risk that in seeking to impose clearer structures, we introduce new complexities and unintended burdens. I think that this is what the Government are trying to say. Nevertheless, the underlying objectives—clarity, fairness and accountability—are ones that we should continue to pursue. Any changes to the framework must support clearer obligations and deliver fairer outcomes, for the workers and for the agencies and hirers. If these amendments highlight anything, it is the pressing need for the Government to offer clarity and consistency in this area.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Goddard, for their contributions, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for tabling the amendments in this group, covering Amendments 33 and 36 to 38.

Before I speak to these, I reassure all noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the Government respect and appreciate all the amendments tabled by noble Lords. The whole purpose of this is to address individual amendments and see where the Government are coming from and how we can find a way forward. There are some things in noble Lords’ amendments that may not be required because the Bill already covers them elsewhere. We are trying our very best to address every amendment and we welcome noble Lords’ scrutiny of the Bill. I reassure noble Lords that we are not being flippant about any of these amendments.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, there are two things that I can safely say. One is that I am unanimous in my comments tonight, and the other is that you cannot accuse the Liberal Democrats of extending the debate past a reasonable hour; we have done just over an hour on this debate. The debate has been quite sensible and both sides have ventured into the usual jousting, but the comments from the noble Baroness who just spoke were a bit disingenuous in saying, or intimating, that the real reason behind this measure is to increase union membership and generate money for the Labour Party. That could not be farther from the truth of what this Government are trying to do, whichever way you look at the Bill.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Has the noble Lord read the later parts of the Bill that specifically say that? In the human rights assessment, there is a qualified comment from the Government that, basically, cites in particular the element about postponing any refunds until January. That is exactly what part of the Bill is designed to do.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I will reply to that. Yes, it is a technical question, and perhaps that wording sits there, but any person with an ounce of common sense who sees the Bill can see what the Government are trying to do. I do not think that the Bill, with over 300 amendments to it, is geared to do what the noble Baroness is intimating. That is cheap political point-scoring, and I think it is beneath her.

I have carefully considered the amendments put forward by noble Lords in this group, particularly those seeking to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3, including Amendments 23 and 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the series of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others relating to probationary periods, including Amendments 105 to 112. While I am not persuaded by those amendments or the case for removing the provisions or fundamentally changing the Bill, I recognise the need for greater clarity on probationary periods. Given the Bill’s current drafting, which relies heavily on future regulation, it is essential that the Government provide clear and firm guidance on how the provisions will operate in practice, especially for small businesses, which will find ambiguity challenging in difficult times.

Amendment 107A from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which proposes a default initial employment period but would allow the Secretary of State flexibility to amend that through regulation, offers a balanced concept that could be helpful in providing certainty while retaining adaptability. Likewise, Amendment 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which calls for a retention of the current qualifying period until suitable regulations are in place, reflects concerns about the smooth transition, and that deserves attention. However, I am less convinced by the calls for further impact assessments or reviews of the proposals in Amendments 103 and 123, which I believe risk delaying the necessary reforms without providing clarity.

In light of those amendments, I urge the Government to seize this opportunity to give definition and definite practical guidance on the provisions that the Bill will implement. It would be better if the Minister could say in absolute terms the length of time for which probationary periods will be set in future regulation after the passage of the Bill. That would be particularly important for smaller employers that need certainty to comply. Providing that clarity would help to ensure that the reform worked as intended, and it would help to strike the right balance between protecting employees’ rights and allowing employers the flexibility to manage probationary employments effectively. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lucas for their amendments and their thoughtful contributions in this group. It has been a most interesting debate. I will speak to my Amendments 103, 113 and 123.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it would be much better to get this right now rather than pursuing Amendment 103 in particular, which returns to the Government’s insufficient impact assessment. The assessment that has been produced states that this provision will have one of the highest impacts, yet, as we have mentioned before, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s analysis in this section a red rating. The RPC’s critique is not a matter of minor technicalities because it identifies serious deficiencies in the Government’s case for intervention in the options that they have considered and in the justification for the policy that they propose. The Government’s impact assessment admits that it lacks robust data on dismissal rates for employees with under two years’ service. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, there is no evidence for that. It proceeds regardless, however, with only superficial reference to “asymmetric information” and without any substantive analysis of any market failure.

The RPC highlights the impact assessment’s failure to consider how long-serving employees might view the equalisation of rights for new joiners—an issue of fairness and workplace cohesion that the Government have ignored. The impact assessment itself mentions that options such as reducing the qualifying period to 18 months or one year were considered and rejected without detailed assessment. No real exploration of probation periods was provided. That is not a balanced appraisal of possible alternatives; it is a justification for a predetermined decision.

On the justification of the preferred option, the impact assessment is again found lacking. The RPC calls for clarity on the costs to businesses—the costs of managing performance, handling disputes and the increased settlements to avoid tribunal risks. It also questions whether the Government have considered evidence from existing unfair dismissal claims and how risks might vary across sectors or job types, particularly in roles where reputational damage from a claim might deter employers from hiring at all.

More significantly, the Government have not addressed indirect and dynamic labour impacts, such as whether day-one rights might lead to more cautious hiring, greater use of temporary contracts or weaker overall job security. These are not abstract concerns as they go to the heart of how this policy might reshape employment relationships across the country. Noble Lords might be interested in a real example. I was talking this morning to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company. It is an exemplary employer in every way; for example, offering many day-one rights. But this year—partly as a result of the jobs tax but also in anticipation of the Bill—it has reduced its hiring by 84%. I repeat that for the record: 84%. This is not abstract or theoretical. This is real, this is now.

It is important to note that these likely labour market impacts are not accounted for in the £5 billion cost to businesses, so the real cost is likely to be significantly higher. The result is a policy with high ambition but little practical clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has just noted. How will unfair dismissal rights interact with a statutory probationary period? Will employers still have access to the same set of fair reasons for dismissal? Will there be a different threshold for acting reasonably during probation? Can probation be extended if needed? None of those questions has been clearly answered.

The noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us of the light-touch, nine-month proposal, but what does that mean in practice? My noble friend Lady Meyer asked that. At the same time, the Government’s own analysis predicts that granting day-one rights for unfair dismissal alone will result in a 15% increase in employment tribunal claims. Using the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that is an additional 750 claims per year, on top of the 50,000 backlog already waiting 18 months to two years. The noble Lord argued that this is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance, but it is not to the 750 business owners who are being dragged through courts. That is a substantial impact. It represents direct costs to businesses in terms of time, legal risk and, of course, the chilling effect on recruitment.

The tribunal system itself needs to be looked at. Without significant new investment it is hard to see how the system will cope with this 15% increase. The result could be longer delays, greater costs and justice deferred for all parties. In an earlier group we heard about a case that is going to take more than two years to come before a tribunal. Yet the Government intend to bring these changes into force in 2026. On what basis? There is nothing in the impact assessment that explains why 2026 has been chosen or how the system will be ready by then. Businesses will need time to revise contracts, restructure probation processes and train managers on the new rules. What assessment has been made of whether 2026 is realistic, with all those things in mind? What engagement has been carried out with employers, particularly SMEs, about what implementation will require?

It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to explain how the timeline was determined and whether it is genuinely achievable, given the lack of clarity in both the policy detail and the supporting evidence. We all agree that employees deserve fair treatment, particularly in the vulnerable early stages of employment, but employers must also have a reasonable opportunity to assess performance, capability and suitability without the immediate threat of litigation.

We have established that there is no evidence for any of this clause. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was arguing his point, he said that it is very difficult anyway for employees to take a case to an employment tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, as I just mentioned, said it is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance. If there is no evidence, it is too difficult and it is a statistical irrelevance, why are we bothering at all?

I want to raise a final point that others, particularly my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, have referred to. It is not just about the policy itself; it is a more troubling concern. The policy will create unintended incentives, but for whom? It is not just about employers scaling back hiring overall but about who they stop hiring. If we remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and provide no workable probationary mechanism, we tilt the hiring incentives away from risk-taking, as we have heard. It will, in effect, stop employers taking a punt.

Right now, a small business owner might be willing to take that chance on someone with no formal qualifications, or from a non-traditional background, or re-entering the workforce after a time away. That chance exists because the employer has a short window to assess their suitability—and vice versa, of course—before facing the full weight of employment litigation risk. If that safety net is removed and exposure begins from day one and the probationary period lacks clarity or legal protection, that same employer will think twice. They will play it safe.

Noble Lords opposite should pay attention to those of us who have employed people. It is a simple fact. Who is going to suffer? It is not the already advantaged candidate with a polished CV. It is the young person with gaps in education, the career switcher with no references, the working parent returning after years out of the labour market, or the person coming back to work after a long period of illness. Noble Lords opposite should reread the speech given by my noble friend Lord Elliott, with his experience of the Jobs Foundation. He explained this much more eloquently than I just have. Those are the people who benefit from flexibility and second chances and who may now find those doors quietly closed.

This goes to the heart of social mobility and genuine workplace diversity. I would like to ask the Government a rhetorical question: have they considered the incentives this policy creates? If they have not—both common-sense experience of real working life in the private sector and, indeed, the RPC suggest that they have not—we risk designing a policy that sounds progressive but, in practice, reduces opportunity for the very groups that we should be helping the most. We need a decent impact assessment, and my amendment would allow for it.

--- Later in debate ---

This Employment Rights Bill is an important update to employment law. Employees need employers to create jobs, so this Bill needs to find that difficult balance in protecting employees and giving them job security, protection of conditions and decent wages, while employers need to feel that, when things are not working perhaps for different reasons and circumstances, there is a fair and reasonable process to follow for both parties to either change or end a contract.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately away today, on NATO business I believe. Tomorrow, no doubt, he will pore over today’s Hansard. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, will be available then. I cannot unsee the picture of him in a four-poster bed with the trade union man climbing aboard, and will have to try to explain down the telephone to my noble friend Lord Fox, “It was quite humorous”. We will see what happens with that tomorrow.

My noble friend Lord Fox’s concerns include his Amendments 116 and 121, which offer much-needed clarity and balance to the protections around contract variations and unfair dismissals. The issue of predatory fire and rehire, as seen in the widely condemned P&O Ferries case highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is an unacceptable, serious and pressing concern that employment legislation rightly needs to address now. No worker should be threatened with dismissal simply to impose worse terms and conditions on that person.

My noble friend Lord Fox’s proposals to exclude routine non-detrimental contract changes from triggering automatic unfair dismissal protections, as in Amendment 116, and to safeguard reasonable flexibility clauses expressly agreed in contracts, as in Amendment 121, would help ensure that protection against abuse is balanced with the practical realities that employees face. His further clarification in Amendments 117 and 122—that dismissals linked to redundancy with offers of suitable alternative employment and the lawful use of fixed-term contracts should not be unfairly restricted—rightly recognise that not all contract variations are harmful and that employees must be able to operate flexibly and fairly.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would facilitate contractual changes for financial organisations or workforce-related reasons. Although the intention is understandable, it is crucial that the Government provide clear guidance to ensure fair protection for workers, particularly those in smaller businesses. The approach to seasonal and variable-hour workers also requires careful consideration to safeguard their rights. We will return to that in a later group.

These amendments collectively illustrate the careful line that the Government must tread. Although it is crucial to clamp down on unfair and predatory fire-and-rehire tactics, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendments, we must equally recognise the legitimate need for flexibility and contract review in a changing economic landscape. I commend my noble friend’s amendments for their clarity and fairness in this regard, and encourage the Government to consider how best to incorporate these protections. At the same time, I urge the Committee to approach other proposed changes—as in Amendments 115 and 115A, which seek to clarify reasonable adjustments and productivity improvements—with a measured and practical mindset, to support both workers’ rights and sustainable business operations. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. This Government are absolutely clear that the use of unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices must end. Employers should not be able to impose contract changes through threats of dismissal, except in the most limited and justified circumstances. We recognise that, at times, businesses may need to restructure to survive and protect jobs. The legislation accounts for such cases where there is genuinely no alternative and a business faces immediate financial difficulty. Fire and rehire may be used, but only following a proper good-faith process, grounded in open dialogue and mutual understanding.

Let me begin by addressing Amendments 113ZA, 113B and 118 from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, Amendment 115 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 116, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. These amendments aim to exclude certain types of contract variations from the clause, such as those relating to terms other than pay, benefits, hours or location, or to allow changes made for good or operational reasons. When a change in contract is essential and the employee will otherwise become redundant—for example, due to a move in location—or where the changes are necessary to reflect a change in the law, the employer will still be able to explain to the employee when proposing these changes. However, such changes should always be a result of meaningful consultation. Employers and employees must reach mutual agreement, allowing both sides to understand and assess the impact of the proposed changes. Open dialogue is key.

I turn to Amendment 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 115. These propose broadening the permitted use of “fire and rehire” to include changes that are reasonably necessary to improve workforce productivity. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay. We are supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward. Alongside this and a new industrial strategy, the Bill will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.

The Government do not support these amendments. We believe this practice should be allowed only where an employer faces no reasonable alternative and is under imminent financial threat. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned what happens if a company is facing insolvency. I am sure most noble Lords know that insolvency does not come straight away. There is a whole process, and it is during this that consultation should happen between the employer and employee. When it comes to the last resort, when until and unless something happens the company is going to go belly-up, there may be a practice of “fire and rehire”, but before that, there should be consultation along the way.

These amendments would significantly widen the exemption and make it necessary for employers to use “fire and rehire”. That is not our intention. While businesses can still agree changes to boost productivity, such changes must come through proper negotiation, not coercion, as I just mentioned.

I now turn to Amendment 119, also from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which proposes allowing “fire and rehire” if the changes are reasonable and supported by a majority of affected employees. This issue here is subjective. What is reasonable for one employee may be deeply unreasonable for another. Our goal is to protect individual rights. Clause 26 is designed to reduce the use of “fire and rehire” as a means to push through significant changes without individual consent.

I will address Amendments 117 and 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. They focus on whether dismissals for redundancy or the end of a fixed-term contract should be considered automatically unfair under Clause 26. The Government’s position is that, where a role is no longer viable under current terms, employers should follow due process, including meaningful consultation to seek agreement to vary contracts. If employees do not agree, and if the employer no longer requires the work to be done, redundancy may still be appropriate. In such cases, redundancy procedures must be followed, including consideration of alternative roles. Where the principal reason for a dismissal is redundancy, the dismissal will not be automatically unfair under Clause 26.

Now I turn to Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which concerns variation clauses in employment contracts. I wish to reassure the House that existing case law already governs the enforceability of such clauses. This clause applies only where there has been a dismissal, and so would not apply where a lawful variation clause has been lawfully exercised. Courts and tribunals will not uphold variation clauses if they are oppressive and exercised unreasonably. This amendment is therefore unnecessary as a legal protection already exists.

I now turn to Amendments 120A and 120B, which relate to the factors a tribunal should consider when assessing the fairness of a dismissal under the clause exemption. It is appropriate that tribunals should consider where the employer offered the employee something in exchange for agreed-to changes. Fair contract variation should be built on dialogue, not pressure. It is right that the Secretary of State should have the power to specify additional relevant factors for tribunals to consider in future. These regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny.

Finally, Amendment 113 from the noble Lord, Lucas, seeks to limit the clause to only substantial contract changes. We reject that. Even minor-seeming changes can have major consequences for individual employees. Individuals must be allowed to consider proposed changes without facing dismissal threats. That principle underpins the clause.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 129, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, ably articulated by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I also have some sympathy with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 133 from my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Deben. In doing so, I draw attention to my registered interests, in particular as a dairy and livestock farmer.

I am most grateful to my noble friends for their supportive comments for British farmers. I have asked in Written Questions and in debates whether the Government would commit to keeping detailed and timely data on the number of farmers and family business owners taking their own lives in the run-up to the introduction of the reduced inheritance tax reliefs, due in April next year. So far these requests have been denied or ignored. We know that a number already have taken that dreadful step—and, as the deadline approaches, the risk will only rise. It would appear to be callous in the extreme that the Government refuse to take responsibility for this tragic human cost of their Budget decisions. Will the Minister commit to keeping and publishing the data in a timely manner?

Farming has unique employment challenges, as others have already mentioned in this short debate—and as indeed the whole country is now aware, thanks to the popularity of “Clarkson’s Farm”. Arable crops and silage need to be harvested when the weather allows and when they are ready for harvest. This leads to high-pressure operations at short notice and often at anti-social hours. It is not unusual to see harvesters and wagons operating well into the night until the dew starts to form. If staff are not available to operate that equipment at the optimum time, it can lead to reduced yields, higher drying costs or even the failure to harvest a crop at all.

In the livestock and dairy sectors, staff are also required to be available to work flexibly. In livestock, this can mean being available for callout to inspect the health of animals, assist in lambing and calving, and recapture escaped animals. In dairy, cows need to be milked at regular intervals from one to three times a day, depending on the system being employed. If that regular schedule is not followed, animal health can be threatened and milk yields suffer.

In the fruit and vegetable growing industry, the fruit and vegetables need to be picked when ripe and when the market demands it. Contracts governing the supply of these goods to retailers and processors can be highly onerous and punitive when conditions are not met. It is essential for this industry that it can employ workers to meet these needs and contract terms.

Unfortunately, agricultural employers need to have staff who are committed to working flexibly, and access to staff who are willing to work when the work is available. The Bill makes it more difficult for employers to refuse employee submissions for flexible working requests. While these submissions can already be made from day one, employers can refuse them on the grounds of inability to fill the gap from reduced hours, or the detrimental impact on business performance or meeting customer demand. The higher bar set by the Bill is likely to make it harder to protect the business.

The Bill applies unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment versus the two years currently in law. We are yet to see the timetable to be proposed, creating significant uncertainty. I have first-hand experience of the damage that a new, unsatisfactory employee can do to a business, even without any malice, and being able to remove them at short notice when the poor performance is revealed is critical. In that case, due to the nature of dairy farming, it took over a year for the poor performance to come to light. The widespread industry reliance on casual workers is threatened by restrictions on zero- and low-hours contracts and the potential for those to obtain a right to guaranteed-hours contracts.

Paying fees for cancellation of shifts at short notice is also impractical in farming. While it is easy to see why the Government might want to penalise employers for potentially capricious and harmful decisions around shifts, the timing of work in farming is often not predictable. Therefore, it does not make sense to penalise farmers even more than they are already for changing weather.

The Bill is a massive threat to the viability of British farming. The extent of that threat will be known only when the Government have decided when employees’ probationary periods will end, when a casual employee gains permanent employment rights, and when notice has to be given of a shift cancellation. I ask the Minister why this work has not been done already and why are we debating a Bill when the extent of its negative impact is unknowable.

The English farming industry has been targeted by this Government, with dramatic reductions in delinked payments, the abrupt cancellation of SFI applications, the imposition of inheritance tax and the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant being the highlights. We now read in the papers that the spending review is likely to slash the farming budget, offering little hope that government support will improve. Farmers also now face greater competition from heavily subsidised overseas farmers with little or no environmental obligations. On top of that, as my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted, our arable farmers are struggling with low crop prices and extremely dry weather damaging yields.

Let us at least accept this modest amendment to the Bill to allow an open appraisal of the impact on the sector after a full annual cycle, when the terms of the Bill are fixed and in force, and ensure that the information is available to make changes that might prove necessary. This Government have claimed to be pro business and pro growth. Will they, at last, show some support to this business? I hope that the Minister will listen to this debate, depart from his brief and offer encouragement.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I rise with some trepidation to comment on the proposal of an impact assessment for farming businesses, as I am not a farmer and have never lived on a farm. But I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that there are lots of people who support the farmers and the culture, as well as the steadfastness of an industry that is so reliant on the weather. I do not think that any other industry has to try to run a business, make a living and make a small profit with the weather this country has—unfortunately, I cannot blame the weather on the Government, or on any Government. It is literally the force of nature.

In considering the implications of the Bill, it is important that we pay close attention to the needs and circumstances of the UK farming sector. Agricultural businesses operate within a complex and fragile environment, where changes to employment law, however well intentioned, can have disproportionate effects. Recent debates around the family farm tax further highlight concerns about the punitive financial pressures on farmers, underscoring the need for careful assessment of any new burdens placed on this sector. This amendment proposes a structured approach to understand the impact through a formal assessment within a defined timeframe. While views may differ on whether such a provision needs to be set out in primary legislation, the underlying concern is legitimate and should be supported. We should ensure that policy changes do not inadvertently place additional strain on a sector already facing considerable challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I thank Tim Leunig for drawing my attention to this proposal. The standard in the UK when a person has a job and contracts for a new one is that he or she has to serve a three-month notice period. In the United States, notice periods are typically two weeks. There is no legal requirement, but that is the convention and any longer is considered unreasonable. It is quite clear, looking at things in the round, that three months is not necessary to run a dynamic and effective economy—it is inefficient. Shifting the notice period down would be a contribution to productivity and a benefit to workers. Most people get a pay rise when they move jobs. Getting it 11 weeks earlier would mean a direct rise in the individual’s income, as well as a rise in GDP and tax revenues. It is of all-round economic benefit.

The most important effect is indirect. If notice periods are short, a dynamic company can scale up more quickly and easily than is currently possible. It can go out and bid for contracts knowing that it can get the staff in time to honour them. If an entrepreneur has a good idea, they can make it happen. If demand rises for one firm, it can respond more easily. Making it easier for dynamic firms to grow quickly is definitely an economic benefit.

Finally, knowing that employees can leave more quickly would give firms an incentive to think more carefully about them. If their leaving is a big nuisance, firms will want them to stay, and will therefore have an incentive to think more about pay rises, promotions, new training opportunities and other things that make the employee feel that his current job is worth having. In contrast, allowing firms to set long notice periods helps incumbents, particularly firms not seeking to grow and that do not want to respond to growth opportunities. That is not a productivity-enhancing strategy.

My amendment suggests a gentle way of seeking to change current practice in the UK—to incentivise a change without requiring anything. If the Government can see a better way of getting to the same outcome, I should be delighted to support them. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment raises questions about notice periods and how they are handled under employment contracts. I make no particular case for or against it, but it draws attention to a more pressing issue: the complexity introduced by this Bill around notice periods and contractual exits. For many employers, particularly those without specialist legal support, understanding and implementing these new requirements will not be straightforward.

I am appreciative that this amendment attempts to bring some clarity and firmer parameters to that part of the framework. Striking the right balance is crucial: while shorter notice periods can support quicker recruitment and flexibility, they may limit employers’ ability to ensure a smooth handover or maintain continuity in key roles. Any reform should therefore weigh the benefits of agility against operational realities.

If the Government want compliance, they must ensure that the legislation is not only sound in principle but clear in practice. That means providing details on how these provisions interact with existing arrangements and what precisely is expected of employers. A complex system with vague guidance helps no one. That is not the first time we have made that point to the Government tonight, and we will keep doing so.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his amendment and the gentle way in which he introduced what could be a very important move to simplify what the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, rightly reminded us is becoming a hugely complicated employment situation, with so many differing, complex and contradictory requirements.

It could be said—and is being said by a number of HR departments—that this is just the sort of Bill that will give an enormous boost to human resources as a profession. There are already queues of people lining up to join HR departments. My noble friend seeks a simple aim: to incentivise shorter notice periods and avoid situations where individuals are financially disadvantaged for moving jobs, especially when their employers insist on enforcing long notice terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I am sympathetic to the intentions behind this amendment. There are risks of exploitation, which the noble Baroness has just set out. Where I am somewhat more concerned and have more sympathy with the amendment debated earlier today is about how people continue to do these sorts of jobs and still do not get paid.

To give a real example, the Department for Work and Pensions runs a programme called SWAP. It is quite a short-term programme and it is not quite the same as a boot camp, principally run by the DfE. It is often for people perhaps wanting to go into a new sector or who are open to new experiences, so there is an element of training. However, a key part of the SWAP is that you work and try out. There is no guarantee that, at the end of that, you will get a job with that specific employer, but what really matters is that it will give you a sense of aptitude and of getting back into the workplace, while you continue to receive benefits.

Let us not pretend that receiving universal credit for a week is necessarily the same as being paid the equivalent of a national minimum wage. But my principal concern with this amendment is that, while wanting to avoid exploitation, it would unwittingly or unknowingly shut down these broader opportunities and programmes which the Government run to help get people back into the world of work. That is why it needs to be considered carefully by the Minister, but ultimately rejected.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I will speak briefly to this amendment, which proposes to prohibit unpaid trial shifts by ensuring that those who undertake such shifts are paid at least the national minimum wage. This issue echoes concerns raised in earlier debates on unpaid work experience.

The amendment seeks to clarify that shift trials, defined as work undertaken in the hope of securing a temporary or permanent position, should be fairly compensated. This would address that potential gap in existing legislation and offer clearer protection for workers, ensuring that their time and labour are respect and valued. Such clarity is important for both workers seeking fair treatment and employers, and in maintaining transparent and ethical recruitment practices.

At the same time, it is important to consider the practical implications for employers who may rely on trial shifts as part of their recruitment process. I therefore invite the Minister to consider carefully whether this amendment strikes the right balance between protecting workers’ rights from exploitation and allowing employers reasonable flexibility in assessing candidates.

I look forward to the Government’s view on the best way to achieve a proportionate and effective approach that serves the interests of all parties involved.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively brief group. I agree with my noble friend Lady Coffey. At first glance, the idea of banning unpaid trials seems fair, because no one wants to see people, especially young people, exploited under the guise of a try-out, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, pointed out when she was introducing the amendment.

However, we also need to be honest about the likely effect of the change, particularly for those very people it is trying to protect. In many sectors—in particular hospitality, retail and care—trial shifts are often the only realistic way for somebody without a formal CV to show that they can do the job. Trial shifts can therefore open doors for young people, school leavers and those coming back into work.

If we start requiring every short work trial to be paid at minimum wage then the reality is that many of them simply will not happen at all. Employers, especially small ones, may decide that they are just too risky or costly. The obvious result will be fewer opportunities and fewer chances for somebody to get in front of an employer to show what they can do. I worry that this amendment, although well intentioned, could have the opposite effect: closing off relatively informal routes into work for those who need them most. The measures in the Bill already create the wrong incentives, and we do not need any more of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I will again speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.

Amendment 141B is a no-brainer; I believe the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred to it as blindingly obvious. It would give workers the right to disconnect, which is already available to French workers; I am sure that many noble Lords have heard about that, since its introduction was seen to be world leading at the time. I am sure that many British workers expected to have exactly the same right as a result of this Bill, given the widely covered promises that the Labour Party made over recent years before it was in government.

I quote the Labour Party 2022 Green Paper on employment rights, as it is unequivocal on this issue. It says:

“Labour will bring in the ‘right to switch off’, so working from home does not become homes turning into 24/7 offices. Workers will have a new right to disconnect from work outside of working hours and not be contacted by their employer outside of working hours”.


That is very clear. By June 2024, the party had fleshed that out with an explanation in the document, Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay:

“The pandemic has led to a step change in flexible and remote working practices in many workplaces, which … inadvertently blurred the lines between work and home life”.


That is extremely worrying. The headline in that 2024 text is: “Right to switch off”.

Unfortunately, backtracking is already evident, but the promise to the electorate is more equivocal:

“We will follow similar models to those that are already in place in Ireland or Belgium, giving workers and employers the opportunity to have constructive conversations and work together on bespoke workplace policies or contractual terms that benefit both parties”.


However, the headline was: “Right to switch off”. I think most people would have read that and hoped for a more balanced and less harassed life.

The Green Party is always keen to help any Government. Here, we would like to help the Government live up to the promises they made to an exhausted and overstretched group of workers, who find themselves trapped with a boss who expects them to answer emails from the sideline of their child’s netball match or to take a client’s call when they are on holiday. The promise from the Government has been that they intend to introduce a statutory code of practice instead. That does not mean that such contact will be illegal or even prohibited, but if an employee can prove that they are routinely being contacted outside of their contracted hours then this can play a role in an employment tribunal payout. On the previous amendment, the Minister mentioned that it is possible to make complaints. Most people do not do that; it takes too long and they do not have the expertise to do it, and they may not even have the energy to do it—that is fair enough. Tribunal cases are possible but they are extraordinarily rare and extremely slow.

We have a health crisis in the UK—an overworked crisis—and a huge imbalance in the power relationships between employers and employees, as many other parts of the Bill point out. In the Green Party, we are always constructive. This amendment provides the Government with a chance to live up to their promise to the electorate to empower workers and to help them remain healthy and engaged in their family and community lives, not for ever distracted by having to check their phone. After all, the economy is there to serve people; it is not for people to serve the economy. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly clarify the situation. I have just checked with my party, and we are not in coalition with the Green Party, that is for sure. But the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, makes a valid point. It is valid because of the societal change post Covid, where the number of people working from home now is exponential to what it was before Covid.

I go back to my days as a British Gas engineer, when I had a bleeper and was on call. We would dread the bleeper beeping, but I was on emergency calls and so I had to go out and do it. That was then and this is now.

There are so many people who are working from home who cannot switch off—the emails and alerts come through on their mobile phones. There needs to be some recognition of that within the legislation. Clearly, some organisations may need to contact people, but that should be by an arrangement that is agreed and supported by both parties. We are almost in a cowboy society again, where an unscrupulous company director of a small business with a small number of people wants to get things done and the deal has got to be made tonight—at 10 pm or 11 pm, when children are in bed—and so the phone goes and you have got to do it. If you do not, you face the consequences. These employees are probably not unionised, so it is difficult for them to resist. It is a never-ending circle.

I would like the Government to understand the importance of considering the framework set out in this amendment to provide a fair and practical approach that looks after the worker but protects the legitimate needs of the employers. It comes back to this idea of reasonableness and proportionality—the thread that seems to run through all this legislation. If it is reasonable and proportional then by and large it is fairly acceptable, but you have always got the unscrupulous person on either side. I have seen employees on call who have not replied when they should have, and they have been disciplined. That is correct; if you have an agreement and are on call, but you do not do it, there is a price to be paid.

The pendulum swings very slowly one way but very fast the other, to all those people who are working from home now and have no protection from the unscrupulous employer who just wants results 24 hours a day. We live in a 24-hour society—there is no escape from it. It happens with Ministers, spokespeople and friends I know. I have to turn my phone off—sometimes at 9 pm I switch the thing off until the morning, and then I get messages asking why I did not answer it. My answer is, “Because it was quarter to one in the morning and I was fast asleep”. These messages are from friends and colleagues. If you put that in the context of a work environment, where it is about your livelihood, marriage and children, it comes more into focus. I want the Government to look at this and see that there must be a way that we can strike a balance between the needs of an employer and the rights of a worker.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

My Lords, what a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I support the amendments introduced by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I am assured by my noble friend Lord Leigh that he believes that Hansard will record that he referred throughout his speech to “the noble Lord, Lord Jackson”.

Employment is a precious coin. It is the many coins of employment that keep this economy going. When there are more coins, the economy grows, and this whole House is united in wanting that to happen. We are all on the same side on that. We want the economy to grow, certainly not to shrink. And, like any coin, it has two sides: the side of the employee and the side of the employer.

Sitting through the many days of this Committee, any poor, benighted individual who has been watching on Parliament TV might think that this Chamber contains two parallel universes, with two entirely incompatible ideas of what employment is about. On the one side they are hearing about greedy employers, grasping capital, and the need for trade unions to protect the poor employee. But what is this coin of employment? It is a place where an individual says, “I want work. I want to go to work and earn money for me, my family, and my future”, and where an employer says, “I want to provide work. I want to risk my endeavours and my capital, even my solvency since I might go bankrupt, in order to give you that employment”. And it is a fair bargain.

Most employers, particularly small employers, who start up a business and employ people are not thinking, “I’m going to exploit these poor workers”. The vast majority of workers are not the victims that we have heard described as the reason why this clause is necessary. The vast number of employees work harmoniously with their employer, and the vast number of employers work harmoniously with their employees. I imagine this poor person watching Parliament TV and possibly, if the camera cuts to the faces opposite, seeing the looks of doubt, irritation and disbelief when I say this. But I have been an employer on literally scores of businesses, large and small, and I know how it works. What the employer wants is to provide a good or a service and sell it at a slightly higher price than the cost of providing that good or service, so as to make a little profit and employ lots of people at the same time. That is what they want to do.

What they dread is law upon law that they have to spend all their time on and which bad actors can use to exploit them. We all know that in the human population it is said that 3% are what they call “dark triad” personalities—narcissistic, Machiavellian and sociopathic—who are very good at concealing their behaviour and coming across as caring individuals, by the way. They are found in the most caring societies, and on all sides of the Chamber. The employer dreads that individual joining their company and having a mechanism by which they can exploit the company and make money out of it, taking it to the employment tribunal or threatening it with that and getting paid off, not working hard or doing whatever.

We are saying here that some poor person who is going to hire, say, three, five or 10 employees is going to have to spend all their time understanding these laws, doing the things that the laws lay down and responding to employment tribunals when a bad actor comes into their company—as they do, from time to time, in every company—rather than doing what they are there to do, which is to provide great goods or services to their customers. That is what nearly all of them, employer and employee alike, want to do.

Barbara Castle, the great Labour politician, recognised the problems with trades unions and produced a paper called In Place of Strife. I suggest that the Bill—you can imagine the poor employer with three employees having to go through its 300 pages to figure out what they are going to have to do with it, even as it is passed —is creating strife in many places, and that even Barbara Castle might be turning in her grave when she sees how far this Government are prepared to go. I have sat here sometimes wondering whether the Government really believe the things they are saying.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to address the amendment. These sound like Second Reading speeches being redelivered and redelivered. When is the noble Lord going to address the actual amendment? This is just a tour de force around the 1970s and 1980s, with anecdotes from the Back Benches again. We are trying to do business.

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I hope I am forgiven for thinking he has not been listening to what I have been saying. As I understand it, this clause is about reducing the number of people down to more or less nothing who are necessary in a company in order for a bunch of trades union mechanisms to be created. The amendment would remove that and tries to push up the number of employees below which this clause would not take effect. That is all that I have been talking about and I am startled to believe that a noble Lord of such eminence apparently has not been listening. I could finish fairly soon, if not interrupted much more.

My concern is that we are all people of good will. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is rightly proud of the many good things that trades unions have done, but surely she cannot be unaware of how the people of Birmingham might feel about the striking dustmen or about how the people of this great capital feel about striking Underground workers and the commuter trains that so often muck up their daily life. She must be aware that, on another coin of trade unionism, there is the good and the bad. We have employment tribunals with two years of delay to even get to a tribunal, but clause after clause, including this one, threatens to increase the number of references to employment tribunals.

This clause is going to increase the awful number that we have just seen today of 150,000 job losses. In the parallel universe that we are in, can it possibly be that the Government Benches believe that that loss of 150,000 jobs has nothing to do with this plan, with their NIC changes, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, or with so many other changes that are detrimental to employment in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

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

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

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

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

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

[Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)]

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is not saying I was not here for the start of this debate. Of course, the Labour Government closed down more coal mines than Margaret Thatcher.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I did not imply that the noble Lord was not here—he was. He is assiduous in his attendance to this House and I enjoy 90% of what he says, much of which is quite amusing, but not much knowledge from it goes into my head.

I have one final point for the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for whom I have the highest regard. I thought she was an excellent Minister and makes excellent contributions. However, I have to gently remind her that I think she also made her contribution tonight a couple of nights ago, in response to my intervention about the reason behind the Bill. However, I enjoy the heart and soul that she puts into this. She is interrogating and pushing the Government, but I try to keep it to what we are trying to do here.

These provisions are intended to ensure that individuals are made aware of their right to join a trade union. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It is a fundamental element of workplace democracy. The amendments in this group raise important and valid questions about how that requirement should operate in practice, especially for smaller employers—and, yes, it may put a burden on them. For example, Amendments 205 and 207 examine whether it is appropriate for those duties to apply universally, or whether the threshold should be considered to avoid placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses.

I am somewhat concerned about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remove the provisions from the Bill entirely. It risks sending the wrong signal about the importance of transparency around trade union rights. Although it is, of course, necessary to ensure that new obligations are proportionate and clearly drafted, deleting the entire clause at this stage could be seen as an overly blunt response. It would be preferable for the Government to engage with all the points raised tonight in these amendments and explore whether a more targeted approach could be achieved, with a fairer workable outcome that upholds workers’ rights without creating undue complexities for employers.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am sure the noble Lord opposite would agree that those workers who joined a union and wanted to have a union voice at work to improve their pay and conditions deserve respect, too, and that union-busting techniques and approaches to avoid even meeting unions to come to an agreement is, frankly, unacceptable in a modern, civilised society.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief. This group of probing amendments relates to new provisions in the Bill concerning trade union access to the workplace. Amendments 208A, 209A, 210 and 210A would narrow the definition of access by removing or limiting references to communication with workers, including through digital channels. These changes would raise questions about how access is intended to operate in practice, particularly in light of evolving workplace models. It would be most helpful to hear from the Minister how these changes are expected to support the overall objectives of the Bill and whether they risk narrowing the scope of access in ways that may affect its effectiveness.

Amendments 209, 211 and 213 in this group would also address the application of provisions to small and medium-sized enterprises. Others, including Amendments 213AA and 213B, introduce specific considerations for sectors including healthcare—all very laudable and quite reasonable—or for the timing and method of access for those applications. These amendments appear to probe the balance between ensuring orderly access and managing operational pressures. Could the Minister clarify how the framework, as currently drafted, is expected to work in different types of workplaces as I have alluded to, and how it ensures that both the employers’ and employees’ work interests are taken into account?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendments 208A, 209, 209A, 210, 210A, 211, 212, 213, 213A, 213B and 214.

Before we get into the detail, I will frame my remarks by pointing out that we have heard previously in this debate in quite heated tones a discussion of the role of trade unions in our society. From our perspective as a Government, and from my perspective—for what it is worth, I have been a member of a trade union all my working life—progressive legislation and reform, which we on this side have always tried to pursue through working with the trade union movement, have done much to improve not just the world of work and the rights of workers but the economy as a whole. We are proud of this progress and history. This Bill represents a further stride towards a successful, mature framework for employment relations in this country.

It is important when we talk about striking the balance between employers, unions and workers—in particular, between employers and workers—that we do not equate the two as having equality in terms of power dynamics. That is often missed from this debate. Many employees, whether they work in Amazon’s warehouses, an SME or a microbusiness, do not necessarily feel that they have the same equality of relationship with their employer as their employer has with them. That may be natural, but one of the roles of a trade union or employee representative is to level that playing field. It is always important when discussing trade union rights to bear that in mind.

In Amendments 209, 211 and 213, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are seeking to exempt smaller businesses from Clause 56. The right of access is a key part of our wider commitment to strengthening workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership, participation and dialogue. My noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway ably illustrated why, in some cases, trade unions do not need any improvements to access because they have a perfectly good and amicable working relationship. It is worth noting that in roughly 30% of the cases referred to the CAC the applications have been withdrawn because there has been a voluntary agreement, and that is a very good thing to see. However, there are cases where there is not that level of co-operation and access, which is why the Government are legislating to provide it.

We have heard in debates on previous groups that noble Lords on the Benches opposite think that trade unions are a good thing and have a role in the workplace. I absolutely take them at face value on that. To have that role in the workplace, they need to have access to workers. We cannot be starry-eyed about this; not all employers behave as responsibly and open-mindedly as we all believe they should in creating access for employees to their representatives. That is why we are discussing these bits of the Bill tonight.

The policy we have developed has been designed to be fair, consistent and workable for all employers. We will consult on specific details of the framework before they are set out in secondary legislation, including with the CAC, and we encourage businesses and unions to share their views. I understand the points around legal ambiguity raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, but, in the previous group, we discussed the levels of granularity and specificity in a particular statement that it is proposed that employers should give to employees about their rights to join a trade union. I posit that, if we had had the level of detail that the noble Lord suggested, we would have had a similar level of discontent from Members opposite. That is of course their right, but I make the point gently that you cannot have it both ways.

I turn now to Amendments 212 and 213B. Amendment 212 would require that trade unions provide a request for access to a workplace in writing, and with more than 24 hours’ notice from the requested date and time that access would happen. Amendment 213B would introduce two additional factors for the CAC to consider when making a determination on whether access should occur: first, the method, frequency and timing of the access requested, and, secondly, whether the purpose of access could be reasonably met without physical entry into the workplace. The Secretary of State will, by regulations, be able to set the time period in which an employer is required to respond to a request for access from a trade union, as well as the form that the trade union’s request must take and the manner in which it is provided to the employer.

I will respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, around the difference between this sort of trade union activity and organising for industrial action. As far as I am concerned, it is pretty obvious that this is about organising for recognition, where the legal conditions can be met, and indeed organising for recruitment and awareness for other very reasonable trade union activities, such as promoting health and safety at work, which we all agree is important and worthwhile.

The Secretary of State will also be able to set, through regulations, the circumstances the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made, and we will invite all interested parties to provide us with their views on these matters when we launch our consultation. To pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he may find that 24 hours after the consultation is deemed to be just right, or indeed too short a period. That is the reason for this consultation, rather than just prescribing everything at this point in time. If we had prescribed it in the Bill, and it was less than 24 hours, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would not be at all happy.

Amendment 214 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The proposals in this amendment would make declarations by the CAC under new Section 70ZI(5) enforceable, as if made by the High Court, opening a greater possibility of an employer being found to be in contempt of court. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that new Sections 70ZH and 70ZK, which were introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, already provide for a strong remedy against employers who do not respect these new rights of access, mainly in the form of CAC orders but ultimately backed by serious financial penalties when necessary. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said, these need to be serious financial penalties and they need to have heft. The new sections that were tabled on Report in the other place say that penalties can be linked to various metrics, such as annual turnover or, indeed, the number of workers employed in the liable entity. In the case of large companies, that would make a very serious penalty indeed. We do not want them to be fined; we want them to grant the access to trade unions and trade union representatives that their employees deserve. In our view, the available remedies are already powerful and proportionate. The Government do not consider it necessary to go beyond these.

Lastly, I turn to Amendments 210, 208A, 209A, 210A and 213A. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, are seeking in Amendments 210 and Amendments 208A to 213A to exempt digital forms of communication from the right of access policy. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that can be found in new Sections 70ZA(4)(a) and (b) in the Bill as it left the other place. This clause was designed for the modern workplace and with various working practices in mind. It is important that this clause provides for a digital right of access to ensure that unions can reach workers who may not work in a physical workplace, such as home workers or those who work in a hybrid manner. In my opinion, if I may be so bold, the noble Lord, Leigh of Hurley, answered his own point. As he acknowledged, in some businesses, it is not as simple—

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

If unions are to be relevant in the 21st century, they must learn engagement—and they have to learn it, not demand it. This amendment ensures that engagement remains a choice. That is what real solidarity looks like: freedom to act and freedom to opt out. I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to support this amendment, not to weaken unions but to protect workers, because, after all, that is what employment rights are. So I urge the Committee to adopt this amendment to put the rights of the ordinary worker before and ahead of the machinery of union politics. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 215 and 332, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Amendment 215 proposes a new clause to grant trade union members a statutory “right to switch off”; that is, to disengage from contact initiated by trade union representatives.

It raises the wider question of work/life balance and members’ autonomy. That is not a bad thing to raise and probe in this amendment. However, the caricature by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of a typical union member is a little fanciful. When I was a shop steward, I certainly would not be ringing up union members at 8 o’clock when England were playing football against somebody. I would have got very short shrift and probably would not have been the shop steward the following week. That is the power of trade unions: they can remove and add shop stewards on a whim.

We just need to be a little bit grown-up about the modern trade unionist. We are living in a different age now. It would be wrong for me to say that communication does not happen, but it is now via text, X and WhatsApp, and that is completely acceptable. Where the line is drawn is around giving people a statutory right to switch off, or not. I think it is down to individual members to decide whether they want to be able to be contacted. It should be for the members themselves to decide that, rather than there having to be some statutory right. It is not for me to pass judgment on the desirability or otherwise of it, but I would be interested to understand the rationale and the evidence underpinning the need for such measures.

Amendment 332 is more technical in nature, providing for the commencement of these provisions a year after the Act receives Royal Assent. This delayed implementation may allow for guidance to be prepared or for institutions to adapt. With that in mind, I would like to hear the Minister’s response to both these things—bearing in mind that, at the end of the day, trade unions exist because of their members; if members do not like a trade union, they can leave a trade union. That point has not been brought up anywhere in this House by anybody. You are free and able to join a trade union. You are also free and able to leave a trade union.

I know that, in 1973 and 1974, people did leave the GMB union over some policies that the union had. It was not an impossible thing to do. They were still treated fairly; they were given full consultation and assistance. It was for us to persuade them to come back into the union, which nine times out of 10 they did. It is not always a one-way street. I would hope that the Conservatives understand that unions are controlled by members.

We have annual congresses. One of the greatest things we used to do as the Lancashire region was to overturn the executive once a year in conferences; to us, that was the object of conference. It did not go down well with John Edmonds and the senior management team. I would stand there berating them for the poor pay of gas workers and objecting to a 2% pay rise, and I would get full support. Then I would have to go and see Mr Edmonds. The words he once said to me were, “You control the union for one week and we control it for the other 51 weeks, so I will let you have this week, David. Now leave”. I have deleted and added words there to avoid using any language that would be unfit for this House.

Again, it is a balancing act. I do hope that the Minister will address it in that manner and not just ignore amendments that come in from the Benches opposite. There is something behind the amendments. They are probing amendments and we are just trying to get the flavour of where the Government sit on membership and the unions, with regard to consultation. We spent a few hours—a lot of hours—the other night talking about union rights and members’ rights. I think this issue just touches on the end of that. I can see why it was not raised in that group, but it is still something that needs explaining a bit more clearly.

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

My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his very entertaining contribution, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for speaking to Amendments 215 and 332 in his name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

The proposed new clauses would create a right in primary legislation for trade union members to switch off from contact from trade union representatives. As far as I am aware, there is not any demand to introduce such a requirement on trade unions. I have not heard this from my colleagues, or from trade union members, or from any worker, or indeed from any employer or employer organisation that I have spoken to lately.

It is difficult to see what benefit or purpose such an obligation inserted into membership contracts might serve. Currently, there is no obligation for a trade union member to reply to communications from their trade union, as was ably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. There is nothing stopping a member ignoring them or telling them to **** off.

This Government are committed to the well-being and positive work-life balance of all workers. The Employment Rights Bill is proof of this commitment, with relevant measures including making flexible working the default except where not reasonably feasible. This will help employees and employers to agree solutions which work for both parties.

I say politely to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I reject his allegation of trade union influence and power interfering with people’s lives. As it stands, every member can ignore the messages and communications —whoever has approached them—outside work. There is no evidence that this is currently happening. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to reflect on that and to be careful with some of the pretty harsh words he has said. I invite him to withdraw his Amendment 215.

--- Later in debate ---

The existing arrangements are generous to the unions, which represent only one-fifth of the UK’s total workforce—a mere 6.4 million of 33.49 million workers. We should remember that, and the imbalance that exists between organised, unionised labour, who call the shots, and the small man and woman in the workforce: the millions of others. We should not take a step that excludes some of those small people from having a say and participating in a ballot if they happen to have joined the workforce after the application date. That is why I am supporting these amendments.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments standing in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. These proposals, while numerous and largely technical in nature, form an important part of the broader framework for trade union recognition and access. Although they are technical in nature, if you read the amendments—and there are quite a number of them—you will see that the Government are beginning to put a bit of meat on quite a small bone. This is the first time in the Bill that we have seen that kind of thing begin to be teased out. Notably, government Amendments 215A and 215F set out clear procedural timelines and information-sharing requirements between employers and the Central Arbitration Committee to help improve transparency and predictability for all parties involved. By establishing firmer timelines, such as a five-day window to provide workforce data and the 20-day period to agree access arrangements, these provisions aim to support a more orderly and informed recognition process, which I welcome.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I acknowledge the intention to reflect the workforce changes more accurately, but in our view, some of his proposals risk creating a little uncertainty. Amendments 215AZZB and 215AZZC, for instance, introduce provisions to include new and hired workers in the ballot, potentially undermining the principle that eligibility should be based on the state of the bargaining unit at the time of the application. It is like buying a lottery ticket after the lottery has finished, and then complaining if your numbers come up and you are not allowed to win—you literally have to be in it before it starts.

Similarly, the carve-outs from the three-year stability periods found in Amendments 216FA and 216FB could weaken the clarity and consistency that employers and trade unions require. We must be cautious about layering too many exceptions that could reopen settling matters and prolong disputes unnecessarily.

Finally, while the Government’s overall aim of modernising these areas of law is welcome, it remains vital that clarity and simplicity are not lost in that process. We need to ensure that the frameworks, particularly around recognition, access and enforcement, remain workable and intelligible for employers and workers alike. This is important in sectors characterised by high turnover and volatility. I therefore urge Ministers to consider refining these proposals with that principle in mind: that the system must support effective and fair collective bargaining without inviting further ambiguity.

These amendments are well laid and extremely well made. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their clarity tonight in dealing with the issues. To everybody who has been sitting here for seven or eight long nights, I must say that business is not moving any more slowly, but clarity is much improved. I thank the Front Bench and the Conservative group for being more concise in speaking to the issues; I have appreciated that, and I know my group have too. I think the Minister might agree—through slightly gritted teeth—that this is the way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the amendments seeking greater transparency for trade union members on where their money goes.

I support the retention of the status quo—so that people have to opt in—and maintaining the changes we saw made in 2016. I do so because these are moderate amendments. They do not attack the existence of the status quo or the political fund, which is, as is often announced on the websites of the unions, a campaigning fund. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, that it is made clear by UNISON and Unite to new members, when joining, what their fees are for. Certainly, it is clear to the public that some members are affiliated to the Labour Party, and some of the funds of political campaigning will indeed go to the Labour Party. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said that 13 were affiliated; I had the figure of 11 in my head, but that is only a small difference.

None of that is under attack; that is a subject for another debate. I would like to stress to your Lordships why I support the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This area has been very contentious for a century, and every single attempt to reach a settlement has involved compromise. Although one may think that the opting-in arrangement of the 1927 Act was against the interests of the trade unions, one has to remember that that was in the wake of the General Strike of 1926 and that the Conservative Party, which was the party of government, would not follow the inclination of many of its Back-Benchers—and, I think, one of its Front-Benchers, but I will not say whom —to get rid of the political fund. The Prime Minister of the day said, “We will not fire the first shot”.

That was an attempt to find a compromise, so that the trade unions could keep their political fund, continue to contribute to the Labour Party—which was a founder party and recognised as such by the Conservatives—and continue to campaign on the issues they judged important for their members. I agree that they have done great work, through their membership fees, on pensions and so on. Much of the settlement on the national insurance system not only drew on trade union knowledge and experience in practice but used their funds to nationalise —which I think was a less good idea.

We should have a spirit of compromise and reflect the compromise that was made in 2016. If we go down the route that the Government propose, I hope that the party on my side will again seek to bring in a compromise, because the laws of this Parliament should be made in the interest of transparency for all those affected by them. That goes for trade unionists in the workplace, who should have to opt in to a scheme in the interest of transparency. I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be extremely brief, as the dinner hour is upon us and there are—as we say—strangers in the House.

While I recognise the importance of transparency to inform members’ choice regarding funds, this group of amendments raises serious questions about proportionality. Amendments 216YC and 216YD would introduce notably higher thresholds for political resolutions, requiring support from a majority of all eligible members, rather than just those voting, and mandating new resolutions every five years. These are significant changes from the current practice. Likewise, Amendments 221 and 223—expertly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Burns—seek to reduce opt-out notices from 10 years to one or two.

While the intention behind these proposals is clear, the impact warrants careful consideration. Other issues have been slightly sidetracked. There are fundamental issues that I would like the Minister to address head-on. These issues are at the nub of trade unions and political funds, so we need some clarity on them from the Dispatch Box.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, what an important debate this has been. I think 14 noble Lords have participated, starting with my noble friend Lady Coffey. She dealt with Clause 58 in particular, whereas most of the rest of the debate has been around Clause 59.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. His speech dominated the debate, as he set out so clearly the history of what he described as the 2016 compromise—which in fact it was—that Clause 59 now seeks to overturn. I accept the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, about the importance of campaigning and seeing full participation in that area. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Finn for coming specially on her birthday to remind us all of the role she played on the Burns committee. Despite interruptions, she got across a series of key points about that compromise. Those who were interrupting her did not seem to realise that shareholders have to approve any political donations made by companies—but never mind.

I move on quickly to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Cash, who had a fascinating exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, speaking now as a practising lawyer, that my noble friend Lady Cash is right: if money is taken for any period without knowledge or consent, freedom of association has been removed—it does not matter whether it is for a week, a month or a decade. In a way, though, that was a side issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Monks, then took us way back in time. We all always benefit from the noble Lord, Lord Monks. I still have the guilty feeling that I caused a cartoon to be shown in the Guardian showing him getting into bed with me, in which his was the face on a huge cart horse. I was Secretary of State for Employment, and I was being accused by the Guardian of being too nice to the trade union movement by getting into bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks—but we are not in the same bed tonight.

We heard from my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who really put the record straight and elevated the sort of smears that were thrown—usually from a sedentary position—from the party opposite in that context. My noble friends Lord Leigh and Lady Lawlor did the same. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for really trying to encapsulate what has been a very complicated and detailed debate.

Let us be clear on one thing—and it is up to the Minister to respond to all the very valid points that have been raised: Clause 59 says that workers will be presumed to consent to union political contributions unless they actively opt out. This is a fundamental shift. It reverses the presumption of consent in a way that would never be tolerated were it an employer imposing such terms on a worker. Where, then, is the Government’s concern for free choice, transparency and the dignity of the individual to act without coercion? Surely, if we are to be consistent in protecting worker autonomy, we must apply the same standards to trade unions as we do to employers. Anything less is not principle; it is partisanship.

The Bill includes provisions that would require employers to provide workers with written statements outlining their trade union rights on day one of employment and at other points that the Government see fit. But until Amendment 218 comes along, that principle appears to vanish entirely so far as political fund contributions are concerned. A worker can be enrolled into a union and begin contributing to political causes, most often aligned with one single political party, without ever being clearly and directly told what that money supports or how to stop contributing. I believe that to be a serious democratic deficit.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 10th June 2025 Lords Chamber

In such a politically toxic atmosphere, when the trade unions seem as much of a hindrance as a help in relation to equality at work, I am simply probing why the Government would use this legislation to push facility time, and place a lot of detail on facility time, specifically for equality reps. I say that that would lead to disastrous outcomes.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which have been tabled in good faith and with good intent, aim to clarify employees’ rights for reasonable time off and to maintain a balance of obligation between employers and employees. However, this tempting repeated emphasis on balance and responsibilities risks adding unnecessary complexities to what should be a straightforward provision. The focus on sustainable assessments closely tied to individual circumstances, while well-intentioned, may create complicated decision-making for both the employer and employees, rather than finding the guidance we are looking for.

I am not a clairvoyant; I am summing up from the notes I have in front of me. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talk about linking facility time for equality representatives with statutory performance targets in the public sector—that is what the time off is for—to introduce additional conditions aimed at ensuring accountability. The proposal for a sectoral cost assessment before these changes take effect offers a measured way of evaluating their impact. It will be important to monitor how these conditions interact with the support available to employees’ representatives to maintain an efficient and effective balance.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to these amendments. I will not comment on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, tonight. I will leave that for the Minister to deal with.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, for their amendments and contributions to today’s debate.

I speak to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, where we seek to make the provision of facility time for equality representatives conditional on public sector employers meeting their statutory performance standards. I believe such amendments are not merely sensible but essential if we are to ensure that public resources are allocated responsibly and with accountability.

It is no secret—we hear it constantly—that politicians and civil servants routinely claim that they want to protect taxpayers’ money, yet too often the rhetoric is hollow and budgets expand unchecked. One glaring example is the unchecked proliferation of equality, diversity and inclusion, or EDI, roles in the public sector. For those unfamiliar, EDI is a branch of human resources. There are now some 10,000 EDI officers employed across public sector organisations. There has been a veritable explosion of spending that has occurred with minimal scrutiny or measurable outcomes.

Against this backdrop, it is right and proper to demand that facility time—a significant use of public resources—should be granted only to employers who are delivering on their statutory performance targets. Our amendments would introduce a performance condition that requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a public sector organisation is meeting relevant standards before facility time can be allocated.

I believe this to be a vital safeguard that Clause 62 as currently drafted just fails to provide. Clause 62 in its current form risks allowing facility time to be given indiscriminately, without regard for whether the employer is fulfilling its primary obligations to service users and taxpayers. That is a pretty laissez-faire approach, which I believe is unacceptable in an era of tightening budgets and growing demand for public services—no doubt we will hear much more of this from the Chancellor of the Exchequer tomorrow morning. Without this condition, facility time risks becoming yet another unchecked entitlement, further diverting scarce resources away from front-line delivery.

We must be clear, however, that supporting and moving these amendments does not mean opposing equality representatives themselves or the very important functions they perform. Rather, it just means insisting that public funds should be spent prudently, and that facility time should be tied to organisational performance. If a public sector body is failing to meet statutory targets, I believe it is irresponsible to allow additional resource commitments without first addressing those failures. Moreover, our proposed new clause would require a sector-by-sector cost assessment of facility time, introducing much-needed transparency and evidence-based policy-making. Before expanding facility time or making it more widely available, Parliament must understand its real financial impact and weigh it carefully against the public benefits.

We urge all noble Lords to refuse to accept Clause 62 in its current form but to embrace these amendments, and then we will have a crucial performance condition. In that way, we will ensure that facility time is provided responsibly, with accountability, and only when public sector employers are meeting their statutory obligations.

However, I commend my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough on introducing what I felt were very reasonable amendments. Of course, he is drawing on extensive experience serving on council business and the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority, on which he served with such distinction, so I hope the Minister will accept those amendments.

I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, that I was appalled by the stories she gave, showing the experience of Nurse Jennifer and Nurse Peggie. They are shocking stories, and how right she was to bring them to the attention of the Committee. There is a great worry that somewhere, deeply embedded in the system, is systemic sexism. I suppose I am looking back—it is far too long ago—to when I was, and I think I probably still am, the only man to have been appointed Minister for Women in the Cabinet. I have to say that the experience I had in that position warned me of the impending problems about which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, spoke so passionately and so clearly.

We really have to get something right. In many ways, I know that the Bill has been put together with great haste, but Clause 62 in particular at least requires amendment, or perhaps another clause more carefully thought through should be presented to the House on Report. That is why we look forward to hearing from the Minister. We are talking about not just good governance but a necessary step to protect both taxpayers and front-line public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want briefly to commend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for putting this amendment forward. I have a lot of sympathy with it. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has explained some of my reasons for supporting it.

I just wanted to note that it is very tempting when rights are being taken away to want to consolidate them via the law and constitutionally. I felt it myself in relation to civil liberties, which I think are under attack: the right to protest and in particular free speech. I keep wishing there was a First Amendment, because then it would be there and they would not be able to attack it.

However—this a good faith question—when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, justify it in relation to international treaties, ECHR, the Council of Europe and so on, I started to worry that maybe this would become one of those treaties where it would be, “You can’t touch this” and you would end up treating it technocratically, as it were. Rather than it being fighting for the right to strike, it would be fighting for the principle of the right to strike with ordinary workers, rather than simply referring to defending it in the law. So can the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, even though he does not stand a chance of getting it through, reassure me that this is not just an attempt at ring-fencing a right, but then neglecting to fight for it in real life? I commend him and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this, because I really do feel that rights need to be protected under this Government as much as any other, I have to say.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Woodley, are I think as people have outlined. I have been on the wrong end of that legislation on a number of events—official strikes, unofficial strikes and secondary picketing. As a shop steward you are responsible for taking those actions for a company; there are consequences and I have suffered consequences from that.

It is not that I agree with the rights being taken away, but I think times have changed and unions have moved on now. The right of anybody to remove their labour, if they are pushed to it, should be a universal right, but it should be used very sparingly and in very special circumstances. It is all very well rushing to legislation and quoting the European Court, but we live in the real world and when things happen to people at work and people are treated badly, sometimes we have not got time to go and contact the KC and get case law. We just do the things that we used to do and take that action straight away. Sometimes that resolves the matter fairly quickly, because a reasonable employer will see the action you have taken as a direct result of another manager doing something that was not in agreement. So I get the thrust of this.

I have had notes typed and I have been writing my own notes, but I think the top and bottom for me is the amendment is seeking to restore a trade union’s flexibility in choosing which members to ballot and removing some procedural requirements and obligations to notify employees in advance of ballots. I think that time has gone as well.

Reinstating rights for prison officers, the group currently subject to significant legal limitations, is one I would like to slightly explore. The intent behind these amendments is to strengthen trade union rights and promote collective bargaining. The concern is potentially around impact, industrial relations and public safety, especially with the actions of prison officers. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and to the Government that the way to protect prison officers is not to enshrine the right to strike but to remove the reasons why they would want to strike. That really is about improving the Victorian conditions that we have in 2025 prison systems, where people go into prison and come out worse criminals or nine out of 10 as drug addicts or whatever.

Governments, instead of trying to give extra law for prison officers, should be looking at the root cause. I know there is a prison plan being built and we are trying to get more education into prisons—if you want to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, he can give you chapter and verse on that, as I have listened to him doing. I hear why it is being done, I understand why it is being done and I know that it is not got a hope in somewhere else of getting through. But I thank the noble Lord for bringing it forward, because sometimes it is good to realise that things that we used to do are perhaps today not even politically correct to do. Human rights and the rights of people who go every day to work, to earn a living and support their family, need airing and need protecting. I know this is a probing amendment, but I thank the noble Lord for bringing it because it is interesting. Now and again it is good to be reminded of how it used to be and how it can be now.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I join the general thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I thought it was a most interesting introduction and I learned a great deal. I particularly liked the phrase “constitutional benediction”, which I am planning to nick—although not in this context, because I rise to join the Minister and express my clear and firm opposition to the proposed new clause after Clause 64. It seeks to enshrine in statute a so-called positive right to strike even in breach of contract, as opposed—if I follow the noble Lord’s arguments correctly—to the freedom to strike. It strikes me as somewhat semantic in terms of the practical outcome, which I suspect is an argument we will hear again.

Let us be absolutely frank about what the amendment would entail. It would insert into the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 a wholly unprecedented and therefore dangerously broad provision that every worker shall have the right to take industrial action, whether or not it is in breach of any contract. It would not be subject to employer agreement or tethered to lawful procedures but would be an absolute statutory right to break contract terms and withdraw labour.

Industrial action, particularly strike action, is obviously a serious matter, and I think everybody would agree on that. It affects not only the employer but the public, the economy and, critically, the most vulnerable in society, who rely on public services. That is why we believe our existing legal framework strikes a careful balance. It protects the right to strike but does so within clear procedures and obligations: balloting requirements, notice periods and protections against unlawful disruption. This amendment would ride roughshod over all that.

What does it mean to have a right to breach your contract, regardless of process or proportionality? Surely, that is not a right; that is just carte blanche. This provision would displace the carefully constructed framework that governs how industrial action can be taken lawfully and responsibly. It would empower disruption without accountability. The purpose of employment law is not to tilt the playing field in one direction or another but to ensure that fairness, order and mutual obligations between employers and workers are respected. The right to withdraw labour must remain conditional on lawful procedures and not granted in the abstract, regardless of impact or legality.

Moreover, the proposed amendment would likely bring the UK into direct conflict with established contract law and create endless legal uncertainty. If workers are told that they have a statutory right to strike, even in breach of a contract, what does that mean for essential services, public safety, or the ability of schools, hospitals and transport systems to function with any consistency?

I do not think we should be mistaken. This amendment is not some minor clarification; it is a fundamental rewrite of the basis of workplace relations. It would undermine the principle that contracts entered into freely carry obligations and it would sweep away the balance between rights and responsibilities. I also have to ask: once a principle of contract breaking is established, how long before that is used as precedent in other contractual disputes?

Nobody denies that workers must be able to organise, speak up, bargain collectively and act where necessary. That is already protected in the legal framework. This amendment would take a sledgehammer to that balance. It would replace legal clarity, we believe, with legal radicalism, and accountability with absolutism. For those reasons, I urge the Government to reject the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Goddard of Stockport]

244: Clause 65, page 95, line 12, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment would reinstate the 50% threshold requirement for industrial action to be voted on by a trade union and seeks to understand whether the Government perceives a risk to the democratic integrity of trade union ballots for industrial action as a result of the provisions to remove the 50% requirement.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, an interesting night has been had by all. More ammunition has been thrown into the laps of these Benches than on any other night of the entire debate. Of course, that is called an unintended consequence—never mind. I rise to speak to the important group of amendments that address the key aspects of the industrial ballot process. I wish to highlight my own probing Amendments 244 and 246, which focus on maintaining a robust democratic mandate for industrial action and ensuring clarity around the ballot’s effective period. I thank the Ministers for making time to meet me last week to understand the rationale behind these probing amendments, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for signing my amendments—she is my new best friend for at least the next 45 minutes.

Amendment 244 is a probing amendment that aims to reinstate the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots, questioning whether removing this requirement could weaken their democratic legitimacy. In the process, that could have significant consequences for workers, employers and the public. It is clear that the ballots genuinely reflect the clear will of the membership. That would seem obvious to me. We have spoken tonight about courts from all over Europe and the world, but there is another court: the court of public opinion. When you hear of people having strike ballots with percentage turnouts in the low 20s or 30s, you really must question the legitimacy of the argument for the ballot if you cannot at least get 50% of the workforce to take part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply and thank other speakers who have spoken in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, talked about balance, in airlines and other industries. Balance runs through the conversation on this group of amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, is always good value. He throws all these numbers at us and gets very agitated, but he wants the balance to be right between the trade unions and not to swing the wrong way to the other side, and he gave us the history of what happens when that happens. I understand what he is saying and I thank him for his contribution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, almost used me as a Trojan horse, but I accept that, because her intervention was exactly on pitch. She speaks about clarity, honesty and the NHS. Again, there are many instances in this group that touch all parts of the country, from aviation to the NHS and back again.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made his position very clear. He wants transparency and responsibility, and he really wants to know where the reasonableness is in the Government’s reluctance to accept these amendments.

Today could be a watershed, because the debates we have been having as Report looms could be where some of these battle lines will be drawn. These are fundamentals. It is fundamentally not right that 50% to call for a ballot is unreasonable. All I am asking is for the Government to take back the comments we have made tonight and, when we return on Report, show some cognisance and understanding that these are not just anti-union amendments. We support the unions, but they have to be seen to be democratic and accountable to the wider public. I hope that they take my comments and criticism in the way they are offered: to help to make a better Bill that is more acceptable to everybody.

I will read the Minister’s comments in Hansard, because he went through at a canter. I was a bit concerned when he talked about balloting being a positive modern experience. I have always found it to be the opposite: it is soul destroying to vote for industrial action.

With the benefit of the doubt, this party will listen and hope that the Minister has taken on board some of our positive criticism tonight before we come back with this set of amendments. These amendments, among all the others, could be the contentious ones, and the Minister has the opportunity to lance that boil early. Getting tonight’s amendments right will go a long way to making this Bill work fundamentally better for employees and employers. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 244 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 277 and 328, which I expect the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to speak to shortly, are an interesting element. Amendment 277 talks about the review of the fair work agency. Considering that a number of questions have come up about this, that is a fair assessment, given that there is still a considerable amount of consultation to be done. Amendment 328 would basically strip out the commencement of any part of the Act until that review has been done and

“a Minister of the Crown has tabled a motion in both Houses of Parliament for debate … and the review has been approved by a resolution”—

not just regulations.

The reason I say this is that I continue to assert that some of the powers here are going to be novel. Even if the Equality Act 2006 may give powers to the EHRC, it has never used them to institute legal proceedings, only as an intervener or for judicial review, rather than taking on individual cases; I am conscious that there is a consultation there. The amendment from the Liberal Democrats is an interesting way to think about how we are looking at the details of what the new agency is going to do.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, before I begin my comments about the various amendments, I have news from afar. Councillor Fox—sorry, not councillor; that is going back a bit. My noble friend Lord Fox wants to pass on his thanks to Members of the House from all sides who have sent best wishes for a speedy recovery. I signed his card today from the Lib Dem group with the sentiment, “Don’t hurry back. I fully enjoy sitting until midnight doing the employment Bill on your behalf”—which I think, with my noble friend’s irony, he will get. His amendments would require detailed review of the fair work agency’s remit, funding powers and accountability structures, and parliamentary overview before commencement.

We are fairly neutral on Amendments 271ZZA, 274 and 278 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which aim at transparency and reviews. They are broadly procedural, but I have some sympathy with the noble Lord’s three-year review, which could be quite sensible. He explains those two amendments with clarity and brings out the blindingly obvious—the lack of cost and the lack of understanding of how this thing will be set up and work in reality.

I intend to ask the Minister some direct questions as well as supporting my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendments regarding the implementation plan, the opportunity for scrutiny and further consultation. First, I turn to what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has been talking about, the fair work agency. We debated its creation and power across several earlier groups and I will not labour that point today, but I want to speak clearly in support of Amendments 277 and 328 tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, and again place on record my regret that he is not able to be with us today. These amendments are central to establishing a credible and accountable agency. Amendment 277 would require a full review of the agency’s remit, powers, funding and relationship with other enforcement bodies, and would be subject to review, as the noble Lord has said. Amendment 328 would link the commencement of the Act to that process.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Goddard of Stockport]

273: After Clause 115, insert the following new Clause—
“Legal aid in employment tribunals(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a report on the options for expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals.(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—(a) the impact of employers’ compliance with measures contained within this Act, and(b) the impact on employees’ personal finances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 6 months of the passage of this Act.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, for the sake of clarity, we on these Benches fully support the Government on expanding employment legal aid beyond discrimination cases to improve fairness and efficiency and also on the importance of maintaining the power of employment tribunals to ensure summary judgment, speed up proceedings and reduce unnecessary hearings. However, we have concerns over the existing backlog of employment tribunals, which we have debated several times on previous evenings, which is causing delays of up to two years and making the system very difficult to navigate.

I strongly support Amendment 273, tabled by my noble friend Lord Fox, which would

“require the Secretary of State to report on the impact of expanding the right to legal aid in employment tribunals within 6 months of the passage of this Act”.

This modest but important proposal recognises the reality facing too many claimants today. Legal aid in employment cases is currently restricted almost entirely to discrimination claims, leaving workers pursuing other serious issues such as unlawful deduction of wages, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing without any publicly funded legal support. These are not simple matters.

For claimants without legal training, navigating the tribunal process, understanding evidential requirements and articulating legal arguments can be incredibly challenging. This lack of access undermines both fairness and efficiency. If claims are poorly presented or inadequately understood, they are less likely to succeed and more likely to absorb more of the tribunal’s valuable time. Given the current backlog of employment tribunal cases in which claimants often wait for more than two years before their cases are heard, the process can feel effectively impossible to engage with. This amendment would, based on evidence, begin to build the case for change. I hope that the Minister will look on it constructively.

I also welcome my noble friend Lord Fox’s Amendment 323, which seeks to ensure that employment tribunals continue to have the power to make summary judgments in cases brought under this Act. Tribunals already use this mechanism to resolve matters early when one party has no reasonable prospect of success. It is an essential part of an efficient system that avoids unnecessary hearings and reduces pressure on the tribunal’s time. With the Bill creating new routes to claim and potentially increasing the volume of cases, the continued ability to make summary judgments in those procedures will be more important than ever. It provides certainty to respondents facing unmeritorious claims and reassures claimants that their cases will be dealt with proportionally and swiftly when they are clearly valid. I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that this power will remain fully enforced under the new regimes and that guidance will reflect the continuing relevance of these points.

Lastly, I note that Amendments 279GA, 330ZA, 330D and 334A by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, are concerned with ensuring that the employment tribunal system has the capacity and resourcing to absorb these responsibilities. Those are legitimate concerns and considerations that the Minister should address. Tribunal delays are already a source of frustration for many users, and it is right that we consider how implementation will interact with the wider system. I urge caution, however, against any suggestions that reform must wait until conditions are perfect. A parallel process is needed, with sensible, targeted reform on one hand and sustained investment in the system on the other. I beg to move.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 279GZA seeks to understand what “and, in certain cases” means in Clause 149. I would be grateful for an explanation. I looked extensively in Schedule 12 and saw only the insertion of a regulation to do with Northern Ireland. I would be grateful to understand that.

I am happy to support Amendment 323, which seems a sensible way of trying to ensure that justice is delivered effectively and people can still have fair access while also making sure that we make the best use of employment tribunal judges’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I thank all noble Lords—a small but perfectly formed band on this group—for their contributions to the debate. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was reasonably complimentary on my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendment, and when I speak to my noble friend, I will mention the point about small and medium-sized companies; there is some mileage in that, if we have further discussions. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is fast becoming my buddy again for supporting in essence these amendments—to my certain knowledge, she has never called any of our proposals “bonkers”, so she gets an extra bonus point for that as well.

We support the Minister’s amendment, which brings clarity. For me, it shows an understanding that the Minister gets it; sometimes in these debates on the Floor of this Chamber, such as in the previous debate about litigation and whether it was known about by somebody, some people do not get it and you need to bring it back to the real world. Tribunals are very stressful for people and very complicated, so the simpler and more efficient we can make it, the better. But that does come with a price. I honestly think that, working together, we can deliver this Part with a degree of certainty, because all parties want this to happen. On this occasion, therefore, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 273 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments collectively highlight the critical importance of supporting small and medium-sized enterprises as they adapt to the changes introduced by the Bill. We have raised this issue repeatedly throughout our deliberations. Night after night, this comes up in other parts of the legislation. It all comes back to small businesses. My biggest postbag at the moment is from small businesses concerned about their future—of no political persuasion at all. This is one of the few chances, in this small debate, where we get to talk about those challenges and the enforcement mechanisms, especially around things such as holidays. As alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, compliance can be complex and resource-intensive, although I do not fully agree with his complete doom-and-gloom scenario of this part of the Bill.

Recent data shows that SMEs employ around 60% of the UK workforce, yet many report that regulatory burdens can disproportionately strain their limited administrative capacity. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, such as Amendment 279ZZB, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to assess how effectively the SMEs can meet those obligations and to identify any practical barriers that they face. It is important to ensure that the Bill’s ambitions do not inadvertently disadvantage the very businesses that form the backbone of our economy. That the Government should have a means of tracking how the Bill’s implementation is impacting on the economy is vital.

I briefly turn to the reviews called for in Amendments 305 and 309, which seek to examine the Bill’s impact on employment, youth opportunities, job creation and regional labour markets, especially in the north-west of England, where my heart still lies and where the Industrial Revolution began. We are trying to embrace AI. We are trying to become ground-breakers again at Manchester University and other establishments. I know that these really affect the regional labour markets, but these are valid concerns, as we are still recovering from the recent economic shocks. The requirement for independent assessment would help us get a clearer picture of this legislation and how it affects businesses and workers. While amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and others are cautious in their approach, they reflect a genuine concern that implementation must be manageable for SMEs, without stifling growth for employment.

As we move forward, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on these amendments and would appreciate some remarks about how the Government intend to physically support SMEs throughout these changes and the unintended consequences. Because that is at the heart of this. You can have and develop the policies, but what businesses are asking me is, “What are you going to do? What can I see that helps me to embrace this legislation and to take people on, train them and employ more people?”—as opposed to the perception that the burden is against that, which is an unintended consequence of trying to do the right thing of giving everybody employment rights, and it is a fine line. We are politicians and we understand it a bit clearer than people in a small company employing 10 or 15 people. They are just concerned that something is going to overwhelm them: something is going to come that they cannot control.

I want the Minister to explain the following to me and members of my group. What practical things will the Government put in place to give those small businesses confidence to embrace this and to work with them to make employees more secure, safer and have better rights? Meanwhile, how can small and medium-sized companies, not the giant multi-million companies, carry on creating jobs, developing the economy and lifting us out of the doom and gloom? We have done it before, and we can do it again. That is the question that needs answering—whether or not the Minister can do so tonight, we need some clarity before Report, or we will be meeting other people. This is important. This is not just me grandstanding; small businesses are saying to me, “Just ask the Government what they are doing and how they can help us”. This is what I am trying, clumsily, to say as we draw to a close this evening: if the Minister can give me some hope that what we are doing and have put in place will help small and medium businesses, I will be satisfied.

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

My Lords, here we go again on impact assessment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will forgive me if some of my notes repeat what was said in previous debates, but I will answer some of the points here. First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Goddard, for their amendments relating to impact assessment.

I refer to the point by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, about what the Government are doing concerning SMEs. I have just recently been appointed as the spokesperson for the Department for Business and Trade, and my priority is to have regular communications with micro-businesses and small businesses. That is what I will be focusing on. Today, we appointed the Small Business Commissioner, who will start work very shortly in tackling late payments and some of the abuses that small businesses experience from big companies not paying them on time. We will be publishing a small business strategy very soon, and our industrial and trade strategy very soon as well, hopefully sometime next week or thereabouts. We are doing a lot—not only myself but the Secretary of State, my noble friend Lady Jones and all the Ministers in the department. We have regular contact right across the business community.

We have had extensive debate already on impact assessments related to this Bill. My commitment in an earlier debate to meet noble Lords to further discuss the impact assessments still stands. The Government have already published a comprehensive set of impact assessments based on the best available evidence on the workers likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment on the economic impacts of the Bill, including on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. This package shows that there are clear, evidence-based benefits from tackling issues holding back the UK labour market. This analysis is based on the best available evidence and consultation with external experts and stakeholders, including academics and think tanks. Further analysis will be forthcoming, both in the form of an enactment impact assessment when the Bill secures Royal Assent and when we consult on proposed regulations to meet the Better Regulation requirements.

Before I conclude, I share with noble Lords some really startling statistics. We already know that healthier and happier workers are more productive workers. The Health and Safety Executive estimates that stress, depression or anxiety accounted for something like 17.1 million working days lost in 2022-23, which is equivalent to a loss of something close to £5.3 billion in output per year. In addition, close to 2 million employees report feeling anxious about hours worked or shifts changing unexpectedly. By increasing the job security of these workers, the Bill would have well-being benefits worth billions of pounds a year. The Bill will therefore create a healthier and happier workforce, which is not only the right thing to do but will help businesses by making the workers more productive as well as resulting in lower treatment costs for the NHS.

Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked me what we have done to support growth since getting elected. I am proud to share with the noble Lord that, since the election, 500,000 more people are in work. In recent weeks, we have had the strategic defence review with some 30,000 new jobs building submarines created, and the announcement of the Sizewell C project, which will create some 10,000 new jobs. So, we are creating new jobs.

In addition, we have people who are investing in this country and who have confidence in this Government. Jamie Dimon, who has run one of the largest US banks, JPMorgan Chase, for two decades, told the Financial Times:

“I’ve always been a believer in the UK’s inherent strengths as a place to do business and there’s much to like about the new government’s pro-growth agenda”.


Further, a couple of weeks ago, Jon Gray, president of Blackstone, one of the largest private equity companies in the world, which has invested close to £100 billion in the UK and employs some 50,000 people, told the Times:

“I would give the UK government a lot of credit for embracing business”.


This is not what the Government are saying, but what people with money who are investing in this country are saying to us. Further, every single day, £200 million is being invested in tech companies in this country. I do not call that a small sum, I call it confidence in the UK Government and what we are doing for business.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Goddard of Stockport]

1: Clause 1, page 2, line 9, at beginning insert “If requested by an employee,”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes the provisions in the Bill from a requirement for an employer to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours by an employee.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this group. I intend to be brief, as is appropriate on Report—I have said it, Minister, I cannot do any more. I begin by saying that there is clear cross-party agreement that exploitative zero-hours contracts must come to an end. Indeed, we on these Benches unequivocally believe in the need to address the problems of exploitative zero-hours contracts, which leave too many workers in precarious employment circumstances. That said, our amendment reflects that shared objective, while offering a more practical and balanced view.

The amendment would change the obligation under the legislation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. Further, it maintains that when such a request is made, the employer must grant it. This would allow workers to acquire guaranteed hours if they wish, providing greater security and stability, while enabling them to make a personal choice. At the same time, it would reduce the administrative burden on employers, especially in sectors that rely on flexibility.

Although we recognise that some workers do not want precarious zero-hours contracts, this should not come at the expense of sectors where flexibility is essential and many workers are content with those arrangements. This would balance security for workers with necessary flexibility for employers in sectors that rely on flexibility. These include seasonal, tourism-related and agricultural workers, as well as hospitality, retail, theatre and other industries where work patterns are inherently dynamic and demands fluctuate. The amendment would ensure that the new provisions are adaptable enough to function effectively across all those employment settings.

In Committee, Members raised understandable concerns about what would happen if a request for guaranteed hours were simply denied. Let me be clear: under this amendment, if a worker makes a formal request, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer. It would not be optional or discretionary; all workers who wanted greater certainty would be empowered to secure it. At the same time, the amendment avoids placing a universal obligation on all employers to offer guaranteed hours in every instance, which could place undue strain on sectors that rely on that flexible staffing model. In doing so, it would deliver a fair and workable solution that respects the rights of workers while acknowledging the operational needs of these industries.

We also recognise the Government’s amendments since Committee. In particular, we welcome the steps taken to clarify how new obligations will apply to agency workers once the legislation is enforced. These changes will help, and the framework is clear, consistent and better understood by all those affected.

That said, the Government are asking industry and business, whose support is vital for this, to prepare ultimately to comply with this provision and with the wider Act without providing any critical detail, such as reference periods for guaranteed hours and other key elements. This lack of clarity, which seems to run throughout the Bill, makes it challenging for employers and workers to understand their rights and obligations. Hindering effective implementation and planning is not acceptable. Such clarification, particularly for reference periods for guaranteed hours, is critical if the industry is expected to prepare. We on these Benches have consistently raised concerns throughout the Bill about the uncertainty caused by leaving key details, such as qualifying periods for guaranteed hours, to be declared by some later regulation. Although we agree that some flexibility is needed, it is a question of how it is implemented. We believe that clearer rules in the Bill itself will help both workers and employers to better prepare for the challenge.

Finally, as I stated at the beginning, we fully recognise the damage that exploitative zero-hours contracts can cause. However, addressing this issue must not come at the expense of sectors where flexibility is essential and many workers are content with arrangements. Our amendment seeks a fair balance, protecting workers from exploitation while preserving the flexibility that is crucial for many industries to function. I look forward to the Minister’s response and I beg to move.

[Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)]

I will make a brief comment on Amendment 1, which would replace a right to have guaranteed hours with a right to request. I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the Bill, which is trying to deal with the problem of zero-hours contracts where employees do not have predictability over their hours.

I appreciate that the desire of the amendment is to reduce the burden on employers in working out what the guaranteed hours would be, only to find that an employee declines the offer. However, I do not think that that is likely to happen very often. Obviously, it is impossible to know what proportion of employees would turn down such an offer, but we do know from surveys—and most recently from a poll that the TUC did last year—that the majority of workers on zero-hours contracts consistently say that they would prefer to have guaranteed hours. It is therefore very unlikely that large numbers of them would turn down an offer once it has been made.

Perhaps more seriously, the amendment does not take account of the imbalance of power in workplaces and the characteristics of employees who are working on zero-hours contracts. The latest figures from the ONS tell us that zero-hours contract workers are much more likely to be young and to work in elementary occupations. They are much more likely to be working part-time and in low-paid sectors. These are the least empowered workers in the workforce; they are unlikely to understand their rights, even if the employer has complied with the requirement to find information. They are the least likely to be represented by a union and the least likely to know how to exercise their rights. The right to request guaranteed hours, in those circumstances, is not a real right at all.

How many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours? The vast majority of employers do right by their employees, but many do not. The formulation of the amendment leaves open the path for some of the worst employers not to offer guaranteed hours to workers on zero-hours contracts. I do not think that the amendment does the intention to serve those workers any favours at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we intend to consult on this, and of course we will take the comments and concerns of business into account; it is our absolute intention to do that. What we do not want to do is pre-empt that by setting out the conclusions of the consultation in advance. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I do not think that fits with our model of wishing to take this and consult further on it. But of course we will take business views into account.

I turn to the amendments tabled in my name. We listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and business stakeholders, and responded promptly by amending the Bill. The Bill allows regulations to specify circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply or for a guaranteed offer once made to be treated as withdrawn. We expect that this power will be used narrowly in response to changing circumstances to address situations where the measure would have significant adverse impacts. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended restating this power with greater precision.

In response, we have tabled amendments to constrain the use of this power. Our amendments require that, in exercising this power, the Secretary of State must have regard to both the benefit to workers of receiving a guaranteed-hours offer and the desirability of preventing the provisions having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances. Where this power is exercised and the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, a further amendment clarifies that the exception will operate in relation to a single reference period, rather than being open-ended.

Circumstances specified in regulations would need to be specific, factual and narrow enough so that it is crystal clear that the duty then does not apply or no longer applies. There will be no room for discretion from the employer or the worker. The Government will consult on any use of this power. This way of constraining the exercise of the power still allows flexibility to determine the specific circumstances once all interested parties have had a chance to input.

Corresponding amendments are made to the provisions for agency workers. In addition, under the Bill’s current provision, an agency worker who accepts a guaranteed-hours offer from an end hirer becomes directly engaged by the hirer. The worker could then be entitled to another initial reference period as a directly engaged worker. Amendments 6 and 23 clarify that agency workers who accept a guaranteed-hours offer will not benefit from a new initial reference period. This aligns their rights with directly engaged workers and eases employer burdens.

Regarding Amendments 12 to 19, the Bill usually requires a guaranteed-hours offer to be made to a qualifying agency worker on no less favourable terms and conditions taken as a whole than those under which the agency worker was engaged during a relevant reference period. We have heard concerns about instances where agency workers are paid a significant premium in recognition of, for example, the temporary and insecure nature of their work. As the Bill stands, such pay premiums could be carried over into a guaranteed-hours offer, putting those agency workers at an unintentional advantage compared with directly engaged workers in similar roles. This could also cause employers to move away from hiring agency workers in the first place. These amendments will allow less favourable terms and conditions relating to pay to be proposed in guaranteed-hours offers to agency workers, to ensure alignment with comparable directly engaged workers, maintaining flexibility for businesses and supporting consistency in treatment of the workers.

I turn to Amendments 9 and 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which seek to amend the amendments in my name that I have just justified. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s points, but accepting her amendments and removing the reference to employers dealing with exceptional circumstances would not address the DPRRC’s criticisms regarding the breadth of the power. It would also not be clear what the Secretary of State would need to consider when setting out the specified circumstances. I reassure the noble Baroness that, once the Secretary of State has considered these matters, he can still decide to make regulations to set out the circumstances in which the duty to make guaranteed-hours offers does not apply, which may not relate to exceptional circumstances.

I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw his amendment. We very much share his objective to address the imbalance of power, and I hope he has heard our case about why we believe that what is currently in the Bill is the best way to do that. I also commend to the House Amendments 6 to 8, 12 to 21 and 23 in my name.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate. The number of amendments in this group shows the depth of feeling on zero-hours contracts. I think it was the same story from the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill—for whom I have the highest regard—and the Minister. It was not a defence; it seemed to me that they were saying that giving employees this extra power would somehow not help them in asking for those contracts, as the employer might not like it.

That is the point of it. The Bill is supposed to address what employers and employees like. This is not an either/or; it is an “extra for”—an extra protection for workers. As the Minister herself said, 1 million people are on zero-hours contracts, many of which are exploitative. That should not remain after all this debate has taken place. All we are asking for is clarity and detail and all we are getting is consultation and manna tomorrow. That is not acceptable. There are 1 million people looking at this today, wondering what we are going to do. In my mind, what we should do, which I wish to do, is test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Goddard of Stockport]

10: Clause 3, page 23, line 44, at end insert—
“(5A) Where notice of cancellation has been given in advance of the short notice period as defined by subsection (6), the employer is not required to make payment under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Goddard defines “short notice” as at least 48 hours before a shift is due to start, and clarifies that if this notice is given, the employer will not be required to make a payment under section 27BP.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, coincidentally, both the amendments in this group are mine. They seek to address the rights of workers to receive payments following a short-notice shift cancellation and provide clarity. I would like it on record that we recognise what the Government are trying to achieve with these provisions and that workers should be compensated when shifts are cancelled at short notice. In recognition of that provision, I have Amendment 11 in my name. This is especially important, given that such cancellations often disproportionately impact those workers in hospitality, retail and other sectors where shift incomes can be crucial to meeting everyday financial needs.

My amendment seeks to address this by defining “short notice” as at least 48 hours before a shift is due to start. By doing so, they would provide much-needed clarity and certainty, helping people and businesses, particularly smaller businesses, without expensive legal and administrative resources to plan for and effectively implement their requirements.

Importantly, the amendment would maintain the principle that, if a shift is cancelled within 48 hours of that window, the employer is still required to provide compensatory payments to the worker. That would protect workers from a sudden loss of income caused by last-minute cancellations, which can be devastating for those relying on shift work to support themselves and their families. The amendments would strike a fair balance, ensuring that workers are compensated fairly for genuinely short-notice cancellations while supporting practical and manageable implementation by employers across the sector with fluctuating and dynamic working patterns.

This amendment is important because a persistent problem with the Bill is a lack of clarity in key provisions such as short-notice cancellations. The Bill does not define what constitutes “short notice” and instead leaves this Government to determine that through future regulation. This creates uncertainty for businesses and workers alike. It appears that the Government wish to maintain flexibility on this provision by leaving the definition of regulation, but for businesses of this kind that causes limbo, leaving them uncertain and unable to adapt for practical efficiency.

Without clear rules, employers, especially small businesses, face real difficulties in preparing for their legal obligations, which could lead to inconsistent application and confusion in the workplace. I sincerely ask the Minister why this important detail has yet to be clarified. We are on Report in this House and the Bill has already completed its Commons stages. Given that we have numerous government amendments here, just as we had in Committee, I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clarity and answers on these important questions. I beg to move.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 10 and 11 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. We all understand that in shift-based work there is an expectation that, if someone is on the rota, the shift will go ahead, but life is not always so predictable. In my experience, unexpected changes happen, often without warning or obvious reason. So the question we must ask is: should an employer still be obliged to pay a worker when there is no work available? I can already hear the instinctive response “Yes”, and I understand why, but we must also ensure that the rules we put in place are fair and reasonable for all parties.

The amendments propose a balanced solution. If an employer needs to cancel a shift, they should provide notice. I entirely agree with noble Lords opposite that, if notice is given only an hour before the shift begins, that is clearly unreasonable. By that time, the worker will likely have made arrangements, be they childcare, travel or even turning down other opportunities to be available for work. In such cases, they deserve to be paid as if they had worked the shift.

As it stands, the Bill does not seem to specify a minimum notice period before a shift is cancelled. That gap needs addressing. The proposed 48-hour period in the amendments would strike a reasonable balance. It would give workers enough time to make other plans and give employers and, particularly importantly, the small business community some flexibility, while avoiding the unfairness of telling someone at the last minute, “You’re not needed today”, and leaving them unpaid. With that in mind, I am happy to support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for their contributions and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for tabling Amendments 10 and 11.

The Bill currently sets out that eligible workers will be entitled to a payment when their shifts are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice. Setting the short notice period for cancellation at 48 hours, as stated in the amendment, would mean that only workers whose shifts are cancelled less than 48 hours prior to starting will receive payments for short notice. Our analysis showed that 2.4 million workers could be eligible for zero-hours contract rights. Furthermore, analysis from the CIPD—the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development—suggests that approximately 48% of the UK’s employers do not provide compensation to a worker if they cancel their shift with less than 24 hours’ notice. The Government remain concerned about the impact that this may have on an individual’s ability to plan their life—as we all do—and knowing what money they will have for fundamental things such as housing costs, travel and paying for childcare and commuting.

We intend to set up the period of short notice in regulations following consultation. I recommend that all noble Lords read our road map for implementing this Bill, which sets out exactly what we intend to do. However, we have said in the Bill that “short notice” will not be more than seven days. The Government are committed to continuing to work closely with businesses and trade unions in carefully considering the right approach to this matter. It is right to consult on this in order to fully establish the impact of different proposals. For example, a 48-hour requirement could have the effect of a worker not being entitled to a payment if they found out late on a Friday evening that their Monday morning shift was cancelled. The impact and fairness of different options must be assessed.

We believe that seeking views on this and setting out the position in regulations is the right approach. This will allow the Government to minimise the amount of administrative detail in the Bill, while retaining the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, in the light of the novel nature of this measure, without the need for further primary legislation. This approach also allows the Government to account for other important provisions in the Bill, such as a potential super-short notice period, without pre-empting consultations, so decisions can be taken together.

It is worth emphasising that a short notice cancellation period will only be due when the employer cancels a shift. A payment would not be due if a worker called in sick. Noble Lords should also be aware that there is a power in the Bill to make exceptions under new Section 27BR so, in some circumstances, an employer would not be required to make any payment.

The Government cannot promise to cover all the circumstances that have been raised by noble Lords, as we are keen to further engage with stakeholders before making the final call, but we hope this provides some reassurance. Further, Amendment 10 is not needed, as the Bill already provides that payment is due only where short notice is given, and therefore payment is not due when longer notice is given.

In response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, about business uncertainty, I can safely say to him that we are in regular contact with business representative organisations. Businesses know about our implementation road map, so they know when certain provisions in the Bill will come into force. This particular section of the Bill does not come in until 2027.

I turn to reasonable notice, asked about by the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Hunt. After consultation, we will set in regulations what period of notice should be presumed unreasonable. We will also set out factors for tribunals to take into account when considering whether a notice is reasonable. On this basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I thank the Minister for making another manly fist of that defence from the Government. I genuinely think that they are doing their best. I have met Ministers in this House many times, and I get the feeling that they are dealing with one hand tied behind their back. There are people in the other place who have a different agenda than this revising Chamber, which has tried to make something more fair, honest and transparent than perhaps what has come from the other place. I feel for the Minister in trying to pass that to us. However, there are far wiser minds than mine in this Chamber today, and they can see the blindingly obvious: the number of people looking to us to ensure that the Bill is treated with respect and clarity.

As we say up north, what is in the tin is what it says on the front of the tin, and that has to be that people are protected. With this 48-hour short notice, we are dancing on the head of a pin. Why do the Government not just accept this as a starting point and move forward? This would remove doubt and worry, not for the big companies—the Nexts of this world—but for the small companies employing five, 10, 15, 20 or 25 people, which are now are in limbo again because it is all about legislation coming in 2026, 2027 and 2028. They need to know and plan now. They cannot afford an HR department or lawyers; they just want to run companies, make modest profits and employ people. I thought that was the name of the Bill: it is an employment law working in partnership to deliver benefits for all. On that basis, I wish to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Goddard of Stockport]

11: Clause 3, page 24, line 3, leave out “a specified amount of time” and insert “48 hours”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Goddard defines “short notice” as at least 48 hours before a shift is due to start, and clarifies that if this notice is given, the employer will not be required to make a payment under section 27BP.

--- Later in debate ---

I know that the Government know this—I have listened to both debates on welfare reforms and heard the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, say very similar things. If the Government are successful in encouraging those young people who are wasting their potential to get a job, those young people will then turn up at work to find that, on day 1, they can go back on the sick. Having got them off the sick, the Government would then be putting them in a position where they can go on the sick again. That is not joined-up thinking. Can the Minister comment on some of the unintended cultural consequences of something that looks like a good idea but might be disastrous?

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak on the important topic of statutory sick pay, particularly in relation to amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for signing the amendment. I listened to her very closely in Committee; she may have got a flavour of what I am about to say, because she has an excellent overview of these matters, and I think the House does listen. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her forensic examination of the financial cost, which should never be underestimated—these things are emotional, but there are costs to anything that anybody does. It is important that we understand where the balance lies.

I will speak predominantly to my Amendment 30, which is a probing amendment. We recognise that there are challenges in creating a two-tier employment system with different obligations depending on business size. For that reason, we will not press for a Division on this amendment. However, this amendment highlights the importance of recognising the potential impact that this might have on small and medium-sized enterprises due to the costs that they incur from statutory sick pay. SMEs form the backbone of our economy. It is essential that government policy takes full account of the financial pressures that businesses face.

Expanding statutory sick pay is an important and welcome goal, but it must be done with careful consideration of how the additional costs affect the viability and growth prospects of SMEs. That is why meaningful consultation with these businesses throughout the implementation process is critical. The Government should actively engage with SMEs to ensure that their concerns are understood and addressed, so that any changes to statutory sick pay are substantial and do not inadvertently place undue burdens on the very common businesses and people who are trying to drive the economy.

I will ask the Minister to confirm that, as the Government continue their thorough consultation as part of the implementation of the Bill, they do so directly and in close alignment with small and medium-sized businesses, not during the passage of the Bill but throughout its full implementation. Can the Minister provide reassurance that SMEs’ voices will be heard, and their concerns addressed, as the policy is rolled out? Because it is only through partnership with the SME community that we can ensure the statutory sick pay system is both fair for workers and sustainable for business. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I will start with Amendment 28, which looks at retaining the waiting period for one day. The Government believe that removing the waiting period is essential in ensuring that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover when sick. That is why we committed to it in the manifesto. This is particularly true for employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions, who should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition or prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the one-day waiting period that he was proposing should not be a punishment, but that is exactly what it would be under the proposals before us.

It is also worth saying that 25% of all employees receive only statutory sick pay, and many are forced to choose between their health and the genuine financial hardship during the first three days of sickness absence when they are not paid. Removing the waiting period will make a tangible difference to ensuring that the safety net for sick pay is available to those who need it most.

I understand that the noble Lord is concerned about the wider impacts on businesses of these changes, but, without the removal of the waiting period, many employees will be forced to continue to come into the workplace when they are sick. The pandemic exposed how damaging this can be for businesses and individuals, with WPI economic modelling telling us that presenteeism can lead to up to 12% of the workforce becoming sick from the illness of a single employee. By reducing such presenteeism, businesses may benefit from the overall productivity increase, which can also contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff.

Of course, as we have debated before, employers will need to manage sickness absence, as they do at the moment. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the cultural issues, and, yes, some of the things she identifies are real issues. We are addressing them across government, and she will have heard many of my ministerial colleagues set out how they plan to do that. But that does not alter the fact that, in this Bill, what we are proposing makes good sense for the lowest paid.

I also remind noble Lords that the additional cost to business of the statutory sick pay reforms is about £450 million annually—a relatively modest £15 per employee. It was quite rightly pointed out that these figures were modelled by the DWP, but it does have a reasonable track record of doing such modelling, and I do not think that the figures should be dismissed.

Amendment 29 seeks to exempt employers from having to pay the rate of statutory sick pay outlined in Clause 11 if they already provide a contractual scheme that pays at least 80% of normal weekly earnings. The rate of statutory sick pay is set out in the Bill as the lower of 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings, or £118.75. This already means that no employer will have to pay more than 80% of an employee’s normal weekly earnings. Therefore, an employer already paying 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings would be compliant with the statutory minimum set out in the Bill. As such, I am unclear on the intended impact of this amendment on employees or employers, as it does not appear to change the statutory sick pay entitlement.

I turn to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I appreciate what he said about it being a probing amendment. As I have mentioned, the changes we are making to statutory sick pay will cost businesses around £15 per employee. This relatively modest amount compares with projected costs of up to £600 million a year to government of a rebate for the full amount of statutory sick pay for SMEs. I accept the arguments made by the noble Lord that this cost will of course depend on the size, scope and complexity of a rebate scheme. However, we have experience of administering such schemes. We previously delivered statutory sick pay rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. A review found that the employers underused it and found it was complex and time-consuming to administer. Any rebate system that maximises opportunity for business take-up, which I envisage would be the noble Lord’s intent in this amendment, would collectively be costly for the taxpayer as well, whereas the cost saving for individual employers would be small and a new administrative burden would be placed on them.

Previous statutory sick pay rebate schemes also did not incentivise employers to support their employees back to work or invest in their health and well-being. This, in turn, can affect overall productivity and staff retention. We know that employers have responsibility for paying sick pay, and that 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. I would also like to add that the Government have asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead the Keep Britain Working review, which will consider recommendations on how employers and the Government can work together to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces. A final report with recommendations is expected in the autumn.

I therefore do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I say that of course we are continuing to have a dialogue with SMEs, and we take their concerns very seriously. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Goddard, not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. I want to come at it from a slightly different angle. This could be a vital piece to help the police with one of their weakest areas—representation in the community. I have been a youth worker for over 38 years now, and most of the most committed and professional people from my community already have employment so cannot join the police force, but they would love to be involved in representing our community in said police force to help the relationship between our community and the police force. This kind of initiative could be deeply helpful in allowing that to happen.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, if he pushes this to a vote, for a number of reasons, eloquently given by a number of speakers. It comes back to how we value people, whether they are volunteers, kinship people or carers, and where they sit in society. I listened to a couple of the speeches about the days of yore, when the policemen just wandered around the streets, cuffed young boys around the ear and sent them back to school. Those days are gone now, and these special constables are just as much at risk as any other police officer on duty. The people who are coming out and causing trouble, whether they are on drugs or whatever, have no idea, conception or care whether it is a real policeman or a special constable.

Why we are debating the right to time off and reasonable expense is beyond me. Certain things should be blindingly obvious, and this is one of them. Way back in the mid-1990s when I was vice-chair of the Greater Manchester Police Authority, some of the things I saw and heard about what happened to police officers did not always make the press. Special constables and community officers bring the cohesion and bring communities together, and the more that we can get that togetherness without vast expense to the police budget that the Government are trying to control, the better and more settled our society will be. It is a small price to pay for a lot of benefits for a lot of people.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for bringing forward this amendment. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Evans of Rainow for his very kind words. I strongly support the amendment, which would provide a clear statutory right for special constables to take time off from their regular employment to fulfil their duties under the direction of a chief officer of police.

This amendment would provide a modest but crucial right, protected time off to serve. It would bring special constables in line with other categories of public service, recognised under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, such as magistrates and school governors. At a time when police forces are under sustained pressure and when public trust in law enforcement depends on a strong and visible local presence, supporting the contribution of special constables is not just the right thing to do but essential. We rely on these volunteers to keep our communities safe; the least we can do is to ensure that they are not penalised in their day jobs for answering that call.

I hope that the Government have heard the strength of feeling around the House on this issue. I think all speakers spoke favourably about this amendment and, in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friends Lord Remnant and Lord Bailey made some excellent points, albeit slightly different. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked an incredibly good question, and I am very keen to hear the answer, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, I am not sure that context is particularly necessary in the case of the specials, because of course they already exist, so they operate in their own context already. However, I am interested in the homeland security dimension, not least because I might even volunteer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, has the Minister consulted the Clerk of the Parliaments about how he would apply this clause to this House, should it be passed? What would be the rules in, for instance, the Peers’ Dining Room about discussing politics and religion? The fact that we might think it unreasonable that we should not be allowed to discuss that does not make it unreasonable. What makes it unreasonable, under the words of the Bill, is that it would be something it would not be reasonable to do. It is clearly within the scope of the organisation of this House to say that no potentially offensive conversations should be held in spaces where employees are likely to be present. This is what the Bill says at the moment. I can see that noble Lords opposite find it ridiculous, but this is the legislation that their Government have drafted.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I wish to state clearly that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches do not agree with Amendments 43, 44, 45 and 193 or their intentions. Throughout Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Young, consistently framed his amendments on this subject around the defence of what he terms banter, suggesting it as a justification for remarks that can be harmful in the workplace.

To us on these Benches, it is clear that the debate on this issue has been shaped by a somewhat misleading portrayal of the Bill’s aims. The amendment rests on a narrow and simplistic view of harassment that risks undermining protection for workers by focusing on policing private conversations rather than addressing the real problems of bullying and harassment.

I must also express concern over the repeated invocation of banter as a shield for inappropriate behaviour. Too often, the phrase has been used to excuse sexist, racist or otherwise discriminatory conduct. To say otherwise is discourteous.

If we undermine the protections the Bill offers, especially through amendments that narrow employers’ duties, we risk signalling that the experiences and well-being of their workers are of little consequence. We cannot and must not dismiss their right to a safe and respectful working environment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief—not quite as brief as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, but I shall do my best, and I promise to keep away from the police and definitely the clergy. I had lunch with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, so I think I am safe for today.

While we agree that the current two-year qualifying period is too long, we are concerned about removing it entirely without a clear statutory probation period in place. This could leave businesses in a state of uncertainty, with a gap between the removal of the qualifying period and the introduction of the new probation framework. It risks inconsistency in employment tribunals, as claims will be judged under a system that lacks clarity until the probation period is formally established.

Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would reduce the qualifying period to six months. Most other amendments in this group are consequential to ensure legislative consistency. We are gently supportive of this amendment, as it would reduce the timeframe for an employee with a plausible case to claim unfair dismissal, while allowing businesses time to correct genuine and non-pernicious hiring mistakes. If the noble Lord were to test the opinion of the House, we would support him on this occasion.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government were elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment—not two years, not six months, but day one. To deliver this commitment, we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.

The Government recognise that, from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect that most employers already fairly dismiss employees, and the process need not be too arduous. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the Government believe that it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects. This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee’s performance and suitability will apply.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked what length the probationary period would be. As we have said previously, the Government’s preference is for nine months. We intend to consult on the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. The current two-year qualifying period is designed not as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal. If the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux, were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat looming over them of being fired arbitrarily.

Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill of exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction for many qualifying periods—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. I am pleased that the noble Lords agree with the Government’s policy, at least to that extent.

However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the Government do not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances; instead, they believe in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord spoke about the needs of young people looking for work. Of course we identify with that, and the Government are committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out on the Get Britain Working White Paper in November 2024:

“Our country’s greatest asset is its people”.


As I explained in Committee, we are

“transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility”

for learners and employers

“aligned with the industrial strategy”.

This will include

“shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors, helping more people to learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country, and providing high-quality pathways for young people”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 305.]

We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that, if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.

Beyond enhancing learning on the job and ensuring that a fair wage is paid for young people’s work, we also believe that all employees should be provided with security of work through protections from being fired arbitrarily. It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that follow. However, the Government recognise that employers use probationary periods to assess new hires’ performance and suitability for their role. We will ensure that UK businesses can hire with confidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about social mobility. We recognise that good employers take a chance on what we might call “rough diamonds” up and down the country. The valuable time that employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job is not recognised often enough. The statutory probationary period will enable this, with light-touch standards for fair dismissals. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. Of course, that will apply equally to healthcare employees.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunals. Provided that the employer can show that the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the outcome, as nothing is really new from the current situation.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about police officers. I understand that they are excluded from the existing legislation, as they would be from the Bill. In that sense, there is no change.

Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which, of course, can mean many different things. “Not a good fit” is often used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employee’s work ethic, their level of commitment to the job, or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations, these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the new light-touch standards will apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a protected characteristic then of course dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims, and the Bill does not affect that.

Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of “some other substantial reason” dismissals should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a power for the Government to define what a “some other substantial reason” dismissals “relating to the employee” should mean. As I have noted, the intent is to define what relates to an employee’s performance and suitability for their role. We will welcome employers’ and trade unions’ input on that important issue. However, these amendments would remove the Government’s statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment.

Noble Lords asked about consultation. We have already consulted on the proposals, and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to publicly consulting later this year. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26 June, which outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the Government’s development and implementation of day-one rights to unfair dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the detail of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House Library. I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the road map shows that these day-one rights, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027.

In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a day-one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Finally, my Amendment 52 is simply a minor technical amendment that corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 3. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 49.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire. I think there is a consensus across the House that the most outrageous cases of fire and rehire should be outlawed. The particular case and example is P&O Ferries, which was not so much fire and rehire, but just fire: nearly 800 staff were dismissed without consultation or notice. Nevertheless, it serves to highlight the urgent need for stronger protection for workers and clear restrictions on the use of fire and rehire.

The series of government amendments in this group clarifies that distinction through the introduction of restricted variations that would permit contract negotiation to proceed in limited circumstances. Government Amendment 72 sets up the condition of restricted variation which, in short, it defines as the removal or weakening of entitlement relating to pay and broader terms and conditions. This approach reflects the intentions behind my Amendment 75, which would allow contract variations where they are not detrimental to employees’ terms and conditions and do not concern paid hours. I am glad that the Government have reconsidered the operability of these provisions, and we are happy to support these amendments to the Bill.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that, as we warned when we discussed it in Committee, Clause 26 was, as originally drafted, quite simply unworkable.

As we reminded noble Lords throughout Committee, the clause was far too broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases. That approach was not only impractical but potentially damaging to employers and employees alike. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward amendment that define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation. Although I would not go so far as to say that the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible.

The Minister quoted Unite. May I quote Unite back at him? It has just issued a statement saying that it condemns the Government’s amendments, which in its own way suggests that progress is being made. The Minister would be well placed to consider the rather detailed brief that Unite has delivered, condemning the way in which the Government are now reworking Clause 26. It suggests that progress is being made and all our warnings are coming to fruition. One now has to wonder, I suppose, whether the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government’s own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.

Of course, these amendments, while helpful, have added layers of complexity. Look at what Clause 26 now represents: it is a recipe for going to Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and asking, “What does this mean?” There is so much here that is very difficult to understand; these amendments have added layers of complexity. The fire and rehire provisions are probably slightly more workable now—I say this slightly optimistically—but, my goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government are preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn; that consultation will be crucial.

I quote another major figure: Mike Clancy, the general secretary of Prospect. He has warned that

“the government must be careful it doesn’t inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change”.

Surely that is the risk. Among the restricted variations now listed are reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times, and reductions in leave entitlements. These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make—not recklessly, but to adapt, restructure or just survive during periods of financial strain. So we urge the Government to conduct this consultation with care. The views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-sized businesses must be fully understood. Yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. If we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst but support the best.

As amended, this clause is better, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and indeed all noble Lords who have made such compelling arguments for the amendments in this group. I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to which I have added my name. I again refer the House to my registered interests, particularly as a dairy and livestock farmer and as a forester.

The farming community needs help after the run of negative actions taken by this Government: the slashing of delinked payments, followed swiftly by the cut-off in sustainable farming incentives with no notice, contrary to previous promises. That leaves a large number of farms with negligible environmental payments, incentivising the intensification of their farming operations, undermining their businesses and undermining nature restoration. To that is added the more general burden placed on all businesses of increased employer national insurance contributions.

Farmers’ long-term planning has been thrown into chaos by the reduction in inheritance tax reliefs on agricultural and business property. It is a burden that farming businesses simply cannot afford and will lead to the sale and break-up of many of these on the death of a family member, with families also losing their homes and businesses as a result.

In the run-up to the introduction of the reduced reliefs in April 2026, the financial incentive for elderly or terminally ill farmers and business owners to take their own lives increases. In Committee, I was grateful to the Minister, who is again in his place today, for his promise to speak to his ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS about keeping accurate and timely data on farmer and business-owner suicides. I ask him again today: what has been the result of those discussions? How can the Government assess the impact of this measure on suicide rates if they simply rely on out-of-date and insufficiently granular ONS data?

On Amendment 107, the arguments in favour of granting farming an exemption from these Bill provisions have been well made in Committee, and I will hit only the headlines. Farming is almost uniquely exposed to seasonality in its harvesting operations, as well as the weather variability in the timing of those operations. Livestock farmers have to look after their animals every day and rely on casual labour to fill in gaps due to illness or scheduling issues. That requires flexibility in its engagement with seasonal and part-time or casual staff. There are penalties enough in weather unpredictability without introducing more through compensating staff for changing hours at short notice or having to compensate for sickness from day one. These obligations are simply unaffordable for farmers and unworkable in practice.

Farming operates on cycles that are unknown in other businesses. It is easy enough to assess the quality of work and the suitability of staff in retail, offices and manufacturing, even after the first day or so. However, most farming workloads are solitary, with little oversight. We know whether a new employee has drilled a field correctly, looked after animal hygiene effectively, checked weed growth around new trees without damaging the trees, or ensured that livestock is back in calf in the necessary window, only months after those operations are performed. Reducing probationary periods and leaving farmers exposed to human resource and litigation risks, potentially from day one, is simply not acceptable or workable.

As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted in Committee, this is not a Government who have a background or experience in the farming or rural economy. That lack of experience is often evident, and I urge the House and the Government to listen to those of us who have that experience and to support this critical amendment. I hope to hear encouragement from the Minister that the Government are listening.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the disapplication of provisions of the Bill to certain sectors and employment types. Amendment 94 would give the Secretary of State the ability, through regulations, to vary or exempt specific sectors from the provisions of the Bill. We do not support this amendment as we generally do not support facilitating two-tier employment systems in which certain businesses have statutory obligations that they must adhere to and others do not. Instead, we are focused on ensuring, as part of the Government’s consultation process ahead of implementation, that sectors likely to be disproportionately affected are properly engaged and supported to operate under the Bill with minimal disruption.

--- Later in debate ---

Therefore, instead of having Clause 27 worsen the burden on business and increase the pressure of that boot with its 30 to 45-day delay before dismissals can take effect, I propose that the delay be reduced to 21 days. I beg to move.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches do not support these amendments. The obligation to consult collectively in redundancy situations is a vital safeguard for workers, providing them with a voice and an opportunity to understand and respond to proposed job losses. Reducing consultation rights, especially during the turmoil of insolvency, would leave employees even more vulnerable at a time of significant uncertainty. Similarly, cutting the notice period would deny workers essential time to plan, seek advice and make necessary financial and personal arrangements. We believe strongly that these protections must be preserved and not weakened.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea for his amendments. I thank the Minister and her team for the way in which they have entertained and thought through some of the key points made by my noble friend. As he rightly pointed out, collective redundancies are, sadly, not uncommon in cases of employer insolvency. In such circumstances, the role of the insolvency practitioner, which my noble friend has outlined so clearly, is both time-critical and highly constrained. The legal duties placed upon practitioners can come into direct tension with the obligation to consult collectively with employees, a tension that is not merely theoretical but is borne out time and again in practice.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that the amendment does not seek gratuitously to diminish the rights of employees. My noble friend has drawn the Government’s attention to a genuine gap in the law, one that has become more acute in the light of the changes that the Bill introduces. As it stands, the duty to consult can place insolvency practitioners in an impossible position, bound by law to take urgent decisions to preserve value or manage a collapse while also facing legal jeopardy for failing to comply with collective consultation obligations that were not, and never were, designed with insolvency in mind.

We have to be realistic. Where a company is collapsing, consultation—however desirable—cannot always be carried out in the prescribed way. It is in nobody’s interests, least of all that of employees, to put insolvency practitioners in a position where they are forced to choose between compliance with employment law and their fiduciary responsibilities.

I believe that the Government should take my noble friend’s arguments seriously. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a matter of practical urgency. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the implications of the clause and to engage with my noble friend’s proposal in the constructive spirit in which it is offered.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Goddard of Stockport]

111: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Employment law code of practice(1) Within 30 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice containing guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on their legal obligations under this Act.(2) It is the purpose of the document to provide clarity for smaller and medium sized enterprises on compliance with the provisions contained in this Act.(3) The document must include, in particular—(a) an overview of the relevant legal duties placed on employers under this Act;(b) a practical framework outlining how such businesses can meet those duties;(c) guidance on best practice suitable to businesses of this size.(4) The Code of Practice may be updated by the Secretary of State as they see fit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a statutory code of practice for small businesses in adhering to the employment and legal requirements of this Act.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, this is a small group of amendments—only three—dealing with small businesses. I will briefly address my Amendment 111 and the other two. Simply put, we would require the publication of a code of practice applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises with the express intention of ensuring that the code must simplify employment law and the regime that the Bill will create, thereby enhancing the ability of SMEs with limited capacity to adhere to the principles of the Bill.

Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact on small businesses. We support this amendment, as we believe that SMEs are suffering excessively from the consequences of some of the proposed legislation. However, we cannot support Amendment 194, which would repeal Parts 4 and 5 and Clauses 149 and 150 of the Bill at the end of the Parliament in which it passes. Quite frankly, we feel that this is nothing more than a wrecking amendment that would create provisions to be adhered to only for a short period of time before reverting back to pre-employment framework, thus causing real havoc in legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to his amendment.

Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seeks to repeal Parts 4 and 5 of this Bill, as well as Sections 149 and 150 at the end of this Parliament. In Committee, we debated at length the merits of Part 4 and 5 of the Bill, as I am sure we will again next week, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Parts 4 and 5 are key to delivering the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, so I do not wish to repeat myself to your Lordships’ House tonight.

Amendment 166, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, proposes a review process that effectively duplicates what we are already doing. As I have outlined previously, the Government already have robust monitoring and evaluation plans in place. The Government’s impact assessment sets out how we will review the Bill and any secondary legislation that follows, including effects on small businesses, which we know are vital to the economy. The recently published road map shows that implementing this Bill will take several years and its full effects will not be realised until long after Royal Assent. Significantly advancing a post-implementation review would not allow for an effective assessment of its impact, including on small businesses.

On Amendment 111, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, this Government know the importance of making sure that employers of all sizes are supported in preparing for employment rights reforms. As set out in our road map, the Government are committed to ensuring there is sufficient support and guidance for employers of all sizes. As set out in paragraph 24 on page 8 of the road map, we will be working closely with ACAS and others to develop codes of practice and guidance on measures where these are needed. We have committed to ensuring time is built into our implementation plans to allow stakeholders, including many small businesses, to familiarise themselves with changes in law, codes of practice and guidance. Many of the measures in the Bill build on existing legislative provisions which already have guidance and codes of practice. When we make changes to regulations, we will also work to update relevant guidance and codes of practice as a result.

We know one of the main places that people turn to for reliable, accurate information on legal requirements is GOV.UK. Work is currently under way to ensure that our digital content is usable, easy to navigate and accessible for all stakeholders. In addition, we have engaged, and will continue to do so, with stakeholders of all sizes to understand what support will be useful for them in implementing these changes.

The noble Lord’s amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. An additional code of practice on top of the guidance and support that the Government have already planned risks causing confusion among stakeholders as to where they should turn for clarity and certainty. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 111.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

I thank the Minister and the other speakers in this small group. Although it is three minor amendments and it is 11 o’clock at night, for us, and, I think, for the Conservatives, small businesses are the heartbeat of the economy in this country. We will keep nagging about small businesses, and we want clarity and certainty.

Yes, codes of practice are great. I have read the road map; it is very interesting. I understand the direction of travel with the road map. It requires patience, trust and a little bit of honesty about what is deliverable in time periods. The road map is a good thing, and I recommend people to read that road map.

Small businesses need to know now the impact of this proposed legislation. Asking for reviews of that, after a period of time, does not seem unreasonable to this group. We are not being awkward for the sake of being awkward, we are just trying to protect small businesses and small companies that are, quite frankly, bewildered. They do not have a political view on the Employment Rights Bill. They are bewildered as to how someone can come in and affect how they try to make a small profit and a small living.

We will continue to probe, not forcing votes for the sake of votes. I speak to Ministers regularly, probably more with these Ministers than on any other Bill—apart from the football Bill, perhaps, with the Minister who is sat next to the noble Lord. The Ministers have been really helpful and supportive, and I appreciate that. I think they understand where we are coming from on this—we are not trying to be obstructive, but we are just trying to tease out a little bit more detail and promise of certainty for people. At the moment, life is difficult, and to put more uncertainty in front of people who are trying to do the things the Government want them to do—grow their business, employ more people and create GVA—those things have to be compatible with the things they are trying to do for the employees. On that basis, I will stop wittering on, and I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 111 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

So I hope that the Minister will really consider this. It is a huge issue. We cannot see our schools have to face more costs, and we do not want to see any staff disadvantaged by a well-meaning move by the Government.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, we are dancing on the head of a pin with these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is right that these are welcome amendments that begin to address something I never knew anything about, which is that support staff have never had a baseline figure. That should be addressed.

I spoke to the Minister the day before yesterday or today—time flies—and the fact is that there are 520,000 of them. That is 52% of everybody employed at schools. That is more than teachers. Those support staff have a whole range of duties and the majority are tailored to their specific needs, as other speakers have said. Government Amendment 114 provides that, where an SSSNB

“has been unable to reach an agreement about a matter and the Secretary of State makes regulations about the matter, the regulations cannot alter a person’s terms and conditions of employment to make the person worse off, and do not prevent an employer from offering more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by the regulations”.

We agree with that.

All that the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would change is that it would prevent

“the SSSNB from blocking employers who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms and conditions”,

provided that they meet the standards of minimum support. What we are trying to say here is, where they cannot come to a negotiation, the Government can step in by regulation, if that is what they want to do, but, where a body comes to an arrangement, why should you stop somebody wanting to offer more, above the floor and above the base—there is no argument about that; we all agree to the base—and say, actually, why would an SSSNB want to block some employer offering an employee better terms? If the Government reject this amendment, that is the alternative to what we are arguing.

If somebody wants to pay somebody more, above the base, that is surely better for the employee. Surely that is better than somebody saying, “Well, you can’t”, which is what the Government might do. The difference is quite subtle. Sooner or later, somebody will have to work out the maths for 520,000 people and then go to all those local authorities, academies and private schools, all of a sudden, as I have said before, there are bound to be winners and losers, unless you make set the level at a sufficiently high so there are no winners and losers. I cannot imagine what that number will be, because it will be a high number.

If this is about empowering people and lifting society, I am all for that. But, again, there is a level of detail. This is not a small group of people; it is an enormous number of people. It is more than the number of teachers. The teachers have had pay, and more pay, and are now going on strike for more money. Support staff do not do that. Support staff are vulnerable. They do not have that power to take industrial action to fight their corner. They negotiate their terms individually with local authorities and academies and, by and large, none of these people is paid below the minimum wage or the living wage. So, this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

I get the principle. I understand that there has been no base figure, and that should be addressed. But, if the Government are addressing that, and it is a philosophical Labour belief, they must put a price tag on it, because people need to know what the costs are, not only for their local authority but for every local authority and every academy in the country. If the noble Baroness is willing to push this to a vote—I do not know whether she will or will not—we on these Benches will support her.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I agree with pretty much all that he said. I thank my noble friend Lady Barran for her amendments. I thank my noble friend Lord Agnew for his interesting and timely perspective, and I salute the teaching assistant whom he mentioned.

Amendment 111B would ensure that the establishment of national frameworks does not, by accident or design, limit the ability of employers to go further in improving conditions for their staff. It makes it clear that, while national terms may set the floor, they must not become the ceiling.

As we have heard, we must leave space for innovation and ambition at the local level, particularly for those schools, academies and trusts that are actively seeking to lead in areas such as flexible working, staff well-being or enhanced support for recruitment and retention. This amendment does not undermine the national framework. On the contrary, it reinforces it, because it allows it to act as a strong foundation on which more can be built, where employers have the capacity and willingness to do so.

We should not inadvertently create a situation where the national body becomes a constraint rather than a support. I therefore welcome the clarity that this amendment brings. I commend my noble friend for bringing it forward and, if she decides to press it to a vote, we will support her.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Goddard of Stockport Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, I have to say that this is probably the most difficult summing up from our group of all the amendments throughout Committee and Report, because I can see the merits of both sides of this argument.

On the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite right. We are naturally suspicious of any new amendments on Report, as they have not had consultation or examination. Having said that, as a group, we have to be consistent, and our approach is that SMEs need the most support. They are the people who are the most insecure and who email me more than anyone else, and so you might think that I would be minded to support these amendments.

However, on the other hand, these amendments, in our view, would create the two-tier employment situation which we have consistently opposed throughout the legislation. I have stood here night after night saying that I cannot agree with amendments because we want one set of legislation for the entire SME sector. A two-tier arrangement would throw more upheaval and uncertainty on small SME businesses, leading them to wonder whether or not they qualify and whether they are in or out.

On balance, and probably for the first and only time in this Chamber, if this issue is pushed to a vote, our group will, unusually, abstain. That does not mean that I am not supportive of the thought behind the amendments, but we feel very strongly that there could be unintended consequences. The legislation should be clear, concise and uniform. This would cloud it a little, as it is looking for a two-tier arrangement. On balance, we are unable to give this group of amendments our full support tonight.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I may not agree with some of the sentiments of some noble Lords, but I have listened to all the arguments in the last few years, such as when minimum wage was debated. The scaremongering that businesses will go bust does not hold water with me.

We are not anti-business; you cannot find someone more pro-business than me. I have started businesses and been a small business person myself. I strongly believe that this Bill works for workers and for business.

Before I address the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, let me say this: the Government are committed to supporting SMEs. We accept that they have been subject to a challenging operating environment and global uncertainty. That is why the Government have set up the new business growth service, to streamline access to support, and why the new strategy will span key areas, including access to finance, market expansion, business capability development, entrepreneurship, and the creation of a strong and stable business environment. In combination with our industrial strategy, trade strategy and, I hope, our SME strategy, which will be published shortly, it is a key part of this Government’s plan for change to encourage growth and put more money in people’s pockets.

Let me turn first to Amendments 132, 133, and 134. We introduced a streamlined route through the Central Arbitration Committee, which was established in 1975. It is a decision-making process for model access proposals to ensure that genuine and reasonable requests for access are not subject to unnecessary delay, while maintaining appropriate safeguards where complexity or dispute remains.

Regarding Amendments 129, 131 and 145, we believe that strong trade unions are central to tackling issues of insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay across the economy. Right of access is key to this. The access framework allows for flexibility for SMEs. Unions and employers can negotiate an access agreement and employers may challenge proposals they consider unsuitable. Where an access agreement cannot be agreed, the CAC determines whether access should be granted, and this decision will be guided by matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.

On Amendment 128, the intention behind this measure is to ensure that all workers are informed of their legal rights at work without imposing undue burden on employers. Making it a requirement for employers to inform workers of their right to join a trade union is about fundamental fairness and transparency. Too many people, especially in low-paid or insecure jobs, do not know that they have this right. We are not telling anyone to join a union; we are simply making sure that they know it is an option. Just as employers are expected to inform staff about health and safety rules or their right to paid leave, they should also be clear about the right to union representation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group. I approach it from the perspective that democracy is always about cherishing minority views and making reasonable allowances, with the proviso that the minority do not hold the majority over the barrel. If you allow the minority a veto or special qualification to enforce their narrow view of the world, it encourages extreme views and intransigence. If you give somebody a veto, do not be surprised if they use it. The effect of the Bill is perhaps to give minorities significantly lower than the 10% threshold a perverse incentive to exercise that veto. That is not good for the individual or the employer, and I believe that it is not even good for the unions, because it potentially weakens their members’ mandate.

I speak from the perspective of somebody who has negotiated the local government pay deal for many years as part of the national joint committee, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. My experience is coloured by the knowledge that in local government there are three different unions involved—UNISON, Unite and GMB—and it is a complicated negotiating environment. It is hard enough to get consensus with three unions in the mix, still less with 10—but that is where the Bill is taking us.

If we do not accept these amendments, it will place the employers in the invidious position of choosing between various unions. The lower the threshold, the greater the incentive to fragment the union landscape—the Judean People’s Front phenomenon—and, in so doing, weaken the benefits of sensible recognition and union power. I cannot understand why the brothers are so keen to reduce the 10% threshold. Why should the employer be placed in an impossible position to arbitrate between warring unions, jostling for position and preference by allowing each to assert rights that they should be agreeing among themselves?

These amendments will not weaken the thrust of what the Government are trying to achieve, but they would provide the certainty of a materiality threshold that would otherwise allow the unintended consequences of negotiation chaos—too many cooks being allowed to spoil the broth. That would disadvantage the employee by reducing the negotiating power of the majority; disadvantage the employer by making it hard to negotiate with unions with sufficient critical mass; and, for the union movement, value fragmentation and the pursuance of special interests over building consensus.

Once more, we have an opportunity to ask the Government to support sensible and measured amendments that will help them achieve their purpose. To resist would risk delivering the opposite, and not for the first time.

[Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)]

My Lords, in Committee we tabled several amendments resisting this reduction from 10%, and the reason for doing that was that we think that is the existing and fair threshold. To go to 2% is not being done for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, says, which is about competing unions and getting the one with the lowest threshold, but for a different reason.

When we have had these arguments, in Committee and tonight, the fall-back position of the Ministers and other speakers is, “Well, they don’t have to join a union—they don’t have to be in a union”. I was in the GMB—I do wish people would not list Unite and the other one, and put the GMB third; please put the GMB a bit further up the pecking order next time. But the point of the story that I am trying to tell noble Lords is that although the Minister says that you do not have to join a union, by reducing this to 2% from 10% you are effectively stacking the deck. You are setting them up there. If you believe that trade unions are free to join or not, and there is a threshold and it is 10%, that is your principle, and that has stood for years. Why, then, in employment law do you need to move that down to 2%? What brings you to that number? There is an obvious reason for that number, is there not?

On the unintended consequences again—it becomes a mantra, but I will say it very quickly—in small and medium-sized businesses employing 10, 15 or 20 people, they need only two, three or four people to say, “We want to join a union” for it to become complicated, with HR and all the other unintended consequences. So 10% is a reasonable threshold. The Government have given us no reason why they want to change it from 10% to 2%. They should leave it at 10%; leave the status quo. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, decides to press his amendment tonight, my depleted troops will be supporting him in the Lobby.

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

I thank all noble Lords for the short but focused debate we have had on this set of amendments, moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I particularly pay tribute to my fellow GMB member, the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport.

As I set out in Committee, we believe that current thresholds pose too high a hurdle in modern workplaces, which are, as we know, increasingly fragmented. We want therefore to be able to consider whether the 10% membership threshold on application should be reduced in future. The reason why a range of 2% to 10% has been chosen is that, in 2020, the previous Government reduced the threshold that triggers information and consultation arrangements from 10% to 2% in the workplace, so what the Bill proposes aligns with that. But, to be absolutely clear, we want to consult before making any decisions on whether we should bring forward secondary legislation and by how much the threshold should be varied, if at all. We will consult businesses—including, of course, small and medium-sized businesses—as part of that consultation process.

Should we decide to bring forward secondary legislation in the future, that legislation will be subject to full debate in both your Lordships’ House and the other place. We will carry out an impact assessment at that time that will consider impacts on businesses, including, as before, small and medium-sized businesses.

I want to reassure all noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in particular, that, whatever the application percentage in the bargaining unit is or may be, the fact remains that unions would still need to obtain a majority of a bargaining unit in a trade union recognition ballot. That point is fundamental to the misconception that is coming from the Benches opposite about what this part of the Bill does or does not do. To be clear, this is not, to address the point of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, the “tyranny of the minority”; in fact, it is absolutely contrary to that point. This is ultimately about a trade union having to win a majority.

Experience has shown that this is not easy to achieve. The union will have to make a good case to persuade the majority in the bargaining unit to vote for recognition in a recognition ballot overseen by an independent, qualified person. It is in the trade union’s interest to be confident that it can win a majority in the ballot, otherwise it would still be prevented, as is currently the case, from applying for another statutory recognition ballot in the same bargaining unit for three years. That is why it is highly unlikely that a union will apply for statutory recognition when there is only one worker who is a member of that union. Indeed, if experience tells us anything, it is that it is highly likely that trade unions will continue to focus their efforts on larger workplaces where there is greater bang for the organising buck.

The union recognition process is generally consensual, and that is a good thing. In the nine years from 2017 to 2025, only 375 recognition applications have gone to the CAC. Close to half of the 1,476 recognition applications received since 1999 were withdrawn by unions at various stages of the recognition processes, in many cases because the parties have reached a voluntary agreement for recognition. The confrontation that has been set up by some speakers from the Benches opposite is a chimera; this is not the reality of organised workplaces. Given that, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 135.