Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

310: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact on new business entrantsThe Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed and annually thereafter, publish an independent assessment of how this Act affects new business entrants and small start-up enterprises, particularly regarding the impact of increased administrative or financial burdens on market entry and growth.”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319.

If I may start with Amendment 311, I stress that productivity is vital for growth. The Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill is lacking in many areas, but it correctly identifies productivity as a problem in the UK workforce and reveals the fundamental weakness of their approach. They state quite explicitly:

“there is little quantitative evidence about the knock-on impacts on productivity”,

and conclude:

“On balance, we believe the impact on growth could be positive … but the direct impact would be small in magnitude”.


Most tellingly, they admit that

“the impact on average productivity will be small”.

To paraphrase, the Government seemingly admit that productivity will not be significantly improved, if at all, by this legislation. This raises a fundamental question that goes to the heart of economic policy: how does one achieve high levels of productivity?

High productivity emerges through competition—genuine, unfettered competition—where businesses face lower regulatory burdens, can compete effectively for the best workers and possess the freedom and flexibility to innovate, to adapt and to respond to market signals. Productivity growth stems from technological innovation, capital accumulation and, as we have just heard in the questions on the previous Statement, investment in skills and productivity—skills above all. These improvements occur naturally when markets are allowed to function, when competitive pressures incentivise businesses to innovate or perish and when the price mechanism can operate without distortion.

Competition drives productivity by creating what economists call “creative destruction”—the process whereby inefficient firms are displaced by more productive ones. When businesses have to compete for workers, they invest in training, technology and better working conditions. When they have to compete for customers, they innovate and improve efficiency. When they must compete for capital, they demonstrate their productivity gains to investors and offer competitive returns.

So what will this legislation achieve in practice? I regret that it will impose additional regulation, create additional burdens and constrain the very competitive forces that drive productivity improvements. This of course comes on top of the tax rises announced by the Chancellor—measures that undoubtedly constrain business investment and growth. The increase in national insurance contributions is particularly damaging in this context. Higher employer NICs directly squeeze the possibility of productive investment. Investment that would otherwise create jobs in productive areas of the economy will now not take place. Capital that could have been deployed to improve productivity, whether through new technology, training programmes or research and development, will instead have to be diverted to meet higher tax obligations and burdens. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how productivity improvements occur. Productivity does not increase through regulatory mandate or government directive; it increases when businesses have the freedom, the incentive and the resources to invest in productivity-enhancing activities.

This brings me to Amendment 319 and what I can only describe as a profound contradiction in government policy. The Government committed just months ago to a 25% cut in the regulatory burden. They reaffirmed this, as we heard, in the published industrial strategy. Yet here we have legislation that introduces what can only be described as a raft of new regulatory burdens. The question that demands an answer is this: how will the Government achieve this 25% reduction in the regulatory burden? How will it be measured? How will the Bill, which manifestly increases regulatory compliance costs, align with that stated target?

I turn to Amendment 310. A truly competitive market must make it simpler, not harder, for new businesses to enter. Yet there is no consideration in the Government’s impact assessment for how this legislation affects barriers to entry. I believe that this represents a profound oversight because, when businesses cannot enter a market because of costs imposed by government regulation, that fundamentally alters the competitive dynamics driving productivity improvements. The economic logic here is straightforward but crucial: when entry barriers are low, existing businesses face constant competitive pressure from potential new entrants. This pressure has to keep them on their toes, forcing them to remain productive, innovative and responsive to consumer needs. They cannot afford to become complacent because they know that more efficient competitors could emerge at any time, hot on their heels and full of competitive energy. But when government policy raises the cost of market entry through complex regulations, compliance burdens or increased operational costs, it can effectively insulate existing businesses from this competitive pressure. The result is predictable: established firms have less incentive to innovate, less pressure to improve productivity and less need to compete aggressively for the best workers.

Turning to Amendment 312, I come to a particularly important point about wage competition. In a competitive market, businesses compete not only for customers but also for workers. When entry barriers are low and competition is fierce, employers must offer competitive wages and working conditions to attract and retain talent. This competitive pressure naturally drives wages upward as businesses bid for the best employees. When regulatory burdens prevent new businesses from entering the market, however, this wage competition diminishes significantly. Existing employers face less pressure to offer competitive wages because workers have fewer alternative employment opportunities. The reduced threat of labour mobility gives established businesses greater power in wage negotiations.

I believe that the costs imposed by this Bill will exacerbate this problem in two distinct ways. First, the direct compliance costs and increase in employer national insurance contributions will pressure businesses to control their wage costs more tightly. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these costs will deter new business formation, reducing the competitive pressure that would otherwise drive wages upward. Of course, the Government may want to point to the increase in the minimum wage as evidence of their commitment to higher wages, but that misses the fundamental point about how competitive markets operate in practice. The minimum wage affects only a small proportion of the workforce—those at the very bottom of wage distribution; for the vast majority of workers, wages are determined by market forces and competition between employers for their services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to say this again. In the first quarter of 2025, the UK saw 90,000 businesses created. Business creation was up by 2.8% over last year, while business closures fell by 4.4%.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been such an important debate. We have been throwing statistics around the Chamber as if they had just been invented. The very latest statistic that I have in front of me, published in Business Matters, is that:

“Britain has recorded its highest number of company closures for two decades, with the final quarter of 2024 seeing 198,046 businesses struck off the official register”.


That is hot from the press. We have really been debating—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I must challenge the noble Lord. There are many reasons for business closures. Companies get struck off for all kinds of reasons. Unless we drill deep down into what that figure is comprised of and whether the reasons are insolvency or companies being dormant, it will be difficult just throwing figures around.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Is that not exactly why we need to measure the impact? That is what this debate has been all about. The Minister has done my job for me, but he has not accepted any of the amendments.

I thank my noble friend Lady Lawlor very much indeed, not only for the facts and figures that she gave us but for how she stressed that there has been, is perceived to be and is taking place an increase in the regulatory burden. Looking ahead, there are more compliance costs to come. Why does the Minister not accept that there is a need for an independent impartial measure? That is what these amendments seek. My noble friend Lord Deben, with all his unrivalled experience in building up businesses, is arguing that we need to check, to look ahead and to ensure that we can measure the impact of this legislation. Who is going to be right? The Government are saying, “Trust us, we’re right, we know what’s best, this will increase growth”. Yet their own impact assessment says that it will not.

Therefore, when you analyse all the facts and statistics that are coming forward, surely there is a very strong argument that we need an independent impact assessment. I agree with my noble friend Lady Verma that, if our roles were reversed and the Minister, with all his experience, was sitting on this side of the House, these are the amendments that he would be pressing for, because he knows how important it is to measure the impact of legislation and regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, spoke of measuring what is happening now against what the Prime Minister promised in cutting the amount of regulatory burden and reversing the managed decline. It was good that she reminded us of those key words. Yet, as she said, this legislation is jam-packed with regulation. Her warning that this legislation is a recipe for lawfare is a warning to us all.

I agree with my noble friend Lord Swire that there is a need for a low regulatory framework at a time when our competitors are embracing artificial intelligence and all the new techniques while we are increasing the regulatory burden. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, got the answer that he was looking for from the Minister. Although he may not agree specifically with each individual amendment, he does believe that there is a clear message here that we must take on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

I was just sitting here looking at the noble Lord, a member of Mrs Thatcher’s Cabinet, with another one over there, the noble Lord, Lord Deben. When they passed a major piece of legislation, were there were any cases where you went to Mrs Thatcher and said, “Can we have an independent assessment of whether we have done the right thing?” I cannot remember anybody ever doing that, but perhaps the noble Lord can tell me otherwise.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I have many, many—

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Can the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mention any occasion on which the Official Opposition of the time demanded it?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My noble friend is quite right. I was going to make a rejoinder by demonstrating that, with Margaret Thatcher assessing, when you proposed a piece of legislation, you had to make sure that you had done your homework and carried out every possible impact assessment, as you would be closely cross-examined on each and every piece of legislation. I worry that this Bill has been rushed through in the first 100 days and no one has carried out the sort of test that Margaret Thatcher would have imposed. Therefore, I am so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Monks, for reminding us of that criterion, which we ought to bear in mind.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

The noble Lord has lured me into asking a question about impact assessments and the historic impact of the Thatcher Government. Which impact assessment said that there was a legislative decision made incorrectly during that period?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

We were subject to parliamentary scrutiny each and every day of the 18 years that we were in power. It was good that this accountability to Parliament was treasured by those in Parliament. However, I worry, certainly so far as secondary legislation. The noble Lord served with me on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and joined with me in saying, “Please let us make sure that every piece of legislation that we pass has a proper impact assessment”. Perhaps we learn from history that it is vitally important to have that impact assessment always ready there to prove, as my noble friend Lord Deben put it, whether we have got it right or wrong.

I worry that this Government have not done their homework. The fact that they resist these amendments suggests that the cut in regulatory burdens is not going to be pursued with any real determination. That 25% target is destined to remain a headline-grabbing announcement that quietly disappears when submerged under the reality of real-life policy choices. I hope that the Government reconsider, because these issues will come up over the next few years of this Government. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 310 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 326 in this group. I begin by saying again how gracious it was of the Minister to meet me to discuss my amendments in advance a couple of weeks or so ago. My Amendment 326 is on the same theme of the need for impact assessments before provisions are brought into force. It provides that:

“Regulations which would amend primary legislation may not be laid … unless an assessment of the impact … has been laid before Parliament and three months has elapsed”


from that date.

Delegated powers that can amend primary legislation are, of course, known as Henry VIII powers. This derives from the Statute of Proclamations in 1539 when Henry VIII persuaded the Commons to include a provision in a Bill that would permit him to issue decrees having the same effect as an Act of Parliament and thereby bypass the normal parliamentary process.

Henry VIII powers can be draconian and raise real questions as regards compliance with the rule of law. This is not just my view. In his much-lauded Bingham lecture on 14 October 2024, entitled “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism”, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, the Attorney-General, was obviously right when he said that excessive reliance on delegated powers, including Henry VIII clauses

“upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law ... but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”—

issues that

“raise real questions about how we are governed”.

These are wise words indeed and very welcome, but I find it difficult to reconcile them with our Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out at Second Reading, there are around 163 delegated powers in our Bill and 12 Henry VIII powers. As he powerfully put it:

“Ministers are, in effect, asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide to do, whenever they decide to do it”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1845.]


The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its report of 24 April, described various Henry VIII powers in the Bill as, “overly broad”, “inadequately justified”, and an

“inappropriate use of the … affirmative process”.

As it said, Henry VIII powers are subject to far less scrutiny than primary legislation.

And this is the heart of the problem. Much of the legislation needed is yet to come, but it will not be capable of being scrutinised as it should be because of the reliance on Henry VIII clauses. It is a symptom of a rushed agenda but also, more worryingly, of a growing acceptance that Henry VIII powers are okay. They are becoming the default option.

The Select Committee on the Constitution, in its report, points out that Clause 24, “Dismissal during pregnancy”, and Clause 25, “Dismissal following period of statutory family leave”, both

“contain and extend Henry VIII powers that … act as placeholders while the Government consults further on the specifics of the measures to be implemented”.

This can mean only that

“substantive policy decisions have not yet been taken”

on those issues. But it also means a lack of certainty about how the provisions will operate in practice, which the Select Committee-considered to be “particularly concerning”, given that the provisions enable primary legislation to be modified.

In addition, Schedule 7 contains a list of extensive legislative powers in connection with labour market enforcement, under Part 5, which are passing to the Secretary of State. Paragraph 35 confers on the Secretary of State a Henry VIII power to add by regulations any enactment which affects the rights of employees, trade unions and the duties of employers.

These extensive enforcement powers in Part 5 also need to be considered alongside Clauses 151 and 153. These clauses contain a power to make any consequential provision, which may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify

“any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before, or in the same session as … this Act ... and may make different provision for different purposes or … areas”

or

“contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision”.

The Government may respond that the power to make consequential provision is confined to what is purely consequential. That is true, but what is purely consequential turns on the scope of the provisions they are said to be in consequence of. Combining these consequential powers with the wide powers in Part 5, for example, would seem to give the Secretary of State the power to confer on his enforcement officers even wider powers when entering offices to search and seize documents, if they are in some way connected with the operation. I think even Henry VIII would have been impressed. His 1539 Statute of Proclamations allowed him to amend legislation by decree, but even he was not permitted to prejudice

“any person’s offices, liberties, goods”

or “chattels”.

Then there is the power to make provision for different purposes or different areas. What is the need for that power? When I was in government as a lawyer, parliamentary counsel would probe closely as to why we needed this power, and we would have to justify it. My amendment is therefore designed to bring some transparency and due diligence to the use of these Henry VIII powers before they are laid and debated. It would simply provide that, before such regulations could be laid, there would need to be an impact assessment laid before Parliament for three months to enable a bit more parliamentary scrutiny. This would give time for reflection and, if the Government decided to proceed with laying the regulations, it would serve to enhance the level of parliamentary debates on the regulations that subsequently take place under the affirmative procedure.

I give the last word to the great Lord Judge, who spoke strongly against such clauses when he was Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. He said:

“You can be sure that when these Henry VIII clauses are introduced they will always be said to be necessary. William Pitt warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. ‘Necessity is the justification for every infringement of human liberty’”.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and Lord Carter of Haslemere, for their amendments in this group. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, commented, it gives us the chance to send further good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for a speedy recovery. We look forward to seeing him back in this Chamber to discuss this vital Bill.

Dealing with Amendment 317 first, the Government have already acknowledged that the vast majority of the costs associated with this legislation will fall on smaller businesses, but it is not just the obvious headline of which we must be mindful. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, there are significant hidden costs too. These include the need to hire legal professionals, expand human resource capacity, and navigate increasingly complex compliance requirements, which many smaller firms simply cannot afford. That is why statutory guidance specifically tailored for small businesses—those with fewer than 50 employees—is not just helpful; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that it is essential. These businesses are the backbone of our economy. They do not have in-house counsel, nor the luxury of large HR departments, yet they are bound by the same obligations under this Bill as any large corporation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Fox, for Amendments 317, 326 and 329, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for moving the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.

Amendment 317 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is on guidance for small businesses. Ensuring that businesses are supported to implement these reforms is fundamental to the successful delivery of the plan to make work pay. We have committed to providing guidance to ensure that all stakeholders have the information required to make necessary adjustments. We are engaging closely with employers of all types from a range of sectors to understand how the Government can best support them in their preparations.

Support may look different for different sectors, sizes of company, regions and so on. We want to make sure that we properly consider the needs of different employers and respond in the most effective way. This could include a variety of tailored guidance and support. The amendment risks preventing the Government taking the type of tailored approach that we hope will be most effective. Our forthcoming implementation road map will set out our plans for consultation and implementation of the Bill’s measures.

Our Employment Rights Bill delivers the most significant upgrade in employment rights in a generation, creating a modern, fairer labour market. We will continue to consult and engage to make sure we get delivery right. We will produce guidance, provide support, allow time to prepare, and ensure the enforcement landscape works. I make it clear that I agree with the noble Lord that it is in everyone’s interest that small businesses are properly supported to implement the Bill, and the Government are committed to doing so.

Amendment 329 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would make commencement of all the Bill’s measures contingent on the approval and publication of statutory guidance. This would unnecessarily delay commencement of measures that can be delivered more quickly. We are committed to supporting small businesses and will ensure that timely and targeted guidance is delivered where relevant.

I turn to Amendment 326 from the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I have read the entire Bingham lecture from my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. Nowhere in his speech did he say that statutory instruments should not be used. As most noble Lords know, employment legislation uses true statutory instruments because they save parliamentary time, as mentioned in the Attorney-General’s speech, so that we can get more of this on the statute book.

I reassure the noble Lord that the Government have sought to limit the use of the Henry VIII powers within the Bill and believe our approach to their use is proportionate. I can also reassure the Committee that the Government already have robust plans in place to assess and review the impacts of this Bill. The noble Lord’s amendment would add unnecessary bureaucracy to this and other necessary powers in the Bill. It would also, in effect, duplicate work that the Government are already committed to undertaking.

Take, for example, the power in Clause 132(6). This allows the Secretary of State to update, expand or otherwise modify the list of bodies specified in Schedule 9 to the Bill with which information may be shared by the fair work agency. It is a Henry VIII power, subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government believe this is an entirely appropriate use of such power and the DPRRC also raised no concerns.

Specifically on the power in Clause 151, I reassure the noble Lord that, where possible, amendments to other pieces primary legislation that are required as a result of the Bill’s provisions have been made in the Bill itself. This includes amendments in Schedule 1 that are consequential on the provisions regarding zero hours in Clauses 1 to 5; those in paragraphs 5 to 19 of Schedule 3 that are consequential on the changes regarding unfair dismissal; and the provisions in Schedule 10 that are consequential on the provisions in Part 5. However, it is possible that further provisions will be identified that require consequential amendments. Allowing these to be made by regulations will mean they can be made without delay and with appropriate levels of parliamentary scrutiny. The power is constrained as it will allow amendments only where they are consequential on the provisions already made in this Bill.

Supporting employers to understand the requirements of the Bill is key to achieving the objectives of the plan to make work pay. I hope noble Lords are assured of the Government’s firm commitment to effectively and appropriately support stakeholders in preparing for employment rights reform.

This will be my last time speaking in Committee on this Bill, so—

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

If this is the last time the Minister is going to speak, I should point out that he started off by telling us about the road map, which his noble friend promised we would see shortly. In his closing remarks, would he like to tell us when we will see it? Will it be tomorrow, or next week? We would like to see it as soon as possible; indeed, we would love it if he could publish it now, before he finishes his closing speech.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

It is tempting, but I can assure the noble Lord that it will be published very, very, very soon. How is that?

Like I said, this is the last time I will speak in this Committee. I want to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for their extensive engagement and the robust way in which we have debated this stage of the Bill’s passage. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, and to the noble Lords, Lord Goddard and Lord Palmer, for standing in so ably for him. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox, well in his recovery and look forward to welcoming him back.

Let me be clear: this Government welcome scrutiny—that is the purpose of this House—but scrutiny must be grounded in the present and focus on the issues at hand, not lost in the echoes of decades-old political arguments. Some contributions, regretfully, seem to have been more intent on reviving grievances from the 1970s than addressing the needs of today’s Britain.

This Bill delivers on a clear manifesto promise. It is part of our plan for change, built not on rhetoric but on the practical need to provide security for working people and long-term renewal for the country. This is where our focus lies—not on refighting the past but on fixing the future. We continue to welcome serious challenge, and we expect debates to be robust, but we also expect them to be proportionate, honest and forward-looking.

As we approach the end of Committee this evening, we on this side look forward to constructive and collaborative meetings and engagement with all noble Lords ahead of Report. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 317.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, my Amendment 320 sits in glorious lone splendour in this group. I am not responsible for degrouping it; that was the way it was arranged. Noble Lords will see that this is a proposed new clause to introduce a maximum pay ratio. I thank the Public Bill Office for assisting me with the drafting.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, took us into celebrity land with Usain Bolt and Mo Farah. I am going further into that space with a forthcoming event from this week: the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sánchez in Venice. I am relying here on the interesting reporting in the Guardian from Zoe Williams, who has been spending time with the campaign group No Space for Bezos and finding that in Venice there is considerable resistance to a billionaire taking over a city and totally disrupting the life of that city for three days. Williams quotes one of the local campaigners:

“We really wanted to problematise the ridiculous and obscene wealth that allows a man to rent a city for three days”.


Williams reflects in the article that

“when wealth itself is seen to be acting in its own interests, and it has accumulated to the degree that its impact scars every poorer life with which it comes into contact”,

we have a problem.

This amendment sets out Green Party policy—yes, this is long-time Green Party policy—but I am really aiming to assist the Government constructively here, and to assist the Committee as well as perhaps our national debate, by demonstrating that it is possible to lay down bridges to cross the deep fissures in our society. They are not just in Venice and they do not just involve Amazon—although I note that the Government have been applauding an expansion of Amazon here in the UK. We might think about how many of the small businesses we have just been talking about might go out of business as a result of that. I posit that it is essential to start to bridge these chasms, to tackle the poisonous inequality that so affects our political landscape.

Bringing the context closer to home, noble Lords may perhaps have expected me to cite research out only a week ago from the High Pay Centre, which analysed five years of mandatory pay ratio disclosures across the FTSE 350. This was a previous modest legislative attempt, hoping that shining a light on the level of inequality might have some impact in reducing that inequality. The study clearly showed that the attempt to do that has failed. The figures have basically bobbled around since 2019, and the current ratio of median CEO pay to the median UK employee was 52:1. That has been at a similar level ever since the ratio started to be recorded. I note that it is even worse for the FTSE 100, where the median CEO to median employee pay ratio was 78:1. Those are the middle figures but, if we take the widest measures, we go to the security and catering group Mitie, where 575:1 is the ratio not to the lowest-paid employee but to the median employee. At Tesco it is 431:1. This situation is doing huge damage to our society, and I put it to the Government that they surely have to tackle it.

A 10:1 ratio is Green Party policy. I know from the discussions that the Minister kindly had with me before this debate that she will not leap up and support my amendment, but I hope she may be able to provide some response, at least to acknowledge that we have a problem. The pay differentials also react to the low-pay environment in which those essential to the success of a business are not getting the respect, as well as the pay, that they deserve. Meanwhile, a few at the top are incentivised to chase short-term profits and share price valuation at long-term cost to society but also to the businesses that they head.

The impact on communities is evident in towns and cities, where the vast bulk of workers are now trapped on or very near the minimum wage, while money is shovelled away to faraway company headquarters. Companies defend these sums as reflecting performance, but all too often, as we have seen with the water companies, that is far from the case. Why is it that every worker does not benefit if a company is doing well, as they have all contributed?

I finally note that, yes, this is also an environmental measure. To take just one element of the CEO lifestyle, the wealthiest people in the UK burn through more energy in flying alone than the poorest use in every aspect of their life. Environmentally, as well as socially and politically, we cannot afford a society split between a few have-yachts and the majority have-nots.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to this amendment and, frankly, to express a degree of disbelief that such a proposal should have been made. With due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe that this amendment is a serious contribution to the debate on fair pay or responsible corporate governance. It is a piece of performative and ideological showmanship—a throwback to a worldview that sees profit as a vice, wealth as inherently suspect and enterprise as something to be managed, limited or downright punished. The idea that government should impose a legal maximum pay ratio—a flat arbitrary ceiling of 10:1 between the highest-paid and lowest-paid employees in every organisation—is not just unworkable but, I believe, economically illiterate.

First, this proposal would be a gift to bureaucracy and a curse to business. Every company, from high street shops to high-growth tech firms, would have to monitor and police every single form of pay—salary, shares, bonuses, pensions and benefits in kind—just to ensure that they do not cross an artificial line. Do we really want our job creators to spend their time calculating compliance spreadsheets instead of investing, innovating and employing? Secondly, it would actively disincentivise growth and ambition. High-performing individuals—those who drive investment, lead exports and create jobs—would simply leave and take their talent elsewhere.

The noble Baroness mentioned Amazon. I join the Government in welcoming the further investment that Amazon is making. As a matter of record, Amazon employs circa 75,000 people in the UK. No one is on zero hours, and the minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000 a year. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which allow parents, grandparents or carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. It offers paid parental and bereavement leave. Amazon also offers guaranteed hours from day one, and employees have the choice of full-time or part-time contracts. It is important to put the record straight. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64,000 million in the UK, and £12,000 million in the last 12 months, and supports a network of around 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the opportunity that the noble Baroness has given me to put the record straight.

To go back to the noble Baroness’s amendment, it would mean that employers would be forced to avoid hiring lower-paid staff altogether, just to protect the ratio. What would be the result? There would be fewer jobs, less opportunity and more outsourcing—the very opposite of what a fair and inclusive economy should look like, hitting the least well-off, the most vulnerable and those at the margins of the labour market.

My third point is that this is not fairness; it is levelling down. It is virtually saying, “Don’t succeed too much, don’t reward excellence, don’t grow too big or too fast or be too profitable”. That is not fairness—it is anti-growth, anti-aspiration and anti-business. I must tell the noble Baroness that this amendment looks like it would be more appropriate in a Maoist economic manifesto, delivered to his revolutionary cadres, rather than a serious proposal for modern employment legislation. What this amendment reveals is not a serious attempt to solve a policy problem but a mindset that is suspicious of success, dismissive of wealth creation and entirely detached from economic reality. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, which I hope will agree with mine, that this is an amendment that should not be accepted.

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

My Lords, let accord break out across the Table. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling Amendment 320. I do not share the disbelief of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, in hearing it, but only because I probably have more than the passing acquaintance with bits of the Green Party manifesto that he perhaps does—and that is the only reason for it.

It is right that companies should be sensitive to wider workforce pay when setting pay for those in the boardroom and other senior leadership positions. Company law and wider regulation already address that point. First, the Companies Act requires that UK listed companies must disclose and explain each year the ratio of their CEO’s pay to that of the company’s lower-paid and average-paid employees. Secondly, under the UK Corporate Governance Code, listed companies are asked to review workforce remuneration when setting directors’ pay and engage with employees to explain how executive pay aligns with wider company pay policy. Taken together, these measures provide important transparency and accountability in how UK listed companies deal with pay and incentives across the whole employee base.