Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 14th July 2025 Lords Chamber

If the low-hours contract threshold is set at the right level, this section of the Bill can and will succeed. It can end potentially exploitative zero-hours contracts without taking a wrecking ball to the employment practices that work well for our economy, for our businesses and, most importantly, for millions of hard-working people in the United Kingdom. It is in that spirit that I commend this amendment to your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a genuine pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Wolfson, who speaks with genuine authority and deep experience on this important subject.

Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt. I shall start with Amendment 2, about which we have just heard, which is also signed by my noble friend Lord Wolfson. Clause 1 requires employers to offer guaranteed-hours contracts to low-hours workers after a reference period, but, as we have heard, the Government still have not defined what low hours actually means. That is not a minor technicality, because at this stage it makes the policy unworkable.

We are hearing that the Government prefer to define low hours as 16 hours per week, but we have also heard that is too high. We saw some different data. According to the British Retail Consortium, only 5.5% of retail workers are on below eight-hour contracts, while nearly 20% work between eight and 16. Raising the threshold to 16 hours would mean that employers are forced to repeatedly make contractual offers to one in five workers, most of whom are in regular, stable, part-time work. It is a dramatic expansion, with, as we have heard, very major consequences. As we have also heard, some of those consequences are higher employment costs, increased complexity, particularly for small businesses, and, inevitably, job losses.

Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses will respond rationally to risk. That means fewer short shift roles, fewer flexible contracts and less tolerance for marginal labour hours. Some will restructure and some will reduce headcount, but others—especially small businesses—will just close. If the Government define low hours at 16, they will directly accelerate redundancies and reduce employment opportunities for those with caring responsibilities, students and others who depend on part-time jobs. We have also just heard very powerfully about the effect on entry-level employment, illustrated with some very stark statistics.

This is not speculation; it is how businesses operate. A badly defined threshold forces risk-averse behaviour and the effect will be the opposite of what is intended. An eight-hour threshold would limit the burden to genuinely casual contracts. That is a workable, proportionate and sensible approach. Anything beyond that is unmanageable and would be economically reckless. The Government need to listen.

On Amendments 3, 4 and 5, the Government have indicated that they are considering setting the reference period for guaranteed hours at 12 weeks. During Committee on 29 April, I asked the Minister which businesses support a 12-week reference period; at that time, she was unable to name a single business. It is now nearly two and a half months later, and I am confident that she will still be unable to provide an answer as to how many businesses, particularly small businesses, support a 12-week reference period.

The reality is that no meaningful business sector has endorsed this 12-week period. It is simply out of touch with the realities of running a business, especially in sectors such as retail, hospitality and leisure, where work patterns fluctuate widely with the seasons, weather and customer demand.

A 26-week reference period is far more practical. It would better capture seasonal cycles, provide clarity and stability for employers and employees alike and significantly reduce the administrative burden of constantly reassessing guaranteed hours. Without a longer reference period, employers will simply reduce hiring on 12-week contracts to avoid triggering this costly and complex obligation. That will not protect workers; it will diminish their opportunities and increase their precarious nature. I therefore urge the House to support the amendments put forward by me and my noble friends. We have set the reference period at 26 weeks. This is sensible, it is a workable compromise, and it will protect workers’ rights while respecting the operational realities of businesses.

To turn lastly to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, which my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I were happy to sign, it makes no sense to require employers to offer guaranteed hours to employees who do not want them. The Government appear to misunderstand or simply disregard the autonomy of the individual worker. Imposing this administrative burden, especially on small employers, to calculate and offer guaranteed hours where they are neither wanted nor needed is an unnecessary and unavoidable cost. We therefore strongly support the right to request amendment proposed by the noble Lord, which better respects worker choice and employer flexibility.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this first group, but I shall speak briefly to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which, as she explained, is an amendment to the Government’s Amendment 8, and Amendment 22. I want to interrogate the wording of the Government’s Amendment 8. We have a 309-page Bill. There is a lot of concern outside, at the coal face, from businesses about definitions and what the Bill means. This is a good example:

“In exercising the power under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to … the desirability of preventing this Chapter from having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances”.


Can the Minister explain how these exceptional circumstances are defined, and how significant does the adverse effect need to be for it to be regarded by the Secretary of State?

I ask that mindful of the latest survey from the Federation of Small Businesses, just a couple of days ago, which surely signals significant adverse effects for the majority of small and micro-businesses. For the first time in its history, the FSB reports that more UK small firms expect to shrink, sell up or shut down over the next 12 months than anticipate growth. The FSB’s Q2 small business index shows that 27% of small businesses expect to contract, close or be sold, outstripping the 25% which are planning for growth, and it marks the first time that the balance has tipped towards pessimism since the index began. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, points out in her amendment, there is no need to layer “exceptional circumstances” on to already significant adverse effects on employers. It would be far neater, of course, to exempt small and micro-businesses from Clause 1, as I and many others argued throughout Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

24: Clause 5, page 31, line 36, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of this Chapter, references to a “relevant collective agreement” shall be treated as including an agreement in writing between an employer and an employee representative body or staff association that—(a) has been formally established for the purposes of consultation or negotiation with the employer,(b) represents either a defined group of the employer’s workers or the workforce generally, and(c) operates independently of the employer in its decision-making.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, for the purposes of this Chapter, agreements made with independent employee representative bodies or staff associations — where formally constituted and independent — may be treated as equivalent to collective agreements.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 24 and 25 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. As we highlighted in Committee, the Government appear to hold an implicit bias in favour of the trade unions, as though they are the only legitimate bodies capable of making rational decisions on behalf of workers. That is clearly not the case. One needs only to look at the chaos of the Birmingham bin strikes to see that unions are not always acting in the best interests of employees, and nor are they always representative of them.

In Committee, during the debate on Clause 5, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, remarked that

“the whole point of a trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people”.—[Official Report, 8/5/25; col. 1744.]

If that is so, surely workers should be free to choose whether to be represented by a union or by another independent body—choice is the essence of workplace democracy. If the noble Baroness and the Government are so committed to democratic representation, I wonder whether she also supports the Government’s proposal to remove the 50% ballot threshold for strike action—a move that clearly undermines democratic standards rather than upholding them.

On Amendment 25, the law must have no gaps, no shadows and no hiding places where the old habits of industrial bullying can take root and flourish. Every loophole we leave open becomes a wound in the body politic of free employment. Every ambiguity we permit becomes a tool for those who would turn the noble art of collective bargaining into a weapon of exclusion. That is why I speak in support of this amendment and why I urge the Government not to dismiss it on the tired ground that closed shops are already unlawful.

Yes, closed shops are illegal on paper, but we are not here to legislate for the perfect world of statutory textbooks; we are here to legislate for the real world and, in the real world, pressure to join a union can exist. This amendment simply states what most of us would regard as common sense: that no worker should be treated differently under a collective agreement based solely on their union membership status. It would prohibit making membership a condition for the agreement’s terms to apply. It would ban imposing any disadvantage on non-members and prevent contract terms being automatically imported purely because someone happens to hold a union card. In other words, it restores balance. It would ensure that collective agreements function as they ought to—as negotiated protections for the workforce—not as a gatekeeping tool for union organisers. It does not therefore weaken unions; it strengthens fairness. I beg to move.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 25 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I reiterate his key point that the imperative is to make it clear that the closed shop is not coming back and that the Government are committed to free but fair bargaining.

Let us remember that the closed shop has never actually been that popular. In the United States, the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 outlawed the closed shop, and in the UK—even before I was born—in 1964 Rookes v Barnard involving the British Overseas Airways Corporation began the fightback against the closed shop when that organisation sacked a worker who refused to join a trade union. As noble Lords will know, in effect the closed shop was made illegal by the Employment Act 1990 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.

The fact that we accept that the closed shop is damaging and an anachronism is, as much as anything, a reflection of the different working regimes in which the 40-odd million working people, or potentially working people, in this country exist. The closed shop was very much of a time when heavy manufacturing, manual labour and a heavily unionised workforce were prevalent, and that is now different. The working environment of young people particularly is a much more modern, diverse, dynamic and disaggregated labour market where the closed shop is a throwback and an anachronism.

There are good reasons why it is important to put in primary legislation that even this Government—who are legislating in a very negative way, which will cost jobs and opportunities and force people not to hire workers—will not go back to the bad old days of the 1970s and institute a closed shop. Labour market flexibility is reduced by the closed shop because the capacity of employers to employ the best-qualified candidates—regardless of union membership—is reduced. That inevitably leads to a misallocation of labour resources, higher business costs, higher prices and, ipso facto, a lower number of jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his explanation for Amendments 24 and 25, and note that these are similar to the amendments he tabled in Committee, but with some of the safeguards and requirements removed. While I respect the noble Lord’s views in this area, I feel this is going in the wrong direction. Staff associations and employee representative bodies can of course be a very positive way for staff and employers to engage. However, we are not convinced they are the suitable vehicle for deciding whether to modify or opt out of statutory employment rights. While many maintain a good balance between positive engagement and constructive challenge, we are not persuaded that they will, in all cases, argue as robustly as a trade union on behalf of workers. In addition, without a trade union representing them, workers will not have as many protections if their employer does not deliver promised benefits.

This is nothing to do with a closed shop or industrial bullying. Under our proposals, employees will continue to have the right to be, or not to be, a member of a trade union. The issue here is the right to be represented by a body that is truly independent. We remain of the view that agreements of this type are best made by trade unions which have been through all the steps to become listed and certified as independent. I would encourage any staff association or employee representative body that wants to negotiate on behalf of its members to register as a trade union and go through the steps to obtain a certificate of independence from the certification officer.

The second part of the noble Lord’s amendment sets out that a relevant collective agreement shall not be treated as valid if it meets conditions such as imposing detriment or disadvantage on a worker who is not a member of a trade union and terms being incorporated into a worker’s contract solely by reason of union membership status. We believe that these provisions are unnecessary. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already provides sufficient protection by ensuring that workers cannot be subject to detriment for the purpose of compelling them to join a trade union. Furthermore, the application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends on incorporation of them into their contracts, either expressly or by implication, in line with well-established contract law, rather than on the basis of a trade union membership.

I turn to Amendments 26 and 27 in my name. Currently, when the terms of a collective agreement cease to be incorporated, the worker’s initial reference period and initial information period recommence the next day. However, in some cases, there could be quite a gap between these terms ceasing to be in force and the worker next being employed by the employer to work. We heard the strength of feeling around business burden in Committee and, where it is possible to make tweaks, we will do so. In this case, we believe it makes more sense for the reference period to start the next time the worker is employed by the employer. This avoids businesses having to consider making a guaranteed-hours offer before it is sensible and necessary to do so.

We are also tabling a minor and technical amendment to new Section 27BY(8) to reflect that the duty relating to the information right in the existing provisions will be on agencies to inform potential eligible agency workers about the right to guaranteed hours in any relevant information period.

Finally, Amendment 27 ensures that the zero-hours measures in the Bill apply as appropriate to special categories of workers. This follows a long-standing precedent that these categories of workers should be treated as distinct, as they do not have a typical employment relationship or undertake a unique type of work. In line with this precedent, the amendment ensures that House of Commons and House of Lords staff, Crown employees and mariners benefit from the crucial protections the Bill provides on zero hours. It also ensures that duties made under provisions in the Bill do not apply where this would not be appropriate; namely, in relation to service personnel in the Armed Forces and police officers. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 24 and commend Amendments 26 and 27.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I first thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor for their comments. Employee representation must be plural and not monopolised by trade unions. There are many workplaces across the country where independent staff associations or employee bodies are trusted, respected and effective. These organisations are not lesser simply because they are not unions. In fact, they are often more in tune with their colleagues’ needs, less politicised and more flexible in resolving workplace issues—yet disappointingly, the Minister says they are not “suitable”.

The idea that only a union can be trusted to negotiate terms is a fiction—we just have to look at Birmingham to see the results of that belief. This amendment simply recognises reality: that employee voices come in many forms and the law should not shut out legitimate and independent associations.

Secondly and just as crucially, we cannot allow this legislation to leave space for any form of closed shop, not in name or in practice. It is true of course that compulsory union membership is already unlawful, as the Minister pointed out, but this amendment would ensure that there were no back doors. We do not think the law should have any ambiguity on this. No agreement should ever impose a detriment on a worker simply because they choose not to join a union, and as my noble friend Lady Lawlor pointed out, the majority choose not to—in fact, in the private sector, I think that the proportion who choose not to join a union is 87.7%. No terms should be granted only by virtue of membership. That is not freedom; that is coercion.

We therefore say again that collective bargaining should not become collective exclusion. These amendments would uphold freedom of association in both directions: the right to join and the right not to, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, in speaking to Amendment 104, in the name of my noble friend Lord Palmer, to which I too have added my name, I must apologise that I have been unable to speak at earlier stages of the Bill. I also strongly support Amendments 31 and 32 regarding kinship carers. I have spent a lot of time on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, where we have spent a lot of time talking about the importance of kinship care. We need to see join-up between that Bill and this Bill, so that kinship carers, who play such a critical role, get the support they need.

On Amendment 104 and the proposal for paid carer’s leave, which was set out admirably by my noble friend Lord Palmer, it is clear that it is both a modest proposition and incredibly important to unpaid carers trying to juggle work and caring. As we have heard, it would, in effect, turn the current provision—normally up to five days leave within 12 months, as set out in the Carer’s Leave Act and so already a clearly defined right—into a statutory pay entitlement. If you have supported a relative who needs care and worked at the same time, which many of us have, including me, you will know how time poor you are, that it is an incredible juggling act, and that paid carer’s leave can make a real difference.

I have spoken directly to carers who do not have paid carer’s leave in the workplace. They say that taking annual leave is exhausting and they never get a proper holiday. Unpaid leave was a useful step forward and it is right and important, but the unpaid nature of the leave can be challenging. As we have heard, a number of employers have already voluntarily embraced paid carer’s leave because they understand the beneficial impact it has, particularly on productivity and staff retention.

There are all sorts of examples of good employer practice. We have already heard about Centrica. The Phoenix Group offers two weeks of paid carer’s leave and recently added five days of unpaid leave. Some 6% of colleagues took up the offer, with an average rate of 2.64 days. We are not talking about an open cheque here. The employer said: “We have had extremely positive feedback from our colleagues and there have only been benefits to the business as a whole”. Paid carer’s leave would support workers of all ages, from young carers to adult carers and older workers. It would be a positive all-age and all-gender policy, but the reality is that women are more likely to be carers and at risk of working part-time with lower incomes in retirement, so paid carer’s leave is a positive equalities policy.

The final point I want to make is about what is happening internationally. There is a move to deliver more paid carer’s leave support, recognising ageing societies, a greater proportion of retired population to workers and the imperative for people to work for longer. Australia and Germany have 10 days of paid carer’s leave, and Germany has longer-term provisions as well. It is seen in those countries as an important strand of reducing economic inactivity, something we badly need to do here, as the Treasury quite rightly reminds us. With a shortage of social care and carers taking on more hours of care, there is a huge need to ensure that unpaid carers are supported to juggle work and caring responsibilities. It is not a “nice to have”; it is essential.

I will finish with the real-life example of Michelle White from the TSB, who was happy to have her name quoted. She said, “Paid carer’s leave provides a vital lifeline in my ability to care for my sister, often at short notice, and we would both struggle without it. This important measure allows me to provide support during an emergency. I can be there when it matters, with peace of mind that my career will not be jeopardised simply because I am a carer. I cannot speak highly enough about paid carer’s leave and the need for all carers to be supported in this way. Working for a business like TSB that recognises carers and offers this type of support is priceless”.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his thoughtful introduction. These amendments raise an issue of deep humanity, that of kinship carers—family members, friends or relatives who step up, often at short notice and with immense personal sacrifice, to care for a child who cannot remain with their parents. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind that kinship carers perform a vital role, and often without the financial or legal support that accompanies formal fostering or adoption. These proposals seek to address that gap through the creation of a statutory kinship care leave entitlement, mirroring in some respects existing entitlements such as maternity or adoption leave. It is a serious and thoughtful contribution to the long-standing challenge of how we support informal family networks caring for vulnerable children and this is a cause worthy of respect and policy consideration. However, although the underlying issue is important, we must also take account of practicality and timing. We have similar concerns to those expressed by others about the cumulative burdens placed on businesses by this Government, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

We are debating these amendments in a broader context in which the Government have already imposed or are proposing to impose a series of costly new obligations on employers. We were talking in the last group about day-one rights to statutory sick pay and compensated cancelled shifts with undefined notice periods, and now we are talking about potentially a new category of leave which may extend up to 52 weeks with full employment protections and return-to-work guarantees. Each of these measures in isolation may be defensible and even commendable, but taken together, they represent a heavy financial and administrative load, particularly for small businesses in the retail, hospitality and service sectors, many of which are still struggling in the wake of the pandemic with ongoing and increasing cost pressures. In the case of kinship care leave, the details are vague and defer to regulation, leaving employers in the dark about how it will work in practice. What counts as evidence of an eligible arrangement? Will the leave be paid and, if so, by whom? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse? These questions must be answered before we can impose another legal obligation on employers.

We also have to be honest about timing. The economic climate remains fragile. Many small businesses operate on margins of just a few per cent. For a family-run corner shop or a café with six staff, the unexpected loss of one employee for several months could be devastating, particularly if there is no clear mechanism for support or to backfill that position. We respect and admire the intent behind these amendments, but we must weigh them against the real-world pressures facing employers. This is not the right time to impose new, poorly defined and potentially costly statutory entitlements, especially without clarity on how they will be funded or implemented. We need to support kinship carers, but let us do so in a way that is targeted, workable and fair to employers as well as families.

On government Amendment 34, my noble friend Lady Coffey has raised some important questions and I am looking forward to the answers. Does this amendment cover just termination on grounds of foetal anomaly or for medical reasons? Or is the rest of the subject taken in by that rather catch-all phrase,

“pregnancy loss of a specified kind”?

Can the Minister give us some information as to what he thinks the meaning of “a specified kind” is?

Finally, I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has asked for details about the review, citing a paucity of information. Having been present throughout all these debates, I know that “paucity of information” is a recurring theme with regard to this Bill. I am also keen to hear what the Minister has to say in due course.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken: the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Lister, and Lady Tyler, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Turning first to Amendments 31 and 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on the important topic of kinship care leave, I begin by giving my thanks to the right honourable Sir Ed Davey MP, leader of the Liberal Democrats, who has powerfully shared his personal experiences of kinship care and of being a carer himself. This has brought much-needed attention to the importance of kinship care and of supporting caregivers across the United Kingdom. It is important for me to address that.

The Government greatly appreciate the role that kinship carers play by offering loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. I am sure your Lordships’ House shares these sentiments. We also know the current system needs improvement, because it does not support working families as well as it could. This is why we have already begun work to improve the system of kinship carers, starting with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, as alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which will create a legal definition of kinship care to ensure consistency in how local authorities identify and support kinship families. That is why we have to work across government in this area.

I am pleased to say that the Government have announced a £40 million package to pilot a new kinship allowance, which is due to commence later this year. This is the single biggest investment made by government in kinship care to date. The Government’s recently launched parental leave review also presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the whole system of parental leave and pay. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Tyler, also asked about the terms of reference and how long this review will be. The terms of reference are published online, and the review is expected to last 18 months so that we can speak to stakeholders and various charities and come to some form of decision at a much later stage.

All current and upcoming parental care and pay entitlements will be within scope of the review. It will also consider the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers. Creating an entitlement for kinship carers would pre-empt the review before it had had a chance to consider support for kinship carers in the context of wider parental leave and the pay landscape.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for tabling Amendment 42, which seeks to permit a special constable to request reasonable unpaid time off from their employer to perform their public duty. In so doing, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his service, as well as to many other noble Lords, whose service we were either aware of or not so aware of—not just the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Rainow, who had some interesting tales of his truncheon, and from across the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, himself.

The Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe, as very ably described by a number of noble Lords in the debate, not just the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, but the noble Lords, Lord Remnant, Lord Goddard and Lord Bailey of Paddington.

--- Later in debate ---

I also reiterate a crucial question raised by my noble friend Lord Fox, who has stopped falling off the Alps and has now almost recovered. In Committee, he asked for Members of this House to have sight of the draft regulations under this section, and a clear explanation of how the guidelines will function alongside regulations. Without that transparency, it is difficult to fully understand how the Government intend for these provisions to work and to be assured that the rights of workers will be properly safeguarded.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lord Holmes of Richmond for their amendments in this group. I join the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, in his remarks about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in particular, which addresses an important point about the employment opportunities for blind and sight-impaired people. Unfortunately, the measures in the Bill make it significantly more costly to hire all individuals, and this will hit those on the margins of the labour market the hardest.

My noble friend Lord Young has made some very compelling points in Committee and now on Report on Clause 20, and this is where the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I differ. If the Government do not accept my noble friend’s amendments, we must consider the logical—and potentially absurd—consequences of allowing unqualified liability for indirect harassment.

Imagine for a moment that the same principle was applied here in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just did, while making some very good points. Suppose for example a guest in the Public Gallery was to lean over and whisper something mildly controversial—perhaps a pointed remark about constitutional reform. A doorkeeper standing nearby happens to overhear it and finds it offensive. Under the logic of indirect third-party harassment liability, would the Lord Speaker be expected to issue a formal apology? Would Black Rod be required to eject the offender and impose mandatory sensitivity training on all future guests? What would the “banter consultant” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, say about that?

This illustrates the unworkability and overreach of the current drafting. No one would expect Members of this House to be held responsible for the spontaneous and overheard utterances of strangers in the Gallery, and nor should we expect publicans, shopkeepers or venue managers to be so, either.

As to Amendment 193 standing in my name, the Government have already decided to delay many of the measures in the Bill. Originally, we were told that these measures would come into effect by 2026, but the Government’s decision to postpone parts of the Bill is, I believe, an implicit admission that their consultation process was inadequate.

The Government have now begun to recognise the very real and unintended consequences that could follow from some of these provisions. Clause 20, which seeks to impose liability on employers for third-party harassment, is one such provision that warrants further scrutiny and, at the very least, a longer lead-in time. This clause, while we accept it is well-intentioned in its aim to protect employees, risks, as we have discussed, casting too wide a net. It opens the door to legal uncertainty and potentially frivolous claims based on subjective interpretations of overheard remarks or perceived offence. Therefore, the Government must reconsider how such a broad definition of harassment could be interpreted in real-world settings, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, where employees regularly interact with members of the public.

As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton pointed out, recent warnings from the British Beer and Pub Association, which has announced that Britain is now losing a pub every day, should be heeded. This is not simply a matter of economics; it is a cultural and social loss, as my noble friend pointed out. Pubs are part of the lifeblood of our national identity. They are centres of community, debate and tradition, yet now, in addition to facing tax increases, rising costs and staff shortages, pub landlords are being told they may be held legally responsible for comments made by their patrons, even if those comments are not directed at staff. To quote again from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, this is not made-up nonsense; this is factual.

I urge the Government to take this opportunity to reflect, to consult more widely and to ensure that they do not impose a law which may undermine business, stifle free expression and expose employers to unfair liability.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government have provided assurances to your Lordships’ House throughout these debates, time and again, that Clause 20 will not have the chilling effect on free speech that is being claimed today. Therefore, we will resist Amendments 43, 44 and 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in relation to third-party harassment.

I make it absolutely clear at the outset that this clause is about addressing harassment, not about banter. We have overarching legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998 which guarantees freedom of expression in a way that is legally and constitutionally stronger than any amendment the noble Lord could make to the current Employment Rights Bill. Therefore, we do not accept the argument that carve-outs are required or that new concepts should be introduced that would complicate the law unnecessarily.

Employers are already obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to protect employees from harassment in the workplace. That has obviously not led to “banter bouncers” in the workplace. Therefore, employers already have an understanding of how to apply these protections in practice. Our aim is not to burden employers or prevent free speech; it is to deliver on our commitment to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.

The question was raised as to whether cases would go to a tribunal for people being oversensitive. It is important to note that in an employment tribunal claim for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual’s situation must always be considered. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. In addition, there is a seriousness threshold. Conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet that definition of harassment.

The protection we have proposed is welcomed by a recent nationally representative survey of 5,000 people by the TUC, which found that eight out of 10 people—