Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I accept that the intentions behind this Bill are well meant, but I am concerned about the unintended consequences. There are some positives—the rules on fire and rehire, and bereavement leave, are just two examples—but overall I am afraid I have to conclude that the Bill will damage growth and, most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people. Others have mentioned omissions from the Bill. I am supportive of the comments that have been made on NDAs and on whistleblowing, and I look forward to seeing what comes up on those.

The impact assessment says that the Bill will impose costs of around £5 billion on business. Worse, it confirms that those costs

“will be proportionately higher for small and micro businesses”.

That goes directly against the Government’s drive for growth. Noble Lords need not take my word for it. The OBR said yesterday that changes would

“likely have material and probably net negative economic impacts on employment, prices and productivity”.

There is already evidence that small businesses are reducing hiring, so I hope the Government will be willing to consider constructive ways to reduce the burdens on SMEs.

Speaking of the impact assessment, the bar is not high, but this is one of the worst I have ever read. The Regulatory Policy Committee rated it not fit for purpose, stating:

“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly the pass-through of employer costs to employees”.


It beggars belief that any Government would propose changes of this importance without carrying out such an analysis.

That problem is made worse because this is, in effect, yet another skeleton Bill, with much of the important detail to be added later by regulation. I counted 173 regulatory powers—I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, came up with the same number—including 11 Henry VIII powers. That restricts proper analysis and scrutiny. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that all material regulations will be provided in draft before we reach Report, to allow at least some scrutiny of those important rules? It is not acceptable to continue having these endless skeleton Bills. We are seeing more and more of them.

Given the time limit, I will raise just two detailed issues. First, I agree that zero-hours contracts can be exploitative and that some tightening is required, but they can work well for people such as students, as we have heard, and we should try to retain some level of flexibility for them. More importantly, the new rules are likely to drive perverse behaviour. Basing future guaranteed hours on the previous 12 weeks is burdensome on businesses, but it may also mean that people will not be given extra shifts during those busy times. The unintended impact of the Bill might be that people get less work, not more.

Secondly, there is the introduction of day-one unfair dismissal rights. This will directly reduce opportunities for vulnerable people. That is not just my opinion, it is the Government’s opinion too. The impact assessment says:

“There is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections”—


I stress this last part—

“particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.

I am sure we all support the Government’s intention to get people off sickness benefits and into work. But, to achieve that, we need employers willing to employ them. Is this really the moment to introduce rules that will, by the Government’s own admission, make that less likely? Is there any real evidence that the two-year qualifying period is being abused? In my experience, the opposite is true. The qualifying period allows employers to give people with little experience or poor employment records the benefit of the doubt when hiring them in the first place and at the end of any initial probation period. Can the Minister please provide evidence that the two-year qualifying period is in fact a real problem? The only winners here will be employment lawyers, and the losers will be the very people the Government say they want to help.

We have heard lots of comments about this being a Bill for the workers. What it definitely is not is a Bill for those who want to work.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am a little puzzled by the groupings between this and the previous amendments. I have gone the opposite route and decided to speak to this group rather than the last one, but everything that I say in this group applies equally to Amendment 75, which would have created a review of the impact of the changes on small and medium-sized businesses. This group would require impact assessments to carried out for the various other effects that the Bill would have—so really it is the same subject.

Frankly, a lot of this would not be necessary if the Bill had been properly thought through from the beginning, if there was not so much detail to be filled in later by regulation and, in particular, if a proper impact assessment had been carried out on the various changes proposed. The Bill will, by the Government’s own admission, impose costs on business, disproportionately on smaller businesses, of around £5 billion, and will, again by the Government’s own admission, have potentially negative impacts on employment opportunities for those with poorer employment records. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it should not have been properly impact-assessed.

The Regulatory Policy Committee rated the impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. It is worth reminding noble Lords what it said:

“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly, the pass-through of employer costs to employees. The eight individual IAs and the summary IA need to provide further analysis and evidence in relation to the rationale for intervention, identification of options (including impacts on small and microbusinesses) and/or justification for the preferred way forward”.


It is damning that that was not done before the Bill was presented to us.

Now, before the Minister points this out, I concede that the statutory sick pay individual impact assessment is the only one of 23 that is rated as good—in itself a pretty damning statistic. However, the impact assessment for the monitoring and evaluation plan for the statutory sick pay part is rated as weak. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already referred to the potential behavioural aspects that arise, which are not in any way covered in the impact assessment. In fact, there is a complete cop-out; it says, “We can’t do this because of the behavioural impacts”.

Sadly, these proposed amendments and Amendment 75 in the previous group are clearly necessary, as are the others that we will debate later today and throughout the Committee process. The five-year review that the Minister referred to earlier frankly does not cut it, given the significance of the measures in this Bill and how quickly how they will have impact. Five years is way too long to wait to understand whether it is damaging.

I do not wish to test noble Lords’ patience by repeating this speech multiple times during the process of the Committee, so I ask the Minister to take as read my support for proper and timely reviews and assessments of the impacts of this Bill as we go forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have identified, we are now continuing the important debate on statutory sick pay and specifically to address the impact of these measures on businesses.

It is important to highlight that the statutory sick pay system, and the changes that we have brought about as part of this Bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual with minimising the costs to the employer. This group of amendments, Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health, and short-notice shift working.

As I mentioned earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already identified, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment which considered the likely direct business impact of SSP changes. This included considering the impact on small and medium enterprises and sectoral impacts.

Overall, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be approximately £15 extra per employee, a relatively modest amount when compared to the positive impacts that these changes will have for employees and overall productivity. I thank the noble Lord for the three amendments tabled in this group, all of which would require impact assessments. I look forward to debating those with the other 23 or so requests for impact assessments that the Opposition have already tabled. We have a plethora of requests for impact assessments. I reassure the noble Lord that we are at the same time updating our regulatory impact assessment and operating a post-implementation review of the measures—so the Opposition’s requests are probably not necessary.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 74A, requiring an assessment of the impact of the changes to SSP in the Bill on absenteeism, we acknowledge that overall sickness absence may increase as a result of this Bill. This is not a loophole, nor are the Government not considering businesses; rather, it is the very objective of these changes to enable the lowest-paid employees to take time off when they are sick. Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time that they need to recover from short-term illness without struggling through work and often risking the spread of infectious diseases such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition to prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employees might be encouraged to misuse the system. However, if employers have the right policies and practices in place, the risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.

Additionally, the noble Lord’s amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism versus legitimate sickness absence, and in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked the employer or the employee. The Government intend to build on the regulatory impact assessment and, as I have said, we intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill.

I turn to Amendment 74B, to assess the impact of the reforms in the Bill on employers’ ability to continue offering enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly in low-margin sectors such as retail. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the potential impact on this matter, and the Government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone’s interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay or occupational health provision. However, the Government’s view is that these changes will serve only to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I question why any business would want to use these changes as a reason to reduce the support that they provide their employees to help them stay in, and return to, work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about the Government’s policy on getting people back to work, and she was right to raise the issue. We are talking about a balance here; when people are sick, they should have the right to be off sick. I also accept the point that she made that being at work can in itself be a healing experience, and we should not lose sight of that—that there can be a positive health impact from being at work.

I once again draw noble Lords’ attention to the Keep Britain Working review. As I set out earlier in the debate, Sir Charlie Mayfield will consider recommendations on how the Government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces and support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. That review is expected to produce a final report in autumn this year. I believe that much of what the Keep Britain Working review is doing will address the noble Lords’ concerns, and I hope this reassures them that the Government are taking this matter seriously. We look forward to the results of the review.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 74C, which seeks to review the effects of the SSP changes on shift management and short-notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in relation to Amendment 74A, the number of sickness absences may go up as a result of these changes. This is because it would enable employees to take time off when they are sick.

I again reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to understand the impact of these changes on businesses. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of these measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

However, this amendment would require the Government to collect a significant amount of data from businesses on what noble Lords will understand is quite a wide range of issues. We believe that this would be administratively challenging for them to provide, particularly in less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid—the extra bureaucracy that he has talked about. For example, asking employers, including SMEs, to accurately record and report to government the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments because of sickness absence is not practical or reasonable.

We have had a worthwhile, short debate on these issues, but I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that we are on the case and therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 23 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, we now come to the general subject of unfair dismissal rights from day one, which we have just touched on in relation to apprentices. Many of the same arguments are going to apply more widely. For me, this is most damaging part of the Bill because the unintended, but well understood, consequence is that it will damage the life chances of the young and the most vulnerable. I thank the Ministers for their time last week; I am not sure if I persuaded them, but I will try again now.

At Second Reading, I asked why these changes are required. What is the evidence that there is a genuine problem, or that the qualifying period of two years is being abused in any material way? The Minister did not answer the question, so I have therefore given notice that I intend to oppose the question that Clause 23 and Schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, so that I can probe further into what problem these changes are intended to solve.

Rather than hearing my views on the subject, I am going to tell noble Lords what the Government’s views are, and what they think the impacts of these changes to the qualifying period will be. According to the impact assessment,

“it is likely employers will make changes to hiring, dismissal and management practises to minimise the risk of litigation for dismissal and minimise unproductive employee-job matches. The burden of these changes could be in the hundreds of millions per year”.

It goes on to say:

“The impact on businesses is expected to be negative and driven by familiarisation costs, and administrative costs from providing a written reason for dismissal, as well as the costs associated with additional early conciliation and tribunal cases, which is also likely to create additional burdens for the Employment Tribunal system”.


So, the Government agree that there will be a substantial cost to business, an increase in litigation risks and additional burdens on the tribunal system. They also state that these impacts will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. I assume that nobody in this Chamber thinks that any of those are a good thing.

More importantly, what are the impacts on employees, especially those who are trying to find work? The impact assessment is pretty clear on that too. It says that

“there is some evidence of a negative relationship between stronger dismissal protections and hiring rates … this suggests that if not implemented with care ‘Making Unfair Dismissal a Day One Right’ could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire (e.g., younger workers with less experience, ex-offenders, etc.)”.

It later says that

“there is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections, particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.

Again, I cannot believe anyone thinks those are good things.

The Government accept that this policy will create costs in the hundreds of millions for businesses, add burdens to the already stretched tribunal system and, most importantly, damage the hiring prospects—the life chances—of the very people we should be helping to get into employment. I hate the term NEETs, but we have heard a number of comments about the nearly 1 million young people who want to get into work. It goes directly against the Government’s admirable policy to get people off welfare and into work. So, why do this? Surely there must be some hard evidence that the current two-year qualifying period is causing some genuine problems, or evidence of material abuse, to justify these changes that will have all the damaging consequences that the Government themselves accept.

However, the impact assessment makes no such claims. It provides no evidence whatever that there is a problem. It simply makes a number of very vague and unquantified statements about people benefiting from increased job security. For example, it suggests a direct benefit to households driven by the welfare benefit arising from increased job security, with absolutely no attempt to quantify it. It also goes on to say that there are benefits from

“additional settlements and awards from additional early conciliation and employment tribunals”.

That last one really is extraordinary. This Bill has been described as a bonanza for employment lawyers; the Government appear to be confirming that, and actually seem to be suggesting that it is a good thing.

To read or listen to what the Government say, noble Lords would be forgiven for understanding that there are currently no protections from unfair dismissal for employees during the qualifying two-year period. That is quite wrong. There is a whole list of reasons for dismissal that are automatically unfair from day one. I will give a few examples, rather than go through the whole list—I do not want to keep everyone here all night. They include dismissal for reasons of a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, race or religion, et cetera; for being pregnant or on maternity leave; for being a trade union member or representative; for taking part in industrial action; and for being involved in whistleblowing. There are many others. So, let us stop this idea that new employees are unprotected from day one. It is just not true.

I ask the Minister, as I did at Second Reading, when she did not answer: why are the Government doing this? What evidence do they have that the qualifying period is really a problem? Presumably, there must be some tangible benefits from the policy to justify all these disadvantages that the Government have described. What are they?

The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt—and happy birthday to him—would require impact assessments of the changes, which I support, but surely it would be better to get this right in the first place. The impact assessment does say:

“The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”.


That is absolutely right, and that is what the rest of this group tries to deal with: to reduce the negative impacts of this change.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 says that the Secretary of State may make regulations about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which is generally called a probationary period. My Amendment 104, along with Amendment 334, is intended to make it a requirement that the Secretary of State “must” make, rather than “may” make, such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his support on this and other amendments. He sends his apologies that he is unable to be here tonight.

As the Bill stands, the two-year qualifying period can be abolished and not replaced with anything. I understand that is not the Government’s intention, and we heard earlier about the nine-month preference, but it is what the Bill says. Having no probationary period at all would be extremely damaging, so it is important that it should become a requirement that these regulations are issued, and not just a “may”.

My Amendment 108 would ensure that any probationary period is at least nine months long. What is important is that the employer should have adequate time to assess whether the new employee is right for the business, including by giving them a good chance to get up to speed through training and so on. I agree that the current two-year period is very long, and from discussions I have had with business groups and from my own experience in business, I am confident that the shorter period would be acceptable to most businesses. I think the Government’s suggestion of nine months is workable, and that is what I have proposed in the amendment, so I hope it is not particularly controversial from that point of view.

The other critical factor for a probationary period is that it must work in a way that enables an employer to give the person the benefit of the doubt, rather than acting as a disincentive to hire them, especially for the riskier hires that the Government described and that I mentioned earlier. For that to be the case, it is essential that the employer can dismiss them without having to give a reason during the probationary period.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Of course; that is always the way whenever there is litigation. Whatever the subject matter, people do not want the burden of defending the case and the people bringing the case do not want the burden of bringing it. That is just the reality of litigation.

I will say one last thing before I sit down. The argument that the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have put forward is all about what they perceive to be the consequences of this matter, which my noble friend Lord Monks just addressed. But nobody can seriously advance the case that employers should have the right to dismiss anybody unfairly and without recourse to the law.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Does the noble Lord accept that these are not simply arguments that people around this Chamber are putting forward but matters that are in the Bill’s impact assessment? It is the Government’s own statement that the Bill will have these impacts. It is not being made up by any of us: the Government accept that this will be the impact.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

That may very well be, but it still does not remove the fundamental point: what is being proposed is a category of worker who can be dismissed unfairly for the most extreme reasons without resort to any justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She will know that I share her ambitions for the tech sector. The UK remains the number one country for venture capital investment, raising $16.2 billion in 2024—more than either Germany or France—and since last July we have secured £44 billion in AI investment. Strengthening employment rights and giving day-one protections can help support talented people to take the leap into a start-up company.

I turn to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Setting a statutory probationary period during which light-touch standards will apply is a crucial part of our plan to make work pay. I can reassure the noble Lord that setting out the detail in regulations is fundamental to fulfilling this commitment. It is not necessary to make this a requirement in legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a number of questions. He, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked why the Government are doing this. The UK is an outlier compared to other OECD countries when it comes to the balance of risks and entitlements between the employer and the employee. We believe that it is an important principle that employees should have greater security at work. Our reforms will mean that around 9 million employees—31% of all employees —who have been working for their employer for less than two years will have greater protection against being unfairly dismissed.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I hate to interrupt the noble Baroness at this late hour, but that is just a repeat of what has been said before; it is not a tangible quantified reason for doing this. Yes, for a short period of time, they will have greater security in theory, but the downsides of this—they are in the Government’s own impact assessment—are really clear. The Government say that this will reduce the life chances of people who are riskier hires. It will cost business hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no quantification of that benefit against those downsides, and I am still not hearing that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks.

I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that not only have we thought about this but we are working very closely with the business sector to get this right. We understand that some of these things will take time. It takes time to change systems, and a lot of it is about changing computer systems for processing and so on. We are aware of this and, when the noble Baroness sees the implementation plan, it will reassure her that we have allowed space and time for it, as well as proper consultation with those who will be affected.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it has been a long debate so I will try not to detain the Committee much longer. I thank the many noble Lords across the Committee who have contributed. It has been long because this is really important. I confess that I come out of the end of this debate feeling somewhat depressed. I still have not heard really why we are doing this, and what the real, tangible benefits are, to offset against the very real negative impacts, particularly on those who are looking for employment and are perhaps disadvantaged in one way or another: they have not worked before, they are young, they have a gap—we heard all the various examples. The Minister did not really address that point terribly clearly in her speech, and it is so important.

This may be, as the Government have regularly called it, a Bill for workers. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is not a Bill for people who want to work—the potential workers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. He stole my Charlie Mayfield quote, but I will not worry about that. It is true that Denmark has much easier hire and fire, and he was using that as a paragon of virtue because it allows people who are harder to hire to get into employment, which is so important.

In the interests of being constructive, I hope the Minister understands the real concerns about those people and the impact the Bill is going to have on them, and the negative impacts this section of the Bill will have. I hope that she will be prepared to spend a bit of time with us between now and Report to try to find solutions to those negative impacts, to minimise the problems and downsides that they will cause. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks: I am not making this up, or crying wolf, as with the national minimum wage, as the noble Lord suggested. This is what the Government say will be the impact. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is not me saying that; the Government say this will be impact. If we can try to work together before Report, to try to find ways of knocking the edges off this and reducing the negative impacts, that would be very helpful. With that, I will not oppose Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.

Clause 23 agreed.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 24th June 2025 Lords Chamber

I conclude by saying that, if the Government are confident in the righteousness of their reforms, let them subject them to proper scrutiny. If they wish to maintain credibility when they speak of reducing red tape, let them apply that logic consistently and not selectively. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 326A on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who apologises that she is unable to be here.

The amendment is simple: it would require the Secretary of State or the relevant devolved counterpart to have regard to the impact of any regulations made under the Bill on the economic growth and competitiveness of the United Kingdom. It is very similar to Amendment 325, just introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which itself mirrors the wording of the secondary objective for financial regulators, which was introduced in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. I would support either one; they ultimately have the same goal.

As we heard on many occasions in Committee—we are reaching the end, at long last—this is a skeleton Bill, where an enormous amount of the detail will be added later by regulation. I counted 173 regulation-making powers in the Bill—a quite staggering number. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather think that we should do the work first and then legislate, not the other way around.

We also have an impact assessment that accompanies the Bill that, as we were just told, was described by the Regulatory Policy Committee as not fit for purpose. In many cases the impact assessment makes no effort at all to quantify the costs or benefits, precisely because it is not yet known what will be in the final regulations that follow the Bill. The Government themselves concede in the impact assessment that many of the measures in the Bill will have negative consequences. For example, the Government expect that, overall, the measures in the Bill will impose costs to business of around £5 billion. They also state very clearly that these costs will fall disproportionately on small businesses. The potential negative impact on growth and competitiveness from that is obvious.

Some of the negative aspects could be minimised if the regulations are well designed. To give just one example, I have been concentrating my efforts on the Bill on the introduction of day-one unfair dismissal rights. The impact assessment is very clear on the potential negative impacts from that on businesses and, in particular, on the potential hiring of employees who are seen as higher risk, such as younger people. That is my top concern in that respect.

After describing the potential negative consequences, the impact assessment rightly says:

“The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”.


I agree; a well-designed probationary period could negate many of the impacts that the Bill could cause, which is something that I hope the Minister will be prepared to discuss before Report. However, at the moment, we have no idea what the final regulations will be and neither, it appears, do the Government. They still have not carried out the relevant consultation.

That is a really good example of the importance of this amendment. The final consequences of the Bill will depend on the detail that is to be added later or amended by regulation. We should not just take that on trust. Although I of course have the greatest faith in the Minister, this Government cannot speak for or bind future Governments.

The Government have consistently stressed the importance of growth and competition, although it is fair to say that their actions have not always followed their rhetoric. To quote the Chancellor in January this year:

“Economic growth is the number one mission of this government … most of all … without economic growth … we cannot improve the lives of ordinary working people”.


Surely that last point is the main point of the Bill: to improve the lives of ordinary working people. It must be essential, and I assume agreed, that where the measures in the Bill could have negative impacts on growth, those negative impacts should be identified and taken into account when adding the details to the Bill by regulation.

In the same speech, the Chancellor went on to say:

“The strategy that I have consistently set out … is to grow the supply-side of our economy … recognising that first and foremost … it is businesses, investors and entrepreneurs who drive economic growth … a government that systematically removes the barriers that they face—one by one and has their back”.


It is hard to disagree with that, so surely we should ensure that the Bill does not do the opposite and create barriers for business.

There is a good precedent for including a growth and competitiveness objective in a Bill such as this. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 introduced a secondary objective for financial service regulators to facilitate international competitiveness and growth, something that the current Chancellor has been vocal in her support of and has rightly put pressure on regulators to follow, including through the issuing of new growth-focused remit letters to the regulators.

Having such an objective, or in the case of these amendments just to have regard to, is not new and is entirely consistent with stated government policy. Given the potential negative impacts the Bill may have—by the Government’s own admission—the sheer volume of detailed regulation that must follow and the difference that could be made to the consequences of the Bill if those regulations are well designed or badly designed, we must surely have some clear objectives for those regulations. All that these amendments would do is ensure that growth and competitiveness must be taken into consideration. Surely that is not too much for us to ask.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lord, I have added my name to Amendment 326A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I agree with all that has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in introducing it, and, indeed, with the convincing analysis by my noble friend Lord Sharpe.

Noble Lords may recall that I come to the scrutiny of the Bill constructively, having worked for Tesco for many years and enjoyed excellent relations with the USDAW union, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and with the trade unions in general, under the noble Lord, Lord Monks, at that time. We always tried to treat people well, and the success of the business was a testimony to that. We complied with the law.

However, the law is now changing, and I am afraid that this Committee has shown that the Bill needs further work. As drafted, it will be a huge check on growth and will undermine the competitiveness of which we have rightly been very proud in the UK. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned earlier the worrying research by the Institute of Directors that reveals that seven in 10 business leaders surveyed believe that the Employment Rights Bill will have a negative impact on UK economic growth.

I have two particular examples, which I hope the Minister will look at again. First, Ministers—or rather their civil servant agents, and possibly even the trade unions—will be able to take a legal case where an employee is unwilling to pursue a complaint. That is inappropriate and unfair; consent is such an important principle. It also risks putting further pressure on the already struggling tribunal system.

Secondly, and I apologise that this example has already been mentioned, the Bill will radically reduce the effectiveness of the labour market by giving employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of their employment. Other employees will be disadvantaged, as those who are slack, do a poor job or play the system will not be able to be dislodged without a long tribunal case. This will hit good employees who need to cover for their fellows.

The Minister has very helpfully agreed that there should be a probation period during which suitable arrangements can be made in such circumstances, but we have no detail. All of that will go into regulations, which we will not be able to reverse. That is why I feel so strongly about this evening’s amendment on growth and competitiveness. This would apply when regulations were being made by Ministers. There is, unfortunately, a plethora—a cornucopia—of powers in the Bill. It is essential that Ministers, here and in the devolved Administrations, to which our amendment refers, should be required to look at the impact on UK economic growth and competitiveness when they are making regulations. Otherwise, I fear that the growth objective of this Government is for the birds.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s intention to protect workers is commendable. We all agree that fairness, dignity and security at work are essential pillars of a just society. However, the approach taken in this Bill, particularly the changes to unfair dismissal rights and the introduction of a statutory probationary period, is confused and counterproductive. What the Government have failed to grasp is that, when businesses are given the flexibility to manage their workforce pragmatically, that is precisely when they are more likely to take on new staff. Hiring is always a risk. By heightening that risk and making it more difficult to manage, this Bill creates disincentives to hire, particularly at the margins of the labour market, where the stakes are highest.

This is fundamentally a question of incentives. Reduce the employer’s ability to assess suitability, cultural fit or even basic reliability, without the spectre of legal sanction, and you will see fewer jobs created. The cost is very real, but nowhere is it properly considered in the Government’s own impact assessment. That acknowledges a likely 15% rise in employment tribunal claims, but makes no attempt to model the knock-on effect on hiring behaviour. The tribunal system, as we know, is already overstretched, with cases often taking more than two years to resolve. A 15% increase without corresponding investment will only deepen the backlog, and employers will know that they are walking into a system that is clogged and uncertain.

Then there is the statutory probationary period, which the Government propose with no real clarity. The Bill fails to explain how this period interacts with the obligation to act reasonably or whether there will be a different standard for dismissals during this window. Will there be a list of fair reasons? Will an employer be able to extend the period if performance takes longer to assess? None of this is addressed. As any employer will tell you, uncertainty in employment law leads not to innovation but to caution and legal advice.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Government’s approach is its likely effect on social mobility. When you raise the legal risks of hiring, it is not the well-connected, polished graduate who loses out but the individual on the edge of the labour market, the person returning to work after illness or parenting, the school leaver with no contacts, the ex-offender with a spent conviction, the refugee trying to prove themselves. The Government’s impact assessment recognises this risk, because it says that making unfair dismissal a day one right

“could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire”.

Those are not my words but the Government’s.

The same is true for a “cultural fit”, which the Minister dismissed in Committee as an illegitimate reason for dismissal. She said:

“The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 334.]


However, “cultural fit” is not a euphemism for prejudice; it is about whether someone complements the way in which a team works, the style of communication or the pace and rhythm of a workplace. This is particularly acute for a small business. Hiring mistakes are costly. Even a highly skilled worker takes time to reach full productivity and the cost of advertising, onboarding, training and then managing a dismissal is not trivial. If employers cannot be confident that they will have a window in which to assess a new hire, including on soft factors such as team dynamics, initiative or client manner, they will become more conservative. They will play it safe. Who loses then? Again, it is the person who just needed someone to give them a chance.

My amendment offers a better path. It reduces the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, a meaningful extension of protection for workers. It also creates an initial period of employment following that six months in which a simplified process and lower compensation cap would apply. That strikes a fair balance, giving employers space to assess suitability while ensuring that bad-faith dismissals still carry consequences. Crucially, it also removes the sweeping power given to the Secretary of State in the Government’s clause to modify Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act, a power that could drastically shift the fairness test without proper parliamentary oversight.

Employees already have day-one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal, as they should. However, general unfair dismissal should be subject to a short and defined qualifying period that employers understand and workers can plan around. My amendment delivers that clarity. It also avoids a situation where employers are left wondering whether a dismissal based on fit or reliability will land them in court, even when handled with care.

We have to be clear that jobs are not abstract concepts; they are costs. In the early stages, even the most promising employee is an investment that takes time to repay. Employers need space to make those judgments. This Bill, as it stands, puts a thumb on the scale in favour of caution and against second chances. That is not fair, that is not just and that is not how we grow a dynamic, inclusive labour market. I beg to move.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 50 and 67, which, like the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has just spoken to, which I have also added my name to, relate to day-one unfair dismissal rights. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Katz, for making time to discuss this issue with me, for which I am very grateful.

The introduction of day-one dismissal rights will have a range of consequences: in particular, additional costs to business, which the impact assessment says will run to hundreds of millions a year and the Government themselves says will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses; and greater numbers of tribunal cases on an already overloaded tribunal system. But the most important impact is on people who are looking for work, especially those with riskier profiles: young people trying to get their first step on the employment ladder; people trying to get off benefits; people with health issues; people changing careers; ex-offenders and so on. The Government rightly want to get all of these into work, but the Bill will make that more difficult, not easier.

The current law, with the two-year qualifying period, allows an employer to take a risk on someone—to give them the benefit of the doubt—without facing the risk of an employment tribunal claim if it does not work out. This Bill ends that. An employee will be able to claim for unfair dismissal from day one, and the only valid grounds for fair dismissal will be capability or qualification to do the job, conduct by the employee or some other undefined substantial reason relating to the employee. These reasons are essentially the same as the current reasons for fair dismissal after the qualifying period in today’s law, and they cannot be changed by the regulations that the Government intend to use to create a new—again undefined—type of probation period. Employers will no longer be able to let someone go during a probation period because it is not working, without risking an unfair dismissal claim.

So what will be the result? Simply, employers will now have to think twice before hiring anybody with a less than perfect employment record. The Bill will make it harder for an employer to take a chance on such people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. To quote the Federation of Small Businesses:

“all it’s going to do is make small employers more reluctant to recruit and fearful of being open to vexatious claims … It’s those furthest from the jobs market who will then suffer, because the less risk small employers can afford to take, the fewer second chances, fresh starts and first jobs they’ll be able to offer”.

If anyone is in any doubt, the Government themselves state the same effect in the impact assessment. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, quoted, but this is what the Government also know and think.

We already have a million young people not in employment, education or training—the so-called NEETs. If we want to solve that, we need employers who want to take them on, who will take a chance and give them that first all-important opportunity. So, why on earth would we want to make it riskier for employers to take that chance?

You would think, therefore, that there must be a good, well-evidenced reason why this Government would decide knowingly to make it more difficult for young people to get their first opportunity to work. I have asked several times during this process for evidence that the existing law is in fact causing any problem. There is no evidence given in the impact assessment, and I have had no real answer to that question. In Committee, the Minister’s answer was:

“We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 333.]


That really is not good enough to take action that the Government themselves acknowledge will damage the life chances of the most vulnerable or those just starting out.

Employers do not dismiss people lightly, even during a probationary period; hiring and training are expensive and time-consuming, so employers are strongly incentivised to try to get it right. But it is a fact of life that sometimes, with no fault on any side, things do not work out.

As the Minister knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, wanted to speak in this debate, but, unfortunately, she cannot be here today. She has asked me to point out the impact this change could have on GPs. Not being able to let someone go if the fit or culture is wrong is extremely serious for a small business—as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, described—but in a GP practice it could put lives at risk. GP practices tend to be small teams who must work together well and with great understanding and support. An employee who does not fit with the rest of the team could lead to miscommunication, appointment issues and so on. In healthcare, such errors could compromise patient welfare and could even have fatal consequences. It is essential that people can be easily let go if it is not working out in the early stages of their employment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

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

I turn to Motion H1, in my name. We on these Benches have repeatedly made the point that the Government should not pursue a one-size-fits-all approach to the labour market. For farmers in particular, the labour force rises and falls with the season. Harvesting, planting, the noble Lord’s example of fruit picking, and livestock management all depend on the rhythms of nature, not on the administrative convenience of Whitehall or, indeed, limited-scope contracts. The reality is that a farm cannot simply hold on to staff year-round when the work itself exists for a defined and limited period only. The same can be said for many other seasonal industries, as defined in my amendment. That is why 26 weeks has long been recognised across seasonal industries as the appropriate reference period. I urge the Government to protect our seasonal sectors by agreeing to this Motion.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Motion E1 is the most important amendment we will be debating today. The introduction of day one unfair dismissal rights is the most damaging element in this Bill, in my opinion. While there are problems with much of the Bill, there will, I believe, be a lot of unintended consequences.

For most of the proposed changes to employment rights, the Government are trying to solve genuine problems. Zero-hours contracts can be abused, and the abuse of fire and rehire is well known, to give a couple of examples. But despite my asking many times, no Minister has yet provided any evidence that the current qualifying period is being abused or causing actual harm to employees, and the Minister has added nothing to that today. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill likewise provides no evidence of cost or harm. We have already heard from the Resolution Foundation that it agrees, saying:

“Making dismissals as hard as in the ERB might also be for little obvious gain to workers”.


Uniquely among the employment rights changes in the Bill, there is little or no evidence that there is really a problem to solve or harm to be prevented here, but very real harms will arise as a result of this policy. The ability to claim unfair dismissal from day one will make it more difficult for employers to take a risk on new employees. The Government’s own impact assessment makes this clear, and it points out that the greatest impact will be on more risky hires, such as young people trying to get that first all-important break, people trying to get off benefits, ex-offenders and so on—all people the Government keep telling us they are trying to help. To repeat, do not take my word for that: the Government’s own impact assessment confirms this.

We have just heard about the business organisations. All that I have seen also points to these unintended consequences, but even if you think, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”, listen to the Resolution Foundation, not an organisation that has ever been accused of being in hoc to employer organisations. It says, as we have heard:

“The Government’s plan … of getting rid of qualifying periods entirely by making this a ‘day one’ right—has the potential to inhibit hiring”.


It goes on to say, importantly:

“One group of particular concern at the moment are younger adults. The number of young people (aged 16 to 24) not working or studying has risen post-pandemic, and is at its highest level in a decade. And young people’s employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers”.


I think we can all agree that the current two-year qualifying period is unnecessarily long. That is why the amendments passed on Report reduced it to six months, which should be long enough for most employers to decide whether the hire is working or not. That would bring us into line with countries such as Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden, none of which are well known for employment rights abuse. That seemed a sensible compromise, protecting around 6 million more people from unfair dismissal, while reducing the unintended impact on higher-risk hires such as young people. To quote the Resolution Foundation again— I think it is going to get quoted a lot today:

“Reducing rather than scrapping qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the Government’s manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers …but it would do so in a way that doesn’t needlessly put employers off hiring”.


The Government simply rejected this compromise, while providing no reason and no evidence whatever of a problem.

What is needed for a probation period to allow an employer to give a potential new hire the benefit of the doubt is for there to be no risk of being taken to an employment tribunal during that period, other than for the standard existing statutory reasons, such as discrimination. Before anyone suggests, as they have in the past, that there will not be an increase in tribunal claims, I remind noble Lords that the Government’s own impact assessment states that a benefit of the policy is that there will be an increase in tribunal awards. That is actually in the impact assessment.

We have heard that the Government intend to consult on the matter and to create a nine-month, light-touch probation period. That sounds good, but the Bill pre-judges that consultation. New Section 98ZZA(3) sets out very clearly that certain fair reasons must be given to dismiss someone during a probation period, and unfortunately, those reasons are materially the same as those that must be given after the qualifying period. That means that, as the Bill is drafted, the risk of being taken to an employment tribunal will always remain. It will not in fact be possible to create a genuinely light-touch probation period after the Bill is passed, whatever the results of the consultation. So the Government’s suggestion that it will be okay because of the future consultation and regulations just does not stand up to scrutiny.

We have often heard that this is a manifesto commitment, but the Government never mention the other explicit manifesto commitment: that they would

“consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society … before legislation is passed”.

It is in the same paragraph. It seems to be okay to breach that manifesto commitment.

As I say, the Government’s own impact assessment clearly acknowledges the harm this policy will cause. If you know that your actions will cause harm and you go ahead anyway, that is a deliberate act. So, if the Government are not prepared to listen, including to the Resolution Foundation, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Government intend, knowingly and deliberately, to damage the life chances of young and vulnerable people. Do they really want to do that? Please, Minister, take this seriously.

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

My Lords, I oppose Motion E1, which is unnecessary. Under the Employment Rights Bill, employers can still dismiss workers fairly—for example, as they can now if they are incompetent or there is misconduct or a redundancy situation. But without the day one protection proposed by the Government, when workers move to a new job, they would continue to bear the risk that they can be sacked at whim.

I encourage noble Lords to put themselves in the shoes of a worker, who in good faith leaves a secure job where they have completed the qualification period with protection against unfair dismissal to take up a new post, and who then finds themselves sacked, out on their ear, stripped of a livelihood for no good reason.

I also remind noble Lords that many groups of workers are already protected against unfair dismissal from day one, as their dismissal would be deemed automatically unfair—for example, if they are pregnant, on family leave or are a trade union rep, or, indeed, if they are a whistleblower. The Government simply intend to extend that protection to all workers. In addition, if someone thinks they have been unfairly dismissed because of race, sex or another protected characteristic, this could be discrimination. They could make a claim to an employment tribunal for both discrimination and unfair dismissal, and for that discrimination claim, workers do not have to meet that qualifying period of two years.

Finally, so far, I have heard little mention of the thorny issue of job mobility in this country, which economists agree is a significant barrier to economic growth and productivity. In the UK, reports show that job mobility has fallen badly—according to one report, dropping by 25% over a period of barely two decades. Poor job mobility is bad for workers—they have less chance of improving their wages if they stick in the same job—and bad for the economy, because we are failing to move workers fast enough into areas of growth. Under the previous Government, we saw insecure contracts at work soar. In 2012, the Conservative-led Government shamefully doubled the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal to two years, stripping workers with less service of protection at the stroke of a pen.

I am very conscious of the employer lobby that has mobilised in support of this amendment. But when I look back on employers’ opposition to the national minimum wage, to equal pay for women and to stronger health and safety rights, it is clear that business lobbies do not always know what is best for Britain. Labour’s manifesto commitment is clear—to deliver day-one rights in full. I hope that noble Lords will join me in opposing this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Two questions were posed to me: one was about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

We seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that, if this day-one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person will not be employed in the first place. It is not that they will be fired afterwards; it is that the employer will not feel able to take the risk or take a chance on them in the first place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

If you have a spent conviction, you do not have to disclose it, so I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I challenge noble Lords on their experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, sitting opposite me— I am sorry to name her in person—worked with me in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country. It has very positive employment policies, including very positive policies for flexible working, and also proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.

The simple fact that needs to be understood is that probationary periods provide the opportunity for an employer, who has spent a lot of money recruiting someone, to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, I support Motion B1. As the Minister has set out, the Government wish to go back to an arrangement where all new members automatically pay the contribution to the union’s political fund unless they take the initiative of opting out.

My own view is that it should be equally easy for a person to choose to contribute or not to contribute to the political fund at the point of applying to join the union. That is what my amendment seeks to do. The alternative approach supported by the Government is to have arrangements designed to minimise the number of new members who will exercise their legal right not to contribute to political funds. They want to do this by requiring action to opt out but not requiring any action to opt in, but, surely, an equal choice can be given only by respecting people’s personal preference.

Clearly, the Government wish to reduce the number of people exercising their right not to contribute. As one Labour Member in the House of Commons stated when opposing my amendment, they aim to avoid

“a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 975.]

That is a wonderful euphemism for putting barriers in the way of people exercising their true preference.

I accept that opting out has been the dominant arrangement for political funds since 1945. However, as I said last time, the rest of the world has moved on. Technology and widespread use of online applications and communications have made it much easier and less burdensome for members of an organisation to make a clear and convenient choice. Additionally, the standards that are now accepted for dealing fairly with people exercising their choice have changed significantly. Active, explicit consent has become the accepted standard.

I have examined the existing application forms for five unions which have political funds and whose application forms are easy to access without having to initiate the online application process myself—which I thought would be a rather risky thing to do. Two forms stand out. The version of the UNISON form, which I have seen, already provides a clear choice. There are two parts to the fund, one for the benefit of the Labour Party and another for general campaigning. Applicants are asked to tick their preference between the campaign funds, Labour Link, and “no thank you”. The GMB form, which I have also seen, offers a clear choice in response to the question:

“Do you want to opt-in to the political fund?”


There are two boxes. Applicants are asked to select the “yes” or “no” box. The other three application forms simply ask whether new members wish to contribute to the political fund. However, importantly, all of them have clearly decided that it is in their own interests to ask applicants to opt in at the point that they apply to be members—I will come back to this in a moment.

My goal remains to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice, avoiding the need for repeated arguments with each change of government. My amendment requires all unions to adopt the approach taken by the GMB and UNISON unions under the present law. It would give members a clear and transparent choice when joining a union that gets away from a focus on opt-in or opt-out. Under the amendment, all applicants to join a union with a political fund would be required to answer a simple question: do they wish to contribute to the political fund or not? It is an equal choice with no bias. That question will be on the application form.

I worry that this amendment, as it is set down on the amendment paper, may seem rather lengthy and complicated, but the essence lies in Amendment 72D—the remaining amendments are all subsidiary to the key provision of that amendment.

In rejecting my previous amendment, the Minister in the House of Commons stated, and we have heard it from the Minister in this place again this afternoon, that reinstating automatic contributions to the political fund, unless members choose to opt out, would

“restore balance and fairness in union operations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/25; col. 958.]

But what could be more balanced and fairer than the present UNISON and GMB forms, where applicants have a clear choice which they exercise at the time that they apply to join?

The Minister further claimed in the other House that the current opt-in system did not improve transparency or strengthen members’ choice, but how can that possibly be true of the amendment I put forward today? What could be more transparent or strengthen choice more than presenting two options side by side, along with the case for having a political fund, and allowing members to choose between them?

The Minister in the House of Commons, and the Minister this afternoon, have emphasised that under the proposed arrangements in the Bill, members will be informed on the application form of their right to opt out of contributing to the political fund and that opting out will have no impact on other aspects of their membership. However, I notice that there has been no commitment to being able to exercise a choice to opt out by ticking a box on the application form. Perhaps the Minister could explain why this simple option was not mentioned and apparently will not be required. Even under the opt-out system proposed by the Government, it would improve transparency and strengthen choice if members could exercise their choice not to contribute on the application form. If they are required to apply subsequently for an opt-out form to complete, does this improve transparency? Does it strengthen choice? Of course not.

I have had very helpful conversations with the Minister, and I must say I am very sorry to find myself in dispute with the Government on this. I have no political interest in this debate but continue to press the issue because this is not the way we expect organisations to operate today. It is a step backwards from the hard-fought cross-party compromise of 2016, and it is a stark reversal of everything we have learned in recent years about making choice more transparent and ensuring that decisions better reflect people’s true preferences.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I want to speak to Motion B1. Like, I think, many noble Lords, I start to become a bit uncomfortable when we have multiple rounds of ping-pong; and I generally hesitate to vote against the Government in more than one round, but I am expecting to make an exception in this case, for four main reasons.

First, I firmly believe that introducing day-one unfair dismissal rights will cause real and permanent harm to young people and others who are seen as higher-risk hires, such as those who have been on benefits for a long period, ex-offenders and people who have had long career breaks, perhaps because of parental or other caring obligations. When I say permanent, I mean that; if you are unemployed for a year, it becomes considerably more difficult to get on to that ladder and to make a success of your career. This is really important.

I am supported in that belief by every business group. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has listed many such groups; I would add another: the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, of which I am a member. There is the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute, and perhaps most importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment, which is very clear on this. I would love to hear the Minister’s views on his own impact assessment—he has never actually addressed that point. None of the several Ministers in this place or the other place has made any coherent argument to the contrary. So I put the question very simply to the Minister: will restricting the reasons that may be used to dismiss someone during a probation period, and thereby opening up the risk of an employment tribunal from day one, make it more or less likely that an employer, especially a smaller employer, will take a risk on, or give a chance to, a young person with no experience? Is it more or less likely? It is very simple. I think most of us know the answer to that. Is he going to argue that his own impact assessment is wrong?

Secondly, this measure directly contradicts other government policy. The Government’s youth guarantee, something I am strongly in favour of, will offer every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months guaranteed paid work. To do that, you need employers who are willing to give them a job and to take that risk. Why would an employer do that if they can be taken to the employment tribunal from day one if the employment does not work out? It does not make sense.

Thirdly, despite, frankly, the clear harm that this will do, the Government have not provided any evidence that the change will create any material tangible benefits for workers. No evidence has been provided to show that the qualifying period is being abused or is causing actual harm. There is no evidence provided in the impact assessment; there is evidence that doing this will cause harm, but none about the harm we are trying to solve. No evidence has been provided in this or the other place.

The Resolution Foundation is also very clear: if we are going to harm the life chances of young people, which is what the Government confirm in their impact assessment, we must have real evidence that there is a genuine greater benefit, not just the usual statement that it cannot be right that someone can ever be dismissed for no reason.

Fourthly and finally, I want to look more closely at the claim that this is a manifesto commitment. It is in the manifesto, but it is part of a wider commitment that includes the explicit commitment:

“We will consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation is passed”.


We have heard several times today that the Government will consult afterwards. They might argue that that is because the rules for the probationary period will be in a statutory instrument.

Let us unpick this light-touch probationary period the Government are talking about. The problem is that the Bill expressly and specifically sets out the reasons why someone can be dismissed from day one during that probationary period, meaning that it is not genuinely a probationary period. Under the Bill, it cannot become a light-touch probationary period; that is simply impossible, given the way the Bill is drafted. I would love to understand more about the light-touch probationary period because we have had no detail about what it really means. However, the employer is obligated by the Bill—the Act, should that come to pass—to give specific reasons which are limited by the Bill. It cannot be light-touch, so I would like to understand better what the Government mean by that.

There is a possible way forward, however, which is where I start, perhaps, to part company with the Opposition. It is because the Bill sets out that there have to be specific reasons for dismissal that is the problem—that is what allows the employment tribunal to get involved during a probationary period and all the rest of it. I wonder—I am thinking aloud—whether there is a solution to the problem by taking that element out.

For those reasons, I am inclined to support the Opposition on Motion B1. I urge the Minister to take this seriously. As the Resolution Foundation put it so well, let us not

“needlessly put employers off hiring”.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard four very good speeches, and I do not intend to repeat them. I listened very carefully to the Minister and, unusually, I will read what he said in Hansard rather than just saying I will, because there was some interesting stuff there. I picked out the phrase, “We will not compromise on the fundamental principles of the Bill”. It would help if those could be set out because they are currently in the eye of the beholder.

The Minister also raised the notion that someone who had worked just less than two years should not be unfairly dismissed. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, recognises that point fundamentally but there are 730 days between day one and two years. We do not have to go from 730 to one; there are stages. We may disagree on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pulled out the issue of light-touch rules and the criteria for fair dismissal in the Bill. I have some problems with the noble Lord’s suggestion, because if it is not in primary legislation, it will come as secondary legislation. We all know that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition never kill secondary legislation—I am looking at them. We would like to from time to time because it should happen; there should be a sense of jeopardy in secondary legislation, which currently there is not. Without that sense of jeopardy, I am not happy with taking things out. However, if it is in primary legislation, the consultation is not worth anything because it is already there, so we might as well forget about that.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

The Minister has observed how the amendments from the House of Commons detail some further ways of making the process of opting out easier, but these relate much more to issues of timing, rather than the whole question of how difficult it is to exercise the right to opt out. I continue to hope that Ministers can be persuaded to reconsider their position to remove the obstacles—preferably to go down the route that I have suggested—and to make this process of opting out as easy as possible. Otherwise, I fear that we will have to go down this route many more times in the future.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for meeting with me earlier today. It allowed us to sort out some misunderstandings, for which I am very grateful.

I will speak only to Motions B and B1. I somewhat regret that this is not the speech that I had originally intended to make—in fact, I had written it. I had intended to make a very short speech thanking the Minister and the Government for listening to the House, almost every business group, the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute and their own impact assessment, and reaching a sensible compromise based on what this House proposed.

I was very pleased that the Government held talks between the business groups and the unions, and that all had agreed that the compromise was workable. Contrary to some of the more irresponsible comments that we have seen in the press—some coming from the other place, sadly—this was not a case of out-of-touch Peers blocking a government Bill. It was a good example of this House doing its job of scrutinising legislation and asking the other place to think again. We do not block legislation; we seek to improve it. I do not underestimate how difficult it was for the Government to make the important concession on day-one unfair dismissal rights that they have made.

Sadly, though, I cannot end my speech there. The Government set out the compromise they reached in an announcement on 27 November. It said that agreement had been reached on a six-month qualifying period, which would be changeable only by primary legislation —so far, so good. It also very briefly mentioned the lifting of the compensation cap, something that has never been discussed during the passage of the Bill. Then I saw the actual amendment, which goes somewhat beyond lifting the compensation cap. The amendment abolishes it altogether so that compensation for unfair dismissal will be unlimited, which I suggest is different from lifting.

As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, it is at best ambiguous. I note that the Minister is now referring to removing the cap, which I think is more accurate. As we have heard, this does not appear to have been equally understood by every party to the agreement between the employer organisations and trade unions. A number of employer organisations are still expressing concerns about it.

Does this late change matter? The amendment removes the current cap on what can be claimed in an unfair dismissal claim. Currently, it is the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £118,223. While it might be true that few claims go over that, that may well be because higher-paid people will generally reach agreement, knowing that the cap exists, rather than taking the matter to the tribunal. This change may incentivise more higher-paid people to turn to the already overburdened tribunal system. There is no downside to them doing so with the hope of a higher payout, or at least a strengthening of their negotiating position. As we have heard, the irony of this is that the main beneficiaries are likely to be senior employees on high salaries who are moving towards the end of their careers, not the workers the Government claim to be helping.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave the example of the water industry. I was trying to think of an example and one rather closer to this House occurred to me. When the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, was fired from his position as ambassador to the United States, there was a lot of speculation in the press that he might be able to claim for unfair dismissal due to the summary nature of his dismissal. Obviously I do not know the details of his contract, what has been agreed or anything else—it would be interesting to know what was agreed—but is this really the sort of situation the Government want to give the possibility of unlimited compensation to? It would certainly strengthen the negotiating hand of the employee in any such situation.

The truth is that we do not know what the effect will be or whether this matters. It has been introduced without warning at the last possible moment in the Bill, with no consultation, no impact assessment and no scrutiny. Whatever one thinks about the merit of removing the cap on compensation, this is not the right way to do it. I would go as far as suggesting that it is testing our constitutional processes to the limit. Legislation should not be decided in—I do not think I am allowed to say “smoke-filled” any more—darkened rooms as a deal between a limited number of interested parties. It is not the way we do things. This is a material change, and it deserves to be properly consulted on, impact-assessed and debated. It should have been introduced much earlier.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is admirably constructive; I thought it would go further. Rather than remove this new clause altogether, it proposes a review of unfair dismissal compensation to take place within three months, and sets out that the review

“must include a consultation with … employers’ organisations … trade unions … employment law practitioners, and … such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

That is a fair and constructive approach.

However, we must be pragmatic. This is the third stage of ping-pong. Whatever we do at this stage is unlikely to move in the other place, and I am conscious that I do not want to see the key concession of a six-month qualifying period being unpicked as a result of our actions. As I said, I accept that that was a big step for the Government to make.

I thank the Minister for her confirmation that there will now be an impact assessment, which will be published as soon as possible. I did not hear clearly that there will be a full consultation with other parties. Currently, this has been consulted on by six organisations and I do not know how many unions. That is not a wide consultation on such a big change. Will there be a proper consultation process on this before it comes into effect?

Assuming the answer to that question is to the positive, reluctantly, and while protesting in the strongest possible terms that introducing such a significant change at such a late stage runs a coach and horses through the proper process of scrutiny of legislation, I am minded to bring this to an end and accept the Government’s amendment. But, as I said, I will listen to what the Minister says before I make that final decision.

I have one final request. This late insertion of a material change to legislation in the third stage of ping-pong must not become a precedent. Can the Minister confirm that the Government see this as a one-off, extraordinary case, and not something to be repeated?

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, who is new at the Dispatch Box, for explaining things quite clearly. I am thankful for the Government accepting that amendment, which has clearly enabled the country to feel, when people take on jobs, that there is a qualifying period, although not an indefinite one. I said in your Lordships’ House that I was like a gramophone playing a record that was stuck in a groove. The Government have given me a new needle and I am out of that groove, so I thank them very much.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Vaux of Harrowden Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

I declare my interest as a practising barrister who, in years past, appeared for clients, both employers and employees, in employment tribunals. I remind the House that for many years there has been no statutory cap on compensation for discrimination claims— sex discrimination, race discrimination or disability discrimination. That has not led to the chaos to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, referred.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, at Second Reading in March—nine months ago, although it feels longer ago—I said that

“the Bill will damage growth and, most importantly, the employment opportunities of the most vulnerable people”.—[Official Report, 27/3/25; col. 1907.]

After nine months of debate and scrutiny, it is less damaging, but I still believe it is not a good Bill. It still piles cost and regulation on businesses and on the public sector at a time when we should be doing exactly the opposite.

But this House has done its job well and responsibly. We have pointed out the unintended consequences that the Bill may have, the potential damage to the employment prospects of the young and others, and the disproportionate impact on the backbone of our economy—smaller businesses. We have given the other place several opportunities to think again and, to be fair, it has done so in a number of areas. In particular, the Government have compromised on what I believe was the most damaging aspect, day-one dismissal rights.

We have also quite rightly registered our constitutional disapproval of the introduction of a material change at the very last minute—the abolition of the cap on unfair dismissal, which is the subject of Motion A. The Minister stated last week that the amendments were “context- and Bill-specific”. I take this and her reference to

“discussions with the Leader of the House on how she and other Members would like to conduct business more regularly”—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]

as confirmation that the Government accept that this should never be seen as a precedent. This House would be right to reject it if it were ever used as a precedent in the future.

I have a lot of sympathy with the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but I am afraid I will not support it at this stage. We are in danger of over- egging the impact of the removal of the cap. I do not support it, but the water bosses, for example, will be remunerated if they are fired for contractual reasons, which is unlimited anyway. It is not going to be under the unfair dismissal rules. I am not convinced that it makes an enormous difference, but the noble Lord is quite right that we do not have an impact assessment yet.

Despite our giving it the opportunity to think again on many aspects, the other place has disagreed with our changes and decided that it wants to go ahead. That now also includes the cap on unfair dismissal claims. The time has come for us in this House to respect the will of the elected Chamber and let the Bill pass, regardless of any remaining concerns that I and many others still have. I will vote against the amendment for that reason.

I end with a final plea to the Minister. She will be aware of the latest employment figures and the worsening trend. She will also be aware that what the ONS described as this “subdued labour market” is disproportionately affecting young people. We should all be very concerned about that. The Resolution Foundation is also clear on this:

“As is typical in economic downturns, young people have been hit hardest. With unemployment expected to stay elevated, Government should be cautious about any further increases in labour costs”.


Much of the implementation of this Bill will be by regulation, which will follow over the coming years. I urge the Minister to ensure that the concerns that have been raised in this House and elsewhere are kept front and centre, and that the unintended consequences that may arise, especially for young people, are thought through very carefully while the regulations are being created.

It was encouraging that the Government listened to business organisations in the later stages of the Bill, especially around the unfair dismissal question. I urge the Minister to ensure that the Government continue to listen constructively to the concerns of those who will create the growth and jobs that will drive the economy, and especially that they make a much greater effort to hear the concerns of smaller businesses which are feeling rather ignored and concerned at the moment. That said, it is time to let the Bill pass.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this time last week I said that much had happened in the preceding interval. Today, the opposite is true. We are now down to one issue, but the arguments on that issue remain as they were last week. For that reason, unlike last week, this speech will be short.

There remain concerns about the removal of the cap on compensation, as we have heard. As he did last week, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has taken those concerns and amplified them, to the seeming exclusion of the wider strategic position of what we are discussing. I understand the motives, and those motives became ever clearer just now. If the noble Lord would like to have a face-off on the water industry, I would be very happy to discuss with him the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage that went into the rivers under the Conservative Government and the compensation terms that he very helpfully enumerated, which happened on his watch. However, this is not the arena for that argument, and I will pass without comment. My critique of the noble Lord’s amendment to the Motion is unchanged. We believe there are better ways of dealing with the cap than derailing the package that got the key concession with which we are all very pleased.

As set out last week, reiterated in the Minister’s letter and by the Minister just now, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment for the Bill. They will do so prior to commencement regulations which would put in place the dismissal package. That was what we on these Benches were asking for and we were pleased to receive that assurance. Further, the impact assessment will be publicly available, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we will be engaging the community of business in the process of developing that impact assessment.

Many UK business associations and organisations share the feeling that there is nothing to be gained from the opposition amendment today. They are asking the opposite. As the Minister set out, six of the major organisations have sent a letter. It is a longish letter, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, demonstrated by selectively picking elements out of it. But as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the conclusion is clear and actually unambiguous, in saying,

“we believe that the best way forward is to keep working with the government and trade unions to find balanced solutions through secondary legislation. To avoid losing the 6 months qualifying period, we therefore believe that now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.

I said that last week, and it is truer this week.

I also pointed out last week that, as the business organisations said, the key to enacting the Bill will be through secondary legislation. If His Majesty’s loyal Opposition care about how the Bill is brought into life, it is on those statutory instruments that they should focus their attention. Their critical actions must extend to include the possibility of fatal Motions to vote down secondary legislation and keep the Government focused on the needs of British business. That is the real arena that we should be working in.

If the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is put to a vote and he seeks to extend ping-pong to yet another round, that will clearly be against the advice of the business groups which have been cited. I urge your Lordships to heed the advice of those organisations, and the advice of the noble Lords that we have heard opposite, and pass the Bill now.