Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Today we are debating the fourth round of consideration of Lords amendments to this Bill, and this long and protracted process says a lot about the way the Government have approached this legislation. The Bill was initially put together at great speed, missing much of the detail; there was a long series of Government amendments late in the process; and now a major last-minute change on the compensation cap for unfair dismissal has been sprung on businesses and Parliament. Regardless of what one makes of the different measures in the legislation, I think most of us would agree that the process followed in designing it has been less than ideal. Having said that, let me reiterate what has always been the Liberal Democrat position on the Bill: we support many of the aims of this legislation.

We welcome expanding access to statutory sick pay, improving parental leave and taking steps to address the massive pay gap facing social care workers. We agree with giving those on zero-hours contracts more certainty, even though we proposed what we view as a more practical and balanced way of doing so, and we are pleased to see a unified Fair Work Agency, which we also called for as a way of empowering employees to exercise their rights without fear of any negative consequences. However, we have made it clear that we have significant worries about the specific way in which some of those measures would be implemented, and we have repeatedly raised our concern that crucial detail was being left for secondary legislation.

By far our biggest concern was the complete lack of clarity on unfair dismissal and probation periods, which is why we have worked in both Houses to secure a vital concession setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal at six months. We are proud that when some tried to brush aside the concerns of the business community and others sought to frustrate the process, it was the Liberal Democrats who secured this vital provision. It is the role of any responsible Opposition party to engage constructively and achieve substantial improvements for the good of our country. It could not be clearer that this fair and sensible shift will equally benefit businesses and workers. So many businesses I have spoken to have said that this is the single most meaningful change that could have been made to the Bill.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am conscious that we are debating a particular point. Is the hon. Member voting for or against the cap? That is the essence of what we are looking at today.

[Sarah Olney]

I am glad that the hon. Member has raised that. I was coming to that in my speech. Perhaps he could listen with a little more attention.

Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. That is exactly what the progressive Resolution Foundation think-tank warned of when it said there was a risk that

“employers would be nervous about hiring new workers or offering shifts, and this would make life harder for job seekers.”

As I pointed out last week, it is really disappointing that the Government decided to muddy this improvement by simultaneously abolishing the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal. Employers were not in favour of scrapping the £118,000 cap, and I once again point out that bringing in a change like this at the last minute is not how we build trust between Government and business. However, I note that employers and business groups have been equally clear that this last-minute change must not stand in the way of the far more important changes secured with regard to the six-month qualifying period. Above all else, business values pragmatism, and that is exactly why it wants to see this breakthrough protected and enshrined in law. That is what has guided our approach throughout.

Will the Minister confirm on the Floor of the House that the Government will conduct an assessment of the impact of the removal of the compensation cap, actively seeking views from businesses, as was indicated to the Liberal Democrats in the other place? On a broader level, will she give a cast-iron commitment that the Government will hold regular debates in both Houses to ensure that Parliament can scrutinise what work is being done to consult businesses and workers on all relevant implementation aspects of this Bill? How are the Government planning to support employers in order to ensure that they have robust policies and practices in place to navigate these changes to the unfair dismissal regime?

Lastly, to those in the Conservative party who have been trying to sabotage this crucial compromise on the six-month qualifying period, I simply say that they are acting not in the interest of British businesses but only in their own narrow party political self-interest.

[Graham Stuart]

On that very point, does the hon. Member believe that it is totally pragmatic to have disregarded her objections to the removal of the cap in return for additional places for the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords?

[Sarah Olney]

It is so revealing of Conservative Members’ mindset that they cannot believe what I am actually saying is the reason for our change, and that they assume instead that we must have sought some benefit for ourselves. It is so revealing that that is what the Tories think. It beggars belief that the Conservatives, having hammered businesses while in government, are now doing everything in their power to undermine UK plc from the Opposition Benches.

I note that the Government have taken steps to improve the clarity of the legislation with regard to seasonal work, introducing measures that will ensure that businesses relying on seasonal work and bodies representing seasonal workers will be properly consulted when secondary legislation is drawn up. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sector, as well as thousands of pubs, cafés and restaurants, depend on seasonal workers, and any obstacles to hiring them could have a significant impact, exacerbating the long list of challenges they already face, so we must ensure that they are supported as much as possible. Small businesses in our local towns and communities are struggling with the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, high export costs due to Brexit red tape and a business rates system that is not fit for purpose. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is vital that we take steps to support high street businesses and all those who rely on them.

It is time that we listened to the business community, which is telling us that the best way forward is to look for balanced solutions through secondary legislation and to put an end to the uncertainty and avoid losing the six-month qualifying period, which we were happy to have helped secure. Continuing to delay the passage of the Bill at this late and protracted stage would risk further uncertainty for businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and would jeopardise significant changes that will benefit workers, such as expanded protections against workplace harassment and improved paternity leave rights.

I urge Members to be pragmatic and to provide clarity to businesses and workers alike regarding an implementation timeline. That is critical for providing a stable operating framework so that businesses can plan ahead. We should now work together to ensure that this legislation can be implemented to benefit businesses and workers alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

We are short on time, so I will limit myself to two points.

I will start with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) admirably described as the “craven capitulation” of the Liberal Democrats. Just a week ago, the Liberal Democrats were arguing passionately about unions’ abilities to cause strikes, and about the right to guaranteed hours. Then what happened? Five peerages came along. Now they are in favour of those things. It used to be the case with their last Prime Minister, Lloyd George, who famously used to sell peerages for money. Now it seems that the Liberal Democrats sell their principles for peerages.

[Sarah Olney]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that is disgraceful. The hon. Gentleman is literally implying corruption. I made it very clear in my speech what the basis of our change in support in the Lords was for, and I think it is intolerable that we are being accused.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for her advice. As it happens, she makes a good point. The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) should not be suggesting any particular motive attributed to that issue, and could he perhaps confine his remaining comments for the next 90 seconds?

Fairtrade Certification

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) for his work in securing this debate and for his authoritative opening speech, which set out the case for Fairtrade with clarity and thoroughness. It was very impressive.

Fairtrade is a global system that connects farmers and workers from developing countries with consumers and businesses across the world to change trade for the better. For more than three decades, Fairtrade has been having an impact on the way that trade works. Fairtrade believes that every farmer and worker should have access to a better way of doing business and a better way of living. As a leader in a global movement to make trade fair, Fairtrade supports and challenges businesses and Governments, and connects farmers and workers with the people who buy their products. It has been a real pleasure to hear from the hon. Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) about their experiences of being active in that movement.

Fairness is an important principle for the Liberal Democrats, and that should apply to the way that supply chains are managed by big companies working abroad. In our recent manifesto we committed to introducing a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. Businesses are the principal engines of growth and prosperity in the UK. When businesses succeed, our communities succeed. We must work in partnership with business to provide stability, encourage investment and help maximise opportunities for growth and employment across the country. In return we ask that businesses not only commit to promoting skills, equality and good governance, but protect human rights and the environment in the communities where they work, whether at home or in the global supply chains on which they depend.

The Liberal Democrats support the introduction of a business, human rights and environment Act to require companies to take adequate measures or conduct due diligence to manage the impacts of their activities on people and the environment both in the UK and globally. We would also introduce a duty of care for the environment and human rights, requiring companies, financial institutions and public sector agencies to exercise due diligence in avoiding specified activities such as child labour or modern slavery in their operations and supply chains, and to report on their actions. We would ensure that all large companies have a formal statement of corporate purpose, including considerations such as employee welfare, environmental standards, community benefit and ethical practice alongside benefit to shareholders, and that they report formally on the wider impact of the business on society and the environment.

If we are to take tackling climate change seriously, businesses must play their part. That is why the Liberal Democrats would require all large companies listed on UK stock exchanges to set targets consistent with achieving the net zero goal and to report on their progress. We would reform the regulation of our services sector to encourage climate-friendly investments, including requiring pension funds and managers to show that their portfolio investments align with the Paris agreement and creating new powers for regulators to intervene if banks and other investors fail to manage climate risk properly.

Ethical supply chains and Fairtrade certification do not exist in isolation. They connect directly to our responsibilities in development and reducing global poverty. For that reason, we have called for the immediate restoration of UK aid spending at 0.5% of GNI and a road map to restore 0.7% of GNI as soon as possible within this Parliament. We would ensure that the UK’s international development spending is used effectively, with a primary focus on poverty reduction, including by putting the United Nations sustainable development goals at the heart of the UK’s international development policy, funding genuine partnerships that are rooted in local needs and developed on grounds of mutual respect, and tackling the growing global crisis of food insecurity and malnutrition by increasing the proportion of ODA committed to delivering lifesaving nutrition interventions.

Fairtrade certification has shown time and again that when we create systems that empower producers, protect rights and support sustainable agriculture, everybody benefits: farmers, consumers and business alike.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Chris Bryant)]

I am not sure how long you think I will go on for, Mrs Hobhouse, but I will take that admonition in the way I think it was intended. It is obviously an enormous delight to have you in the Chair, notwithstanding your admonition. It is also a great delight to have this debate, which plays an important role in the Government coming to a view on responsible business conduct.

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes). He would have been my mother’s MP if she was still with us, so I know his patch very well. My grandfather also lived in his constituency when he played for Glasgow Rangers. That was a very long time ago, so I am terribly sorry if my hon. Friend hates Glasgow Rangers—it has nothing to do with me.

My first point is that the world is fundamentally more connected, or even interconnected, than ever. I particularly feel that at the moment, as in the few weeks I have been in the job, I have been to Brazil, Argentina, Germany, Switzerland, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Australia, New Zealand, Spain and, arguably, Singapore— I was also in Brussels yesterday, so there have been quite a few. The truth is that, while in the past people might have only considered a holiday in France or Spain, even under Franco, their opportunities for holiday travel around the world are now much more extensive than ever before.

Exactly the same is true of supply chains. It might well be that the clothes we wear were stitched and made here—although they might have been stitched and made on the other side of the world—but the cotton or silk might have come from another part of the world entirely. The same is true of our furniture, tea and coffee, sugar and bananas. Even the glasses we wear are often not entirely sourced here in the UK. Neither are the medical instruments used when we are operated on by a surgeon, nor the medicines that we receive. All those supply chains are interconnected around the world.

Perhaps the most obvious instance of this is our choice of music. In the past, when we were young, we thought mainly about British music. There was perhaps a bit of alternative music from Latin America, Africa or wherever played by a few DJs late at night, but nowadays K-pop, African music and stuff from all around the world form our earworms.

In many ways, that interconnectedness is a good thing, but it also has potential downsides, because the arc of trade does not necessarily always bend towards justice. Quite often, because of price competition, the arc of trade can lead to quite the reverse—the abandonment of justice. I have always felt that the concept of fairness is a fundamental element of being human. It is why children will often shout and scream, “That’s not fair!” when they are told to go to bed, when they are not allowed to play with their tablet, or when they see their brother or sister staying up later than them.

We need to build on that sense of fairness in international trade. We need to make sure that the arc of trade bends towards justice and fairness. I have therefore always argued that we should strive for free and fair trade, not just free trade. Interestingly, the very word “boycott” springs from a moment in Ireland in the 1880s when a pretty awful land agent called Captain Charles Boycott was turfing people off their property on behalf of a pretty awful landlord. That has entered the language of nearly every country in the world—the concept of wanting to abide by good standards and fairness in trade.

This is why the Fairtrade Foundation is such an important concept. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to the Christian churches, which have been big supporters of the movement, and led to the Jubilee 2000 campaign and so many other things. When I was training to be a priest, every church I went to had a Fairtrade stall at the back. I have to confess that early Fairtrade Foundation coffee was pretty dire, and now it is a standard part of the offer in Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Tesco and Aldi—in every single supermarket. It is great that a complete transformation has happened because of the dedication of a large number of people working on an entirely voluntary basis.

[Sarah Olney]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I think I can see a Liberal Democrat hand gesturing at me.

[Sarah Olney]

I am interested in the Minister’s formulation of free and fair trade. Would he not agree that fair trade is free trade, and that free trade is fair trade? It is about bringing down barriers, which may have been put in place by the larger producers or people with a market advantage. The point is to create a fairer playing field, because that is what free trade is.

[Chris Bryant]

I suppose, on the whole, I was trying to say that I want to try to take down tariff barriers where I possibly can, so that we can engage in free trade, but that only works when we have fair opportunities underlying it. The hon. Member for Strangford will correct me if I have this wrong, but I think there is a phrase in the Bible about justice and peace kissing one another. Sometimes we strive for justice, but it is not real justice if we do not get peace with it; and sometimes we strive for peace, but it is not real peace if it is not based on justice. That is the combination of Shalom and Tzedek, to use the Old Testament terms, that we are striving for with free and fair trade.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, the Fairtrade Foundation has been around for more than 30 years. It has done an amazing job in certification. Indeed, I think there are now more than 5,000 Fairtrade-certified products in the UK, and many of our constituents search them out every day of the week.

I, too, was approached by the Brew it Fair campaign, which has raised specific challenges around tea, including the living conditions of workers, gender inequality and a series of other issues. I praise it for raising those issues and bringing them to everybody’s attention.

I am delighted that Rhondda Cynon Taff county borough council in my constituency was made a Fairtrade county in 2007. It has therefore had a considerable period of time to roll out these policies. I am sorry to keep referring to the hon. Member for Strangford, but he asked about procurement. Of course, procurement is a key issue. We often have discussions in Parliament about what consumers do, but it is also about what the Government do.

The hon. Member is quite right that we produced a new national procurement policy statement in February this year, which lays out new ways in which people can drive this agenda into procurement, on the back of taxpayers’ money. Similarly, the Procurement Act 2023, which came into force on 24 February this year, has a new central debarment list, which Ministers can put people on if they have been involved in modern slavery. In that way, we can make sure the supply chain is cleaner.

Fair trade is not just about the issues I have mentioned. The International Labour Organisation says that, around the world, 28 million people are in situations of forced labour. I am sure that any of us could cite some of the places where that might be true. Similarly, every minute we are losing forest area equivalent to 11 football pitches, which is a challenge to all our climate change ambitions.

Of course, the impact of climate change will be felt most intensely among the poorest peoples on Earth. To see that, we only have to look at places such as the Carteret Islands, off Bougainville in Papua New Guinea, or the outlying poorer lands of Thailand, where some of the very poorest people are in danger of losing their homes, their livelihoods and their access to clean drinking water. Similarly, a million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction, which is a threat to biodiversity, and whether biodiversity loss happens in our country or in any other country, it is a threat to us all.

There are two other issues that have not been referred to much so far today. The first is corruption. The danger of corruption in some political systems around the world, particularly where there is an authoritarian regime, is intense. That is why it is so important that, under the Bribery Act 2010, we have particular responsibilities to ensure that British businesses trading elsewhere in the world are not able to engage in corrupt practices.

The second issue is displaced people, which is slightly different from the issue of forced labour. I remember visiting Colombia in 2018 with ABColombia, where I was struck by two things. First, as we flew over vast territories, I was struck by how much of the land had been taken for palm oil. That massive agribusiness had effectively displaced many millions of people who had lost their property thanks to the activities of militias and the FARC, and the battle between the two.

Similarly, when I went to El Porvenir and La Primavera, which are not far from Colombia’s border with Venezuela, it was striking how people found it very difficult to make a living when they had been deprived of large amounts of their land—they had effectively been living in a warzone for the best part of 20 years. That is why it was so important that, when Colombia was able to bring about peace with the FARC, it was very keen to bring forward the idea of land reform—that work has never really been completed—so people have access to land again and can make a living.

I have a few principles that influence how I look at all of this as we go through the process of our responsible business conduct review. First, I believe in a seamless garment. Again, I am sorry, but that is another biblical phrase. When Jesus was on the cross, lots were cast for his garment because it was seamless. I think it is important that we look at all these issues together, in the round. As I said, it is not just one issue.

This may seem a slightly flippant way of looking at it, but I was watching “Do they know it’s Christmas?” the other day on a Christmas compilation TV show. Of course, it is great because it is dealing with human rights around the world, the lack of clean drinking water and people starving from famine, but I was struck that only three women were asked to take part in the filming of the 1984 version. That could be a test for anybody, but it was the three members of Bananarama: Sara Dallin, Siobhan Fahey and Keren Woodward. That made the point to me that we need to look at all these issues in the round. Gender inequality, human rights issues, corruption and environmental concerns all need to be addressed in the round when we are looking at the whole of our supply chain.

Secondly, I commend the voluntary efforts. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), referred to how the previous Government recognised them, which is true. I think we have all done that, and we have done it for many years. I doubt that there are many MPs who have not been to some kind of Fairtrade event and shown willing.

I pay tribute to Howies, a Welsh clothing company, because sometimes it is not easy to prosper in this world. It is great that the company is owned by its staff—I, too, am a member of the Co-op—and it says that its

“award-winning men’s and women’s clothing is ethically produced using organic, recycled or natural fabrics wherever possible… we want to be a company that does things differently to others—one that does things honestly, responsibly and quietly.”

I think an awful lot of UK consumers would love to be able to think that, whenever they go into a supermarket or any of the major chains, that would be what influences the company they are buying from, going all the way back to the beginning of the supply chain. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that companies are more successful when they adopt that kind of attitude. Consumers like it, so the companies can prosper. For that matter, it also gives a sense of purpose to everybody who works in the company.

Thirdly, as several Members have mentioned, we do not want a race to the bottom. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said that if we have worse standards or weaker requirements than elsewhere, the danger is that all the least-ethically sourced stuff comes to the UK. It would be a form of ethical dumping—similar to subsidy dumping or carbon dumping—into the UK. We are very keen that it should not happen, so of course we want to work alongside international comparators.

Fourthly, I am very keen for the UK to have requirements that are both effective and proportionate to the harm being dealt with. I have a question in my mind that was raised with me a couple of weeks ago, at a roundtable involving quite a few of the sorts of organisations we have talked about, including the anti-slavery body. I am not sure that having another annual report that is never read by anyone—including the person who wrote it, possibly—would be either effective or proportionate. Reports are costly for an organisation to produce, and they might not make the blindest bit of difference to whether a consumer or the company takes action on this.

Fifthly, notwithstanding that, section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 requires large organisations over a certain threshold to publish transparency in supply chain statements, and we provided new guidance on that in 2025. As has already been referred to by the Liberal Democrats, some of that is good, but there is a danger that it is just ticking a box, not driving forward change; and I am far more interested in driving forward change than I am in simply ticking boxes.

My sixth point is—there are not too many more, honestly—[Interruption.] I do not know why you are all laughing. We are engaged in a responsible business conduct review, and this debate is a very helpful part of that; it feeds into what we are hearing from businesses, because we want to make sure that what we eventually come forward with will be proportionate and effective. I was asked specifically whether we will also look at mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence reports. Yes, we are looking at how those would work, what would be most effective, and how they relate to requirements for multinational companies in other countries as well.

Seventhly, since we came to power, we have opened the Office for Responsible Business Conduct, which is a one-stop shop for industry. Again, I am interested in driving change, and sometimes businesses do not know where to turn. Smaller businesses might have no idea how to meet the law or best effect the kind of change we are all looking for. The Office for Responsible Business Conduct has a strong mandate there.

I have already referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North and the hon. Member for Strangford—who of course is a friend to us all, as we meet him in so many debates. It was great, too, to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) and from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and from the man from Del Monte—or rather, from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq); indeed, the one point she did not make was that it would be quite nice if there were a woman in charge. Maybe one day there will be a woman from Del Monte—although I note that Del Monte went into chapter 11 proceedings in July, so it is not clear what state it is in now. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray).

Many of us have effectively given the same speech, because we all feel quite passionately that we want to get these issues right. I know that many people work in retail in the UK in a whole series of sectors; quite a few of our discussions have been about food and beverages or fashion, but the same is true for furniture and other sectors, too. We simply want to get this right, because our aim here in Government is to ensure that British businesses have an opportunity to export and import, and that this is always based on free and fair trade.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Government have repeatedly said that they would introduce permanently lower business rates. We were pleased to hear the Chancellor announce lower multipliers in the Budget, but the recently announced higher valuations will wipe out any benefit that businesses will get from the lower multipliers. UKHospitality estimates that the average increase for hospitality businesses will be 76% over the next three years; that compares with warehouses, offices and large supermarkets, whose rates will go up by 16%, 7% and 4% respectively. Given that it has transpired that the Government were informed of the higher valuations back in September, how does that align with their pledge to support small businesses, and how do the Government plan to meet the commitment, in their own small business strategy, to bring down business rates bills?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I wish to come in after question 6, Mr Speaker—apologies.

[Mr Speaker]

That is not what we have been told by your department, but I am sure we can make arrangements accordingly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I appreciate you giving me the time.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). Some £90 billion is being lost every year in tax receipts, 20,000 small firms have stopped all exports to the EU and 33% of currently trading businesses are experiencing extra costs. The Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser has recommended a customs union with the EU. The Deputy Prime Minister has also suggested that countries within a customs union tend to see stronger economic growth, and the Minister agrees, so what is his Government going to do about it?

[Chris Bryant]

We are going to get the best possible deal that we can out of the European Union. That is one of the reasons that I was in Brussels only yesterday alongside Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Minister for the Cabinet Office. We are getting a better deal from the European Union. We want to ensure that we have frictionless trade with the EU—that was what was promised by the ragtag and bobtail of that lot on the Conservative Benches —and that is what we will deliver. But I say to the hon. Member that in all earnestness we had a manifesto commitment, and that is what we will stick by.

Seasonal Work

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country. Many businesses, such as those in the farming and agricultural sectors, depend on recruiting the right people at the right time. Obstacles to hiring seasonal workers can have a significant impact on businesses, which are already struggling with sky-high energy bills, having trouble recruiting the workforce they need and facing high costs in trading with Europe.

We are seeing a practically stagnant economy, with business confidence down and unemployment up. Unemployment is particularly prevalent among young people, many of whom traditionally find their first jobs in the hospitality sector, which is the largest employer of young people. However, the sector is struggling to employ new workers. The damage being done to the prospects of our youth, as they struggle with unemployment, will be detrimental to the broader economy in the years to come.

Many of those challenges began under the last Conservative Administration. It was the previous Government who undermined farming, agriculture, hospitality and so many other sectors that are dependent on seasonal work by negotiating failed trade deals with the EU, Australia and New Zealand and breaking their promise to reform business rates. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and falling living standards.

People endured years of Conservative mismanagement, which is why it is so disappointing that this Government have wasted the last 18 months by failing to pursue policies that promote growth and by imposing an unfair national insurance jobs tax that has stifled business investment.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

In the west country, we have seen an icy chilling effect from the NICs hike on our hospitality and tourism industry, particularly in Torbay. The Torbay Coast & Countryside Trust, which looks after some of our beautiful natural spaces, has faced a £100,000 cost from the NICs hike, which has forced it to close its doors and take a step into the dark. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to explore the impact of the NICs hike on this fragile sector of our economy to see how they can step in to support it?

[Sarah Olney]

It is tragic to hear of the closure of my hon. Friend’s local organisation. Not only will local people be deprived of the opportunity to enjoy the services it provided, but young people will be deprived of the opportunity to take on their first job.

On the Employment Rights Bill, the Liberal Democrats have been clear that we welcome many of the principles underpinning the legislation, but we have been pushing the Government to make crucial improvements to ensure that it properly delivers for workers and small businesses. We strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. On flexible work, we will continue to advocate what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system, based on giving workers a new right to request fixed hours, which businesses would not be able to unreasonably refuse.

On seasonal work, we are glad that, thanks to the work of the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords, the Government have made significant concessions for the benefit of businesses and workers, placing a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to consult with key stakeholders before exercising powers to specify what a “temporary need” is in relation to the provisions on the right to zero-hours contracts. We are pleased that the Government have listened to Liberal Democrat calls for clarity by providing examples of how an employer could approach seasonal demand while complying with the new right to guaranteed hours. These provisions, secured by Liberal Democrat peers, will support workers by giving them more control over their working hours, while ensuring that businesses are properly consulted and given the resources to navigate this new legislation.

This weekend, towns across the country mark Small Business Saturday, but many small businesses will have struggled to celebrate, given the challenges that they face. Recent Government decisions, including the devastating business rates hike in last month’s Budget, are causing huge damage to small hospitality firms, with many now considering whether their business remains viable.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Tourism is vital to the economy of West Dorset and hospitality is one of the largest employers. Our population soars by 40% during the summer months and those businesses require seasonal workers. Given all the headwinds my hon. Friend outlines that face the high street and UK hospitality, does she agree that the Government should reward and look after the sector with a 5% drop in VAT?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is right; the hospitality sector has been disproportionately impacted by the hike in national insurance contributions because it generally employs people on lower wages for a shorter period of time. In particular, the decrease in the threshold has been damaging to many businesses that have that kind of employment pattern.

My hon. Friend is right that what we really need to do is boost growth and demand. We think that that could happen by introducing a 5% decrease in VAT for hospitality businesses. We need the Government to give hospitality the tools it needs to grow and help boost the wider economy. Thousands of venues are facing steep and unprecedented cost rises, making this a critical moment for the hospitality sector. I urge the Government to tackle the cost-of-doing-business crisis by adopting our proposal on VAT.

[Dr Luke Evans]

How much would the 5% VAT policy cost?

[Sarah Olney]

The cost of the VAT cut could be met by—

[Dr Evans]

How much is it?

[Sarah Olney]

I believe, off the top of my head, that it is about £9 billion. We think that that could be met by the money that we have lost from leaving the European Union—from Brexit. As a result of leaving the European Union, £25 billion a year has been lost to the Treasury thanks to the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. There are so many better ways that we could have been spending the money that the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has cost us.

Pubs, bars, cafés and restaurants across the UK that rely on seasonal workers need all the support they can get, so I sincerely hope Ministers will listen. Today’s motion calls for the abolition of business rates, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need to see a complete overhaul of that unfair and damaging system. In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of the business rates system, which they failed to deliver. In their recent Budget, the Government committed to rebalancing business rates, but we saw nothing of the sort. UKHospitality says that the average tax increase for hospitality will be 76% over the next three years. Meanwhile, warehouses, offices and large supermarkets will see bills go up by just 16%, 7% and 4% respectively. The Chancellor said that she is looking to introduce permanently lower business rate multipliers, but the painful reality is that the new higher valuations will wipe out any benefit that businesses might have seen.

The increase in the minimum wage announced by the Government in the recent Budget is welcome and will support millions of low-paid workers, but it is not just workers who need a boost; it is small businesses too. Unless businesses are able to grow, there is a danger that the long list of cost pressures they face will result in fewer jobs being available overall.

[Anna Dixon]

When I have talked to small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency of Shipley, they have welcomed the announcement that there will be free apprenticeship training so that they can help the next generation of young people get into higher-skilled jobs and have careers. Does the hon. Lady agree, and does she support the Government’s announcement about apprenticeships as part of the youth guarantee?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Lady, my colleague on the Public Accounts Committee, for her intervention. She is absolutely right. I 100% and wholeheartedly welcome any boost to apprenticeships and that announcement in the Budget. However, there has been and continues to be caution over whether there will be sufficient business growth for high-skilled jobs to be created, which is what will enable our young people to progress in their careers.

Businesses from all sectors across the UK continue to struggle with high energy bills, which is compounded by the burden of the NICs rise and concerns about the effect of certain aspects of the Employment Rights Bill on their monthly employment costs. The cost of employment has risen significantly over the last year and there have been nearly 70,000 hospitality job losses just since last October. Our small businesses face huge challenges and many are already struggling to absorb rising costs. Unless more is done to support them, vital entry-level jobs, which make an essential contribution to the culture and character of our local communities, may be lost.

As the motion looks to examine the challenges facing businesses, a perhaps unsurprising omission is the absence of any reference to the damage caused by the last Government’s failed Brexit deal. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative party has been a complete disaster for our country and particularly for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports.

The dismal impact of the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal is becoming increasingly clear. A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period. Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. A recent study has found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.

While the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps, hesitant as they are, that this Government are taking to rebuild our relationship with the EU, I urge them to recognise that this should only be the start of the move towards a new bespoke UK-EU customs union, which this House voted for just yesterday. Independent analysis has shown that a closer trading relationship with the EU would boost GDP by 2.2% and would bring in roughly £25 billion of extra tax revenue every year, which would be crucial in fixing the public services that the Conservative party left broken.

[Simon Hoare]

I am not suggesting that the hon. Lady should have been hanging on my every word yesterday, but she was in the Chamber during that debate. I would not call 100 votes in favour and 100 votes against a win. A ten-minute rule Bill will go nowhere. Why her leader jumps up and down on social media as if he has just introduced Magna Carta, I fail to understand. Did she not hear me when I said that in conversations with the European Union, the EU itself will not entertain a new customs union with the United Kingdom? It wants to evolve the agreement that we have, as per the agreement, not have groundhog day. Which bit of that does her party not understand, or are the Liberal Democrats just ignoring it because it is convenient to do so?

[Sarah Olney]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s speech yesterday, which I thought he delivered very well. I am grateful to him for putting the points against our Bill. He is absolutely right: it was 100 on each side. However, it passed with the help of Madam Deputy Speaker and it has progressed to Second Reading. I take his point, but I say to him: how does he know? If there is a political movement for change in this country, a political will towards further integration with the European Union and a political will in favour of a customs union—

[Jayne Kirkham]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sarah Olney]

I will finish this point, if I may. I think the EU would welcome that and would be very keen to have a conversation on that basis.

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

[Sarah Olney]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she not agree that the trade agreement that was signed earlier this year and the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, which the EU now has a mandate to discuss and which will hopefully be through by 2027, will make a massive difference to a lot of the exporting that is done? We are getting there; it takes time, but we are getting there.

[Sarah Olney]

That approach is very piecemeal and it is taking time. If we had a more wholehearted approach to a customs union, we would be able to unlock all sorts of benefits that are not possible with a piecemeal approach.

[Simon Hoare]

I suggest that a new customs union might take a little bit of time—maybe just a day or two. The hon. Lady asked a perfectly legitimate question: how do I know? In direct response to her party’s motion, I raised the issue directly with representatives of the European Union, and the answer was, “No, thank you.” That is what I know. I was not speculating; it was knowledge.

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing that knowledge with us all. Obviously, that is something to reflect upon. That is why we are pressing the Government. It is the Government who hold the purse strings and the pen here. It is up to them to make those advances on behalf of the country.

[Antonia Bance]

I will ask this question in a spirit of genuine curiosity, if I may. The trade deal done with the United States earlier in the year by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the former Business Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), guaranteed more than 200,000 jobs in the west midlands at Jaguar Land Rover and in its supply chain. What future does the hon. Member envisage for those jobs in her ideal scenario, where we go back into a customs union tomorrow? What would she say to my constituents and the people in our west midlands region about the prospects for those jobs? Has she thought about that and does she have a plan?

[Sarah Olney]

Our allies in America are becoming increasingly unreliable, and it is absolutely right that we should look elsewhere for our alliances, not just on trade but on defence. Recent moves just this week show us the shaky ground on which our agreements with the US are built. For the long-term future of the car industry in the west midlands and of our whole economy, we need to look to Europe and build up those relationships with our European neighbours, because our partnerships with our allies in the US are becoming increasingly unreliable. If I were one of the hon. Lady’s constituents, I would be looking to the Government to fully investigate other opportunities for trade as well as with the US.

More broadly, as we look at issues affecting the workforce, Liberal Democrats welcome the industrial strategy that this Government have put in place, alongside a funding boost for skills and training. However, this progress stops well short of the fundamental reform we need to see if we are to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need. A key cause of workforce shortages is ill health. To tackle this deeply entrenched problem, the Government must do more to invest not only in our NHS but in social care, so that people can get the healthcare they need and rejoin the workforce more quickly.

Any business will tell you that the apprenticeship levy does not work, despite the Government’s attempts at reform. Firms cannot get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding is going unspent. The Liberal Democrats have long called for proper reform of the levy, replacing it with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses real flexibility over how they spend money to train their staff. We were pleased to hear in the Budget that more details on the wider youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy package would be announced shortly, but can the Minister provide a timeline for when we can expect to see that detail?

Will the Minister also set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth mobility scheme, which would be beneficial to our economy, easing some of the burdens that the hospitality sector is facing? Businesses across the country, especially our small businesses, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs, such as the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, sky-high commercial energy bills and a broken business rates system. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is absolutely clear that we must look for ways to support local businesses and all those who rely on them.

Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner).

As this Bill has progressed through Parliament, the Liberal Democrats have welcomed many of the principles underpinning it, and we are keen to see it progress. We welcome the fact that the Bill increases support for carers, boosts statutory sick pay and gives workers on zero-hours contracts more certainty. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction. However, we are also clear that the changes must happen in a fair and practical way that truly benefits workers, small businesses and our economy as a whole. That is very much how we are approaching the amendments in today’s debate.

First and foremost, we are glad to see that the Government have finally agreed to set the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. That is a fair and sensible shift that will equally benefit workers and business. Employers have finally been given the necessary clarity to make hiring decisions with confidence, and we have avoided the danger of unnecessarily slowing down the labour market even further, which would have deprived so many people of vital employment opportunities. We are proud that Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords were instrumental in securing that crucial improvement to the Bill.

However, it is disappointing that the Government have effectively hijacked that breakthrough to abolish the cap on compensation for unfair dismissal at the last minute. The Minister will be well aware that abolishing the cap was not agreed in recent negotiations between employer groups, trade unions and the Government. Most businesses would have been happy for the cap to have been increased, but completely scrapping it, without any consultation or negotiation, has understandably left employers feeling deeply worried and facing yet another nasty surprise. There is real worry among businesses that doing away with the cap, which currently stands at £118,000, risks undoing much of the progress achieved by the six-month compromise, creating open-ended liabilities and encouraging litigious behaviour. I expect the Minister would agree that no one wants to see failed water company bosses jamming up the already-strained tribunal system, seeking eye-watering payouts.

More broadly, one has to reflect on how the Government’s approach to this last-minute change affects the relationship between Government, businesses and workers. Does the Minister not understand that springing the change on us at the 11th hour undermines business confidence and unnecessarily strains labour relations? The Liberal Democrats had hoped that today we could support the Government in setting the qualifying period at six months, but in the light of this abrupt change, it simply is not possible to support the motion in its current form. At the very least, will the Minister listen to concerned businesses and commit to setting a new, higher cap through secondary legislation following consultation with all relevant stakeholders?

[Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)]

I am perplexed and confused by what I am hearing. Does the hon. Member appreciate that by moving the goalposts once again, and delaying this crucial Bill once again, she is leaving an open goal for unscrupulous employers?

[Sarah Olney]

Nobody is keener to see the Bill pass than the Liberal Democrats, and we have repeatedly worked with the Government to try to express our concerns. We would support the motion were it not for the lifting of the compensation cap being snuck in at the last minute. This last-minute change has not been part of any conversation that we have had with Ministers in the other place. That is why we will abstain on the motion.

[Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)]

The hon. Member seems to be under the misapprehension that the lifting of the cap was not agreed as part of the negotiation on the compromise. It was. Perhaps she would like to revise her remarks.

[Sarah Olney]

I will not revise my remarks. We have been speaking to many business groups that were in the room with the Minister, and they have told us that it was not part of the agreement. That is why the fact that it is in this motion has taken everyone by surprise, and why we will not be supporting it today.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady just said that she has been informed by business groups that were in the negotiations that this measure was not agreed. Will she name them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I will not name them, but the Minister will know who was in the room with her. That is what they have told us, and that is what I am reflecting in my comments today.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it would have been helpful if an impact assessment had been carried out, so that everyone could see exactly what the impact of removing the cap would be?

[Sarah Olney]

I would agree, but my point is that this last-minute change has been sprung on us and the business groups that engaged in good faith with the Government on these measures. This is a last-minute change that we and the business groups were not expecting, and that is why we will not be supporting it.

[Kate Dearden]

With respect, I was in the room as part of the negotiations with business representatives and trade unions, and I thank them again for the constructive dialogue and leadership that they showed throughout the numerous days of conversation. I can confirm that the compensation cap was discussed and agreed in the room, so I ask the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to reflect on her comments. I was in the room; with due respect, she was not. That is a true reflection of what was discussed and agreed.

[Sarah Olney]

I take the Minister’s comments. What I would say is that we were not expecting to see this measure in the motion, and that is why we will not support it.

Turning to zero-hours contracts, Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving all workers security over their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we have repeatedly reminded the Government that adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable, for example to those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures workers can have both security and flexibility.

Since the Bill’s introduction, many small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions, charging national insurance on salary sacrifice schemes and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. While we advocated for what we think would have been a fairer and less onerous system based on giving workers a right to request fixed hours, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have at least moved in the right direction through amendment (b). Requiring the Secretary of State to consult businesses and relevant stakeholders on the length of the initial guaranteed hours reference period will at least give affected businesses and workers a stronger voice in designing the new system.

[Mr Rand]

The hon. Member has talked about the potential for an added burden on employers by scrapping exploitative zero-hours contracts, which Liberal Democrat peers in the other place also made reference to in debates there. Will she reflect on the huge burden on workers from exploitative zero-hours contracts and the financial uncertainty and insecurity that such contracts bring to their lives, including the lives of some of her constituents?

[Sarah Olney]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is why we need the balance. We need to ensure that workers have the right to request a permanent contract if that is what works for them, but it may be onerous for businesses to have to track hours over a period of time, when the employee themselves may value the opportunity that the zero-hours contract offers. That is precisely what we would tackle with this amendment.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I represent a seat with one of the highest levels of zero-hours contracts and insecure work in the country. I am not sure how that compares to the hon. Member’s constituency, but if someone in my constituency requested a full-time contract, but that was turned down because they have only a right to request, how would that deliver them justice?

[Sarah Olney]

We are trying to create a balance, managing the burdens on employers in creating jobs. We have to ensure there is employment in the first place before we can ensure people’s rights. I entirely accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but placing these burdens on employers to track the hours that numerous employees are working will add to the costs that employers incur in taking people on. That is precisely the sort of thing that discourages employers from creating jobs.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I assume the intervention will be short. We have we only got 30 minutes left in the debate, so I assume that Ms Olney is coming to a conclusion soon.

[Chris Bloore]

I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for letting me intervene. She must realise that it is macroeconomic conditions, not improving employment rights, that affect a company. What is certain is that when people have zero-hours contracts, they cannot pay their mortgages when downturns and recessions happen, because they cannot get in the money that they need. She talks about the burdens on businesses, but what about the people who cannot even pay their basic bills because of the exploitative contracts they are on?

[Sarah Olney]

The goal of the Employment Rights Bill should be to strengthen the economy for all so that we can get better employment conditions for everybody. I strongly believe that we need to strike the right balance so that we can support the economy as a whole.

[Michael Wheeler]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

I will make some progress, bearing in mind what Madam Deputy Speaker just said.

Zero-hours workers and businesses need far more clarity. Can the Minister at least clarify on the Floor of the House what the Government’s intended duration is for subsequent reference periods? I hope that after scrapping compensation caps, the Government will be a bit more transparent with stakeholders when it comes to flexible work.

One amendment that I am happy to welcome is on seasonal work. Many businesses, such as in the farming and agricultural sector, depend on recruiting the right people at the right time. Any obstacles to hiring seasonal workers can have a significant impact, exacerbating the long list of challenges they already face. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafes and restaurants also often rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable to any regulatory changes that make it harder or more expensive to access the talent they need. All those employed as seasonal workers, whether in farming, hospitality or elsewhere, deserve reassurance that their work will not dry up. Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, and I am glad that the Government have made progress. We are glad to support Lords amendment 48B, which would ensure that businesses relying on seasonal work and bodies representing seasonal workers will be properly consulted when secondary legislation is drawn up.

Businesses across the country, especially our SMEs, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs, such as the Government’s unfair national insurance rise, sky-high energy bills and a broken business rates system. Struggling businesses means fewer jobs and lower pay, so it is clear that we must look for ways to support local businesses and all who rely on them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) and hear her passionate advocacy for this Bill.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the principles of this Bill. We have long advocated for strengthening employment rights in several ways, including by increasing support for carers, boosting statutory sick pay, and giving people on zero-hours contracts more certainty about their working patterns. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle and that moves us in the right direction, but we remain concerned about the specific way in which the Government plan to implement many of its measures. So much of the detail that should have been in the Bill has been left to secondary legislation or future consultations, making it impossible for businesses to plan ahead with certainty.

For that reason, we support amendments that provide clarity for businesses, for example by setting the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months. Training, hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses across the country, and we must ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and businesses.

[Antonia Bance]

Does the hon. Member believe that, in the first six months of employment, it is appropriate for people to be dismissed for unfair reasons and without a fair process?

[Sarah Olney]

The point has been made on a number of occasions that it is always possible for employers to make mistakes in their hiring—for people to not be the right fit for the job. There should be a straightforward way for those employers to dismiss those people without being challenged on the basis that the dismissal was unfair. The key point is not that employers should be allowed to make unfair dismissals, but if a dismissal has been fair, they should not have to defend it.

[Justin Madders]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson has just said that it is not right that employers should pay for a mistake they made in hiring someone. Why should the employee pay for that mistake, if it was not theirs?

[Sarah Olney]

There is a balance between the employer and the employee. If the fit is not right, it is better for both sides that the employment is brought to an end, and that the employee is free to seek more appropriate employment.

There are very significant concerns. The lack of clarity about probation periods, which the Minister mentioned, and exactly what they mean, risks piling undue worry on to business managers who are struggling to find the right skills. We can compare that with the provisions in the amendment tabled on unfair dismissal.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I, both here and in the other place, have been clear in our support for an amendment that would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request guaranteed hours. Amendment 1B would allow an employee to notify their employer if they no longer wished to receive guaranteed hours offers, but they would be able to opt back into receiving guaranteed hours offers at any time. That reasonable and balanced approach would relieve employers from having to issue guaranteed hours offers each reference period to workers who may simply not be interested in them, while ensuring that those who wished to receive such offers could continue to do so.

The Liberal Democrats strongly believe in giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many workers are struggling with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many people value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Adaptability in shift patterns is often hugely valuable for those balancing caring responsibilities or their studies alongside work. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have both security and flexibility.

Specifically, small and medium-sized businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant costs and administrative burdens on their limited resources, compounding other challenges, such as the recent increase in employer national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. The Liberal Democrat amendment that was debated in the Lords is in line with our long-standing policy that zero-hours and agency workers should have the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a request that employers could not unreasonably refuse. We believe that measure would maintain valuable flexibility and benefit both parties when the obligation to keep offering guaranteed hours, even to workers who clearly are not interested in them, imposes a significant burden that does not benefit either side.

As with all workplace rights, employees should be supported to exercise a right to request guaranteed hours without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace. The unified fair work agency being set up by the Government, which we welcome, could help ensure that employees received that protection and support. This approach would still give workers the vital security that they deserve, while avoiding unnecessary burdens for employers.

Last time the Bill was debated in the Commons, I spoke in favour of measures that would improve the clarity of the legislation on seasonal work, so I will once again speak in favour of Lords amendment 48B. The sustainability of so many companies, such as farming businesses, depends on getting the right people into the right place at the right time. Any obstacles to actioning that can have a huge impact on company operations, potentially throwing the entire business into jeopardy. Hospitality firms such as pubs, cafés and restaurants also rely on seasonal workers and are particularly vulnerable.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Lady define what rights somebody working behind a desk in this place should have under amendment 48B that somebody working behind a bar in this place should not?

[Sarah Olney]

They are different kinds of work with different work patterns, requiring different skills and experience. I am not entirely certain what point the hon. Member wants me to respond to.

If a different regulatory framework is to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of seasonal work must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming employees as seasonal workers in inappropriate circumstances. We continue to call for businesses that are especially reliant on seasonal workers to be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support amendment 48B.

On trade unions, I again speak in favour of Lords amendment 62B to maintain the status quo, in which a 50% ballot threshold is required for industrial action. The Government’s proposal to remove the threshold entirely means that a trade union could take strike action with only a small minority of eligible members taking part in the vote. That is bound to raise questions among the public about whether the will of workers has been accurately represented, and it risks unnecessarily creating tensions between workers, employees and the general public. That would not be a good outcome for any of the parties involved. We should maintain a robust process for launching industrial action.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Lady inform the House of the statistics relating to her election at the general election? She was elected by a minority. If it is good enough for her—she is doing a great job, by the way—why is it not good enough for ordinary working people?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman will be happy to hear that 53.3% of Richmond Park voters voted for me to be their representative, so I was, in fact, elected by the majority of my constituents. I am delighted to hear that he thinks I am doing a good job for them. I think he was attempting to highlight that many of the people in the Chamber were elected on less than 50%. The first thing I would say to that is that on most ballot papers, there will have been a choice of more than two candidates.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Olney]

May I finish the point? If people are choosing from a list of five people, it is likely, under the first-past-the-post system, that the winning candidate will receive less than 50% of the vote. In a strike ballot, the choice is between two options. That is why there should be more than 50% of all members voting for the option to strike. That is the important point here.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has given me an excellent opportunity to point out that the Liberal Democrats have long been advocates of voting reform. Last December, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill advocating for proportional representation, which was passed. It remains the will of the House, as expressed on that occasion, that we should change the way in which we elect hon. Members.

Maintaining a robust process for launching industrial action is particularly important when we consider the scale of the disruption that the public face when strikes happen. The Liberal Democrats also continue to support measures that would retain the current opt-in system for contribution to trade union political funds. Amendment 72B maximises choice and transparency for individuals about the political funds to which they are contributing.

Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, many of whom support the Bill’s aims, but they have significant concerns about the extent of the Bill, much of which is still undecided on and risks compounding other challenges that they face. Changes in employer national insurance, slow progress on reform of the apprenticeship levy and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices continue to be extremely damaging to businesses, and to our economy as a whole. We must find a way to support small and medium-sized businesses in particular, and to provide clarity, so that they can plan ahead. If the Government were prepared to make meaningful improvements to the Bill that would make things easier for small businesses—for example, through the amendments suggested by the Liberal Democrats—they might find it easier to make progress with the legislation.

We support many of the aims of the Bill, and the spirit of the measures that strengthen employment rights, but I urge Members to support our amendments, which will help to ensure that this legislation strikes the right balance for both workers and business.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Draft Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 General Committees

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the Trade Act 2021, as it failed to provide sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements and risked weakening the UK’s high standards on health, food, labour and the environment. Despite that, the Bill passed the House of Commons in July 2020 without amendment, despite cross-party efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability.

In contrast to the Labour Back Benchers, I was there and I tabled those amendments to require transparent investment courts for investor disputes, to ensure human rights considerations in trade negotiations and to mandate impact assessments of trade agreements. Those, along with other Opposition amendments such as protections for the NHS and food standards, were voted down by the then Government.

The Liberal Democrats further criticised the Bill for lacking clear national priorities or principles to guide future trade negotiations, such as commitments on climate action, animal welfare and international development. We warned that that omission could lead to deals that lower standards or allow foreign influence over public services. Then and now, we believe that the 2021 Act grants excessive power to Ministers, excluding MPs from meaningful involvement, and it provides no guarantee that UK standards, public services or democratic accountability will be protected. We will not vote against this draft SI, but we will continue to call for reforms to ensure transparency, fairness and parliamentary scrutiny in future trade policy.

[Chris Bryant]

The shadow Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, argued for the benefits of Brexit—well, I have searched very high and I have searched very, very low for those. The previous Government even had a Minister for the benefits of Brexit, although he lost his seat, of course, at the last general election. I was a remainer and I remain a remainer, and we know that there has been significant damage to our ability to prosper because of what Brexit did to us. When I was at the World Trade Organisation last week, it was striking how many countries pointed to the number of UK businesses that are no longer trading in Europe because of the difficulties relating to Brexit.

I will say two things. First, we are where we are and we intend to exploit the ability that we have by virtue of not being in the European Union to its utmost, so as to secure trade deals wherever we can in the rest of the world. It may be that in some instances we are able to lead the way, such as on the free trade agreement that we have agreed with India, which is a significant success. That will point the way for the EU itself, in some cases, to be able to follow in our wake. It also gives us a seat at the WTO for the first time, which means that we can lead some of the conversations on reform of the WTO at the ministerial conference next March in Cameroon.

We will exploit the opportunity, but secondly, we must also ensure that, wherever possible, we secure the frictionless trade that was promised us by the shadow Minister and his ilk. We will try to secure that with the European Union because, frankly, any business in the UK that manages to find an export opportunity is more likely to be more resilient, succeed and grow into the future, which is precisely what we want for British businesses.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, sounded very grumpy. I always think, when a Liberal Democrat stands up, that they will be full of cheer and joy, and then they are always grumpy. I sympathise with some of the arguments that she makes about scrutiny, and I want to make sure, as Trade Minister, that we can provide whatever scrutiny is possible without so limiting our freedom of action to secure a deal with another country. It is a very careful balancing act and we need to get it right.

I was the Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office who took forward the clauses in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRaG. I stand by them. We will provide as many opportunities as we possibly can in relation to all the trade deals that we are going through at the moment for people to scrutinise, question and, if necessary, tell Ministers off. I will now give way for what will probably be another grumpy Liberal Democrat intervention.

[Sarah Olney]

I will ask this question in the brightest way I possibly can. The Minister referenced CRaG, which was passed in 2010. Does he still think that that is a sufficient level of scrutiny, given that we are now outside the EU and in a different trading environment to the one that we were in when those provisions were made?

[Chris Bryant]

We would obviously always want to keep that under review. As part of the CRaG process everything gets notified to the several Committees that might have an interest. When I was on the Foreign Affairs Committee, it struck me that it was always at that moment that all the members would put their heads on the table—it was like the moment from “Absolutely Fabulous” when the accountant comes along.

There is a very strong argument that the whole of the House should take these trade issues far more seriously than we have in the past—though that is not me committing to changes in legislation, in case that is what the hon. Lady thought I was doing. She has started smiling again; it turns out I can put a smile on a Liberal Democrat face. However, I take the issue of how we consult extremely seriously. I know she is a trade envoy, and I still need to have a conversation with her about that.

Broadly speaking, everybody has said that they agree with the motion, so I should probably shut up.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I also welcome the ministerial Front Benchers to their new roles. The Liberal Democrats have long championed an industrial strategy. In government, we created the Green Investment Bank, the British Business Bank and the regional growth fund, and we opposed the Conservative Government’s damaging decision to scrap the industrial plan. We welcome the industrial strategy’s return, especially its focus on investing in skills.

However, businesses know that the apprenticeship levy does not work: funding is hard to access and millions go unspent. We welcomed the pledge in June to replace it with a more flexible growth and skills levy, but firms and young people are still awaiting details. Will the Minister provide details of what training this will fund, so that businesses and young people can plan ahead with certainty?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words on my new appointment. I will not get ahead of announcements on that, but given the importance of skills to the industrial strategy, we are not waiting for those announcements. We have had TechFirst, a £187 million investment in secondary school pupils, undergraduates, PhD students, entrepreneurs and businesses, to help them get ahead on that. We have the engineering package of over £100 million, and the defence package of £182 million. We are making those investments now to ensure that the pipeline is there for those industries, which are the priority within the industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Businesses across the country are struggling with unaffordable energy costs. The burden of this Government’s national insurance contributions rise and uncertainty over the Employment Rights Bill are compounded by the immense struggle caused by sky-high energy bills. I urge the Government to act with more urgency in addressing energy costs for businesses, including through accelerating the launch of the industrial competitiveness scheme, the consultation for which is not even due to be launched until the end of the year. What discussions has the Minister had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero to cut operating costs for businesses, and will the Government consider Liberal Democrat proposals to break the link between gas and energy prices, halving bills within a decade and easing pressures?

[Peter Kyle]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are in constant contact with the Energy Secretary. When I was at DSIT, we co-chaired the AI energy council, and we are working together to get the transition to renewable power done as swiftly as possible, generating the wealth that our country needs from the transition period. Also, we are lowering bills and, through some targeted interventions, ensuring that those key businesses get the support they need on the challenges with energy prices and supply that we inherited when we came into office.

Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this debate. The Liberal Democrats support measures that work to strengthen employment rights, so yesterday we welcomed aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. All those measures move us in the right direction, but as the legislation progresses through Parliament, we remain concerned about the specific way in which many of them will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business.

In the debate yesterday, my colleagues and I highlighted several concerns about the absence of detail in the Bill. So many key elements will be left to secondary legislation or subject to consultation. Businesses in my constituency tell me that they are being left in limbo by the Government’s framing of the Bill, which prevents long-term planning. I am disappointed that the Government did not support the Liberal Democrat amendments that would have created more certainty for business in matters such as the definition of short notice when a shift is cancelled, or the changes to the period for making a claim for unfair dismissal.

Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, such reforming the broken business rates system, bringing down trade barriers and properly reforming the apprenticeship levy. Although the impact of the Employment Rights Bill will be a significant shift for businesses, there are many other factors that remain challenging.

Small businesses are at the centre of our communities and our local economies, creating the jobs on which we all rely. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will help to protect the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of the national insurance increase. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have persistently opposed these measures at every turn. Once again, I urge the Government to scrap them.

The Government’s decision to raise the rate of national insurance contributions while also reducing the threshold at which they are levied has significantly raised the cost of employing part-time workers, delivering a disproportionately large blow to the hospitality sector. Just today, the latest labour market figures show rising numbers of people claiming unemployment benefits, alongside many businesses facing workforce shortages. The Government need to scrap this failed tax, or we will not get the growth that we need to rebuild our public services.

It is not just about staffing costs. The Government must take other steps to boost the hospitality workforce, including introducing a youth mobility scheme with much more urgency and properly investing in skills and training. More broadly, they must look at measures that would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole. We continue to call on them to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. We also know that many businesses are struggling with sky-high energy costs, so I urge the Minister to consider Liberal Democrat proposals that will cut energy bills by a half within 10 years, by breaking the link between gas prices and electricity costs so that households and businesses can get the benefit of cheap, clean power and lower energy bills. I urge the Minister to look at our proposals to give businesses the support that they desperately need.

Most employers want to do the right thing by their staff. I have spoken to many businesses and key stakeholder groups that support the aims of the Bill but have raised significant concerns that some of the measures could backfire, leading to the loss of thousands of flexible, part-time and entry-level roles in particular. So much of the detail of the Bill is still undecided. That will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing, from the Government’s changes to employer national insurance to the reduction in business rates relief and the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses trying to plan ahead.

The Liberal Democrats remain supportive of many of the measures that the Employment Rights Bill will introduce to improve support for workers. However, as we see the impact of the legislation, we will continue to seek the right balance for both employees and businesses.

Employment Rights Bill

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), and to hear his passion for the Bill; I wish him every success. I also welcome the new Secretary of State for Business and Trade to his place. I look forward to opposing him.

The Liberal Democrats support many of the Bill’s aims. We have long called for employment rights to be strengthened in several ways, including by boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers. There is a lot in the Bill that we support in principle, and that moves the country in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about how many of the measures will be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for both employees and business. Some of our worries arose from the extent to which crucial detail has been left to secondary legislation, or will be subject to consultations. That does not facilitate stability and certainty for business or workers, and it precludes long-term planning. That will particularly impact small businesses, start-up businesses and those businesses looking to grow. That is why we are supportive of, for example, the amendment that sets the qualifying period for unfair dismissal claims at six months; that would create certainty for business. Any new measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses, which provide employment. Those reforms include reform of the broken business rates system, a removal of trade barriers, and proper reform of the apprenticeship levy.

I am in favour of Lords amendment 1, which would change the obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. The Liberal Democrats have long stood for giving zero-hours workers security about their working patterns, and we are deeply concerned that too many zero-hours workers struggle with unstable incomes, job insecurity and difficulties in planning for the future. However, we also recognise that many value the flexibility that such arrangements provide. Many young people and those balancing caring responsibilities alongside work value adaptability in their shift patterns. It is therefore important to strike a balance that ensures that workers can have security and flexibility.

[Katrina Murray]

I spoke to a hospital catering worker in my constituency who was contracted to work 12 hours a week, but she regularly worked 36 hours a week. However, when she took annual leave, she was paid for 12 hours a week. Does the hon. Lady not think that this catering worker deserves the respect of actually being paid for the hours she works, and of having a contract for the hours she works?

[Sarah Olney]

If the hon. Lady supported Lords amendment 1, the catering worker would have a right to request, and could get the certainty she requires. The amendment would very much offer that right, which she currently does not have, but it would also mean there was no requirement on the employer to maintain records, and the employer would not have the administrative burden of being forced to offer those hours to workers in the industry who did not require such flexibility. That is why we think the amendment strikes the right balance.

We strongly support the principle of enabling workers to obtain fixed-hours contracts, but we have concerns about the implementation method proposed in the Bill. Small businesses have highlighted that having to offer employees fixed-hours contracts on a rolling basis could impose significant administrative burdens. Many small employers lack human resource or legal departments, and the change could be a significant cost for those with limited resources. That would compound other challenges, such as the recent increase in employers’ national insurance contributions and the fallout from the previous Government’s damaging Brexit deal. In the retail and hospitality sector, part-time and entry-level roles are often taken up by young people looking for flexible hours, people with caring responsibilities, and others who may not want to make long-term work commitments. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) offered a compelling example of a zero-hours contract giving someone what they required from work. For all those groups, flexibility is key.

The amendment is in line with our long-standing manifesto commitment to give zero-hours and agency workers the right to request fixed-hours contracts—a right that employers could not refuse unreasonably. The measure would maintain a flexibility that benefits both parties, whereas an obligation to offer guaranteed hours imposes a significant burden, which does not benefit either party.

We are clear that employees should be supported to exercise this right—and all employment rights—without fear of any negative consequences in their workplace, and we are pleased that the Government have taken steps to set up a unified Fair Work Agency. We hope that the Government will look into our other proposals—for example, the proposal to give zero-hours workers a 20% higher minimum wage to compensate them for the uncertainty of fluctuating hours.

The amendment strikes a balance between security for workers and flexibility for employers. Much of the contention about the Bill relates to the lack of detail and clarity around key definitions, which makes it hard for businesses and employers to plan. That is why I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8, which would define a short-notice cancellation as a cancellation with 48 hours’ notice. That provides a workable balance. It gives employers clarity, while ensuring that workers are compensated when shifts are cancelled late.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that fair notice may be relative to the industry we are talking about? What is fair notice in, say, the retail sector may be completely different from what is fair notice for someone working on an offshore oil rig.

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not think so. Forty-eight hours is a reasonable amount of notice in any sector. That is the kind of notice that enables, for example, parents to rearrange childcare, or other members of the family to rearrange their shifts. The 48 hours is a proper definition of reasonable notice, and 48 hours is 48 hours, whether you work on an oil rig or in a shop. I disagree that it is context-dependent.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I am passionate about ensuring that single parents can enter the workforce, and a big barrier to that is childcare. When thinking about which amendments the hon. Member will support, has she discussed the matter with any organisations representing single parents? Forty-eight hours does not seem like a lot of time.

[Sarah Olney]

As someone with a long history of having to arrange childcare at short notice, I am well aware of the limitations that needing to arrange childcare presents, particularly for working women, both those who are single parents and those in a relationship. Forty-eight hours is not ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and it is absolutely vital that employers have clarity about what “reasonable notice” looks like in this circumstance.

I wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 48. Businesses, particularly those in the hospitality sector, that rely on seasonal workers are particularly vulnerable to changes in labour regulations and the knock-on impacts on the cost and availability of labour. The sustainability of farming businesses, for example, depends on being able to get the right people to the right place at the right time, and obstacles to that can have a big impact on ability to generate produce for sale, and therefore on the sustainability of the business. If we allow a different set of regulations to apply to seasonal work, a clear definition of “seasonal work” must be created to prevent employers from avoiding their legitimate responsibilities by claiming seasonal work in inappropriate circumstances. While we do not believe that this legislation should create contrasting employment law requirements for businesses, we continue to defend the principle that businesses should be properly considered when secondary legislation is created, so I urge Members to support the amendment.

Lords amendment 46, tabled by my good friend and Richmond Park predecessor Baroness Kramer, would introduce protections for whistleblowers. It follows her long-standing campaign for support for whistleblowers, and I pay tribute to her commitment to the cause.

[Ian Roome]

There is no standard requirement for most companies to have a whistleblowing policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would be a good opportunity to put in place real protections for whistleblowers who try to highlight crime, danger and malpractice in the workplace?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The current framework for whistleblowing applies only if somebody has lost their job. It does not address the duty on businesses to follow up whistleblowers’ serious concerns about crimes. That urgently needs to be addressed.

Too many whistleblowers who raised serious concerns about matters ranging from fraud to patient safety are ignored by their employers, or are reticent to speak out because of fears of unfair repercussions. The new clause in Lords amendment 46 has received the support of numerous international civil society organisations, including Protect and Spotlight on Corruption. It would be a long-overdue update to our once world-leading whistleblowing legislation, and I urge colleagues from across the House to support the change.

I support Lords amendment 47, which would expand the right to be accompanied to employment hearings to include certified professional companions. Currently, employees may be accompanied only by certified trade union representatives, leaving many workers to navigate proceedings alone. Although trade unions provide valuable support to their members, only 22% of workers are in a trade union, including only 12% of private sector workers, with recent figures at a record low. The current provisions made sense at a time when trade union membership was higher nationally, but those provisions have become largely outdated as trade union membership has fallen and the labour market has modernised. Without the amendment, we consign many employees facing unfair dismissal to navigating the requirements of disciplinary hearings on their own, without any kind of professional or educated support.

[Dr Arthur]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the best protection against unfair dismissal is trade union membership?

[Sarah Olney]

No, I do not. I think that people should have the freedom not to join a trade union if that is what they wish, not least because their trade union contributions might go to a party that they do not vote for. Many professions these days are better represented not by trade unions that cover a whole range of different employment categories but by professional bodies. As an accountant, I was a member of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants. Had I been facing a disciplinary in relation to my professional duties, I would have been much better represented by a fellow member of that body than by a trade union.

[Katrina Murray]

I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. Professional bodies are there to set the standards of the profession. Does the hon. Lady not recognise the conflict of interest that could arise from the professional body representing an employee at a disciplinary hearing when it has to uphold the standards of the profession?

[Sarah Olney]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but a fellow qualified accountant would be better able to advise somebody facing a disciplinary than an official from a general trade union, who would not necessarily understand the points in dispute.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Lady makes good points in some parts of her speech, but not in others. The point of a trade union representative—or any representative who goes with an individual to a disciplinary process—is not to advise on the particulars of the worker’s skillset, but to ensure that processes are followed and the worker’s rights are protected. I fully understand what she says about accountancy, but are there people in her professional organisation who can give her employment rights advice? Disciplinaries relate to employees’ rights, not their professional skillsets.

[Sarah Olney]

As the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) have said, that has not been a requirement for professional bodies, but if we create the right for suitably qualified professionals to accompany employees, I fully expect that those bodies would go on to develop that capability. It is surely up to an employee to decide whether they want a fellow professional or a trade union official to protect and defend their interests. They should have the opportunity to make that choice for themselves.

The Liberal Democrats also support the retention of the opt-in system for contributions to trade union political funds. We believe in maximising choice and transparency for individuals in relation to the political funds to which they contribute. We therefore oppose measures that would make it an opt-out system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support of the trade unions. On the thresholds, does my hon. Friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as “no” votes?

[Sarah Olney]

I am slightly surprised to be referred to as “hon. Friend”, not least because I am probably going to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. To undertake such massive action, including in the NHS, and on the tube—we saw the level of disruption that that caused the public last week—there needs to be a positive vote in favour of strike action, which is why I back this amendment.

[Ian Lavery]

You haven’t understood my point.

[Sarah Olney]

I am happy to take another intervention.

[Ian Lavery]

I simply mean that if there is a threshold of 50% and it is not met, are those who did not participate in the ballot classed as “no” votes? Is that correct? It is pretty simple.

[Sarah Olney]

I think the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that people who did not express a view either way should be counted as voting against. What I am saying is that in order to justify the levels of disruption that strike action has caused recently, it is important that a trade union can demonstrate that it has majority support from its workforce. That is why I support the amendment. We believe that the current threshold for strike action is suitable, and that making it easier to strike risks putting further pressure on public services and damaging the economy, as we saw last week with the disruption across the capital caused by the tube strikes.

Most employers are responsible businesses that want to do the right thing by their staff, and many of them support the aims of the Bill. However, they have significant concerns about the lack of clarity and the proposed implementation process. So much of the detail of the legislation is still undecided and will compound the challenges that small businesses are facing—from the Government’s changes to employers’ national insurance and the reduction in business rates relief, to the absence of any meaningful action to bring down commercial energy prices. We must find a way to support and provide clarity for businesses that are trying to plan ahead. The Liberal Democrats support many aims of the Bill and the spirit of measures that strengthen employment rights, but we will support the Lords amendments that will help to ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for workers and businesses.

[Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government amendments, and thank those who have steered the legislation to this point.

This is a generational upgrade in employment rights, and as a Labour MP, I am very proud to support it. It is a landmark shift in some ways—a declaration that in modern Britain, hard work should be rewarded with decent, stable work, security, dignity and fairness. Having worked in the private and public sectors at different times in my life, I believe that the Bill strikes a fair balance between the workplace rights of the individual and the rights of the employer. That is why I welcome the extensive consultation that the Government have undertaken with the private sector and with trade unions and other organisations. I am a member of USDAW—the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—and the National Education Union and have proudly represented and spoken for them in my career to date.

I wish to speak about a number of the Opposition Lords amendments and my concerns about them in short order. I have concerns about Lords amendment 1. Zero-hours contracts have allowed people to be trapped by insecure work, low pay and one-sided flexibility. I know from speaking to shop workers in my constituency that they have not been able to plan ahead with their finances because of the unscrupulous nature of some working relationships with employers. That has left families unable to plan their weekly shopping and childcare as well as their futures, especially in respect of securing loans and other financial settlements. It has become a way for employers to manage down by allowing too many people to take very short hours and then not allowing them to gain other forms of employment.

The Government’s measures to ensure zero-hours contracts are controlled—where the individual can request zero-hours contracts but there is an onus on the employer to support guaranteed hours—strike the correct balance. I therefore reject Lords amendment 1 as the Government’s measures strike a fair balance between the employee requesting and the employer giving.

Lords amendments 23, 106 and 120 relate to sensible changes on unfair dismissal. As has been mentioned, under the last Government the unfair dismissal provision was set at 12 months and that was extended to two years under the current Government. This does not take into account the fact that many who are subject to unfair dismissal might have been working for the employer for a significant period and also be subject to paternity leave, parental leave and other types of support. We should be supporting people with secure provision in work, and I believe that six months is a fair period in which most employers would be able to grade that assessment.

I do not accept Lords amendment 48 on seasonal work. It would add a loophole by which employers could exploit workers. The Bill pays due regard to the realities of seasonal work, both at Christmas and in farming and other types of practice, and I would welcome consultation on such provision continuing.

On political funds, I urge colleagues to reject Lords amendments 61 and 72. We must return to a model that has worked for over 70 years where people choose to opt out of political funds, because securing employment rights is one of the endeavours of a trade union. The trade unions were set up to secure rights for employees, and seeking to achieve that is one of their political endeavours.

I have concerns about Lords amendment 62. The Conservatives complain about the 50% threshold but they did not adopt that in their former leadership election, and perhaps it will not be the threshold in their leadership election to come in the next six months. If they adopted their recommended 50% threshold of members, we might not see a replacement. If they cannot use it for their own internal processes, that raises questions about why others should be made to do so. I also encourage the Government to consider online balloting as a next necessary step. We do online balloting for many of our leadership processes and it is a sensible way forward, as well as other forms of engagement by post.

As a former teacher, I do not support Lords amendment 121. Negotiations should be conducted in a fair way and the Bill covers that, preventing one-sided correspondence between teachers and their professional body.

As a former special constable, while I accept Lords amendment 21 in principle in supporting our special constables on the ground, that should not just be for a single group of people but should be considered for others, perhaps including carers and other support workers. I welcome the Government’s review of employees’ right to take time off; that is the most sensible approach.

On balance, I am not surprised that the Conservatives and others do not support the Bill—I and others have written as USDAW MPs. I believe that we should support a balanced approach between employees and employers. I welcome the work the Government and former Ministers have done to that end. The Bill strikes a fair balance between those who work in the private and public sectors and the obligations employers are to offer, which is why I will be supporting the Government tonight.