Employment Rights Bill

Committee (5th Day)

17:22:00

Amendment 99

Moved by

99: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause— “Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;(vi) threats of violence.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures. (3D) In this section, “persons working in their workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.””Member's explanatory statement This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.

My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for signing Amendments 99 and 100. As I open the debate on them, I look forward to hearing from all Members who would like to engage on this very important topic of tackling workplace gender-based violence and harassment. First, I thank the Minister for meeting me ahead of today to discuss these amendments. I am grateful for the engagement on this matter and hope that it continues. I also thank a number of organisations for their support in the drafting of the amendments: the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Rights of Women and the Workers Policy Project. The formation of the amendments began with the Private Member’s Bill to the same effect tabled by my Plaid Cymru colleague in the other place, Liz Saville Roberts, who is below the Bar today. Finally, I thank Mr Richard Spinks for sharing his personal story. Mr Spinks has experienced the most devastating consequence of the inadequacy of protections against gender-based violence in the workplace in the tragic loss of his daughter, Gracie, and I am thankful to him for showing his support for these amendments. Amendments 99 and 100 attempt to tackle those very inadequacies in employee protections. By amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Amendment 99 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments and policy development. It would provide recognition and prevention training to all employees. Amendment 100 would mandate the Health and Safety Executive to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and issue guidance for employers in collaboration with relevant bodies. The prevalence of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace across the UK shows that interventions such as these amendments are unfortunately absolutely necessary. The Government Equalities Office’s survey in 2020 found that 29% of those in employment reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or workplace environment in the previous 12 months, and only 15% reported it. A 2024 study by Sheffield Hallam University found that sexual harassment is particularly high in traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated industries, and highest in hospitality. Given that workers may be unlikely to recognise some of their experiences as sexual harassment, these numbers are probably much higher in reality. This is also true of gender-based violence, psychological and emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse, stalking and harassment, and threats of violence. In fact, 56% of calls to Rights of Women’s sexual harassment at work advice line are made up of reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control. However, despite the UK ratifying ILO Convention 190 in 2022 to enhance worker protections against workplace violence and harassment, there are significant gaps within our legal framework to protect workers from those kinds of harm. The status quo is deeply lacking, and we are currently failing our women as a result, such as in the case of some 100 women, according to the police, who have accused Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed of offences including multiple counts of rape and attempted rape. Despite being owner of the Ritz Paris hotel and Fulham Football Club at the time, he was never held to account. My mind turns also to those eight people, most of them current or former BBC staff, stalked by former BBC radio presenter Alex Belfield, who was also sentenced to a five-and-a-half-year term for harassing four people online, and Gracie Spinks, who was killed by a former male colleague, Michael Sellers, after having reported his obsessive behaviour towards her to her employer, Xbite. The inquest into Gracie’s death found that seven other Xbite employees had received unwanted attention from Sellers, with most consequently leaving their jobs while he continued to work for the company until dismissed in February 2021. Many said the company was aware and had spoken to him about his inappropriate behaviour. Incidents such as these show the dangers of employer inaction under current regulations, and His Majesty’s Government are not absolved of this, with sexual assault, harassment and abuse having taken place at the Ministry of Defence, according to 60 senior women in 2023. The reluctance of employers—and that includes public bodies—to address such behaviours directly endangers people’s lives. I understand that it is His Majesty’s Government’s belief that the worker protection Act 2023 has addressed some of these regulatory gaps. I, however, disagree. That Act was introduced to tackle the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace by creating a preventive duty requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in their workplaces. That is a commendable effort, but there are key issues with that legislation. First, an automatic investigation into a breach of this duty takes place only after an individual successfully brings a claim of sexual harassment. This severely limits the preventive function. Secondly, it excludes other forms of gender-based violence in the workplace, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse, which form part of the recommendations of the ILO 190. It is clear that there is real need for legislation that requires employers to proactively create a safe work environment, one that addresses wider gender-based violence. The Employment Rights Bill is a good vehicle to bring about this change, cementing further the need to address sexual harassment and violence in the workplace as the employment-related issue that it is.

17:30:00

As I said during Second Reading, Clauses 19 to 22 are positive measures and I am certain they will bring some difference to workers. However, these clauses limit interventions to sexual harassment alone. As I have set out today, this could leave victims and potential victims of other gender-based violence in the workplace outside the Bill’s protection, as it fails to get employers to address the other forms of gender-based violence.

I also note that Clauses 19 to 21 amend the Equality Act 2010, meaning that their regulation would naturally fall under the jurisdiction of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. I recognise that the EHRC is believed by His Majesty’s Government to be better placed to regulate harassment, with the police then handling complaints of workplace sexual harassment, but I take issue with this argument. First, the EHRC’s mandate limits its ability to address the health and safety implications of gender-based violence in the workplace because the Equality Act addresses sexual harassment as discrimination and does so at the exclusion of other forms of gender-based violence, leaving them without real regulation. The EHRC also has weak enforcement powers and resources in this respect and is unable to impose fines on employers.

Secondly, this argument fails to recognise that most victim survivors do not recognise their experience as harassment and might therefore not make a complaint to the police. In fact, according to the “End not Defend” campaign, a series of FOIs submitted to each police force found an acknowledgement that harassment is, overall, not recorded as happening in the workplace. Of course, the police can only take action against individual perpetrators under criminal law, allowing employers to evade accountability. This landscape is exactly why I have brought forward these two amendments.

The ILO published a report in 2024 that recommended creating a comprehensive approach to preventing and addressing gender-based violence in the workplace, including sexual harassment, through enhanced health and safety frameworks. These included mandatory policies that explicitly acknowledged gender-based violence through risk assessment and management, and through training. So that is what we have put forward. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 mandates that employers have a duty to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees at work as far as is reasonably practical.

Amendments 99 and 100 amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act by establishing a new duty on employers to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace under the watchful eye of the Health and Safety Executive. Unlike the EHRC, the HSE can enforce compliance with health and safety regulations through inspections, fines and prosecution. As “End not Defend” makes clear, increased enforcement powers could provide early intervention in cases that do not meet the legal threshold.

Recognising sexual harassment and violence in the workplace as a health and safety issue is not a novel idea. In fact, many countries across the globe have adapted their health and safety laws accordingly, with Sweden and Australia establishing legal duties requiring employers to prevent harassment. Countries such as Belgium and Finland treat harassment as a workplace hazard that requires assessment and prevention. It makes complete sense to utilise the authority of respected health and safety legislation to tackle workplace gender-based harassment and violence. It is, after all, the toughest mechanism we have in the workplace. The commendable and welcome aim of His Majesty’s Government to halve violence against women and girls by the end of the decade is exactly why these amendments are necessary. This aim requires a cross-departmental and public health approach that goes beyond a focus on the criminal justice response and must include employers as part of the solution.

Leveraging health and safety legal frameworks that are already in place would require employers to actively work towards eliminating gender-based violence. It would establish a structured, systematic and publicly enforceable approach to the prevention of, and the safeguarding of women from, gender-based violence in the workplace. As such, I hope that the Minister will speak with government colleagues and fully consider these amendments as an opportunity to incorporate the prevention of gender-based violence in the workplace within the wider strategy to end violence against women, as I believe it is a necessary step to reach that worthy goal, which I support.

Both these amendments place an onus on employers to take responsibility for safety in their workplaces by prioritising victim protection and treating harassment and violence as a serious issue that requires deliberate intervention. That means mandatory risk assessments, health and safety oversight to enforce employer accountability, and victim-centred policies to shift the focus away from tick-box compliance. That means meaningful support and preventive actions for workers and employees. This is what my amendment seeks to do. The support of an expert organisation and trade unions shows the appetite for this kind of change within workplaces. We need it. What we have is just not robust enough to adequately protect individuals in the workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.

I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points I have raised, and I hope His Majesty’s Government consider the arguments I have made today as the Employment Rights Bill makes its way through this place. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, having worked for many years before she came to the House on domestic abuse issues. Nobody would disagree with the Government having this priority to reduce violence against women and girls; it is a no-brainer, given where we are starting from. The examples in the workplace of things going wrong, often in plain sight, are embarrassing, and the list the noble Baroness put before us, which I will briefly repeat in part, demonstrates that it is just the tip of the iceberg. When I was a head-hunter, for many years I specialised in HR—sometimes known as “human refuse” or “human remains”, but otherwise known as personnel—and Harrods was known as a revolving door for HR directors. Any personnel director who looked at an offer of employment from Mr Fayed—he actually was just Mr Mohamed Fayed; he added the “al” because it makes you sound posher in Egypt—and who had done their homework knew what they were in for. Even people who took a deep breath and, for a large amount of money, took on that role rarely lasted more than 12 months. It really was supping with the devil, and it was widely known, but nobody did anything about it. The BBC has been mentioned, as well as the NHS. The fact that female employees, surgeons included, in the NHS have reported rape—both allegations of rape and actual rape—over many years is inconceivable in principle but is and has been taking place. The case of Gracie Spinks was mentioned. I too had the privilege of listening to her father as he spoke of his anguish at the death of his daughter. That is an interesting example. The company where the person who killed her, and who then killed himself, worked, Xbite, had a grand total of 140 employees. So, as we think through how to deal with this, how can we help organisations such as that, which had started up only five years before, to understand the co-responsibilities they have with their employees to try to protect them in the working environment? But also, how do we make that practical and effective? I was involved, with others, in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill which has just left your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason that the Government brought that in is precisely because of issues of abuse in the workplace. The well-known tragic case of Jaysley Beck, who took her own life after years of repeated harassment by, shamefully, a series of her superiors, is a case in point. The Ministry of Defence itself also has a major issue in this regard. The fact is that, as many of us will know, many of us—some of us—will indeed have married, gone out with or, heaven forbid, had affairs with people that we have met through interactions at the workplace. The workplace, outside of the home, is a major cause and focus of social interaction between people, and most of us spend a significant part of our lives there. To expect that to exist in a separate bubble and compartment and not recognise the issues that can often be engendered and amplified by the intensity of a working environment is to ignore the obvious. So, should we ignore this in this Bill? I think we all agree that this is an issue that needs to be tackled. I think we all agree that we need to do better, but I think we need to ask ourselves: is this the right vehicle by which to try and do something about it? I have come to the conclusion that the answer is probably yes, not least because of the timing of the Government’s current focus on reducing violence against women and girls. What is clear at the moment is that there is a real lack of clarity and guidance, and ownership and responsibility, on how to respond in these kinds of situations. We have a tangle of different laws and regulations dating back as far as 1974, with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We have the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. We have the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We have the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have the Health and Safety Executive, and we have the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190. That is a complicated thicket to try and work your way through, and there are many inconsistencies in the way it is applied and an almost total lack of understanding by those employers who are perhaps trying to respond to some of the issues that their employees are raising as to how best to deal with it, because there is no clear path or clear outline of how to respond. Creating clarity in this area for both the victims and the employers is an opportunity we should not miss. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he/she and their colleagues will sit down with Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones to try and look at this in the round, because, in a way, it would fit in very neatly with some of the other laudable initiatives of the Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I ask the Front Benches: please can we work together, politics out of the window, to try and work out between now and Report whether there are ways we can try and pull all this together, give greater clarity and improve on the unacceptable status quo?

My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is not able to be here today, and she has signed both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes. The noble Baroness made an excellent opening speech and has covered almost everything, but I think it is worth repeating that what we are trying to do here is provide workplaces that are safe, free from violence and free from gender-based harassment. As we heard during an Oral Question earlier, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in our society, and that impacts on women and girls—probably girls, particularly—of all ages. It is crucial that the Government take this seriously. We are not asking employers to sit down and think what they have to do from scratch, because this research has been done before. There is an excellent project conducted by the Fawcett Society that identifies five key requirements to create a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment: culture, policy, training, reporting mechanisms and the way that employers respond to reports. Successful and lasting change needs sustained commitment, and the Fawcett Society shows the way forward—or a way forward. Of course, that, with a great deal of other existing research, is something that the Health and Safety Executive could draw on. The size of the problem is probably indicated by research from Scotland; there is no reason to think that the issue there is larger than anywhere else on these islands. Last year, a study reported that 70% of women in Scotland reported having experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace and that 80% of those never reported it to their employer. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. I am sure that the Government want to do something about this, not least because lower-paid and younger workers are particularly vulnerable. This is something that the Government will surely want to address because there are an awful lot of votes out there from younger people and, at the next general election, this Labour Government might need them.

17:45:00

My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to raise some problems with these amendments. I have to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, made an absolutely brilliant, compelling case for her amendments and has been amply backed up by others. However, I still think that, if you look at what these amendments would do, there is a danger here. We have already discussed, in our debates on recent groups, mission creep in relation to the concept of harassment; we have talked about it a great deal. I am concerned about subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 100, which relates to “the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse”. Bringing that into the law would introduce a very wide and broad set of rules into the workplace. I am absolutely sympathetic to taking on some of the problems that we have seen in workplaces—for example, people being stalked at their workplace or being stalked by fellow workers, as well as the kinds of domestic abuse that have been described, with the Harrods example of rape and so on—because all of those things are terrible. However, we should not shy away from the fact that it will be quite difficult to legislate on every aspect of every intervention between employees in a workplace if we are going to broaden it out to emotional and psychological issues. That is one problem: it is overly subjective. The use of the phrase “gender-based violence” is in danger of confusing us as well, because we now know that there is a confusion between gender and biological sex. We should not shy away from the fact that that language has been confusing for some time. We need some clarity, not muddying. If we call it “gender”, this could turn workplaces into sites of perpetual ideological grievances and finger-pointing. Let me give noble Lords an example. Proposed new subsection (3C), which would be inserted by Amendment 99, says that the aim is a “gender-responsive approach”. This, it says, “means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls”. I point out that women and girls are not a subsection of gender identities. Gender identities are, “Have ’em if you want ’em”, in my view. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, do not throw them into this mix. We certainly cannot have gender identity created as a legal category by a well-intentioned amendment that would, in fact, undo the clarity we have recently had. These amendments completely conflict with the Supreme Court’s clarification of the distinction between biological sex as fact in law and gender identity, which is, I am afraid, often not just what people choose but part of an ideological activism that has, I would argue, been incredibly damaging to sex-based rights for women—often in the workplace. We need to be very careful about proposed new subsection (3B) in Amendment 99. It talks of “the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches”. I get worried when the bosses are asked to provide training that is not about how you do your job, because training has become the vehicle that is often used not to protect employees from harassment but for viewpoint conformity and as an insidious form of harassment of anyone who does not conform. We have to consider what this training consists of. I do not want to just say, “Oh yes, training, that is a good idea then”. The danger of training is that it can introduce all sorts of problems; and, in fact, training was the way that in most workplaces we now know that people misunderstood equality law. It was via training, informed by third-party organisations involved in the gender issue, that they started to adopt what has been called, by some KCs, “Stonewall law”. That is why so many organisations are now saying, “We were doing what we thought was legal”. To finish, I will show the Committee how complicated it is. I hope noble Lords have read that incredibly moving and harrowing interview with Karen Danson, one of the eight Darlington nurses who are taking legal action against their employer, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, after they were forced to share a changing room with a male nurse who identifies as a woman and calls himself Rose. As Karen explained in the interview, she had been abused as a child. She goes to work, where, as a nurse, she has to get to changed. In walks Rose, wearing only boxer shorts that are full of holes—details do matter in this instance—who keeps asking Karen why she is not getting changed. Karen, understandably, feels very disturbed. These amendments are about sexual harassment in the workplace. Karen and her colleagues go to their bosses and HR and say, “This is our changing room. We do not want to get changed in front of this man, however he identifies. What will you do about it?” What did HR say? It said that the nurses were the problem, called them transphobic and said they needed to be re-educated in trans inclusion; in other words, they were about to be sent on a training course. I make my point that if you are the wrong kind of victim in a workplace in an ideological sense, you could be the victim of the training which tries to get you to accept “right” things, rather than protects your rights. I really admire the spirit of the way that the amendments were introduced. However, they are absolutely wrong-headed and we should reject them.

I will just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the greatest danger we have is that the Bill passes and yet we have groups of people in the workplace who are not in any way protected, or not sufficiently protected, either from violence or from harassment. I thought the case was brilliantly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I say to the Minister: carpe diem. Here is an opportunity to make sure that there is not a gaping omission in the work that the whole Bill is attempting to do to provide proper protection in the workplace. I find it quite ingenious that the approach here is to try to use the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. If the Minister has a better way of doing it, I am sure that everyone will be very eager and willing to listen. It contains within it the capacity for both investigation and enforcement. When we talked in previous groups, it was very evident that investigation and enforcement are very often the vital missing elements in the arrangements that we have set in place today. This seems to me to have been a very sensible approach to try to find an organisation that is appropriate and has the relevant kind of teeth. I will not attempt to expand on the case as it has been made so eloquently. I am sort of filling in on this Bill when others have been called away—in this particular case to a NATO meeting. But I would have been very pleased to add my name to these amendments.

My Lords, I join the general congratulations offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on her very comprehensive introduction of these amendments; she deployed some incredibly powerful examples. We are all in agreement that violence and harassment, particularly sexual harassment and gender-based abuse, have absolutely no place in any workplace. Every worker, whether in an office, on a site or working remotely, deserves to feel safe, respected and protected. Tackling those issues must remain a top priority. The amendment before us seeks to introduce stronger duties on employers to prevent and respond to these harms. Measures such as risk assessments, training and clear reporting systems can be important in building a workplace culture where abuse is not tolerated and victims are supported, so we absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment. Although we agree that there is a need for action, we do not believe that the Health and Safety Executive is the right body to enforce these new responsibilities. That is not meant as a criticism of the Health and Safety Executive; it is simply a recognition that there are fundamentally different areas of concern that we think require a different kind of regulatory response. That is not the same as saying that we do not support the intentions of the amendment. We do not support Amendment 100. We need solutions that deliver real protections to address sexual harassment. Finally, I have to say, from a very personal point of view, that I completely agree with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and her reservations about proposed new subsection (3B).

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for her patience and apologise to her that it has taken until our fifth day in Committee for her to introduce her amendments. I thank her again for Amendments 99 and 100. I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment. This is a top priority for this Government, with our manifesto commitment, as mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. In response, I am happy to say that we already have a strong and, in the Government’s view, appropriate regulatory framework in place that ensures that workers are protected from such risks. I refer to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Under the statutory provisions made under the existing Act, employers have a very clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. Employers are required to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce this risk. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with other related legislation, also mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risk of workplace violence. As part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and to take suitable action to reduce or eliminate this risk. The Health and Safety Executive—HSE—and local authorities are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and carry out both proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers are complying with their duties. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate measures to protect their workers and anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence. The HSE has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations. It also works very closely with other regulators to promote co-operation, share intelligence and, where appropriate, co-ordinate joint activities. In the noble Baroness’s proposed amendments, there is a request for HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. Employers already have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to ensure they have sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety risks in the workplace, including violence and aggression. Although workplace harassment could be addressed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the HSE does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation exists.

18:00:00

Harassment offences in the workplace are already protected under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which provides the police with the authority to prosecute such offences. Additionally, the Equality and Human Rights Commission can take action under the Equality Act 2010. Moreover, a recent amendment to the Equality Act 2010, which came into force on 26 October 2024, now requires employers to take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. That duty sends a very clear message and signal to all employers that they must take preventative steps against sexual harassment, encourage cultural change where necessary and reduce the likelihood of sexual harassment occurring. This provision is enforced by the EHRC.

I hope and trust that this will reassure the noble Baroness that the current legal framework for addressing violence and harassment in the workplace is both robust and comprehensive—

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the plethora of different types of Act and instrument that are meant to be woven together into a seamless whole to stop abuse in the workplace happening. He started off by mentioning an Act passed 51 years ago. He then talked about regulations enacted 26 years ago. He then spoke about the harassment Act of 18 years ago and the Equality Act of 16 years ago. With the greatest respect, if the combination of these regulations has been in force for as long as they have been and we are in the situation we now find ourselves in, with the evidence of what is happening in a variety of workplaces, large, medium and small, clearly all is not well. The idea of bringing forward amendments such as these is not that they are word perfect from the word go. Everybody in the House knows that perfectly well. Committee is to probe; to try to see if we can come to agreement across the Chamber that it ain’t working and we need to do something better. With the best will in the world, standing up and trying to defend the status quo, when the status quo quite clearly is not working as it is meant to do in theory, is not helping anybody. So, I again ask and suggest—and I am sure the noble Baroness will say this when she responds to the Minister—that we accept that it is not working properly and that it would be a no-brainer to try to work together, across this House and with another place, to see if we can use this Act as a way to improve on what clearly is not working at the moment.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for that, and I hear what he says. But I stress here, with all the current legislation in place, that there must have been cases before us that we can learn lessons from. What we need to do, and do better, is use “black box thinking”, where we can learn from what has happened and hopefully share with other regulators what works and what may not have worked, so that we can address a problem rather than bring in more legislation. We can look at what has been successful and share those successes among other enforcers as well. I conclude by saying that the Government remain committed to raising awareness of this important issue. I can confirm that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, has already met with Minister Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, and we continue to work with them to try to see how we can come together on this. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I am grateful to those who have shown support for these amendments and also those who support the outcome these amendments are trying to achieve. I will reflect on what we have discussed in this debate today, ahead of Report. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a “gender-responsive approach”, I can clarify what that entails. The amendment addresses the different situations, roles, needs and interests of women, men, girls and boys in the design and implementation of activities. As we have hit on during this debate, the status quo is clearly not working. I know that the Minister outlined in his response the preventative measures being put on to employers. But, as I have explained, those preventative measures are not actually preventative, because you have to prove your sexual harassment claim in order for it to be a breach. Even in the language we use about what is currently in place, it is not preventative. I welcome further discussion with the Minister following this, and hopefully we can come to an agreement on how we can bring this forward within the wider approach. I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to bring back further amendments on Report. I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate and that we can engage further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 99 withdrawn.

Amendments 100 to 101A not moved.

Amendment 101B

Moved by

101B: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause— “Protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliationAfter section 40A of the Equality Act 2010, insert—“40B Employees and applicants: political opinion or affiliation(1) An employer (A) must not, in relation to employment by A, discriminate against, harass or victimise (in a manner prohibited by sections 39 or 40), a person (B)—(a) who is an employee of A’s;(b) who has applied to A for employment;in relation to their political opinion of affiliation.(2) For purposes of this section—(a) “political opinion” means any political opinion and a reference to a political opinion includes a reference to a lack of a political opinion;(b) “political affiliation” means membership of any political party, group or organisation which is not excluded by subsection (2)(c);(c) political opinion or affiliation does not include any opinion or affiliation which—(i) would be unworthy of respect in a democratic society,(ii) is in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, or(iii) is affiliated with any political party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.””

My Lords, in moving Amendment 101B, which seeks to amend the Equality Act 2010, I will also speak to Amendment 141A, which seeks to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996. I declare my interest as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union. These amendments would protect job applicants and employees from being discriminated against by employers for their political opinions or affiliations, provided those opinions are not “unworthy of respect in a democratic society”, incompatible with “the fundamental rights of others”, and are not connected to a “party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000”. In the Telegraph on Monday, a government spokesperson said these amendments are not necessary because: “Any employee dismissed because of their political opinions can already bring a claim of unfair dismissal at any point”. Well, they can. But whether they are successful or not depends on whether their political beliefs satisfy the Grainger test—a reference to a case in which an employee sued his employer, Grainger PLC, for discriminating against him because he believed in manmade climate change. It was established in that case that, in order to enjoy protected status under the Equality Act, a belief had to satisfy five separate conditions. This is the Grainger test: “The belief must be genuinely held … It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”— remember that one because I am going to come back to it. “It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour … It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance … It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”. Noble Lords will notice that the test I am proposing is a simpler alternative to the Grainger test. It is, in essence, just the fifth limb of the Grainger test. So what is wrong with the Grainger test? For one thing, it is overcomplicated and leaves too much room for the personal political views of the members of a tribunal panel to creep in. That is why it has led to some arbitrary and biased decisions. For instance, the tribunal has ruled that anti-Zionism is a protected belief, while a belief in Zionism has not been granted that status, at least not yet. A belief in manmade climate change is protected—that was the judgment handed down in Grainger plc v Nicholson—but climate scepticism is not, and that has been tested in the tribunal. A belief in democratic socialism is protected but a belief in conservatism is not, and that too has been tested. In the case of Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com Ltd—a Free Speech Union case—the tribunal ruled that a belief in a small state, low taxes, freedom of expression and as few controls on an individual’s freedom as are consistent with human rights was not protected. That is one reason why the Free Speech Union currently has five cases in which employees have been dismissed because of their links to Reform UK. One such case is that of Saba Poursaeedi, who is in the Gallery as I speak. He lost his job at the Hightown Housing Association because he was due to stand as a Reform candidate. He was told that Reform’s policies on immigration, net zero and housing were “in direct conflict” with the values of the Hightown Housing Association—as clear a case of discrimination against someone for their political views as you could hope for. He is taking Hightown Housing Association to the tribunal but, given the judgment in Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com, he may not be successful. That is one reason to accept these amendments: to level the playing field so that many people with right-of-centre political beliefs enjoy the same protection as people with left-of-centre political beliefs. Another difficulty with the Grainger test is that it disadvantages open-minded people who, as the late Lord Keynes did, change their minds when the facts change. Remember the second limb of the Grainger test: “It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”. Do we really want the Equality Act to encourage dogmatism and punish open-mindedness in this way? Why should someone’s belief be undeserving of protection if it is susceptible to changing if the facts change? The amendments would bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 provide a higher level of protection than that granted by the Equality Act, particularly Article 10, which protects freedom of expression, including the expression of political views. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would no doubt point out if she was in the House, if there is a discrepancy between the Equality Act and the convention then its shortcomings will be corrected by the courts eventually, since, as per the Human Rights Act, our courts must interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with convention rights. However, bringing a claim before the employment tribunal is a time-consuming process and one that can be extremely expensive. The Free Speech Union helped a man to bring a case for unfair dismissal against Lloyds Bank to the tribunal two years ago, and it cost over £85,000. Not only can it be eye-wateringly expensive but it takes a long time, given the current backlog of cases. Mr Poursaeedi’s case has been scheduled for July 2027, more than a year hence. In the meantime, he and other victims of discrimination based on their political beliefs are awaiting justice. Why not short-circuit that process, bring the Equality Act into line with the convention and ease the burden on the tribunal at the same time, as well as protect people now from being discriminated against in this way, by accepting my amendments?

My Lords, I put my name down on Amendments 101B and 141A, tackling employment discrimination on the basis of political opinions, because I wanted to probe whether the Government can see that it is a real, contemporary issue that needs to be tackled, however they do it. We know from the history of the labour movement that in the bad old days, as it were, attacking people’s employment rights, sacking them and suspending them were used by employers to discipline the workforce, and they were often focused on people who had the wrong views in the workplace. Often, the trade union organisers who were involved in left-wing parties and so on were the ones who were targeted, and we had McCarthyite-type purges, red scares and anti-trade union blacklists of individuals in workplaces—shocking, but those were the bad old days and it would not happen today, except that I think we are witnessing something similar today even if the political opinions of the victims might be very different and it might take a different form. This is an under-discussed phenomenon, and I hope the Government will see that the Bill is a way of tackling it.

18:15:00

In today’s culture in general, rather than diverse opinions being seen as a healthy sign of a thriving democratic climate and pluralism as something that we should aspire to, it seems there is an idea that a uniformity of viewpoints is healthy, and if we all agree then it is social harmony. That is possibly because some people know that if they speak up and deviate from the agreed narrative then they will find themselves ostracised and demonised.

Sadly, I missed the opportunity to speak on the UK-EU deal earlier in this House. I arrived only after it started because I had just returned from, ironically, speaking on free speech in Brussels. A combination of having been in Brussels and walking in on that debate slightly triggered me, because it reminded me of the climate of conformity and how it can operate in the workplace. I wrote an article for the Spectator some time after the referendum in which I talked about silent Brexiteers—the numbers of people who were teachers, academics or health workers who could not say that they voted to leave the European Union in a legal referendum because they knew they would be driven out in many ways. When that article was published, they said that, as the phrase goes, it broke the internet, because so many people were saying, “I know”. People were stopping me on the street and saying, “You wrote that article. I’m one of those people, but don’t tell my boss”. That is what it was like.

I had an interesting conversation about this with the journalist, Patrick O’Flynn, who was very shrewd about what had happened in the media world. A lot of people working in the media—guess what?—voted leave, as the majority of people in the country did, but they could never tell anyone; they had to be silent. I mention Patrick O’Flynn just because, if noble Lords do not mind me paying tribute, he died yesterday at 59 years old. It is a total tragedy, as he was one of the most brilliant commentators, and I wanted to say that I so miss him. He was a dear friend and much admired. He made the point, and he was very funny about it, that loads of people voted to leave the EU, but they could not say so in certain workplaces. I am saying that because I think there is a bit of a trend that you cannot say what you think.

Discrimination in the job market is something that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, is right to bring up, and he has articulated the breadth of the issues in the amendment. I thought it might be useful to zoom in on one specific example because it is easier to get our head around it. I therefore want to talk about the case of Saba Poursaeedi, who is suing his former employer, a housing association, as we have just heard, for political discrimination. I declare an interest: I have known Saba for several years, because he has been a regular, enthusiastic and talented volunteer for the Academy of Ideas, particularly helping out with the Battle of Ideas festival. He is dedicated to projects that are involved in education and open debate. He is in his mid-30s, a family man who has great community spirit and is committed to public service. I remember when he got the job as housing officer at Hightown Housing Association in October 2023; it was a part-time post covering maternity leave. He loved the work so much, and he was delighted when he was therefore offered, and subsequently took, a permanent job as resident involvement officer on £37,000 a year— I say that because it was a good salary.

Saba passed his probationary period with flying colours and glowing praise from his manager, who wrote:

“He has done himself and the team proud”.

Yet only hours after that interview, he was told that the permanent job had been withdrawn. What on earth could he have done? At a subsequent meeting with Hightown’s director of housing and head of HR, Mr Poursaeedi was informed that his public profile with a political party would give rise to a conflict of interests with the job and the housing association’s values, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has explained. Saba had been open and had disclosed that he was going to be the Reform party’s PPC for Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency, as well as its county co-ordinator in a voluntary role.

I want just to counter any niggling prejudices in this place—not that there would be: those people who may be thinking, “Oh, Reform. Yes, I know what you mean”. Before he was in Reform, Saba was a Labour Party member and ran as a Labour Party local councillor in 2021. To quote him:

“like a lot of people who were Labour and are now Reform, all I ever wanted was a better deal for working people. That’s it”.

It is a fair enough position to take. The management of Hightown specifically cited Reform’s anti-immigration policies as incompatible with the housing association’s values because it houses immigrants and supports refugees. It is such an insulting inference that a political position would translate into unprofessional behaviour, even though there was absolutely no evidence for that. Saba’s father is Iranian and Saba has a view on immigration that is now somewhere to the left of the Prime Minister’s.

Hightown’s company secretary, Trudi Kleanthous, had previously stood as a Labour Party councillor and is now a local Labour ward representative, and there is no trouble there. Maybe she should now be dealt with, because Keir Starmer’s recent speech on immigration is probably at odds with Hightown’s values on refugees and immigration. Where do we draw the line? That is the point I am making.

Saba was informed that he would not be eligible to work in any roles that were public facing, by the way, because of the potential that

“residents may feel uncomfortable … if they were aware of the political associations”.

Goodness! The association manages over 9,000 homes in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. After the local council elections, we can be sure that a substantial number of those residents, householders and customers will have voted Reform. Maybe they too will face eviction for wrong political-think.

All of this has taken its toll on Saba, who was sacked from the job he was so proud to have just got. In an interview in the media he explained:

“I couldn’t breathe. I was completely speechless. My world fell apart. I was completely blindsided. While the job was on the table, I had financial stability and the chance of earning some proper money. And then it was all gone. I felt like vermin, like I was some kind of untouchable”.

No wonder, after that ordeal, he is suing the housing association for political discrimination.

But as the noble Lord, Lord Young, has described, I do not think we can resolve this by one tribunal after another. There is a huge backlog. The sting in the tail is that Saba’s tribunal hearing will not be until July 2027. It is horrible that he has to wait so long, when it is obvious that it is political discrimination.

I am glad to report that Saba is keeping himself busy and productive. The reason he is here watching this debate is not that he wants to hear about himself, but that he was in the vicinity of Westminster at a young leaders’ event. That is the kind of guy he is. I invited him to come and here he is, listening. Before we came in, he said, “This is not about me; it is about everybody who is facing political discrimination in the workplace”.

I therefore hope that we can use this legislation as a vehicle for tackling that. I think the Government will understand and, because of the Labour movement’s proud history of tackling discrimination against workers’ political views over the years, they will be sympathetic to these amendments.

My Lords, I support the excellent amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. It is hard to adequately follow the tour de force and the passion and energy of—I will call her my noble friend— Lady Fox of Buckley. I would make the point, and it bears repetition, that free speech is worth defending on all occasions and, in many respects, transcends party- political affiliations. As my noble friend Lady Fox alluded to, there was a time many years ago—until quite recently, historically—when people who represented labour versus capital were discriminated against for organising in the workplace. If people who worked in factories and mines, and on farms, tried to organise a trade union—which was perfectly reasonable—to improve their conditions and pay, they were politically discriminated against, suspended or fired, and their very livelihoods were put in question. That is a fact. We know that was the case. We have made good progress. Those people who were, for instance, organising the Workers’ Educational Association classes for manual workers, in order to improve their education and their life chances, were discriminated against. That was wrong. We have gone full circle now, and those people who may support a right-of-centre position—pro-capitalism, pro-tax cuts, pro-lower regulations—are discriminated against. The importance of this amendment is that it distinguishes what is respectable, moderate, mainstream opinion, which noble Lords may or may not agree with, from the extremes. The caveat in this amendment is very nuanced, in that it defends free speech for respectable political debate and discussion. That is very important. The other reason why I support this amendment is that we have a very unfortunate phenomenon these days with the advent of social media: doxing. If you are a pernicious, unpleasant, vexatious, litigious person and someone on social media appears to have a view with which you disagree, you are no longer going just to take issue with them on social media and let the matter drop; you are going to identify where they live, where their children go to school and, more importantly for our purposes today, where they earn their living. A good example—and a proud member of the Free Speech Union—is Mr Ben Woods, who was employed by Waitrose at Henley as a wine specialist. He had unfashionable views, certainly unfashionable in the Liberal Democrat citadel of Henley-on-Thames, being against immigration. But actually, he represented the majority of people in that he was gender critical and believed that women are biological women and men are biological men, and he put that on his social media. Maybe he was a bit exuberant in his opinions, but someone decided to contact John Lewis Partnership and Waitrose to dox him. He was suspended, investigated and lost his job, and that is now going to an employment tribunal. That is a good example of a very regrettable modern phenomenon. This amendment would seek to protect people like this, who have perfectly respectable views and are entitled to earn a living and to try to get on with their fellow workers in their place of work—who may disagree with them—but not lose their job unfairly. On that basis, this is an excellent amendment. I certainly urge the Minister to give it some consideration, because it would not detract from the Bill. Above all, it is a fair amendment, and I believe she should support it.

My Lords, I would join with anyone who wants to speed up employment tribunals and cut the costs of going to them. I hope that is an agenda the Government will take on rapidly. We heard an unfortunate case of someone who is waiting until 2027; some people are waiting four years. I hope the Government will address that issue, but I cannot see that it is central to this Bill. I am not a legal expert, and many of the cases quoted are not ones that I know—I do not know any of them intimately. In my experience, at least with employment tribunal judgments, it is very unsatisfactory to sum them up in a single sentence. They usually have within them a great deal of complexity and a fair amount of nuance. Without going through those, I am in no position to assess the evidence that has been put before us today. I remain somewhat sceptical. I hope that we can get reassurance that people are genuinely protected because of their political views. I do not think anyone in this Committee would think it was right for someone to lose their job because they belong to one particular affiliation or another. I will look for the Minister to make that case and to explain the legal situation in far more depth than I can. I do not feel qualified to be more than somewhat sceptical.

18:30:00

My Lords, it is commonplace for individuals who express personal views that clash with the ethos of a particular company or institution to run into some trouble. Gary Lineker is the latest and most topical example, for displaying material that is considered to be antisemitic. My first experience, age 12, was my father refusing to let me display a political poster at a general election. If I had known about the Free Speech Union, maybe I would have joined the noble Lord, Lord Young, at that stage—maybe he should send Gary Lineker a membership form.

I have.

Oh, he has already done it—very good. Let us be real about this. A lot of situations call for tact and diplomacy, and for us to be careful about the way we express difficult thing. A lot of people do not do that; they say what they like, thinking it is totally justified, and they get into difficulty. Unions spend a lot of time helping people get round those kinds of situations when they have got into trouble with their employer. I do not think the argument coming from the other side of the Chamber is a convincing one. Let us remember a bit of common sense, and that tact and diplomacy are still required in many organisations, not just the BBC—and not just with my old dad, who did not like the fact that I had a “Vote Labour” poster in the window.

My Lords, I did not want to intervene on this group, but, listening to the noble Lord, I became slightly worried that we are getting into censorship. This country is a proud country because of its ability to speak out and speak up. I would be incredibly nervous if we felt that we could not demonstrate our political views openly without being penalised for it. The unions do their own work, but it is incredibly important that people are able to demonstrate a political affiliation or a particular viewpoint without having to feel that they are going to be censored. That would really worry people like me, who often are the recipient of things that we do not like to hear, but we tolerate it because we think the country enables us to have the debate.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for his expert introduction to the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about common sense, but I fear that went out of the window of an employment tribunal some years ago. As my noble friend Lord Young laid out in an earlier group, this Bill threatens to restrict free expression in some cases with its provisions. It is for this reason that I support the amendments, which seek to safeguard political opinion and affiliation within our employment laws. At the heart of any thriving democracy lies the freedom to hold and express political beliefs without fear of retribution. In a democratic society, freedom of speech and freedom of belief are not luxuries; they are fundamental rights that underpin our entire system of governance and civil life. The workplace, where so many of us spend a significant portion of our lives, must be a space where individuals can hold and express their political views without fear of unfair treatment or dismissal. As it stands, our existing laws provide only patchy protections for political beliefs, and they leave many workers vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Young’s examples are truly shocking, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish, in particular, Mr Poursaeedi well in his ongoing battles. We should draw upon the timeless wisdom of John Stuart Mill, who was one of the great architects of liberalism. He argued in his seminal work On Liberty that the truth emerges only through free and open debate, and he warned against the suppression of any opinion, because no one person or group holds a monopoly on truth. Even opinions that we may find mistaken—perhaps such as democratic socialism—or indeed offensive, must be heard and challenged openly, for only through such dialogue can society discern truth from error. Voltaire was right on this. I must admit I find it a bit disappointing that the Liberal Democrat Benches are not more enthusiastic about these amendments. By protecting employees from dismissal or discrimination based on their political opinions or affiliations, these amendments would ensure that the workplace remains a forum where diverse ideas can be expressed, scrutinised and debated. Suppressing political expression risks silencing valuable perspectives and preventing the emergence of truth through robust discussion. We in this House pride ourselves on opening our minds to a broad range of political views. Obviously, that involves robust engagement, challenging each other and refining our positions through vigorous debate. If such diversity of opinion is essential to the functioning of this Chamber, why would it not apply beyond these walls, and particularly in other workplaces? Workers, like us, should be free to express their political beliefs without fear of losing their jobs or being discriminated against. In conclusion, I urge the Government to accept my noble friend’s amendments. To go back to the great liberal John Stuart Mill, he also said: “A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury”. This is not the time for inaction. These amendments not only would protect workers from unfair dismissal and discrimination but would uphold our fundamental democratic values. By embedding these protections into our laws, we would reaffirm our commitment to free expression. I am afraid saying just that they are not necessary is not good enough. They clearly are necessary, as we heard in the examples from my noble friend.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it would be helpful if I first clarify where the law stands on this. On Amendment 101B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, let me make it clear that religious and philosophical beliefs are already protected by the Equality Act 2010, including in the workplace. However, political belief—in the sense of a party-political affiliation or opinion—was not included as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. The noble Lord referred to the Grainger case. That case and the definition that the noble Lord read out referred to the issue of philosophical belief, which is already protected by the Act. In 2015-16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reviewed whether Great Britain’s equality and human rights legal framework sufficiently protects individuals with a religion or belief and the distinction of a religion or belief organisation while balancing the rights of others protected under the Equality Act 2010. The review found that the definition of religion or belief in the Equality Act is sufficiently broad to ensure wide protection for many religions or beliefs. It recommended no change to the definition of religion or belief or to the approach that the court should take in deciding whether any particular belief is protected under the Act. We are not convinced that a political opinion or affiliation should be specifically protected by amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in contrast to other religions or beliefs. The extent of protected beliefs has been developed in case law, and we have not been presented with strong evidence that any legislative amendment is necessary. The amendment the noble Lord is proposing would potentially cause legal uncertainty over its relationship to the protected characteristic of religion or belief in Section 10 of the Equality Act, which has a much wider application than just the workplace. The Government frequently receive calls for new protected characteristics—there have been over 21 suggested to date. While some of these carry merit, it simply would not be practical to include these all in the legislation, which would quickly become unmanageable for employers and service providers to follow, and for courts and tribunals to process and judge. The noble Lord referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts and tribunals will always be required to balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as academic freedom. Noble Lords have referred to a number of individual cases. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases. However, I can assure them that free speech is a cornerstone of British values. We are firmly committed to upholding the right of freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Monks that, in many cases—and preferably in all cases—it is ideal for these issues to be resolved by common sense at the workplace. Turning to Amendment 141A, I seek to reassure the noble Lord that further legislative provision on this matter is not needed. Through the Bill, the Government are creating a day one right against unfair dismissal. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged in his explanatory statement, additional protections for employees already exist under Section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which currently ensures that claims for unfair dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation are not subject to any qualification period. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that, while dismissal on the grounds of political beliefs and affiliations is not automatically unfair, if brought to a tribunal, the tribunal could find that it was unfair based on the circumstances at hand. As we have said, these issues will very often have to be decided by a tribunal, based on the facts of the case. This will obviously also have to apply to the noble Lord’s amendment as well. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the delays in employment tribunals are a very real challenge that we are very conscious of, and we have already reported elsewhere in other debates on the Bill that we are taking steps to address this. Relevant case law sets out the circumstances where political beliefs may constitute a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, discrimination provisions could apply. Following a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, the qualifying period for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal relating to political opinions or affiliation was removed, further strengthening employees’ access to justice in instances of unfair dismissal based on political views. The Bill ensures that claims for dismissal on this basis continue to be treated in the same way as claims for automatic unfair dismissal by carving them out in a new Section 108A from the requirement that any employee must have started work before a claim can be brought. We regard this as the right approach. Making dismissal for political opinions automatically unfair, as this amendment seeks to do, would fundamentally change the way that free speech is considered in relation to dismissal for the holding of views or the expression of views that the employer regards as unacceptable. It could sweep up such a wide range of views as to be unworkable. As sufficient protection against dismissal for political beliefs already exists, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 101B.

I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments. I echo the tribute made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to the journalist Patrick O’Flynn, who has just been taken from us so ahead of his time. I appreciate the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who I note did not oppose the amendments, although she was a little bit sceptical about the case I had made. I also thank my noble friend Lady Verma for her intervention. In response to the Minister’s remarks, as she says, some political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. The issue is that not all political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. I gave some examples and I will give just one more: an employment tribunal decision that a belief in Scottish independence is protected, but a belief in unionism is not. There is often not much rhyme or reason to these employment tribunal decisions, because the Grainger test leaves so much room for bias, interpretation and subjective judgment. I am merely asking the Government to bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 14 lists the characteristics that should be protected and includes the words “political … opinion”. That means all political opinions, not just those you disagree with. Finally, I come to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and point out that Saba Poursaeedi did not lose his job at the housing association because he was tactless or undiplomatic; he lost it because he was intending to stand as a candidate for Reform UK. The association had no misgivings about his performance in his role; indeed, it promoted him. He was a model of tact and diplomacy when dealing with the residents managed by the housing association. That was not the reason he was fired. The noble Lord is, of course, welcome to join the Free Speech Union, and I hope that he does. I have reached out to Gary Lineker, not to defend him in any case he might want to bring against the BBC—which I do not think he intends—but because the police have said they may now be investigating his remarks. I reached out to him and said that, if that happens, we will provide him with a solicitor and, if necessary, a barrister.

18:45:00

I will conclude with the words of Ira Glasser, the legendary ex-head of the American Civil Liberties Union, which I hope will bring home to the noble Lords opposite why they should accept these amendments. He said that the problem with speech restrictions is that they are a bit like poison gas: they can seem like a good idea when you have the enemy in your sights, but you release the poison gas and then the wind changes. The wind may change, and when it does, you will be grateful for the amendments that I proposed, because they will protect your political beliefs as well as mine. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 101B withdrawn.

Amendment 101C not moved.

Clause 23: Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc

Amendment 102

Moved by

102: Clause 23, page 43, line 30, at end insert— “(2) The provisions of Schedule 3 do not apply to apprentices during any probationary period of up to six months, as specified in an apprenticeship contract signed by the apprentice and the employer and where the apprentice is less than 21 years of age at the time the contract is signed.”

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich, who much regrets that she is unable to be here today to move it herself. I was delighted to add my name to this very specific amendment, addressing what I am sure is an unintended consequence of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, both of whom have enormous expertise in apprenticeships, for adding their names as well. Apprenticeships are key to developing the skills we need for achieving our national goals, including all the Government’s missions. The value and importance of apprenticeships is increasingly recognised, not least by young people and their families, but there are not enough apprenticeships available, and the majority are used by employers for upskilling or reskilling older people already in the workplace. We need many more apprenticeships for younger people, but the number of 16 to 24 year-olds starting apprenticeships has been declining. Only one in four young people in this age group who seeks an apprenticeship gets one, and the number of apprenticeships going to young people has declined from 41% in 2008 to 23%. Small businesses have a crucial part to play in providing apprenticeships for young people. Some 70% of existing apprenticeships are in small businesses, and there is huge scope for small firms to offer many more apprenticeship opportunities. But it has proved consistently hard to persuade small employers to take on apprentices. One reason is cost, despite the extra payments available from government for small firms employing young apprentices, particularly if they have special needs. More important disincentives include the extra workload involved in training and supervising young apprentices, the amount of bureaucracy involved in navigating the apprenticeship system and, sometimes, the uncertainty about whether a firm will have a sufficient pipeline of work for the full term of the apprenticeship. There have been various schemes aimed at addressing these issues—group training associations, apprenticeship training agencies and now flexi-job apprenticeships—but in none of these cases has much impact been made on convincing more SMEs to offer more apprenticeships. I believe there is a real danger that the day 1 employment rights set out in Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill could actually exacerbate this problem rather than helping to resolve it, by acting as a further significant disincentive to small employers considering taking on apprentices. My noble friend’s proposed amendment provides a closely targeted exemption for apprentices under 21 during a probation period of no more than six months, with a contract agreed by both the apprentice and the employer. This seems to me to be fair to both the employer and the apprentice. For the employer, it helps to offset the high risk involved in taking on a young person who may—indeed, probably will—never have been employed before, and who may themselves decide within the first few weeks or months that the apprenticeship is not right for them. The existing risks and unknowns for an employer in taking on the costs, workload and duties of apprenticeships are hard enough to overcome without the additional burden of taking on full employment responsibility for an untried young person, probably in their first job, who may or may not turn out to have the attributes for or interests in that particular job. These are not, after all, people with experience from previous jobs and a track record for a new employer to assess. Many of them may be among the almost 1 million young people currently defined as NEET—not in employment, education or training—whom the Government quite rightly are desperately keen to get into employment, for example through the planned youth guarantee. The amendment does not relate to people changing jobs, so it has nothing to do with labour market mobility, which this clause seems designed largely to promote. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what specific assessment the Government have made of the likely impact of this part of the Bill on the willingness of businesses, especially smaller businesses, to take on young apprentices. You would not need to talk to many small business employers to conclude that it could be very damaging. That would be bad news for such firms themselves, for our national skills needs, for the wider economy and, above all, for the potential young apprentices, who might miss out on attractive opportunities. This amendment would help to counter that, and I beg to move.

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, but has been very ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He and I tend to find ourselves in the same Lobbies for just about everything to do with apprenticeships. We only very recently debated a Bill abolishing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education so that this amazing new body Skills England could emerge. We still know remarkably little about Skills England. It has a proud remit, but we do not yet know what it is going to perform. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, set out, this amendment is really important because there is a real problem in attracting youngsters into apprenticeships. An apprenticeship was always something for somebody starting out in a career, but the vagaries of the apprenticeship levy mean that they are increasingly being given to people mid-career, for advancing their careers. Unless there is more incentive to enable young people to access the workforce, we will be in an even more dire state. We have nearly a million NEETs now—young people not in education, employment or training—and, if they cannot access apprenticeships, that figure is only set to go up. We know that, in other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status, but they do not in the UK; they are simply employees who have received an apprenticeship learning contract. The Bill will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old or a 50 year-old. This cannot be desirable. I beg the Government to look again at this, because it is hugely important that we do not deter employers from taking on youngsters. I went with the social mobility committee up to Blackpool and The Fylde College recently, and we were talking to employers there who were already bemoaning the fact that it was incredibly difficult for them to take on apprentices. There was so much bureaucracy and burdensome stuff that they had to follow. They were all saying that, if this came in and if the apprentices had full employment rights from day 1, that would deter them even more. That really cannot be right, and I beg the Minister to listen to this amendment.

My Lords, I briefly add my support for Amendment 102 and will pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on her committee’s recent visit to the Blackpool and The Fylde further education college. I declare an interest as a commissioner at the Social Mobility Commission, the chair of which is also the principal of the FE college that the committee went to visit. From the perspective of social mobility and the importance of apprenticeships, any measure that would deter the creation of quality apprenticeships that are successful is a bad one, and I therefore support this amendment.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 102 in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich and pitched so perfectly by my other noble friend Lord Aberdare—I realise that that sounds as though I only have two friends in this House, which I hope is not the case. This amendment addresses a consequence of the Bill that will significantly reduce the willingness of employers to hire young people as apprentices—a consequence that I am sure was neither anticipated nor desired by the Government or indeed the Bill’s drafters, which is strange because this Government are acutely aware of the skills shortages facing this country and the need to address them. It was notable that, in introducing the Government’s new immigration strategy last week, both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary emphasised the need to invest in skills so that the immigration system “no longer ignores the millions of people who want the opportunity to train and contribute”. They also highlighted that, in sectors like engineering, apprenticeships have “almost halved” in recent years. We only very recently debated the Bill, now an Act, that abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. That change was not introduced because the Government are against apprenticeships; on the contrary, this is part of a reform that is creating a new integrated strategic body, Skills England, as we have heard, to meet, in its own words, “the skills needs of the next decade across all regions”, and apprenticeships are a central part of Skills England’s brief. Young people do not need persuading of the value of apprenticeships. On the contrary, there is huge excess demand, as we have heard. Of those 17 to 18 year-olds who make a serious effort to find an apprenticeship, only 25% succeed. Young people typically start off on what are called intermediate apprenticeships, but these are in decline too, in absolute numbers and proportionally —crowded out by so-called higher apprenticeships, which are equivalent to university qualifications. Today, more and more of our apprentices are older. Around half of apprenticeship starts now involve people over the age of 25. Critically, large numbers of older apprentices were already working for their employer before they became an apprentice. This is especially true of large employers who pay the apprenticeship levy, who account for a growing proportion of apprenticeships. So, if the Government are going to achieve their aims, we need to have far more openings for young apprentices —but there is a serious danger that the Bill will make large employers even more inclined to give apprenticeships to existing employees, with whose employment they take no risks, rather than hiring new young apprentices. What about the young people who make up the growing number of NEETs? SMEs are the main employers of young apprentices and absolutely central to the economies of less-advantaged areas. But their apprenticeship recruitment has been plummeting. SME business owners complain that apprenticeships, as we have heard, have become more and more burdensome and bureaucratic, and just too expensive. So if, on top of this, young apprentices are entitled to full employee rights from day 1, many more employers, especially SMEs, will surely just walk away. Taking on an untested person is always risky, and this Bill will make it much more so. In many other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status. In the UK, they do not; they are simply any employees who have received an apprenticeship training contract. This Bill’s provisions will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old training as an electrician or a 50 year-old on a leadership apprenticeship. These are the dangers of a one-size-fits-all approach, as I have already pointed out numerous times in Committee.

19:00:00

I will wrap up by quoting the Education Secretary, Bridget Phillipson, who just last month said:

“Apprenticeships are key to delivering our number one mission of growth … it’s vital therefore that schools, colleges and businesses continue to champion apprenticeships, and this government will back them all the way”—

just not in this Bill, apparently.

This probing amendment proposes a sensible and defined way forward by seeking to introduce a probationary period solely for young apprentices. I hope the Minister will recognise the problem and the need to make special provision for young apprenticeships.

My Lords, I did not put my name to Amendment 102, because I do not agree with it entirely, for reasons I will set out, but the general approach is absolutely right. We do not need to get into the rights and wrongs of the apprenticeship levy and higher-level apprenticeships, particularly level 7, but it is important to recognise that the number of people starting apprenticeships—particularly down in levels 1, 2, 3 and perhaps even 4—is a challenge, and is holding young people back from getting into work. Indeed, it is not just young people, and that is my broader point: getting people—many of whom, for a variety of reasons, may have been out of the job market for a long time—into work. It is exactly this approach, through apprenticeships, which means that, usually for SMEs, the larger elements of the levy are not being used by the larger employers and are instead being used to help provide 100% of the cost in order to train people. There are a number of different factors there. People have talked about the different elements of costs. There is also the opportunity cost. It is important that employers get involved in identifying and helping the supply chain of their own workforce. I am sure I am not the only person who has been somewhere where I just got fed up doing the hard yards on training and the extra work, and, as I said, the opportunity cost, only for someone else to come along and poach that person, or for that person, once they had fully qualified, to leave. I have seen the frustration that this sometimes brought. One of the adjustments I would have made to this builds on the discussion about NEETs. The definition of NEETs is those aged 16 to 24. My suggestion is that the amendment be amended, to cover an apprentice who is less than 25 years of age at the time that the contract is signed. On the consideration of a probationary period, it is fair to say that people will want to give those new to a sector, and new to the world of work, more than a week or so to see if it is going to work out. There is a mixture of elements that need to be considered when people take on apprentices. One is their capability in work and college, and seeing how that evolves, because it is not always such a straightforward translation. Nor should apprenticeships be considered as work experience; they are proper jobs, admittedly a training job, and we should bear that in mind if we see a further drying up of apprenticeships. We can debate at other times how, sadly, unemployment seems to be rising, which I believe will be exacerbated by this Bill more generally, but the Government should be specific about how we give more people a chance. I know we will debate probationary periods in general later. Apprenticeships should not be seen as, “We will just see if they work out or not”. It is supposed to be more of a commitment. The Government could accommodate this. They will be aware that, already, on wages—if not some of the other rights—there is an apprenticeship rate which is not the same as the national minimum wage in the first year of an apprenticeship. There is already a precedent in legislation and practice that apprentices can be treated differently. I appreciate that people do not necessarily want two-tier elements like that, but we need to give special consideration to apprenticeships, recognising the special status they are given by the Government in contributions towards training and given the risk that employers may take on.

My Lords, I support this amendment and declare my interest as the chair of a small housing association, Look Ahead, where we employ a lot of care workers and are encouraging apprenticeships to keep people in care work and to develop proper careers. We have not yet got the Casey review on care workers, but we know that the Government intend to reduce visas for overseas workers in this area. However, when you go into care work, you always find a small proportion of people who, when they realise some of the challenges of giving intimate physical care, feel unable to go on with that particular work. That is perfectly appropriate for both the apprentice themselves and the people they are supporting. I urge us to try to reach an agreement on this that is more flexible, so that people can have the opportunity of an apprenticeship in care, while recognising that, sometimes, a different kind of work is more appropriate.

My Lords, this has been such a valuable debate, for a number of reasons. We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lady Garden of Frognal. In many ways, it gives us an opportunity just to see where we are going, and to identify the fact that, for many of us, apprenticeships mean something deep and profound. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in his place. He probably will not remember but, 32 years ago, he came to see me when I had responsibility for this area of policy. Accompanying him was the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and they said to me, as Secretary of State for Employment, that apprenticeships needed to be brought into the modern age and that there had to be something deeper, wider and more productive for the individual than the idea of standing by a machine for five years and then qualifying. They were talking particularly of young apprentices. I was persuaded, and, slowly but surely, modern apprenticeships have evolved. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, remembers this, but that was followed by a cartoon in the Guardian, which my children still show me—I should not talk like this on my birthday. The cartoon demonstrates me getting into a large four-poster bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who was in the form of a large cart-horse—the cart-horse had the face of John Monks. This gives me an opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord. I suppose that the Guardian was saying that it looked as though the Conservative Government were listening to the TUC. We did, and modern apprenticeships have taken off ever since. The levy though, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, reminded us, has shifted the emphasis and the whole intention, which was to encourage younger people to get more involved. In a way, we need to identify that—and I hope that the Minister will recognise that apprenticeships are the lifeblood of the new economy, in particular, provided that they receive that special status. It was very helpful that my noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us about age, and that perhaps 25 is a better age in this regard. My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston also put it much more into context, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, gave an additional dimension. It has been a valuable debate. I remind the Minister that we are talking about specific instances where there has to be an apprenticeship contract containing often wide-ranging provisions but giving security and opportunity. So it is a balanced and measured amendment that acknowledges the critical reality that apprenticeships are not just simply jobs—they are a structured training programme, often the very first experience that a young person has of the workplace. For many of these individuals, particularly those youngsters, an apprenticeship is a gateway not just to employment but to the habits, responsibilities and expectations of adult working life. We are already in a time, as many of my noble friends pointed out, when young people are struggling to access secure employment. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, reminded us about the serious problems affecting NEETs, which have cropped up several times in this debate already—and also the fact that, in other European countries, apprentices have a special legal status. In many ways, that is recognised in this amendment, because it talks about a contract. We can identify that we are talking about a very special situation, and I hope that the Minister sees that. I will just add that, without legal clarity around probationary periods, particularly in the case of apprenticeships, many employers will be left uncertain—and uncertainty breeds hesitation. It becomes less likely that they will take on the risk of hiring an inexperienced young person, especially under a regime of day one unfair dismissal rights, with no allowance for the formative nature of apprenticeships. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that matter, on how the Government seek to balance the protection of apprentices with the practical realities of probationary periods. I support the amendment.

My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to wish the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, a very happy birthday. It is a fine way to spend a birthday this evening. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, notably the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and for all the work that she has done in primary and secondary education—especially her book, The XX Factor, which should be read widely by every person involved in education policies. This group relates to apprenticeships; a later group delves deeper into unfair dismissal and probation. The Government recognise the significant value of vocational learning, and on-the-job training will continue to be fundamental to building the skills that the economy needs to grow. We recognise that employers value building knowledge and skills through apprenticeships, and this Government are committed to apprenticeships. The Government are providing day one protections against unfair dismissal to all employees, including apprentices. Maintaining a qualifying period for apprentices will leave them open to being fired without any recourse to legal challenge on the grounds of unfair dismissal during their apprenticeship. This amendment would not create a probation period, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said; it would deny young people their day one rights. The Government’s preference is for statutory probation to be a period of nine months; in some instances, when an apprentice completes their apprenticeship, an employer may not have a permanent job for them. Most apprenticeship contracts are around two years in duration; in this case, the apprenticeship contact will expire and the normal tests for unfair dismissal will apply.

19:15:00

When I ran my publishing business many years ago, there was no apprenticeship, but we had an arrangement with a local university, which provided students as part of their course, and we took them on one-year placements. We treated them as members of staff, all entitled to all the same rights as a member of staff. So I do not see why an apprenticeship should be any different.

By the very nature of its design, an apprenticeship is designed to allow the employer and employee to assess, develop and track the capability of the apprentice during a period of learning. By design, apprenticeship and training contracts are intended to allow employees the opportunity to develop, track and assess their capability during a period of learning on the job. Employers hiring employees on these contracts should have adequate evidence to justify a dismissal on the grounds of conduct or capability. When dismissing an apprentice early for performance reasons is considered necessary by an employer, that would fall within the reasons covered by the probationary dismissal policy in the Bill.

It is the Government’s intention that light-touch standards for dismissal during the statutory probationary period will apply to all employees. Therefore, we do not think it appropriate to differentiate and treat apprentices under the age of 21 differently. The Government are committed to making sure apprenticeships work for learners and employers and are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility, aligned with the industrial strategy. We have pledged some £46 million to that new levy. It will include shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors, helping more people to learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country, and providing high-quality pathways for young people.

Some noble Lords are worried that giving apprentices day one unfair dismissal rights makes them less attractive to prospective employers, who may be less inclined to offer apprenticeships. That is what some noble Lords have said. However, given that all employees will have day one rights against unfair dismissal, there is no reason why employers should be disincentivised from offering apprenticeships as opposed to any other contract of employment. Furthermore, the Government are transforming the apprenticeship levy, as I said, and we will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, aligned with the industrial strategy.

With that said, I ask that the noble Lord on behalf of the noble Baroness considers the Government’s approach and withdraws the amendment.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I add my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for choosing to spend his birthday in support of my amendment, and I hope the rest of it is equally enjoyable. I thank the Minister for his response. I think all the speeches were in favour of the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made some interesting comments on how it could be further improved. However, to me, one of the most important messages that came across—which many of your Lordships mentioned—was that apprenticeships are different; they are not the same as a standard contract of employment, as many other countries have recognised by having different legal frameworks for apprenticeships. I believe that flexibility is needed. I think it was my noble friend Lord Londesborough who talked about an unduly rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to employment laws. There needs to be some flexibility to cater for the special needs and features of apprenticeships. I am concerned that we are looking at two options. One is apprenticeships with day-one employment rights—jolly good; the other is no apprenticeships at all, because the employers will not offer them on that basis. I hope that, between now and Report, we can do some more thinking. The Government may come up with more thoughts about how we can ensure that we balance the advantages of having full employment rights on the one hand and the necessity of having firms—particularly small ones—offering apprenticeships on the other. Hopefully, we can have further discussion of that on Report, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my noble friend’s name.

Amendment 102 withdrawn.

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

My Lords, we now come to the general subject of unfair dismissal rights from day one, which we have just touched on in relation to apprentices. Many of the same arguments are going to apply more widely. For me, this is most damaging part of the Bill because the unintended, but well understood, consequence is that it will damage the life chances of the young and the most vulnerable. I thank the Ministers for their time last week; I am not sure if I persuaded them, but I will try again now. At Second Reading, I asked why these changes are required. What is the evidence that there is a genuine problem, or that the qualifying period of two years is being abused in any material way? The Minister did not answer the question, so I have therefore given notice that I intend to oppose the question that Clause 23 and Schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, so that I can probe further into what problem these changes are intended to solve. Rather than hearing my views on the subject, I am going to tell noble Lords what the Government’s views are, and what they think the impacts of these changes to the qualifying period will be. According to the impact assessment, “it is likely employers will make changes to hiring, dismissal and management practises to minimise the risk of litigation for dismissal and minimise unproductive employee-job matches. The burden of these changes could be in the hundreds of millions per year”. It goes on to say: “The impact on businesses is expected to be negative and driven by familiarisation costs, and administrative costs from providing a written reason for dismissal, as well as the costs associated with additional early conciliation and tribunal cases, which is also likely to create additional burdens for the Employment Tribunal system”. So, the Government agree that there will be a substantial cost to business, an increase in litigation risks and additional burdens on the tribunal system. They also state that these impacts will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. I assume that nobody in this Chamber thinks that any of those are a good thing. More importantly, what are the impacts on employees, especially those who are trying to find work? The impact assessment is pretty clear on that too. It says that “there is some evidence of a negative relationship between stronger dismissal protections and hiring rates … this suggests that if not implemented with care ‘Making Unfair Dismissal a Day One Right’ could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire (e.g., younger workers with less experience, ex-offenders, etc.)”. It later says that “there is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections, particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”. Again, I cannot believe anyone thinks those are good things. The Government accept that this policy will create costs in the hundreds of millions for businesses, add burdens to the already stretched tribunal system and, most importantly, damage the hiring prospects—the life chances—of the very people we should be helping to get into employment. I hate the term NEETs, but we have heard a number of comments about the nearly 1 million young people who want to get into work. It goes directly against the Government’s admirable policy to get people off welfare and into work. So, why do this? Surely there must be some hard evidence that the current two-year qualifying period is causing some genuine problems, or evidence of material abuse, to justify these changes that will have all the damaging consequences that the Government themselves accept. However, the impact assessment makes no such claims. It provides no evidence whatever that there is a problem. It simply makes a number of very vague and unquantified statements about people benefiting from increased job security. For example, it suggests a direct benefit to households driven by the welfare benefit arising from increased job security, with absolutely no attempt to quantify it. It also goes on to say that there are benefits from “additional settlements and awards from additional early conciliation and employment tribunals”. That last one really is extraordinary. This Bill has been described as a bonanza for employment lawyers; the Government appear to be confirming that, and actually seem to be suggesting that it is a good thing. To read or listen to what the Government say, noble Lords would be forgiven for understanding that there are currently no protections from unfair dismissal for employees during the qualifying two-year period. That is quite wrong. There is a whole list of reasons for dismissal that are automatically unfair from day one. I will give a few examples, rather than go through the whole list—I do not want to keep everyone here all night. They include dismissal for reasons of a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, race or religion, et cetera; for being pregnant or on maternity leave; for being a trade union member or representative; for taking part in industrial action; and for being involved in whistleblowing. There are many others. So, let us stop this idea that new employees are unprotected from day one. It is just not true. I ask the Minister, as I did at Second Reading, when she did not answer: why are the Government doing this? What evidence do they have that the qualifying period is really a problem? Presumably, there must be some tangible benefits from the policy to justify all these disadvantages that the Government have described. What are they? The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt—and happy birthday to him—would require impact assessments of the changes, which I support, but surely it would be better to get this right in the first place. The impact assessment does say: “The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”. That is absolutely right, and that is what the rest of this group tries to deal with: to reduce the negative impacts of this change. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 says that the Secretary of State may make regulations about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which is generally called a probationary period. My Amendment 104, along with Amendment 334, is intended to make it a requirement that the Secretary of State “must” make, rather than “may” make, such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his support on this and other amendments. He sends his apologies that he is unable to be here tonight. As the Bill stands, the two-year qualifying period can be abolished and not replaced with anything. I understand that is not the Government’s intention, and we heard earlier about the nine-month preference, but it is what the Bill says. Having no probationary period at all would be extremely damaging, so it is important that it should become a requirement that these regulations are issued, and not just a “may”. My Amendment 108 would ensure that any probationary period is at least nine months long. What is important is that the employer should have adequate time to assess whether the new employee is right for the business, including by giving them a good chance to get up to speed through training and so on. I agree that the current two-year period is very long, and from discussions I have had with business groups and from my own experience in business, I am confident that the shorter period would be acceptable to most businesses. I think the Government’s suggestion of nine months is workable, and that is what I have proposed in the amendment, so I hope it is not particularly controversial from that point of view. The other critical factor for a probationary period is that it must work in a way that enables an employer to give the person the benefit of the doubt, rather than acting as a disincentive to hire them, especially for the riskier hires that the Government described and that I mentioned earlier. For that to be the case, it is essential that the employer can dismiss them without having to give a reason during the probationary period.

19:30:00

The key thing for an employer is that they do not want the risk of being taken to an employment tribunal, which is expensive, time-consuming, distracting and stressful. As we heard when considering earlier groups, the tribunal system is completely clogged up. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, talked about a four-year period. You cannot do that; it is a completely impossible situation for an employer to be in. That is particularly the case for smaller businesses, where the founder or owner will often also be the HR person, and probably does a number of other jobs as well.

The simple truth is that not all employment works out—it does not need to be anyone’s fault. The person may just not be suited to the job, or they may not fit with the rest of the team. That is especially important for small businesses, where having a team of employees who are able to work constructively and tightly together is critical to the success of the business. Again, it may not be anyone’s fault; personality clashes do happen.

For the employer, it can be disastrous, and they need to be able to let someone go if it just has not worked out. Employing someone is expensive, so most employers try very hard to make it work—no one wants to fire someone on a whim. Having to give a reason or being restricted to reasons such as capability or conduct, as we heard before, simply makes it more likely that the employer will find themselves in front of a tribunal or will have to pay the person off to avoid that, even if the claim is completely vexatious.

The impact of all that will simply be employers becoming more risk-averse about hiring, especially hiring people who are trying to get back on the employment ladder or taking their first steps on to it —the very people who most need an employer to take a chance on them. The various amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which I have added my name in support, are intended to deal with this critical issue.

In the spirit of trying to be constructive, I want to suggest a way forward. To me, the easiest solution here would be simply to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3 altogether and just shorten the qualifying period to nine months, without changing the already significant existing protections. I think that would be acceptable to most businesses, and it would minimise the damage this policy will cause to the business in terms of costs, but most importantly to the life chances of those people who need employers to take a chance on them. It would also go a long way to meeting most of what the Government appear to be trying to achieve.

My Lords, I find myself wanting to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The reason is this. We arrived in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which, by the way, according to the Guardian a few days ago, is the most loving, caring place—the best in the country. Yes, maybe since I arrived it has become that; none the less, that is what it said. It is the most peaceful place to live in. Sometimes, we do not even lock our doors when we go out for a short period. In other places, they would know, word would get round, and you would be visited by people who think they should acquire your property, outside the law. We had to find a plumber. The plumber was wonderful, the best in the town, and people said that to get him was quite costly. He was costly because, once you agreed to let him do the work, he would say, “I have an apprentice. I could pay him as the Government say and give him the national living wage. But he is at college and doing very well, and I would like him to graduate, and to succeed”. So, he said that a fee would be charged to the person who hires him. He showed that in his receipts—the amount you paid for the wonderful apprentice. That apprentice, Oscar, has grown in his job since being there for four years. When he graduates, he will be one of the best plumbers. Apprentices need to be protected. My plumber will never just immediately say that the job is coming to an end, because he has been very wise. He is a single employer who works alone, and out of his business he is willing to pay the amount of money the Government have allocated. However, he suddenly realised that some of us would like to put in a little bit more for this apprentice. So, there will never be a day when he has not got money to keep that apprentice, even if business may not be coming in. This is an example of an employer who employs an apprentice, and I am sure he is going to get another one. His apprentice learnt very fast: for three days a week, he had to go to college in the morning, and then come back to do the apprentice work—

I think the noble Lord is speaking to the previous amendment, which is about apprentices.

I am supporting it.

This is the clause stand part notice. The previous amendment was about apprentices, which I think the noble Lord is speaking about.

I am supporting this one, but also the amendments which come later, which are mentioned. That is what I said at the beginning.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 105 to 107 and 109 to 112 in my name, and I am delighted to have the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who has already spoken so eloquently as the mover of the first amendment in the group. I agree with the noble Lord that this is the most damaging part of the Bill, which is why I have joined proceedings today. I support all that he has said, including his Amendment 334. The approach in Amendment 334 may reflect the Government’s intention on timing, so I look to the Minister to support this clarificatory amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for a very useful online meeting and for a speedy response to my queries from her excellent office. My main current concern is the promotion of economic growth. It is also the Government’s stated main objective, with the Prime Minister saying that: “Growth is the defining mission of this Administration”. Yet, the need to drive growth conflicts with their manifesto promises on employment rights. These will slow growth and increase bureaucracy and inefficiency across the economy, especially the proposal to specify reasons if employees are let go in the period immediately after appointment, which is the subject of this group. The Government cannot have it both ways, and with growth prospects so poor next year, changes must be made to the Bill. There is evidence to support this. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already quoted from the impact assessment. Careful reading of the DBT economic analysis of 21 October, written to support the Bill, admits in section 16, on unintended consequences, that: “There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers, including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD”, an external body, “noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”. In other words, it implies lower growth. Noble Lords will know of my own background in retail and wholesale, working for many years at Tesco, a company that had a unique partnership with the trade unions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and I worked together, and I am delighted that he now sits on the Labour Benches and only sorry that he is not here today. Retail is a sector that leads the way in employing the economically excluded and those who need flexibility in their hours and location of work. The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, is sitting there, just not in his usual place. However, I understand from the BRC, which has recently surveyed HR directors, that there could be a significant impact on hiring decisions, particularly for those starting in or returning to the workforce after a period of leave or inactivity. That includes those coming back from parental leave or those who have been unemployed for an extended period. The changes could reduce opportunities for entry level jobs—27% of the retail workforce is under 24—and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. As our birthday boy, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has already explained, it also jeopardises the vital increase in our apprentice population, which is desperately in need of a simpler and more flexible system —another reason to think again. All this uncertainty is bad for the Government’s wider objective of growth and, very important, for getting hundreds of thousands off benefits and into work. Without a genuine probation period, employers, especially smaller employers, will no longer be willing to take a chance on people for fear of being stuck with bad or unsuitable employees or facing unaffordable compensation bills after a very short time.

The noble Baroness mentioned the OECD. Is she aware of the OECD’s employment protection index, which shows that countries such as Germany, Poland and Japan have stronger protection than the UK on dismissal, yet they have lower unemployment? I think it would be helpful if she agreed that there is no direct association between employment protection on dismissal and unemployment.

I am not sure that I agree. I have sat on a German company. Growth is very poor in Germany at the moment. A company I worked in exited France because of the difficulty with employment protections. Employment protection is not the only issue we are talking about. In my opinion, we are trying to find the right employment protection mix to make sure that the economy continues to flourish. Before closing, I highlight two of the less obvious perverse effects. The provisions will require significant extra internal resources to ensure compliance, in addition to the cost of the various measures in the Bill. If anyone has been through the sad process of sacking someone, they will understand this point. It is necessary to be extremely organised and have a cast-iron paper or email trail to avoid losing in a tribunal. This approach will now be necessary for the 9 million employees who currently work for less than two years in a job. Even if the Government introduce a lighter touch probationary period—now expected to be nine months—it will still be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees, including in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital, deferred a number of times because of the difficulties businesses faced, look extremely easy in comparison. Above all, it will increase costs, thereby reducing investment and growth. The second perverse consequence, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said, will be the increase in traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I met someone yesterday whose case has been listed in 2027. The changes look as if they will plunge the employment sector into the sort of chaos we saw in the past on passports and in several other areas as a result of Covid. I am extremely keen to find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances and am open as to how the problem is resolved. The fact is that sometimes appointments do not work out and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within nine months. If the changes on unfair dismissal are to be workable, let alone a success, the Government must listen and come forward with firm proposals before Report. These can be consulted on in parallel, as has already happened in other parts of the Bill. This House cannot agree to delegate this vital matter to the Executive in a statutory instrument that we have not even seen in draft. The proposed nine-month probation period is a welcome start. However, so far, the only way forward I can see is to amend the Bill to allow the termination of employment during a probation period without giving rise to an unfair dismissal claim, as proposed in our amendment.

19:45:00

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I also support all the other amendments in this group. Both the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend have already fairly comprehensively treated the issues that concern a number of us, so I will not repeat all those points. I just underline three brief points. We are trying to look for a balance between the legitimate expectations of employees and employers, because we need those to work in harmony. At the end of the day—as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out—employers will be producing the growth that the economy needs, so their hiring plans will be critical and anything that harms this balance will damage the economy. From an employer perspective, anybody who has undertaken recruitment as an employer knows that most employers approach this extremely responsibly—it is not a cheap process to get the right people into the jobs—but we also know that, however diligent you are in screening, interviewing and assessment processes, you do not always get it right. You can usually test whether a person has technical skills, although sometimes you need to see them in practice before you know whether they really have them. The important area is whether an employee fits with an organisation. That is really difficult to tell until the person turns up and starts working. Do they share the same values as the rest of the workforce? Do they have ways of working that are just not compatible with the culture of the organisation? This is particularly important for small organisations: if you have one employee who does not fit in a very small organisation, that is a significant proportion of the workforce and can be very damaging to the business of a small business. The last point that I underline is that this Bill will make it much more difficult for the difficult categories of people who want to find a job but cannot. There has been much talk about NEETs, and ex-offenders are another case. Why would any employer want to take on an ex-offender with day-one rights? We know some of them make excellent employees but quite a lot of them do not. They can become quite difficult to handle in the workplace. If employers fear that they will not be able to easily overcome mistakes in recruitment they simply will not hire, which will harm people who want to work.

My Lords, as an employer who has employed people over the past 40-odd years, I know that the difficulty for an SME—any small business such as my own—is the ability to manage all the bureaucracy that is entailed with it. For businesses in the social care sector, for example, unfortunately you cannot really understand how good or bad a care worker will be until they have worked a little while in the organisation, even with the training. However, if we are to give the rights from day one, the difficulty will be that we will end up with a sector already very short of workers needing to hire more workers in case any are not suitable for the role. We would have to release them, knowing that they may then apply workers’ rights on day one without proper probation periods and take us to tribunal. It is a difficult sector. There are many sectors like the care sector, and it is particularly challenging for small businesses in the wider sector of delivering something that is so important. If the care worker is not the right fit, it does not really matter how big or small the organisation is—that person is just not suitable for the role. We need to have the ability to dismiss the person without having to go through the bureaucracy of all the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill. I therefore support my noble friend and the noble Lord on these amendments. It is time to have a strong rethink about how we can come to a good middle ground, where employers are not fearful of employing. I have been talking to a lot of SMEs over the past few months, and the difficulty that noble Lords across the House will have found, when they have talked to businesses in their own communities, is the worry around what will happen when the legislation in this Bill is enforced.

My Lords, I will speak in support of this group of amendments. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as the proud employer of 140 employees. The removal of the qualifying period for a right not to be unfairly dismissed is not, and should not be, feared by good employers. Good employers should have systems in place to ensure that new employees have regular reviews to enable them to feed back to the employer and, likewise, for the employers to feed back to the employees. As an employer, I am aware of the protection that employees are entitled to, and rightly so. When dealing with any employment issue, the word that always comes to my mind is “reasonableness”. Is it reasonable to totally remove the qualifying period? I do not think so. Employees should be protected from just being dismissed without proper procedures, review and consultation. I support this group of amendments on the probationary period, which is described in the Bill as the “initial period of employment”. There is very little detail in the Bill on what length the probationary period will be. This lack of detail and clarity creates real uncertainty for employers at present, including myself. The probationary period is an essential time for both employees and employers to get to know one another. For the employees, it ensures that the job meets their expectations, including about terms and conditions, that the culture within the workplace suits them and that they are respected. For employers, it is time to ensure that the employee has the skills and knowledge—or the potential to develop their skills and knowledge—to fulfil the tasks required by the role in question. The employees in our business can give one week’s notice that the job is not right for them. Likewise, the employer needs flexibility, if they feel that the employee is not right for their business for conduct, personality or capacity reasons. Therefore, employers do not need to go through a long and detailed process to end the contract when the employee has just started that job. In some cases, the procedure to dismiss an employee could take longer than the time they have been employed by the company. I acknowledge that the reason for ending a contract in this probationary period, as has clearly been said by my noble friend, should never be for a protected characteristic under any circumstances, which I fully support. The group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seek—as other Peers have clearly observed today—to enable the termination of a contract without fear of unfair dismissal claims being brought during a probationary period. It gives employers the confidence to employ individuals, and at times gives employers confidence to take on an individual who may not fully meet all the criteria of that role but shows potential, thereby giving that individual the opportunity of work. Nearly every noble Lord has discussed young people and people possibly with a disability. However, further details are required. It is essential that a minimum length of probationary period is detailed in the Bill. For my business, that is three months, but it may be longer for others. The extension of the probation is required when things are not quite going to plan. In that case, the employer needs to go through a process of extending it, which is essential for both the employee and the employer. I support my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden’s Amendment 108, as it puts a minimum length to the probation period within the Bill and therefore gives employers confidence in the probation process. Nine months gives employers time to have an initial probation period and then extend it if need be. If then the employer wishes to terminate after that many months, they will still need to follow a detailed procedure, as the risk of unfair dismissal is still high if not followed. This is a benefit to the employee from the shortening of the qualifying period. Moreover, the probationary period cannot be renewed continuously, which is to the benefit of both the employee and the employer, as there is a time limit. Within secondary legislation, the Secretary of State can define the length of an initial probationary period, for, say, a maximum of six months. With this time limit, as proposed in Amendment 108, it would allow for one extension to nine months. The initial period of employment is an important part for all employers, whatever size, but for the SMEs and the micro-business, as previously stated, it allows flexibility. It avoids time-consuming and very costly processes to end the contract of an employee who is not working out in terms of conduct, capacity or personality. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments or refine them before Report to give all employers the confidence to employ new people, but especially in the SME sector and micro-businesses.

My Lords, I, too, rise to support all the amendments in this group. I support the Government’s ambition to boost productivity, create good jobs and crack down on bad employers. However, as many noble Lords have highlighted before me, Clause 23 risks doing more harm than good. The letter from the UK’s five leading business organisations, cited repeatedly at Second Reading, sets out the long-term damage that this Bill, and this clause in particular, would do to business and the wider economy. Surely, they understand the risk better than anyone, and, if I may say so, better than most politicians. We really should listen to their concerns. After Covid and all the additional costs, many small and larger businesses are struggling. This clause will hit them further, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. Are we really willing to push them out of business? I do not think that this is what the Government really intend to do. Let me give noble Lords one example. A Ukrainian cabinetmaker whom I met 15 years ago—in fact, I was his first client—built a small business from scratch. He actually talked to me last week, and told me that rising costs and additional regulations are now threatening his business. He told me that, with this Bill, he might not be able to go any further and, especially, he will not be able to hire altogether. Like many tradesmen, he cannot risk employing somebody based solely on their CV. He needs a clear period to assess whether this person can actually do the job and fit into the team, as noble Lords have highlighted before. Without a workable probation framework, he will not be able to take the risk. The Government have acknowledged this problem and proposed this nine-month statutory probation period with a “lighter touch” dismissal process. However, there is no detail, no definition and no guidance, and legal experts still question its compatibility with the ACAS code. Worse still, this framework will not come into force until August 2026, leaving 18 months of legal uncertainty. How can employers plan or hire when they do not know what the rules are going to be? Therefore, if the Government accept these risks and have promised a solution, why is it not part of the Bill as it is? It risks killing job creation, driving away investments and weakening economic recovery. This is definitely not what this Government intend to do. However, with that background, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who say that this clause may need to be taken out altogether; otherwise, we will need to take into account all these amendments.

20:00:00

My Lords, I have Amendment 107A in this group, which is intended to be an entirely helpful amendment for the Government, allowing them to put nine months on the face of the Bill but preserve all the flexibility they have there at the moment. I think that would be a small step forward in giving comfort to employers to know what is coming their way. I understand that probationary periods are uncomfortable for people who want to take them—it would be interesting to try them in this House. None the less, when you run a small business, as I do, they are important. I have in the past employed prisoners; actually, every single one of those has worked out really well. I have employed promising young people who have turned out to be a total disaster. It is really hard to know. You cannot rely on references these days; nobody gives a truthful bad reference, because they would just get sued for it, so it is really hard to pick up warning signals. Everyone’s documents are compiled by AI, so they are beautifully written and answer all the questions perfectly. You cannot interview everybody, you have to take a chance, and sometimes it just does not work out. To have to prove capacity or competence is hard. I do not know whether any noble Lords here have been involved in a school where the head has not quite worked out. It is really difficult to get rid of them on the basis of competence; it takes so long to negotiate their departure. If you are faced with that sort of disincentive for the ordinary, run-of-the-mill employees—“If get this wrong, I’ll be saddled with a £50,000 bill for unfair dismissal”, which is about the scale of these things if you are paying people decently—that is a big disincentive to employing people in the first place. It is certainly a huge disincentive to taking on people who have a question mark in their CV—a period of unemployment or something that looks odd about it—or who are just young. We want people to take risks. I have enjoyed taking risks. It is wonderful when it goes right. You really feel you have helped someone in their career and have been part of building a life for them. They leave you, which usually they do, but you take pleasure in what they have gone on to do and the success they have made of their life, and perhaps you have done a bit there. But it is a risk, and to load that risk on to what is by its nature an inexact, uncomfortable and uncertain decision is a real incentive not to take that decision—not to hire. I think it would be a mistake to go down that road, although I am comfortable, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, pointed out, with a shorter timescale. You ought to know, if you are paying attention, whether things are right within three months; you might want to give someone a bit of extra leeway if you think they can set themselves right—but not holding it at two years. I am totally in favour of that; nine months seems a decent figure. It has to be possible, as my noble friends have said, to dismiss people just because it has not worked out. In some circumstances that is the best you can say: “No, sorry—we both did our best and it didn’t happen”.

Very briefly, because we are talking about the time periods here, you have to be very careful because accrued holiday goes into that, and if you do not give people notice before the holiday is up, you cannot get rid of them. So be careful: it should be three months or less, and actually you have to knock off another week or so. This is from experience. The other thing is the headmaster issue. I know one small school which had terrible trouble because the headmaster was incompetent. He knew it, so he got depressed and went on permanent sick leave, and of course the school was then saddled with the costs. There are a lot of problems such as that. It would be nice to clean them up at the same time if we could, but I do not think it will happen in this Bill.

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and endorse most of the arguments that have already been advanced. I will focus just briefly on tech scale-ups. Noble Lords will, I hope, remember that the Communications and Digital Select Committee published a report just a few months ago on AI and Creative Technology Scaleups. These businesses are incredibly important to our economic growth. They represent the innovation that comes out of our universities and the talent that exists in this country, but they need a huge amount of support to get from being start-ups to scale-ups. However, if they are successful, the return that they then deliver to our economy is huge. Our inquiry found that the UK is, in effect, an incubator economy. What we are seeing now is that increasingly the kinds of businesses that have the potential to turn into unicorns, or indeed become unicorns, are galloping away. They are doing so because of many things. Sometimes it is about access to capital growth and to highly competitive workforces. But one of the biggest challenges that we face is that our regime, whether it is regulatory or investment, is not supporting risk-taking. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said a moment ago, the measures in the Bill about day-one rights on unfair dismissal, along with many other things, are undermining risk takers. As part of our inquiry—before the Bill was published—witnesses told us, in the context of hiring, that the costs of hiring and firing are already much higher in the UK than anywhere else, which is putting UK businesses at a disadvantage. In the context of the Bill and the day-one rights around unfair dismissal, the Startup Coalition, which represents the start-ups, talked in its briefing note about the chilling effect that these day-one rights around hiring and firing would have on start-ups, seriously undermining their potential for growth. TechUK, which represents tech businesses of all sizes, has raised a lot of concerns about some of these day-one rights, but in the context of unfair dismissal, one of its concerns, which I do not think we have heard much about so far, is the risk of fraudulent claims. In the Government’s response to our report—while I am on my feet, I add a bit of advertising: the debate on the report is on Friday 13 June, so I urge any noble Lords who are interested in this to sign up and contribute—they referred a lot to their AI action plan and the forthcoming industrial strategy, saying that jobs will be “at the heart” of that strategy. If that is the case, I urge the Minister to think again in the context of what I have just argued. If jobs are to be at the heart of that strategy, and the Government are as keen to support tech scale-ups as they have declared themselves to be and have put this part of the economy centre stage in all their growth plans, but these kinds of measures are making it impossible or so difficult for these businesses to be willing to take the risks to hire in the way that they need to in order to scale, then the Government are introducing measures which are self-defeating and which will undermine their own objectives.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 104, 105, 106 and 107, but particularly Amendments 107A and 108, relating to day-one rights. Getting into work helps people make the best of their lives and reach their full potential. It is good for them and their families, and, of course, employment helps businesses and, through the taxes that everybody pays, helps sustain our state. You would expect that it was a core role of the state to incentivise the creation of jobs in pursuance of economic growth, personal fulfilment and a reduction in the costs of worklessness. It sounds so obvious, but the Government need to be reminded of those simple truths, because the facts are that the well-meaning and superficially attractive suggestion that employees should have full rights from day one is full of perverse consequences that will reduce the appetite to take on staff and will particularly benight those with few qualifications and limited experience. Furthermore, it does not reflect the way in which the economy is changing and the world of work is altering, as people choose to work in different ways. Taking on new employees is not something that organisations do lightly. For the most part, there is an application and interview process, and we have heard about this from other noble Lords. For most employees, applying for and getting a new job is a well-trodden path, as someone builds a career, gains experience and seeks promotion. But that is not how it is for the part of the workforce that does not have formal qualifications. We have heard about ex-prisoners and people without experience or a strong track record in a particular field. People get on the ladder only when an employer takes a chance on them. The muddled thinking behind this Bill will result in the perverse outcome of increasing not only the cost of taking somebody on but the risk of getting it wrong. The consequence will be to make a business think twice before taking a chance on the person with limited experience, people at the beginning of their career, or those with an impaired employment record. These people need the greatest help. It is not just the youngsters who may suffer from these well-meaning but counterproductive proposals. Many people prefer a portfolio of part-time jobs nowadays, because it suits their lifestyle. The facts are that the relationship between casual, agency and temporary work in the UK suits those engaged in it for a variety of reasons. The temporary agency, Adecco, tells me in a briefing that 79% of UK temporary and agency workers rate the flexibility it gives them most highly, and two-thirds say that temporary or part-time work helps their work-life balance. Because much of the temporary work is variable and unpredictable, it is incompatible with some of those other day-one rights, such as the offering of guaranteed hours over a reference period. Some of the employment that might fall under this ambit is weather-dependent work—there is not much call for an ice-cream seller on a wet bank holiday weekend in a seaside town, for example. Seasonal work—harvesting, for example—often depends on the weather. It has been very dry recently, and harvest is going to be earlier this year. If you think about the reference period, there is more likely to be work up until 30 June, rather than in the normal quarter, which would have been the successive quarter reference period. There is casual work, such as waiting at a wedding or manning the turnstiles at a stadium concert or event, for example. All of these are temporary things, and it is going to be very difficult on day one for the employer to commit to some of these rights, because it is out of the employer’s control. There is another perverse consequence that relates to the wider umbrella of agency and temporary work, such as supply teachers and supply nurses—I notice that the noble Baroness who was the chief nurse is no longer in her place—and locum and sickness cover, where the employee determines their availability, not the employer, as it suits them. We see that some of these rights are actually going to put the employee in a worse situation, because they are going to lose their bargaining power. I will move on, because I am conscious of the time. All I will say is that codifying many of these things will make it harder for people to take advantage of temporary opportunities and will counterintuitively reduce their bargaining power, removing the labour market liquidity that makes the economy work for all parties, and particularly the taxpayer.

20:15:00

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, that there is a paradox of regulation at play here. In a helpful briefing, the CIPD has made an international analysis of the interplay between employment regulation and unemployment rate and dismissals. While the UK is perceived to have lower levels of employment protection than some of our European counterparts, employment in the UK is greater, unemployment is lower and the rate of dismissal is at the lower end of all international comparisons, second only to Japan. Counterintuitively—and this is the key point—the evidence shows that the easier it is to let someone go, the more people are taken on. That is how the world works. The threat of tribunals resulting from routine dismissal from day one will make employers more risk-averse in hiring. The solution is simple, and it is in Amendment 108: to make sure that the additional protections against unfair dismissal come with nine months of employment, rather than on day one.

Finally, I can see other perverse and undesirable consequences should these proposals pass. Employers seeking to reduce the risk of taking on new staff may restrict opportunities to only those who they know via contacts, from within a family group, from existing employees or from other social networks. Nepotism will be the result and logical conclusion, as employers seek to manage and reduce the risk. That does not do anybody any good. This counterproductive Bill works against the people it purports to help the most, and its results will restrict businesses in their ability to grow. The effective pool of talent will be diminished and the prospects for economic growth curtailed.

My Lords, I will speak very briefly—I promise—in support of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and Amendment 113, from my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I begin by apologising for not speaking on Second Reading of this Bill. We have heard many contributions in today’s debate about the impact that the provisions in this Bill around unfair dismissal and probationary periods will have on businesses, and I agree with the points made. I will focus on the impact of these provisions on potential employees—people not currently working who are seeking employment. The Government clearly understand the need to get more people into work. Their recent Pathways to Work Green Paper and last year’s welfare to work White Paper demonstrate their commitment to getting 2 million more people into work. This is a subject very close to my heart. As president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register, I regularly meet with jobseekers, employers and the charities that help get people from welfare into work. In doing so, I have developed a good first-hand knowledge of the obstacles and friction in the process of potential employees finding meaningful employment. Business leaders have raised concerns with me about the provisions in this Bill on unfair dismissal and the unclarity around the length of probationary periods. They have told me that the Bill, if passed unamended, would make them think twice about taking on what they describe as riskier hires. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would reduce these risks. One business leader, Michael Lorimer, who employs over 600 people and who gave evidence on this Bill in the other place, wrote: “Today, making a hire from long-term unemployment comes with an element of flexibility. If it works out, everyone benefits. If it doesn’t, the employer has an exit strategy. As it stands, this Bill significantly erodes this flexibility”. It is not just businesses and business leaders. Those working with charities in this space have also raised concerns. The Ascend programme in Sheffield helps people that the local jobcentre views as “difficult to place in employment”. About 75% of those who are taken on as part of the programme go on to get a job. Clearly, these jobs do not always work out. Without amendments to the Bill, businesses will be more reluctant to take on potential employees from initiatives such as the Ascend programme. These potential employees might well lose out on the chance of employment. To conclude, it is right that we consider the needs of employees and businesses, but we should also consider the effect that this Bill will have on potential employees and their chances of finding employment. I support my noble friends’ amendments. I want the UK’s labour market to remain sufficiently flexible to ensure that Britain’s workers of the future continue to have the dignity, joy and independence that meaningful employment provides.

My Lords, I do not doubt that critics of this part of the Bill speak with a lot of personal experience as well as commitment to their employees and the way they run their affairs. However, let me remind people that the argument that is really coming from the other side—that the qualifying period would be damaging to employment—is the argument as has been used against just about every bit of progressive employment legislation from the Factory Acts onwards. If noble Lords think that that is hyperbole, they should remember the national minimum wage and the campaign that was run against it. None of that came to anything like what was forecast from that side of the House. I have risen briefly to ask the other side of the House to remember that it was wrong on the minimum wage and to consider whether it might be wrong on this as well.

My Lords, I get the impression that there is a bit of a misunderstanding around the nature of employment tribunals. I spent the first half of a long career at the Bar doing employment tribunal cases, many of them unfair dismissal cases. In fact, the first case I ever did—pro bono, by the way—was an unfair dismissal case in 1972, under what was then the very new unfair dismissal legislation. Unfair dismissal cases are difficult for employees to win. Most cases that go to a full hearing result in the employer being vindicated. I want to make two points. The first is that employment tribunals now have robust procedures for weeding out vexatious cases; such cases never go to a full hearing. Secondly, I remind your Lordships of the law on unfair dismissal in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The test is in two parts. First, the employer must demonstrate that the reason for the dismissal is capability, qualifications, conduct or redundancy or the fact that the employment is in breach of some enactment. Once the employer has shown that that is the reason, the test for the tribunal—I shall read it out—is whether the dismissal is fair, which, “depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”. So all the factors that one would expect to have to be taken into consideration are taken into consideration. The tribunal then has to determine that, “in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case”. The Court of Appeal has added yet another burden. When the tribunal decides whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably, it is not about what it considers was reasonable or unreasonable; it is about whether it considers that the dismissal fell within the band of responses of reasonable employers. It is at two stages removed. It is not like an ordinary negligence case where the court decides whether an employer was reasonable or not reasonable in putting a guard on the machine. It must decide. Even if it thinks that the decision was unreasonable, if it finds that, nevertheless, reasonable employers would say that it might be possible that the reason was fair, that would be legitimate.

The noble Lord referred to the likelihood of cases succeeding if they got as far as the tribunal. Does he accept that the vast majority of cases that are initiated never get as far as a tribunal because there is a huge incentive in the system for employers to settle? The costs of taking a case right the way through are huge—not just in the monetary cost of employing clever employment lawyers but, in particular, in the diversion of management effort within the organisation. I have seen this in large organisations, where swathes of the management team can be tied up for long periods of time. Employers cannot afford that in the broadest sense. If you put that in the context of smaller organisations, they absolutely cannot cope with it. Whatever happens at the tribunal and whatever the law says, the mere initiation of an action nearly always results in an economic decision, made by the employer, to settle. That is one of the most difficult aspects and is why extending that into the early period of employment causes so many worries for employers.

I absolutely agree that most cases never get to a full hearing; only a tiny minority ever do. The noble Baroness is right that many cases settle, of course. Many are conciliated, because there is now compulsory conciliation by ACAS, but many are withdrawn by the employee. You have to visualise it, as I am sure the noble Baroness does: most employees bringing an unfair dismissal claim are completely unrepresented. They are on their own, so all the expense, research and preparation that have to be done must be done by them personally. That is a huge disincentive. Many claims—tens of thousands of them—are simply not brought because it is not worth the employees’ while to do it.

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the case is exactly the same for small employers? They too will be in the position of having to deal with tribunals in the same way—hence why, as often as not, the settlements are taking place.

Of course; that is always the way whenever there is litigation. Whatever the subject matter, people do not want the burden of defending the case and the people bringing the case do not want the burden of bringing it. That is just the reality of litigation. I will say one last thing before I sit down. The argument that the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have put forward is all about what they perceive to be the consequences of this matter, which my noble friend Lord Monks just addressed. But nobody can seriously advance the case that employers should have the right to dismiss anybody unfairly and without recourse to the law.

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

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

I would like to take the noble Lord up on this, because I have had experience with this. When an employee has been behaving very difficultly and sometimes they want to go anyway, but you want to dismiss them, they say, “Right, we’re going to take you to a tribunal”, and the answer is they will settle for £3,000 to £4,000 just because it is cheaper for everybody. The trouble with that is, for the loyal employees who stay, it is a huge disincentive and causes a lot of aggro within the thing, and it is very unfair on everybody else.

20:30:00

My Lords, I stand with some trepidation at this stage to support very much the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and indeed I support the other amendments in this group. We have to think that any company—large, small, charity, whatever it may be—that hires a new employee takes a calculated risk. They are unknown. The company hopes that the individual, young or more mature, will integrate well into the company culture and be capable of handling the expected workload with the appropriate training needed. I understand the Government’s position, as mentioned in a previous day’s debate on the Bill, that the employee also takes a risk when starting a new job or changing careers. They too must be confident that the role aligns with their skills and aspirations. A probationary period exists to serve both parties. It allows the employee to assess whether the role suits their interests, skills and abilities, while giving the employer time to evaluate whether the employee fits before making a long-term commitment. Is that unreasonable? In my own place of work, I have seen this very much in practice. In fact, when I returned to work, I had a six-month probation period, and I had worked for them for 25 years before that. We once hired a seasoned practitioner with considerable market experience. However, for various reasons, they did not pass their probation. Should that individual be entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said? From the employer’s perspective, they are simply trying to safeguard their business, its culture and its ability to deliver results for clients. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as we have just heard and as, I think, the noble Lord accepted. Is it right that an employee should be granted full employment rights from day one, when both sides are still in a learning phase? Is it fair that a company could face the threat of an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal if the probationary period is not successful, on which we have had a lot of discussion? Whatever happens, should it go towards that phase? Should it never reach the employment tribunal? It is a gruelling process for both parties, and an expensive one—emotionally, culturally, and potentially in the pocket. The Government rightly seek to stimulate growth, as mentioned by the Minister on the previous group. For that to happen, businesses must feel confident in hiring. But, if the terms of employment are too burdensome, companies may hesitate to expand their workforce. It is imperative that the economy is prevented from becoming stagnant or, worse still, contracting. I simply do not understand why this clause is in the Bill. It does not propose anything that helps growth in this country.

The noble Lord pointed to the daunting process that faces an employer potentially facing an employment tribunal accusation that would damage perhaps their reputation, as well as the daunting issues that also face the employee who is considering going down that course. My noble friend made some emphasis on that point. The debate has been conducted as if this is a hugely common threat: indeed, as if it is a threat that, potentially, is going to do tremendous damage to our economy. But could I just point to the scale of the issue? In 2023-24, there were just over 5,000 unfair dismissal cases referred from the Tribunals Service to ACAS for the conciliation processes that my noble friend referred to. What is the size of our workforce in the British economy? Is it 25, 26, 27—

Thirty-four.

Thirty-four million workers. Five and a half thousand cases. Why is the number so small? It has been suggested that it is because an employer’s immediate response is to offer a settlement to buy off the prospect of a tribunal. Some may make that judgement, but, given the evidence my noble friend has referred to about the unlikelihood of applicants succeeding with their claims, that does not seem a very wise response to give. There may be some, but for the individual, it seems to me, more daunting factors influence them to hold back because it is so painful and potentially stressful that they are reluctant to take their case in the first place. This whole Bill is about giving people at work in Britain more confidence and there needs to be some sense of perspective about the scale of the issue we are talking about. Five thousand people.

I am aware of a case of a small company that has got rid of four individuals in view of the legislation because those individuals are not doing a good enough job, but it could live with them if it had the ability to get rid of them. What it cannot face the thought of is having to go down any form of tribunal route or indeed threat thereof. That is not what we are trying to do with this Bill; we are trying to prevent that. We do not want to see those individuals leave employment. That is not what we want, and that is where it could lead a lot of people.

My Lords, this is one of the most important parts of this legislation, and I am very conscious of the Labour Party’s manifesto and its success in the election last year. However, at the same time, this is the same Government who want to increase the employment rate to 80%, which has not been achieved in a very long time. If we go back in history, we see that the Blair-Brown Government did not make changes to go to zero or day-one rights in the same way. Yes, they changed it from two years to one year. The coalition Government later changed it back to two years. Yet we are now seeing—as has already been pointed out elegantly by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in response to some of the comments raised on the Government Benches—that this is the Government’s own impact assessment. If we look at the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment of these proposals, we see that it gives a very strong red rating on this element and suggests that, basically, there is no evidence that they are in any way needed. There are aspects here of “What is the problem that the Government is trying to address?”. Lewis Silkin solicitors point out that if the only changes to be made were those referred to and we were still to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy read out, the different approaches on fair dismissal in the tribunal, the Government could just put forward a statutory instrument based on the existing power of the 1996 Act. However, they have not done so in the Bill; they are seeking to go much further in a variety of ways in Schedule 3. That is why I share the concerns of many other noble Lords who are worried about the unintended consequences. Nobody can believe that a Labour Government would want to see unemployment rise or more people on benefits, or not tackle the challenge of people not in education, employment or training—

Or the most vulnerable.

Or the most vulnerable—and we can just keep going. However, on whether people take cases to the employment tribunal, as has been referred to, we are not going to debate Part 5 tonight, but in this same Bill, where we have to consider a lot of these things in the round, the Government are proposing to give an unlimited amount of money to somebody to get legal aid or legal support so that they can go to tribunal. In fact, they are going further and saying that the Secretary of State or somebody they appoint can go to court on their behalf. In that case, in Part 5, we are talking about people who have not even started work. So, rolling it back, on some of the concerns about which noble Lords on the Government Benches are suggesting, “Don’t worry about it, this isn’t going to happen”, actually, the entire Bill is opening that. That is why I hope the Government do not just listen to the real concerns of noble Lords in this House; they should consider their own impact assessment and the representations of all the business organisations that think that this is just wrong. I support the amendments. There are a variety of them about putting in the Bill a defined time for what should be considered a probationary period. We have already had a separate discussion about apprenticeships but, going further, one thing that surprises me is that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, new Section 108A refers to: “Employees who have not yet started work”. You may think, “That’s very sensible. How can you have an unfair dismissal?” I have already referred to Part 5, coming somewhat later. Then there is a list in the Explanatory Notes. It is quite complicated—it tries to simplify it, but the legislation is complicated—but here we have one of the answers. A lot of the Bill is basically about trying to make sure that trade union membership goes up—that means more money going into the political fund and having to wait to opt out until the following January, for, in effect, finances. Indeed, paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3, as a consequential amendment, says that, in effect, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, before you have even started work, will not apply if you are a member of a trade union. That is what is going on in this legislation. I will read it out: “Omit section 154 (disapplication of qualifying period for unfair dismissal relating to union membership”. There are a number of activities here; it goes further in the Explanatory Notes. They include if you are on strike—I do not quite understand how you could be on strike if you have not started work, but perhaps one is on strike if one is in a different job. There are already protections in the disapplication in existing law—it suggests people who are pregnant and similar. There are a variety of things here where there are already protections, but these are now being extended in different ways. Sometimes, the Government Back Benches may not all have necessarily read the full detail of the Bill. To that end, I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in saying, “Let’s get rid of this clause and this schedule”. There is genuinely a way to start this again. There is still time for the Government to go away and do proper thinking—there is plenty to get through in this debate before we get to Report—to really narrow in on what the Government are trying to do, rather than, frankly, giving a blank cheque to a series of employment situations. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral—happy birthday to him, by the way—has already deemed this to be the unemployment Bill. I know those are not the consequences that the Government are seeking to address, but the experience and the petitioning of business organisations is very clear that that is what will happen.

20:45:00

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

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

I will reply to that. Yes, it is a technical question, and perhaps that wording sits there, but any person with an ounce of common sense who sees the Bill can see what the Government are trying to do. I do not think that the Bill, with over 300 amendments to it, is geared to do what the noble Baroness is intimating. That is cheap political point-scoring, and I think it is beneath her. I have carefully considered the amendments put forward by noble Lords in this group, particularly those seeking to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3, including Amendments 23 and 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the series of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others relating to probationary periods, including Amendments 105 to 112. While I am not persuaded by those amendments or the case for removing the provisions or fundamentally changing the Bill, I recognise the need for greater clarity on probationary periods. Given the Bill’s current drafting, which relies heavily on future regulation, it is essential that the Government provide clear and firm guidance on how the provisions will operate in practice, especially for small businesses, which will find ambiguity challenging in difficult times. Amendment 107A from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which proposes a default initial employment period but would allow the Secretary of State flexibility to amend that through regulation, offers a balanced concept that could be helpful in providing certainty while retaining adaptability. Likewise, Amendment 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which calls for a retention of the current qualifying period until suitable regulations are in place, reflects concerns about the smooth transition, and that deserves attention. However, I am less convinced by the calls for further impact assessments or reviews of the proposals in Amendments 103 and 123, which I believe risk delaying the necessary reforms without providing clarity. In light of those amendments, I urge the Government to seize this opportunity to give definition and definite practical guidance on the provisions that the Bill will implement. It would be better if the Minister could say in absolute terms the length of time for which probationary periods will be set in future regulation after the passage of the Bill. That would be particularly important for smaller employers that need certainty to comply. Providing that clarity would help to ensure that the reform worked as intended, and it would help to strike the right balance between protecting employees’ rights and allowing employers the flexibility to manage probationary employments effectively. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lucas for their amendments and their thoughtful contributions in this group. It has been a most interesting debate. I will speak to my Amendments 103, 113 and 123. I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it would be much better to get this right now rather than pursuing Amendment 103 in particular, which returns to the Government’s insufficient impact assessment. The assessment that has been produced states that this provision will have one of the highest impacts, yet, as we have mentioned before, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s analysis in this section a red rating. The RPC’s critique is not a matter of minor technicalities because it identifies serious deficiencies in the Government’s case for intervention in the options that they have considered and in the justification for the policy that they propose. The Government’s impact assessment admits that it lacks robust data on dismissal rates for employees with under two years’ service. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, there is no evidence for that. It proceeds regardless, however, with only superficial reference to “asymmetric information” and without any substantive analysis of any market failure. The RPC highlights the impact assessment’s failure to consider how long-serving employees might view the equalisation of rights for new joiners—an issue of fairness and workplace cohesion that the Government have ignored. The impact assessment itself mentions that options such as reducing the qualifying period to 18 months or one year were considered and rejected without detailed assessment. No real exploration of probation periods was provided. That is not a balanced appraisal of possible alternatives; it is a justification for a predetermined decision. On the justification of the preferred option, the impact assessment is again found lacking. The RPC calls for clarity on the costs to businesses—the costs of managing performance, handling disputes and the increased settlements to avoid tribunal risks. It also questions whether the Government have considered evidence from existing unfair dismissal claims and how risks might vary across sectors or job types, particularly in roles where reputational damage from a claim might deter employers from hiring at all. More significantly, the Government have not addressed indirect and dynamic labour impacts, such as whether day-one rights might lead to more cautious hiring, greater use of temporary contracts or weaker overall job security. These are not abstract concerns as they go to the heart of how this policy might reshape employment relationships across the country. Noble Lords might be interested in a real example. I was talking this morning to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company. It is an exemplary employer in every way; for example, offering many day-one rights. But this year—partly as a result of the jobs tax but also in anticipation of the Bill—it has reduced its hiring by 84%. I repeat that for the record: 84%. This is not abstract or theoretical. This is real, this is now. It is important to note that these likely labour market impacts are not accounted for in the £5 billion cost to businesses, so the real cost is likely to be significantly higher. The result is a policy with high ambition but little practical clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has just noted. How will unfair dismissal rights interact with a statutory probationary period? Will employers still have access to the same set of fair reasons for dismissal? Will there be a different threshold for acting reasonably during probation? Can probation be extended if needed? None of those questions has been clearly answered. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us of the light-touch, nine-month proposal, but what does that mean in practice? My noble friend Lady Meyer asked that. At the same time, the Government’s own analysis predicts that granting day-one rights for unfair dismissal alone will result in a 15% increase in employment tribunal claims. Using the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that is an additional 750 claims per year, on top of the 50,000 backlog already waiting 18 months to two years. The noble Lord argued that this is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance, but it is not to the 750 business owners who are being dragged through courts. That is a substantial impact. It represents direct costs to businesses in terms of time, legal risk and, of course, the chilling effect on recruitment. The tribunal system itself needs to be looked at. Without significant new investment it is hard to see how the system will cope with this 15% increase. The result could be longer delays, greater costs and justice deferred for all parties. In an earlier group we heard about a case that is going to take more than two years to come before a tribunal. Yet the Government intend to bring these changes into force in 2026. On what basis? There is nothing in the impact assessment that explains why 2026 has been chosen or how the system will be ready by then. Businesses will need time to revise contracts, restructure probation processes and train managers on the new rules. What assessment has been made of whether 2026 is realistic, with all those things in mind? What engagement has been carried out with employers, particularly SMEs, about what implementation will require? It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to explain how the timeline was determined and whether it is genuinely achievable, given the lack of clarity in both the policy detail and the supporting evidence. We all agree that employees deserve fair treatment, particularly in the vulnerable early stages of employment, but employers must also have a reasonable opportunity to assess performance, capability and suitability without the immediate threat of litigation. We have established that there is no evidence for any of this clause. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was arguing his point, he said that it is very difficult anyway for employees to take a case to an employment tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, as I just mentioned, said it is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance. If there is no evidence, it is too difficult and it is a statistical irrelevance, why are we bothering at all? I want to raise a final point that others, particularly my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, have referred to. It is not just about the policy itself; it is a more troubling concern. The policy will create unintended incentives, but for whom? It is not just about employers scaling back hiring overall but about who they stop hiring. If we remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and provide no workable probationary mechanism, we tilt the hiring incentives away from risk-taking, as we have heard. It will, in effect, stop employers taking a punt. Right now, a small business owner might be willing to take that chance on someone with no formal qualifications, or from a non-traditional background, or re-entering the workforce after a time away. That chance exists because the employer has a short window to assess their suitability—and vice versa, of course—before facing the full weight of employment litigation risk. If that safety net is removed and exposure begins from day one and the probationary period lacks clarity or legal protection, that same employer will think twice. They will play it safe. Noble Lords opposite should pay attention to those of us who have employed people. It is a simple fact. Who is going to suffer? It is not the already advantaged candidate with a polished CV. It is the young person with gaps in education, the career switcher with no references, the working parent returning after years out of the labour market, or the person coming back to work after a long period of illness. Noble Lords opposite should reread the speech given by my noble friend Lord Elliott, with his experience of the Jobs Foundation. He explained this much more eloquently than I just have. Those are the people who benefit from flexibility and second chances and who may now find those doors quietly closed. This goes to the heart of social mobility and genuine workplace diversity. I would like to ask the Government a rhetorical question: have they considered the incentives this policy creates? If they have not—both common-sense experience of real working life in the private sector and, indeed, the RPC suggest that they have not—we risk designing a policy that sounds progressive but, in practice, reduces opportunity for the very groups that we should be helping the most. We need a decent impact assessment, and my amendment would allow for it.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As there have been a number of questions about our intentions with these clauses, I think it would be helpful to clarify them and put them on the record. Clause 23 introduces Schedule 3 and repeals Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. Schedule 3 further amends the 1996 Act, including the introduction of a statutory probationary period in legislation. Schedule 3 also removes the two-year qualifying period for the right to request written reasons for dismissal. Any employee who has been dismissed after the statutory probationary period will have the right to written reasons for dismissal within 14 days upon request. The legislation will introduce a statutory probationary period that will maintain an employer’s ability to assess any new hires. Schedule 3 allows the duration of a statutory probationary period to be set in regulations by the Secretary of State following consultation. The Government’s preference, as we know, is for this probationary period to be nine months in length. Schedule 3 also creates the power to modify the test for whether dismissal during the probationary period is fair for reasons of performance or suitability for the role. The Government’s intention is to use this power to set light-touch standards for fair dismissal during probation. The power will be limited to the following reasons for dismissal, which, under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, qualify as potentially fair reasons: capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. The Government will consult on the light-touch standards and proceed to set out in regulations what specific reasons relate to the employee and when. Schedule 3 amends the delegated power to set the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal so that a different maximum can be set for dismissals during the probationary period and when the light-touch standards apply. It is our intention to consult before the introduction of any new cap on awards.

21:00:00

I now turn to the amendments, beginning with Amendment 106, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is the Government’s intention to make regulations setting light-touch standards for businesses so that they can dismiss an employee fairly during the statutory probationary period for the probationary reasons. The Government are committed to striking a balance with these regulations to ensure that employees have a meaningful day-one right against unfair dismissal, while making sure businesses can assess new hires’ performance and suitability and dismiss those who are not right for the job. The Government recognise that light-touch standards are a fundamental aspect of unfair dismissal measures and will therefore formally consult on the policy detail later this year.

Amendments 105, 107, 109, 110, 111 and 112, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, would amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. I remind noble Lords that the Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to delivering day-one rights to protect against unfair dismissal. Repealing the qualifying period will improve the security of work for around 9 million employees who have been working for their employer for less than two years. However, the Government recognise the importance that probationary periods play in allowing employers to assess new hires’ performance and suitability for their role. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. A statutory probationary period will be introduced, during which there will be light-touch standards for dismissing an employee fairly if they are not suitable for the job. The Government do not believe that all reasons for dismissal should be in scope of the statutory probationary period’s light-touch standards. Business or economic reasons for dismissal, such as redundancy, should be subject to the full and fair process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked how this fitted in with our plans for economic growth. I say to the noble Baroness that we of course take that issue seriously. The UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Up against the backdrop of global uncertainty and the very poor economic inheritance from the previous Government, we are making the right choices in the national interest. Since the election, we have already made four interest-rate cuts, signed three international deals to boost trade, saved British Steel and given a pay rise to millions by increasing the minimum wage. We are putting more pounds in people’s pockets and living standards are growing at their fastest rate for two years.

Forgive me if I am pre-empting the Minister, but given that she has just responded to my noble friend on the question of economic growth, what is her reply to the issues I raised about the specifics in the context of tech scale-ups, which are a priority for the Government’s growth agenda? What is the impact of these measures on that particular industry?

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She will know that I share her ambitions for the tech sector. The UK remains the number one country for venture capital investment, raising $16.2 billion in 2024—more than either Germany or France—and since last July we have secured £44 billion in AI investment. Strengthening employment rights and giving day-one protections can help support talented people to take the leap into a start-up company. I turn to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Setting a statutory probationary period during which light-touch standards will apply is a crucial part of our plan to make work pay. I can reassure the noble Lord that setting out the detail in regulations is fundamental to fulfilling this commitment. It is not necessary to make this a requirement in legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a number of questions. He, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked why the Government are doing this. The UK is an outlier compared to other OECD countries when it comes to the balance of risks and entitlements between the employer and the employee. We believe that it is an important principle that employees should have greater security at work. Our reforms will mean that around 9 million employees—31% of all employees —who have been working for their employer for less than two years will have greater protection against being unfairly dismissed.

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

I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks. I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—

I never mentioned spent convictions; I referred merely to the risk of employers taking on ex-offenders. I cannot think of a point I could have made in relation to spent convictions. The issue is these categories of potential employees who a represent higher risk in terms of judgment to employers, and I was using former offenders as one example of that.

I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point. I can only reaffirm the point I was making: with all these issues, there can be reasons for fair dismissal during the probationary period, and we have set out quite clearly what the grounds for that would be. Amendment 107A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As always, he thinks outside the box and comes up with interesting ideas, including the idea of a probationary period here in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure we all have strong views about. Going back to the specifics of his proposal, the Government have expressed an initial preference for a nine-month statutory probationary period. We intend to consult with stakeholders and the wider public before committing to a duration, which will be set by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation after this consultation has taken place. Maintaining this flexibility allows the duration and calculation of the statutory probationary period to be adapted in light of future changes in employment practices. Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would also amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. It is of great importance to this Government to get the length of the statutory probationary period correct. The Government have already stated in Next Steps to Make Work Pay their preference for the statutory probationary period to be nine months in duration. However, this is subject to consultation, and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on that matter. On Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while I recognise what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with his amendment, I reassure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that the Government have no intention of removing the two-year qualifying period until the regulations setting out the statutory probationary period are in force. We will, of course, give businesses time to prepare, and we are engaging with them already. These provisions will not commence before autumn 2026, which will give time to prepare. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. I move on to address Amendments 103 and 123, from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, in respect of their mandates for further impact assessments. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, published alongside Second Reading, and based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, employees and the wider economy. Our analysis includes an illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting the record straight about the impact of tribunals, and the thorough ways in which they conduct their proceedings. Many cases settle in advance, and we want to encourage more cases to reach a settlement with proper advice and support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Barber for putting the scale of the problem in perspective, with only 5,000 cases referred to ACAS in 2023-24. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament, to the extent that those changes significantly change the impact of the policy on the enforcement system. This impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation. To follow up on the impact of this, we acknowledge that the policy is expected to benefit close to 9 million employees, driven by well-being benefits arising from increased job security for those with under two years of tenure. There will be costs to businesses, including familiarisation and compliance costs, from this change. However, businesses could benefit through improving their people management and hiring practices, which could deliver medium to long-term benefits, such as higher labour productivity. In addition, increasing employee well-being could increase worker productivity. These benefits will be tested further during consultation. The Government have also pledged to conduct a consultation on unfair dismissal policy, to collect feedback from employers and employees. Specifically, the Government have outlined that we will consult on the length of the statutory probationary period, and the potential cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal occurring during the statutory probationary period. I can reassure the House that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement. We will be updating our impact assessments in any case, alongside the consultation on implementing the various provisions in the Bill. I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are not proposing to expand the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal that have been a central part of employment law for decades. An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in the early stages of their employment or otherwise will have to be underpinned by a fair dismissal reason, such as capability or conduct. It stands to reason that these would be the most likely dismissal reasons when employees fail their probation. I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. I therefore ask that Amendment 103 be withdrawn.

21:15:00

Again, we are being promised a blizzard of consultations, but can the Minister give me any idea when those consultations will take place? Can we also have some assurance that all the employer organisations will be consulted on this occasion? From our conversations with many of them, they do not feel particularly consulted up to now.

First, on the issue of consultation, I assure the noble Lord that there have been a considerable number of consultations, not only with the main employer organisations but in terms of working parties working on particular aspects of the Bill, and those will continue. That consultation will continue—and I have now forgotten his other question.

Will the Government consult with employer organisations?

Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.

The Minister has not addressed the fact that there are already powers in existing legislation to modify the qualifying period. The Minister talks about going into consultation, but that consultation on the probationary period could start right now with the SI, and that element. I struggle to understand why we have to wait such a long time when, actually, the Government could get on with their policy a lot more quickly.

That has reminded me that that was the other question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it. As we have said before, we are working on an implementation plan, which we hope to share with noble Lords as soon as we can. It is in my interests as well as noble Lords’ interests that they see it sooner rather than later, but there is no point in sharing something that is not complete. Noble Lords will see that—and it will set out exactly what we are planning to do and where the consultations will fit in with all of it. I hope that when noble Lords see it, it will reassure them. To go back to the particular question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we see this as a wholesale package. It is right that it is introduced to employers as a package; it will have appropriate timescales in it. We do not want to do things on a piecemeal basis, we want to do them in the round. That is why we are attempting to address this in the way that we are proposing today.

Unfortunately, that is our concern—that we do not know what the detail is, and we are being asked to pass a Bill without all that detail, as I said in my speech. There was a more technical point that I wanted to raise with the Minister, if she wants to come back to me. I set out how having to cover an extra 9 million employees is going to lead to huge amounts of extra compliance costs. She emphasised the benefits for the workers, but she did not at all address the monumental amount of paperwork. My noble friend Lord Sharpe raised a similar point. As he explained, all managers in all companies are going to have to prepare for this and work out how they treat their employees from day one and what paperwork is required. I am not convinced that there is any understanding of that. When we had similar consultations on the minimum wage, when I was in business, which the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, there was a great deal of detailed consultation very early on on how it would work. I said in another debate how I was consulted about whether we could put it on the payslips—and I explained that it would cost us £2 million, so it would cost the whole economy an awful lot just to put the minimum wage on the payslip. That sort of detail is incredibly important, if you are bringing in regulation that affects all employers and potentially benefits all employees. I urge the Minister to think about these things and not say that it is going into the long grass and that we will get an impact assessment ex post, but think about how employers will actually manage this.

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

My Lords, it has been a long debate so I will try not to detain the Committee much longer. I thank the many noble Lords across the Committee who have contributed. It has been long because this is really important. I confess that I come out of the end of this debate feeling somewhat depressed. I still have not heard really why we are doing this, and what the real, tangible benefits are, to offset against the very real negative impacts, particularly on those who are looking for employment and are perhaps disadvantaged in one way or another: they have not worked before, they are young, they have a gap—we heard all the various examples. The Minister did not really address that point terribly clearly in her speech, and it is so important. This may be, as the Government have regularly called it, a Bill for workers. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is not a Bill for people who want to work—the potential workers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. He stole my Charlie Mayfield quote, but I will not worry about that. It is true that Denmark has much easier hire and fire, and he was using that as a paragon of virtue because it allows people who are harder to hire to get into employment, which is so important. In the interests of being constructive, I hope the Minister understands the real concerns about those people and the impact the Bill is going to have on them, and the negative impacts this section of the Bill will have. I hope that she will be prepared to spend a bit of time with us between now and Report to try to find solutions to those negative impacts, to minimise the problems and downsides that they will cause. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks: I am not making this up, or crying wolf, as with the national minimum wage, as the noble Lord suggested. This is what the Government say will be the impact. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is not me saying that; the Government say this will be impact. If we can try to work together before Report, to try to find ways of knocking the edges off this and reducing the negative impacts, that would be very helpful. With that, I will not oppose Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.

Clause 23 agreed.

Amendment 103 not moved.

Schedule 3: Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc

Amendments 104 to 112 not moved.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clauses 24 and 25 agreed.

Amendment 113 not moved.

Clause 26: Dismissal for failing to agree to variation of contract, etc

Amendment 113ZA

Moved by

113ZA: Clause 26, page 45, line 24, after “sought” insert “without good reason” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment and another in the name of Lord Sharpe limit the application of the clause to cases where the employer sought, without good reason, to vary the employee’s contract of employment in relation to their pay or benefits.

My Lords, as we move to consider Clause 26, I believe Amendments 113ZA and 113B bring essential clarity, balance and proportionality to the Bill’s treatment of contract variation. In last week’s debate, we discussed how recent changes to statutory sick pay might prompt employers to scale back or modify enhanced sick pay schemes. Such adjustments would require changes to contracts, and under the Bill’s current wording could be caught by these provisions. This raises the question: is it really the Government’s intention to classify necessary contractual changes prompted by those reforms to statutory sick pay as grounds for unfair dismissal? The Government’s plan to make work pay rightly criticises cases where these practices have been used to enforce lower pay or to reduce terms and conditions. That is a legitimate concern. However, as currently drafted, Clause 26 goes far beyond this intention. It would cover any contractual change, no matter how minor, technical or reasonable, even those entirely unrelated to pay or benefits. This creates serious practical problems. Employers would be exposed to legal claims of unfair dismissal, even when seeking to modernise contractual terms; for example, aligning shift patterns with contemporary trading hours or updating disciplinary procedures drafted decades ago. In effect, this clause could fossilise employment contracts, preventing businesses from adapting to economic, operational or technological change, unless they meet a narrow and restrictive test. I acknowledge that the phrase “without good reason” in Amendment 113ZA may introduce some degree of ambiguity. However, any dispute from it would fall to the employment tribunals to determine. While we have previously argued—and I maintain—that the Government have no credible plan to resolve the serious backlog and underfunding of the employment tribunal system, the fact remains that these tribunals will be the ones to judge whether a variation was sought with good reason. In the current economic climate, businesses may need to make reasonable changes to pay structures to remain viable. Without these amendments, I believe employers may be deterred from offering pay increases or promotions, unless employees accept other contractual changes, potentially creating a two-tier workforce. In more extreme cases, employers might choose to make roles redundant altogether, rather than risk costly litigation over sensible and necessary variations. I will speak also to Amendment 114 in this group. The clause’s reliance on language such as “the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern” and “financial difficulties” implies that only in the most extreme circumstances—insolvency or imminent closure—can dismissal and re-engagement be considered. That is surely far too narrow a test. Businesses are not static and responsible employers must often adapt to evolving market conditions, consumer behaviour and, of course, technological innovation. These changes are not about survival, they are surely about growth, competitiveness and investment, as we expressed in earlier debates. Medium and large businesses may face particular challenges here. They may need to apply changes to specific segments of the workforce, not the entire business, yet the Bill appears to treat the business as a whole, creating further uncertainty and limiting proportionate action. It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain how the Government define business. The revised wording in this amendment, “could reasonably be expected”, better reflects how responsible employers assess risk and manage their operations. It would give them the legal certainty to act proactively to avoid crisis, rather than reactively once a crisis is already upon them. The existing wording could penalise businesses for prudent foresight, discouraging early intervention and increasing the likelihood of greater harm to jobs and continuity of business.

21:30:00

We can acknowledge that fire and rehire is not always the right answer, and responsible businesses understand that too. It is rarely their preferred course of action and is typically used only in exceptional circumstances, after consultation and careful consideration. However, do the Government accept that the response in the Bill is vastly disproportionate? It is seeking to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In doing so, it risks creating a rigid system that prevents reasonable contractual changes and ultimately harms both businesses and the very jobs that this legislation claims to protect.

On Amendment 115A, the Government have acknowledged the productivity challenge facing the UK workforce. Businesses must be empowered to adapt their working arrangements in response to these challenges. If the Government are serious about improving productivity, they must acknowledge that businesses are key drivers of this improvement. Therefore, surely this legislation must empower, not hinder, employers in making the necessary contractual changes. Without such support, the Government’s ambitions to raise productivity will remain unattainable.

Contract variations aimed at improving productivity are surely essential in today’s rapidly changing work environment. As businesses modernise, they may wish to implement changes relating to hybrid or remote working, or make other adjustments tailored to enhancing employee output and engagement. Regrettably, at the moment, the Government’s current drafting of the Bill does not recognise this critical need.

On Amendment 118, not all changes to employment contracts are exploitative, nor should they be treated as such. Take, for example, a business that wants to change its location. Do the Government truly believe that that is an exploitive act? Of course not—it is a routine practical adjustment, and one that any modern business might need to make for technical or operational reasons. Moreover, as currently drafted, the Bill could significantly constrain employers from responding to the everyday realities of business. The British Chambers of Commerce has warned that these proposals may hinder its members’ ability to innovate, grow and respond to internal pressures, or seize new opportunities that ultimately benefit both the business and its workforce.

In sectors such as retail, the proposed ban on dismissal and re-engagement risks undermining normal business decision-making. Retailers need the flexibility to adjust roles, hours or terms to maintain internal equity and keep pace with shifting consumer behaviours. If they are prevented from doing so, contracts of employment may become unnecessarily complex, attempting to cover every potential scenario in advance. This rigidity would surely stifle growth, hinder transformation and obstruct the rolling improvements businesses need to remain competitive.

Amendment 119 seeks to provide a much-needed reasonableness test. It would ensure that, when assessing whether a dismissal is unfair due to contract variation, the employer’s motivations are judged in the full context, including whether the change was agreed by the majority of the workforce and whether it was reasonable, given the employer’s operational needs or legal obligations. The reality is that most employers do not pursue dismissal and re-engagement lightly. When variations are introduced with broad workforce support and are designed to help a business remain viable or be responsive to market conditions, it is hard to see how that could be construed as unfair.

Importantly, this amendment acknowledges that what may be necessary for one part of a workforce—say, adjusting start times to align with new delivery schedules—could be entirely proportionate and broadly supported, even if not agreed by every individual. It seeks to avoid the perverse situation where one or two dissenting employees could halt a widely supported change, leaving the employer legally exposed, despite having followed a fair and reasonable process.

I anticipate that the Government may argue this amendment sets the bar too low, and that agreement from a simple majority of the workforce may not be sufficient in all cases. If that is their concern, we are of course open to refining the threshold—for example, by considering a higher percentage or additional safeguards to ensure meaningful consensus.

Let us not lose sight of the principle here: if a substantial proportion of employees support a change—especially one that is necessary for operational or legal reasons—then it cannot be right for an employer to be exposed to a finding of unfair dismissal simply because one or two employees object. That would create a veto power that no organisation could reasonably be expected to operate under. Do the Government agree that the test of reasonableness should apply to both employer and employee?

I turn to Amendment 120. In previous debates, particularly in the context of proposals around guaranteed hours, the Government acknowledged the unique nature of seasonal work. Even though the response at that time was the inadequate “We will keep consulting”, their acknowledgment recognised the reality that many businesses depend on a flexible workforce to meet fluctuating demand. Despite that recognition, Clause 26, at the moment, makes no provision for these types of working arrangements. That may well be an unintentional oversight, but, if left unaddressed, it risks serious consequences: discouraging businesses from offering variable-hour roles and undermining employment opportunities for students, carers and others who depend on flexible work.

Under the Bill as drafted, an employer who offers re-engagement on reduced hours—even where the offer is reasonable and grounded in legitimate business need—could find themselves at risk of an automatic unfair dismissal claim. These provisions could dissuade, or even prevent, an employer from offering a seasonal worker a new contract with fewer hours that better reflect actual business needs; instead, of course, they may offer no work at all.

On Amendment 120A, what exactly does it mean to “offer something”? Does it require a financial incentive, a new benefit or a gesture? Is the employer expected to negotiate a deal in every case, even where the variation is purely technical or administrative, such as a location change or a shift alignment? This language risks becoming a trapdoor in the tribunal process. Its imprecision leaves employers in an impossible position, uncertain whether what they have offered will be deemed sufficient, even in entirely legitimate circumstances. In practice, it may lead employers to invent or inflate offers, purely for legal protection, even when the contractual variation is minor or necessary to reflect operational needs. This provision appears to conflate contractual variation with negotiation by inducement, even where the employer is acting responsibly and within reason. In the case of technical adjustments—such as changes in reporting lines, the reallocation of duties or just a change in premises—the employer would still be required to do “something” simply to stay compliant. This is certainly not how we should expect businesses to navigate serious decisions regarding workforce planning and legal compliance.

Finally, Amendment 120B proposes to remove one of the 173 delegated powers in this Bill. I know that my colleagues in the Liberal Democrats feel very strongly about the number of delegated powers. We have already highlighted the unacceptable vagueness surrounding the current factors, particularly the unclear requirement for employers to have “offered something” to employees. To compound this uncertainty by allowing further unspecified factors to be introduced via secondary legislation is deeply problematic. Of course, the Government may respond by saying that they intend to consult on any such additions, but experience tells us that businesses are already wary of the Bill’s current proposals. The prospect of further criteria being added without clear parliamentary scrutiny is unlikely to inspire confidence. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have Amendment 113A of this group, which is a very minimalist amendment designed to deal with circumstances in which, for instance, the company needs to change its registered address. That does not in any way affect the employee, but in the current wording of the Bill it would constitute a variation of the contract, and if the employee refused it—they do not have to be reasonable in doing so—we have found ourselves in difficulties for no good reason. I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Hunt has been saying, but my amendment is just to try to avoid creating difficulties where there should be none.

My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 115 in my name, and I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register as set out in the previous group. Employer businesses sometimes need to change, to adapt to the changes in the marketplace, to their customers’ needs, and sometimes to changes in society. Therefore, on occasions, employers need the ability to vary their employees’ contracts. This process should be done through consultation, negotiation and finally, agreement with their employees, at all times respecting the rights of those employees. I will quote from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s website, which refers to the current legislation: “In exceptional circumstances, where there are genuine and pressing business needs and agreement cannot be reached, employers can sometimes be justified in unilaterally changing workers’ terms and conditions by terminating their contracts and re-hiring them on new terms and conditions”. That comment and others that I have heard would suggest that the current legislation has been working, other than in exceptional circumstances and by some terrible employers. There will always be employers and people in society who will manipulate the law to their own advantage. This certainly was the case with the notorious P&O Ferries, which undertook an outrageous fire and replacement of their employees. Also, sometimes employers will certainly threaten employees with a fire and hire to gain advantage in negotiation. I recognise the value of unions and other employee organisations to assist and support employees when employers undertake varying contracts as a last resort.

21:45:00

The changes proposed under Clause 26 make it virtually impossible to vary contracts if negotiations with employees cannot be agreed with the employer. It will be very difficult to prove the conditions stated in Clause 26, which are that the business must be in financial difficulty, or that without change the business will be unable to continue as a going concern or, finally, that change is totally unavoidable. All these conditions could be a matter of opinion and cause further disagreement and delay between the parties.

My amendment would allow an employer to make reasonable adjustments to the employee’s working patterns, not changing any other of the employee’s terms and conditions—for example, pay or type of work. There are certain times within the veterinary industry, where I work, when practices need to adjust the working patterns of their team, the team being made up of veterinary surgeons, veterinary nurses or support staff. This could be due, for example, to the practice stopping providing its own out-of-hours or emergency work. To service its clients and minimise the changes to the service it provides, the practice might wish to extend the opening hours at weekends so that clients can use its service and not have to travel to an alternative out-of-hours provider.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the employer to consult and negotiate with the employees to do more hours at the weekend with recognised compensation for these hours. It would be unfair on the majority of staff if some members of the team did not contribute their share of these unsociable hours when required. This could lead to animosity, a poor working environment and grumblings within the team that could run on for many years. Therefore, would it be unreasonable to be able to terminate a contract if some individuals were totally unwilling to contribute like the remaining members of the team? This is very much a situation that may happen in small and medium-sized businesses. Under this legislation, this could not happen; that is what my amendment seeks to provide for and would, hopefully, be used as the last resort.

Most of the amendments in this group would make similar changes to Clause 26. Certainly, the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Lucas, would make similar adjustments to the clause to allow reasonable adjustment. These amendments ask for small changes without fundamentally changing the essence of the clause in tightening up regulation on the varying of contracts and protection of employees. Without these small changes, I can see bad employers closing a company down and restarting a new company just to get around this clause. I certainly support the increase that will raise the cap on protective awards to 180 days to ensure that employees are fairly treated by employers, as this sort of penalty would certainly ensure that good employers follow the consultation process for undertaking the last resort action of fire and rehire or replacement.

I ask the Minister to listen and consider this reasonable adjustment to Clause 26 to allow all businesses, large or small, especially small businesses, to vary contracts in a reasonable way as a last resort if negotiation fails. This would give employers a small amount of flexibility to change working patterns when it is needed in the business.

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

My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately away today, on NATO business I believe. Tomorrow, no doubt, he will pore over today’s Hansard. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, will be available then. I cannot unsee the picture of him in a four-poster bed with the trade union man climbing aboard, and will have to try to explain down the telephone to my noble friend Lord Fox, “It was quite humorous”. We will see what happens with that tomorrow. My noble friend Lord Fox’s concerns include his Amendments 116 and 121, which offer much-needed clarity and balance to the protections around contract variations and unfair dismissals. The issue of predatory fire and rehire, as seen in the widely condemned P&O Ferries case highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is an unacceptable, serious and pressing concern that employment legislation rightly needs to address now. No worker should be threatened with dismissal simply to impose worse terms and conditions on that person. My noble friend Lord Fox’s proposals to exclude routine non-detrimental contract changes from triggering automatic unfair dismissal protections, as in Amendment 116, and to safeguard reasonable flexibility clauses expressly agreed in contracts, as in Amendment 121, would help ensure that protection against abuse is balanced with the practical realities that employees face. His further clarification in Amendments 117 and 122—that dismissals linked to redundancy with offers of suitable alternative employment and the lawful use of fixed-term contracts should not be unfairly restricted—rightly recognise that not all contract variations are harmful and that employees must be able to operate flexibly and fairly. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would facilitate contractual changes for financial organisations or workforce-related reasons. Although the intention is understandable, it is crucial that the Government provide clear guidance to ensure fair protection for workers, particularly those in smaller businesses. The approach to seasonal and variable-hour workers also requires careful consideration to safeguard their rights. We will return to that in a later group. These amendments collectively illustrate the careful line that the Government must tread. Although it is crucial to clamp down on unfair and predatory fire-and-rehire tactics, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendments, we must equally recognise the legitimate need for flexibility and contract review in a changing economic landscape. I commend my noble friend’s amendments for their clarity and fairness in this regard, and encourage the Government to consider how best to incorporate these protections. At the same time, I urge the Committee to approach other proposed changes—as in Amendments 115 and 115A, which seek to clarify reasonable adjustments and productivity improvements—with a measured and practical mindset, to support both workers’ rights and sustainable business operations. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. This Government are absolutely clear that the use of unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices must end. Employers should not be able to impose contract changes through threats of dismissal, except in the most limited and justified circumstances. We recognise that, at times, businesses may need to restructure to survive and protect jobs. The legislation accounts for such cases where there is genuinely no alternative and a business faces immediate financial difficulty. Fire and rehire may be used, but only following a proper good-faith process, grounded in open dialogue and mutual understanding. Let me begin by addressing Amendments 113ZA, 113B and 118 from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, Amendment 115 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 116, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. These amendments aim to exclude certain types of contract variations from the clause, such as those relating to terms other than pay, benefits, hours or location, or to allow changes made for good or operational reasons. When a change in contract is essential and the employee will otherwise become redundant—for example, due to a move in location—or where the changes are necessary to reflect a change in the law, the employer will still be able to explain to the employee when proposing these changes. However, such changes should always be a result of meaningful consultation. Employers and employees must reach mutual agreement, allowing both sides to understand and assess the impact of the proposed changes. Open dialogue is key. I turn to Amendment 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 115. These propose broadening the permitted use of “fire and rehire” to include changes that are reasonably necessary to improve workforce productivity. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay. We are supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward. Alongside this and a new industrial strategy, the Bill will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth. The Government do not support these amendments. We believe this practice should be allowed only where an employer faces no reasonable alternative and is under imminent financial threat. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned what happens if a company is facing insolvency. I am sure most noble Lords know that insolvency does not come straight away. There is a whole process, and it is during this that consultation should happen between the employer and employee. When it comes to the last resort, when until and unless something happens the company is going to go belly-up, there may be a practice of “fire and rehire”, but before that, there should be consultation along the way. These amendments would significantly widen the exemption and make it necessary for employers to use “fire and rehire”. That is not our intention. While businesses can still agree changes to boost productivity, such changes must come through proper negotiation, not coercion, as I just mentioned. I now turn to Amendment 119, also from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which proposes allowing “fire and rehire” if the changes are reasonable and supported by a majority of affected employees. This issue here is subjective. What is reasonable for one employee may be deeply unreasonable for another. Our goal is to protect individual rights. Clause 26 is designed to reduce the use of “fire and rehire” as a means to push through significant changes without individual consent. I will address Amendments 117 and 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. They focus on whether dismissals for redundancy or the end of a fixed-term contract should be considered automatically unfair under Clause 26. The Government’s position is that, where a role is no longer viable under current terms, employers should follow due process, including meaningful consultation to seek agreement to vary contracts. If employees do not agree, and if the employer no longer requires the work to be done, redundancy may still be appropriate. In such cases, redundancy procedures must be followed, including consideration of alternative roles. Where the principal reason for a dismissal is redundancy, the dismissal will not be automatically unfair under Clause 26. Now I turn to Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which concerns variation clauses in employment contracts. I wish to reassure the House that existing case law already governs the enforceability of such clauses. This clause applies only where there has been a dismissal, and so would not apply where a lawful variation clause has been lawfully exercised. Courts and tribunals will not uphold variation clauses if they are oppressive and exercised unreasonably. This amendment is therefore unnecessary as a legal protection already exists. I now turn to Amendments 120A and 120B, which relate to the factors a tribunal should consider when assessing the fairness of a dismissal under the clause exemption. It is appropriate that tribunals should consider where the employer offered the employee something in exchange for agreed-to changes. Fair contract variation should be built on dialogue, not pressure. It is right that the Secretary of State should have the power to specify additional relevant factors for tribunals to consider in future. These regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny. Finally, Amendment 113 from the noble Lord, Lucas, seeks to limit the clause to only substantial contract changes. We reject that. Even minor-seeming changes can have major consequences for individual employees. Individuals must be allowed to consider proposed changes without facing dismissal threats. That principle underpins the clause.

22:00:00

Claiming that the Bill will crush business is, I am afraid, nothing more than fearmongering dressed up as concerns. That narrative talks down the resilience and adaptability of businesses—the very backbone of our country. The truth is, giving workers fair rights and protections creates stability, loyalty and productivity, not collapse. History shows that progress always meets resistance disguised as caution.

I hope I have managed to convince some noble Lords, and I respectfully urge the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 113ZA.

My Lords, I have a feeling that although the Minister was doing his best, he was reading from a script that had been drafted before this debate took place. I listened to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Goddard of Stockport. They were just giving ordinary examples that need clarity. We did not get from the Minister a clear exposition of how, in those individual cases instanced by colleagues in the debate, they could prevent the Minister’s overall objective. We all agree with him that we have to try to prevent the sort of situation that arose, which we all condemned, ever happening again. But do not let it be so wide that it will stop just minor organisational changes.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The principle here is that we have to consult with employees before the final resort. Fire and rehire should be the final resort and remedy. Before we even reach that, the whole process of consultation and sitting down and finding a solution should be an underpinning principle.

I think we are all in agreement, except that the Bill goes too far. For a minor change of address when a company moves offices to be caught by all this in the way that we have exemplified—I think we need greater clarity. But, of course, the hour is late and I do not want to prolong the debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 113ZA withdrawn.

Amendments 113A to 122 not moved.

Amendment 122A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Clause 26 agreed.

Amendments 123 to 128 not moved.

House resumed.

House adjourned at 10.04 pm.