- Commons Amendments and Reasons
- Relevant documents: 20th and 29th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 7th Report from the Constitution Committee
- 3:35 pm
- Motion A
- That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
- 1C: Because it would weaken workers’ rights to guaranteed hours.
- My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions C and C1. In this group, we will be debating the amendments relating to zero-hours contracts and seasonal work.Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their right to receive the guaranteed-hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I take this opportunity once again to thank the noble Lord for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment.I recognise that the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lord’s desire for the Bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with him on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure that the Bill’s measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.However, the amendment as drafted would alter fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and a fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, and the provisions in the Bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero-hour contracts can provide. Those workers will be able to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements if that works best for them. I hope noble Lords agree that ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative.
- The Minister’s enthusiasm got the better of her but I had not actually put the Question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, even though we did not say it.Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
- Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 1B.”
- I thank the Deputy Speaker for his expert guidance. Your Lordships could be excused for a sense of déjà vu, perhaps because we are back in your Lordships’ House with the same issues we discussed on 28 October. They remain unresolved and, indeed, not addressed in any meaningful way.Since the last very similar session of ping-pong, I have had an engaging meeting with the Lords Ministers and their officials, and I thank them for that meeting. The prospect of that meeting gave me a sense of anticipation. I expected some sort of legislative rabbit to be pulled out of the Government’s hat at that point, but no—there was nothing. At first, I thought something substantive was being concealed for tactical reasons, perhaps ready to be flourished in some dramatic prestige at the moment that pleased the Ministers. But it has become increasingly clear that not only is there no rabbit in the care of the Benches opposite but there is actually no hat. If there is a hat, it exists elsewhere, and for that I have some sympathy for the Ministers opposite, because they sit bare-headed at the moment, with nothing to offer.Time has passed, however, and, if the Government’s position has not changed, what has? Well, the business environment has got worse. September saw negative growth in GDP, per capita productivity fell in the last quarter and unemployment rose to 5% as recruitment cooled. Yet this ping-pong represents a doubling down—but for what? The Government’s manifesto vowed to “make work pay”, and we agree with that. None of these amendments confound this. My Motion A1 does not in any way dent the worker’s right to convert zero hours to guaranteed hours. What it does is streamline the administration of that right. I explained last time that Motion A1 merely avoids unnecessary work, helping SMEs that have limited administrative capacity to get on with focusing on growing their business and, hopefully, creating more jobs. But, in the absence of an amendment in lieu today, I will insist on this.
- My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, here we are, back again.In the ping-pong debate last time, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, stated:“The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations”.—[Official Report, 28/10/25; col. 1246.]
- 3:45 pm
- I do not know whether the noble Baroness was serious in her comments or trying to assure your Lordships that the Government were listening—or was even, in the vernacular, “having a laugh”. She said that His Majesty’s Government have consulted 75 SMEs. Has she any idea how many SMEs there are in the UK? If not, I can assist her. There are some 5.5 million. I do not know which 75 SMEs she consulted—perhaps a random, or very selective, group. Every SME I have spoken to has many objections to the Bill. In fact, I have not spoken to one that is happy with the Bill, in part or in whole.
- Certainly, one SME that the noble Baroness did not consult was that of a Mr Dunham, who I have never met, but who wrote to me on an unsolicited basis about the Bill. He wrote in his letter that Dunhams Washroom Systems is a third-generation, family-run manufacturer, based in Norfolk, which employs many local people, most of whom live within his community. He manufactures washroom systems for schools, public buildings and commercial clients across the UK and is proud to be a British manufacturer. He says:
- “The Bill in its current form would impose unsustainable costs and compliance pressures that SMEs cannot absorb. It would reduce flexibility, make day-to-day operations harder, and force us to reconsider employment numbers and future job creation”.
- In respect of Motion C1, he continues:
- “For businesses like ours, which operate in the education sector with heavily seasonal demand during summer refurbishment projects, flexibility and temporary labour are essential. These proposals will make it harder to manage staffing and maintain employment during quieter periods. … We are also deeply concerned about the introduction of union involvement in SMEs. Our success depends on direct, open relationships with staff, built on trust and mutual respect. Imposing union structures into small businesses risks creating unnecessary conflict and breaking down these relationships. For SMEs like ours, this is not just an administrative burden”—
- as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, referred to—
- “it fundamentally changes the culture that allows us to succeed and support our employees. … Finally, these changes will discourage hiring, particularly for young people and those without prior experience. Recently, we hired a teenager with no sales experience because he showed great attitude and potential. Under the proposed day-one unfair dismissal rights, we would not have taken that risk. These measures will make it harder for SMEs to offer opportunities to young people starting out in their careers”.