---

Employment Rights Bill

My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, even if he does not agree with my amendment in this group. Not that my noble friend Lady Coffey needs any defending, but I think she developed her theme admirably, which is surely the point of our being here. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for introducing our noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments, and for his excellent historical perspective. I thank my noble friends—perhaps I should call them my noble comrades —Lord Leigh, Lady Lawlor, Lord Moynihan and Lady Coffey for their contributions.

This clause may seem straightforward, and even beneficial at first glance, but its practical and legal implications reveal it to be unnecessary, burdensome, ideologically charged and fraught with uncertainty. For these reasons, it should be removed from the Bill. First, it is important—others have made this point—to acknowledge that workers’ rights to join trade unions are already comprehensively protected by our existing legal framework. These protections are well established in legislation such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, referred to by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and the Employment Rights Act 1996.

These rights are well understood by workers, employers and unions alike, and information on these rights is widely available through multiple channels, including unions themselves, ACAS and legal advisers. Mandating a new written statement does not create or clarify any new rights; it simply duplicates what is already clear, adding unnecessary complexity without addressing any real problem.

7.15 pm

More concerning, however, is the expansive power that this clause grants the Secretary of State to regulate almost every aspect of the statement through secondary legislation. The Secretary of State may prescribe the content of the statement, the exact form it must take, and the manner in which it must be delivered to the worker. This delegation of regulatory authority raises significant concerns about unfettered discretion, bureaucratic overreach and the introduction of legal uncertainty into an area that should be clear and straightforward.

The precise information that must be included, how it must be formatted and how employers must provide it could change over time through regulations made without full parliamentary scrutiny. This leaves employers uncertain as to their ongoing obligations and exposes them to the risk of unintentional non-compliance. Such uncertainty will undoubtedly increase the cost and complexity of managing employment relationships, especially for small and medium-sized businesses with limited legal resources.

Moreover, these regulations may impose requirements that are inflexible or impractical in certain workplaces, further exacerbating the administrative burden and increasing the risk of inadvertent breaches. Employers may find themselves subject to costly tribunal claims and financial penalties for technical failings in providing a statement that, as I have emphasised, duplicates existing rights already rather than creating any new ones.

The cumulative effect of these delegated powers is a significant erosion of legal certainty for both employers and workers. Instead of providing clarity and empowering individuals, Clause 55 creates a regulatory minefield, where businesses must second-guess ever-changing rules and risk punishment for procedural errors rather than substantive breaches of rights.

Furthermore, this approach politicises the employment relationship. By requiring employers to issue a formal statement highlighting the right to join a trade union, the state moves beyond protecting rights to actively promoting union membership within workplaces—a theme that my noble friend Lady Coffey referred to. While freedom of association is fundamental, the Government should remain neutral and ensure fair conditions for all parties, not use employment contracts as vehicles for political advocacy. Perhaps we will return to this subject in a second.

From a practical perspective, there is little evidence to suggest this mandated statement will increase awareness or uptake of union membership. Workers interested in trade unions typically have multiple avenues to obtain that information, and those indifferent or opposed will likely ignore the statement altogether. We are left with a symbolic gesture that adds bureaucratic complexity, costs and managerial time but offers no meaningful benefit to workers.

We must also consider the risk of unintended consequences. The legal risks imposed on employers for missing or improperly delivering the statement may deter some from hiring or lead to overly cautious HR practices that do little to foster positive workplace relations. It could also create tension in workplaces where union presence is minimal or contested, undermining co-operation and trust.

I welcome Amendments 207 and 208 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. Micro and small businesses face a unique challenge. To the questions of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough about small and micro businesses that support the Bill, we have also on our Front Bench tried very hard to find them, and so far, we have failed, just for the record.

Micro and small businesses face unique challenges—they often operate with limited administrative capacity and resources. I also note that my noble friends in their amendments have carefully used existing definitions of small and micro businesses which are set out in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Clearly, there is precedent for these particular definitions.

Imposing additional statutory requirements on these employers risks placing an undue burden on them, potentially diverting their focus from core business activities and threatening their viability. I also draw the House’s attention to the Government’s own impact assessment which acknowledges that small businesses are already bearing a disproportionate burden when it comes to employment regulation. This was the famous impact assessment that so decisively concluded the impact on business was “uncertain at this stage”.

The stats cited in my last speech, and the those referred to by my noble friend Lord Jackson in his speech, would suggest that the uncertainty is lifting, but I am afraid that the picture is not good. By exempting micro

employers, this amendment strikes a balanced approach: it recognises the importance of protecting workers’ trade union rights while being mindful of the disproportionate impact that bureaucratic obligations can have on small-scale employers. It is vital that our employment laws do not inadvertently stifle entrepreneurship or harm small business growth, which are crucial to our economy and employment landscape.

The second amendment questions the necessity of requiring the statement at times other than the commencement of employment. I strongly agree that the critical moment to inform workers of their rights is at the start of their employment relationship. Providing this statement alongside the initial employment particulars ensures clarity and transparency from day one, allowing workers to make informed decisions about their rights and representation. Requiring additional statements at other prescribed times risks unnecessary repetition and may cause confusion or diminish the impact of the initial information, and it could lead to administrative inefficiencies and possibly frustrate employers and employees alike. Focusing on providing the statement once at the commencement of employment upholds the principle of clear, concise communications without imposing excessive procedural demands.

Together, these amendments bring some clarity, proportionality and pragmatism to Clause 55. They ensure that the right to a statement of trade union rights is respected and protected while avoiding unintended negative consequences for small employers and unnecessary procedural burdens. We must ask ourselves: if the Government’s own assessment admits that small employers are disproportionately impacted, if larger businesses do not benefit and if no evidence exists that this measure is needed, why are we doing it at all?

I will now range a little more freely. My noble friend Lady Coffey referred to the statistics behind trade union membership. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, said, in a previous group, that support for trade unions has been consistent over four decades, but the statistics do not really bear that out. The latest statistics from 2024 show that 6.4 million UK employees belong to a union—22% of all employees. That number is down from 22.4% in 2023 and 32.4% in 1995. Of the number who are members of unions, 2.5 million work for private sector organisations, and they represent 12.3% of the total in the private sector. So 87.7% have chosen not to join a union.

To develop my noble friend Lady Coffey’s theme, it would seem that the offering of trade unions is not as attractive to those in the private sector as it is in the public sector; indeed, it is not attractive to 87.7% of the private sector workforce. Therefore, I agree with her that the unavoidable conclusion to this section being in the Bill is that it represents an attempt by the trade unions to legislate their way back to relevance. If nothing else, that is very sad.

To conclude on an unrelated matter, we have been promised an implementation plan on a number of occasions. Could we have an idea of when we can expect that? To return to this clause, I urge the Government to revise it heavily and to give serious consideration to its practicality and, in particular, its impact on small businesses.