Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)

My Lords, I support the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. I notice that Clause 9(3) inserts a subsection into the Employment Rights Act which allows for the refusal of a flexible working application in conditional circumstances under two criteria: “only if … the employer considers that the application should be refused on a ground or grounds listed in subsection (1ZA), and … it is reasonable for the employer to refuse the application on that ground or those grounds”. A double test is being applied for the decision to refuse an application for flexible working. Then, the list that the Government have provided in the Bill, at subsection (1ZA) lists grounds from (a) to (i). One might think that this list had been prepared by the unions, because it sets out perhaps a very one-sided view of what the flexible working application might apply. It is indeed pretty abstruse in its expression. It sets out that the grounds mentioned are “the burden of additional costs”, the “detrimental effect on ability to meet customer demand; … inability to re-organise work among … staff; … inability to recruit additional staff”. All of this is going to be the subject of considerable debate, one would anticipate, in any future employment tribunal claim, and has an air of unreality about it.