Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)

My Lords, I start by echoing the Minister’s wish for every possible success tonight for the English team. I also declare my own interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and an honorary bencher of the Inner Temple. In moving the regret amendment in my name, let me explain why. The latest official statistics show that in 2025-26, employment tribunals received 50,000 single claims but disposed of only 26,000. At the end of March, there were 64,000 open single claims—a rise of 55% in a year. Behind those figures are people who have lost a job, suffered discrimination, not been paid wages or raised concerns at work. There are also employers, often small businesses left with disputes that cannot be resolved promptly and with witnesses, documents and recollections becoming less reliable as time passes. In many instances, small businesses in particular are being forced to live under the shadow of vexatious claims—claims without merit that any effective system of triage would filter out in no time at all. There is now evidence of cases in some areas being listed for hearings as late as 2030. This is a warning that in all parts of the country, access to an employment tribunal is ceasing to mean access to justice within any meaningful period. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House anticipated precisely this concern during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill. It noted the Government’s own assessment that there was already a backlog, with waits of about a year, and that extending time limits was uncertain but likely to add pressure. The Committee said that “a potential increase in the number of claims seeking redress in employment tribunals combined with the extension of applicable time limits could have a significant impact on the existing backlogs in the employment tribunals and therefore on the constitutional principle of access to justice”. That conclusion is not the view of opponents of the Government’s programme; it is the Government’s own assessment. It accepts that the effects of extending time limits are uncertain but likely to add further pressure to a system that already has waits of around a year. It estimates additional claims and recognises that, unless capacity rises, the practical benefit of these new rights will be reduced. Why has this taken so long? Why was there no credible funded and operational plan for employment tribunal capacity before the Bill was even introduced? Why were Ministers content to legislate first and ask the most basic implementation questions later? The Government will surely point to consultation with businesses, other stakeholders and employee representatives. Of course, such engagement is welcome, but it is also revealing. When the Government are now seeking views on how to make these changes work in practice, the obvious question is: why on earth was that work not done before Parliament was asked to enact them? The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that there was no new consultation on these regulations. The Government instead rely on a Law Commission consultation conducted in 2018 and 2019, in a different context, before the current scale of pressure on the tribunal system had emerged. So this goes to priorities. The Employment Rights Act contains a substantial programme of new rights, duties and protections for trade unions. Ministers found urgency, legislative time and administrative energy for those provisions, yet the machinery that permits an individual worker to vindicate an existing right—the tribunal system—was left without an equivalent plan for capacity, speed or access to advice. So we on these Benches remain sceptical. But let us, for the purpose of this short debate, take the Government at their word. Let us assume these measures will indeed confer genuine, valuable and much-needed protections. Even then, the Government’s case collapses unless those protections can be enforced. A right that cannot be vindicated within a reasonable time is not a right. So I say to the Minister: we really need some answers as to what the solution should be. When the Government made these choices, why was so much effort devoted to strengthening the institutions that speak for workers, yet so little to strengthening the system through which workers actually enforce their rights? We have so many questions. We await the answers.