Member

I am very sympathetic to the motivation behind the amendments, which impose a duty on employers to put in place “proactive and preventative measures” and, among other things, require employers to train staff in various matters. They are plainly important concepts, but I worry about some of the drafting. “Proactive and preventative measures” are not defined in the amendment. How far do those proactive and preventative measures go? What do they mean? I worry about the extra layer of red tape that such proposals may saddle already struggling businesses with—the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, read my mind in that respect. We recently spent a lot of time in this House on the Employment Rights Bill; your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not intend to relitigate any of those arguments, but the view of these Benches has plainly been that that Bill has placed ever greater regulation on business. I believe that piling further duties on businesses—smaller ones in particular—would be hugely difficult. I worry that the additional duties, as drafted, are simply too general and vague.