Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026

My Lords, before I kick off, I am sure all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the England team good luck and all the very best wishes for tonight’s match. I note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I will address the points that he has raised. For context, these instruments were laid before Parliament on 28 April and approved by the other place today. Their purpose is straightforward: to extend the time for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three to six months. The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 apply across Great Britain. The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 applies to England and Wales. Subject to the approval of this House, both instruments will come into force on 1 October this year. I turn first to the regret amendment. It raises concerns about the current capacity of the employment tribunal system and the possibility that a longer claims window could place further pressure on it. I assure the noble Lord that these issues have been carefully considered. We fully recognise the pressures faced by the employment tribunal system and the wider dispute resolution framework, including a growing case load. That is why we are working across government to ensure that the system is resilient and able to support the effective enforcement of measures introduced under the Employment Rights Act. As noble Lords will be aware, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have established a dispute resolution taskforce. It brings together representatives from business, trade unions, the legal profession and the third sector. We are pursuing a combination of immediate targeted measures and longer-term reforms. Together, these are intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We are taking a phased approach, with several measures already under way. This programme of reform will continue at pace to ensure that the employment tribunal system has the capacity that it needs for the future. The noble Lord raised concerns that a longer claims window could prolong disputes and put greater pressure on the system. The current three-month limit was originally introduced when employment tribunals were intended to offer a quicker, more informal route to resolving workplace disputes. However, demand has increased significantly. Experience has shown that three months is often insufficient for claimants to prepare a robust case, a point that the Law Commission recognised in 2020. Extending the time limit to six months strikes a better balance. It preserves the principle of timely resolution while providing claimants with a realistic opportunity to prepare their case. Better prepared claims should improve the quality of proceedings, reduce the need for applications to extend time limits and allow judicial resources to be focused more effectively on delivering justice. I turn now to the instruments. First, the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 extend the time limit from three months to six months for a range of workplace rights. These include rights for part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation representatives, negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists, and certain NHS-related protections. The regulations will apply where the relevant workplace issue arises on or after 1 October 2026. If the issue arose before that date, the existing three-month time limit will continue to apply. Secondly, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims for breach of contract or sums due under a contract of employment from three months to six months. This order applies only to England and Wales. It does not extend to Scotland because the power to amend the equivalent Scottish legislation rests with Scottish Ministers, not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to secure a corresponding change in Scotland. We expect the change to take effect in mid-November 2026. Clear guidance will be issued to ensure that individuals and employers in Scotland understand the temporary difference in time limits. The order will apply where the termination giving rise to the breach of contract claim occurs on or after 1 October 2026. Where the contract was terminated before that date, the current three-month time limit will continue to apply. These instruments are necessary to ensure consistency with the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They also align these claims with the existing six-month limits that apply to statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. Without these changes, the system would become unnecessarily complex for employees and employers alike and would create additional administrative burdens. In closing, these measures will give both employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally, to engage in conciliation, and to properly consider the merits of bringing a claim. This is particularly important in sensitive cases where individuals may need extra time before deciding how to proceed. By encouraging better preparation and greater use of early resolution processes, these changes may help ease pressure on the employment tribunal system. I hope noble Lords will support these instruments and the wider programme of reform that sits behind them. I beg to move.

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.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for getting the old team together. I was missing the Employment Rights Bill, which had been such an important part of my life, so it is always good to get a refresh. On UK employment tribunal waiting times—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, touched on—a 2026 analysis based on published decisions estimated an average of about 17 months for unfair dismissal cases in England and Wales, and a slightly better 14 months in Scotland. In some cases, the BBC reports that claimants in England and Wales have had to wait much longer than that. Tribunal delays vary a lot by case type and whether a case is single or multiple. Simpler unfair dismissal cases are obviously faster than discrimination or whistleblower cases, which tend to have longer hearings and require more evidence. There is also regional diversity. As I have pointed out, Scotland appears to be materially faster than England and Wales. Can the Minister explain why that is the case, and what Scotland is doing that is significantly better, although still taking longer than it should? The noble Lord asked whether the system is resilient and able to sustain this change. It is fair to say that this does not look like a resilient system; it looks like a system that has been stretched to or beyond breaking point. I am very pleased to hear the Minister say that the joint task force is beginning to offer some measures—he did not go into details as to what those measures are. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about triage. Triage would be a sensible way of sifting cases and filing them in the right way to improve the workflow through the tribunals that we have. Has analysis of the current waiting list been done to identify the sticking points and how they might be relieved? Are some tribunals better than others? Is there a league table? What extra resources have already been allocated, and what can be allocated? The Minister said that the task force was working “at pace”—a phrase that we all know we should avoid. I am sure that it was accidental. Overall, this regret amendment is less about the measures it is seeking to regret and more about concern about the tribunal. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, we talked a lot about the tribunal during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill. At that time, I said that once a case goes to a tribunal, both the employer and the employee are already in a losing position. Justice delayed, and delayed a long time, is justice denied, both for the employer and for the employee. I hope the Minister can address the issues we have raised, which, I would say to your Lordships, have very little to do with the statutory instruments in front of us. The regret amendment is merely a device that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has deployed to make sure that we miss the football—I point out that the England team are still 0-0; I wish them the very best, and I wish the Minister speed in his response.

My Lords, I will be speedy. First, I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, which I respect. I will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the review of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we are committed to reviewing Section 10. I am sure that we will update the House on that in due course, but I cannot say more at this stage. On the dispute resolution task force, the Government are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient. The expertise of the task force—which, as I mentioned earlier, will be made up of representatives from across the various stakeholders—will help inform the Government’s development of these reform measures. We are working on a mix of both more immediate targeted measures intended to reduce the current pressures and longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We intend to use a phased approach, rather than doing everything in one go, and we will work on some of the measures already in train, such as targeted awareness-raising to reduce workplace conflict. The Government are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges who will add capacity from 2027. In addition, recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, so we are adding capacity and recruiting as things stand today. For 2026-27, the employment tribunal has been funded for 34,590 sitting days, which is more than has been utilised in each of the last 12 financial years up to 2024-25. Remote hearings are expanding through virtual means, enabling around something like 20,000 sitting days annually without geographical limits. As noble Lords know, one of the key points of the Employment Rights Act is the establishment of the Fair Work Agency, which will now enforce rights including the national minimum wage. In time, it will enforce additional rights, including holiday pay, and ease pressure on employment tribunals. From 2027, the Fair Work Agency will enforce key rights—as I said earlier, holiday pay and statutory sick pay—to make enforcement faster and more accessible for workers. We are working on a mix of both immediate targeted measures intended to reduce current pressures and more targeted, longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The Government’s longer-term view includes looking at opportunities for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement where that would help workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to the employment tribunal. With all this in place, we hope to see a reduction in some of the caseload that we currently experience. In closing, I reiterate the positive impact that these regulations will have for employees and employers and commend our ongoing reforms of the employment tribunal system so that it is more resilient to any future changes.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are speaking, as we did several times during the passage of the Employment Rights Act, with one voice, and that voice tonight has met with a response from the Minister that still requires a whole range of actions to be taken. I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in recommending that everything possible should be done to resolve disputes at an earlier stage. This is the key, rather than overloading an already existing system that is creaking under pressure, although I know that tribunals are determined to try and meet the problems of overreliance and overcapacity. I will say just two things about early resolution. I am troubled that discussions are taking place about the lack of resources for ACAS. ACAS could provide a great deal of opportunity for early resolution. I will also just say that I recall the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think it was, or one of his colleagues, pressing for a review of Section 10, including the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. Given the pressure on the employment tribunal system, does the Minister not agree—perhaps he might write to me about this—that better support for employees at an earlier stage might prevent some workplace disputes escalating unnecessarily? Will he at least indicate to us at some stage, perhaps in correspondence, how a review of that whole mechanism could proceed? There will be lots of opportunities, I hope, to resolve this.

I was planning to write a letter on that very subject, because I felt that it was not necessarily due in this debate, so there is a letter heading in the Minister’s direction on the right to accompany. I appreciate the noble Lord raising that.

That is another demonstration that the Opposition speak with one voice. It is now up to the Minister to answer, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.