The latest on the Employment Rights Bill: Implications for the Healthcare sector
The Employment Rights Bill has experienced further delays in its parliamentary progression, with the House of Lords again supporting amendments that would directly affect healthcare employers and the wider health and social care workforce.
Developments in the Lords
On 17 November, the House of Lords considered the Commons' latest position and reinstated amendments across several key areas of the Bill: zero-hours contracts, seasonal work, unfair dismissal, political funds and industrial action thresholds.
Peers were clear and consistent in their voting. None of the divisions were close, signalling a firm and unchanged view that parts of the Bill require additional safeguards to avoid unintended consequences for employers and the labour market, including essential services such as healthcare.
For healthcare providers, the most relevant is the Lords' insistence on strengthened protections for zero-hours workers. Their amendment would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their rights and offering an opportunity to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and opt out of future ones. Peers have repeatedly stressed that this approach offers greater clarity, prevents inadvertent commitments and better reflects how flexible workforce's operate in practice. This is particularly significant for healthcare organisations that rely heavily on bank, agency and seasonal workers to meet fluctuating patient demand.
Peers also continue to argue for a statutory definition of "seasonal work", expressing concern that leaving this entirely to secondary legislation could create uncertainty or fail to protect sectors with predictable spikes in demand. The Government has resisted this, maintaining that the existing drafting already gives sufficient flexibility.
The most substantial point of divergence remains unfair dismissal. The Lords have again rejected day-one protection, arguing that it removes an important ability for employers, especially in safety-critical environments, to assess suitability, competence and conduct before full protection is acquired. Their preference for a six-month qualifying period is presented as a more balanced model that supports both fairness and operational stability.
What happens next?
The amendments now return to the Commons. While Ministers can ultimately overturn them, the firmness, and size, of the majorities in the Lords makes further compromise politically sensitive. As a result, the "ping-pong" between the two Houses is likely to continue, increasing the risk of further delay.
Timing of Royal Assent and implementation
Royal Assent was originally expected by early October, allowing time for consultations on key issues, such as zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal, and statutory probation periods. However, with the Bill still in flux, these consultations have yet to begin, leaving employers uncertain about the final legal framework.
Royal Assent before the Christmas recess remains technically possible but is becoming unlikely. Both Houses rise on 18 December and do not return until 5 January. Any delay now compresses an already tight implementation timetable and makes it more likely that consultations, draft regulations and commencement dates will move into 2026, with phased implementation stretching beyond that.
Practical impact on healthcare employers
The continuing uncertainty makes workforce planning difficult, but there is still scope for constructive preparation. Reviewing current staffing models, especially any reliance on zero-hours or highly flexible arrangements, will help organisations identify where future adjustments may be needed. It may also be helpful to revisit probation processes, disciplinary pathways and internal documentation in light of the ongoing debate on unfair dismissal and the potential introduction of statutory probation periods.
Taking stock now will allow healthcare organisations to respond promptly when the final shape of the legislation becomes clear, and to engage more effectively with forthcoming consultations. Early internal discussions about the likely areas of impact, rather than committing to preemptive changes, can help ensure preparedness without unnecessary disruption.