The government has suffered a significant parliamentary setback after the House of Lords voted to water down flagship workers' rights legislation for the third consecutive time.
Aristocratic Opposition to Employment Reforms
In a late Monday vote that prolonged a constitutional standoff between chambers, the upper house supported a series of Conservative-backed amendments to the employment rights bill. The move effectively blocks manifesto commitments that would have guaranteed workers the right to a secure hours contract and provided day-one protections against unfair dismissal.
The voting saw substantial support from hereditary peers, including 47 hereditary peers, 93 barons, 16 earls and seven viscounts. Among them was Charles Wellesley, the ninth Duke of Wellington, who participates in Parliament as a crossbench hereditary peer.
The Duke of Wellington, a former Conservative MEP who carried the Queen's crown during King Charles's coronation procession, descends from Arthur Wellesley - the first duke who secured victory against Napoleon Bonaparte at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.
Widespread Condemnation from Unions and Labour
Trade union leaders and senior Labour politicians have launched scathing criticism against the Lords following the vote. Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, stated: "The sight of unelected hereditary peers blocking stronger rights for millions belongs in another century - not modern Britain."
Justin Madders, the former Labour employment rights minister, added his voice to the criticism: "These unelected peers, with jobs for life, should not continue to downgrade and delay our plans to give everyone proper security at work."
Madders emphasised that the government possesses a democratic mandate to implement these worker protections and warned that the Lords' obstruction makes them appear "out of touch, undemocratic, and firmly against the interest of working people."
Business Opposition and Government Response
The legislative battle occurs amid intensified lobbying from industry leaders who argue that the proposed workers' rights changes could damage employment levels and harm the economy. Business representatives have cautioned that employers are already reducing staff numbers and increasing prices in response to tax increases introduced in the chancellor's autumn budget.
Among those voting against Labour's plans were numerous prominent business figures and millionaires, including:
- Karren Brady, television personality and Conservative peer
- Former BT chief executive Ian Livingston
- Cobra beer magnate Karan Bilimoria
- Tory financier James Lupton
- CMC Markets founder Peter Cruddas
Despite internal government concerns about the legislation, ministers have committed to rejecting the Lords' amendments. A Labour source described the upper chamber's actions as "pretty tone deaf" given that the employment rights bill represented a key manifesto pledge. Traditionally, the Lords maintain an unwritten agreement not to oppose such measures.
The current composition of the House of Lords includes 85 hereditary peers, with 44 aligned with the Conservatives and four each representing Labour and the Liberal Democrats. The Labour source noted these representatives "are not representative of the wider population" and emphasised the government's aim to modernise employment protections.
Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, interpreted the Lords defeat as evidence of business concerns about what he termed "Labour's unemployment bill" and urged the government to reconsider its approach.
The controversy emerges as ministers face pressure to implement the workers' rights package completely, following September's reshuffle by Keir Starmer that raised concerns among trade unions after Angela Rayner's resignation. Rayner had been a prominent advocate for the workers' rights plan.
Christina McAnea, Unison's general secretary, concluded: "Dukes, barons and earls shouldn't be standing in the way of sensible measures that will improve working life, rebuild the economy and stop exploitation. Good employers already do this because they know well-treated employees are less likely to leave and more likely to perform well."
