Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) (England and Wales) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, the order before us seeks to add ninja swords to the list of prohibited offensive weapons by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to include them. I will briefly set out the context for why the Government have brought the order forward. The Government have already taken robust action to introduce a ban on zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes, which came into force last September. We are also strengthening enforcement and prevention as part of the Government’s safer streets mission, and there will be further new measures before the House of Lords very shortly in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently going through the House of Commons.
This legislation to ban ninja swords was a government manifesto commitment last July and responds to tireless campaigning by the family of Ronan Kanda, who was just 16 when he was fatally stabbed by a ninja sword in 2022. We are taking this action in honour of Ronan’s memory, but also in recognition of the remarkable courage and determination shown by his loved ones, led by his mother, Pooja Kanda, alongside her daughter, Nikita Kanda, and other family members. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their family. I cannot imagine what it is like to suffer such a terrible loss, yet, having suffered that loss, they have gone on to campaign for changes that will make our society safer. For that, they have my admiration and respect and, I hope, that of the whole Committee.
Although there have been relatively few fatal attacks involving ninja swords compared with other bladed weapons, there is no doubt that such swords can be lethal. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose, or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. Using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of that Act, the Government now add ninja swords, through this order, to the list of prohibited offensive weapons to which Section 141 applies.
These weapons—ninja swords—are defined as a sword with a blade between 14 inches and 24 inches in length, with one straight cutting edge and a tanto-style point. The length the Government have chosen is in order to exclude knives and tools used for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen knives and other types of knife. To be within the scope of the ban, the article will also have the features specified in paragraph 1A, namely that the sword will have a primary cutting edge, a secondary cutting edge and a blunt spine with either a tanto-style point or a reverse tanto-style point. These terms are further defined in detail in the legislation.
Although it is right that we take the strongest possible action to prevent violence and stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. We are confident that the definition of ninja swords does not include tools traditionally used in agriculture or other farming, gardening or outdoor activities. We have included in the legislation defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is one of historical importance; is owned for a permitted activity, such as sports or legitimate martial arts practice; or is made by hand. Antiques are already exempted from the scope of Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so the order before the Committee is very specific and tightly defined.
I have a couple of further points to make. Parts 3 and 4 of the order provide for a surrender and compensation scheme, through which owners of the weapons in scope of the order will be able to surrender them. The order has a territorial scope of England and Wales only, but I very much hope that the local devolved Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that ninja swords are prohibited across the United Kingdom. To that effect, Home Office officials are in discussion with the Governments in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but, obviously, that is a matter for them.
To conclude, the risk of these dangerous swords being used for crime and violence is not one that we are prepared to tolerate. The manifesto commitment, endorsed last year in the July general election, commits the Government to halving knife crime in a decade as part of our wider safer streets mission. Banning ninja swords is an important step towards this and towards removing weapons from circulation. I commend the order to the Committee.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, we believe that this ban is proportionate and we support it. Sword-related deaths are rare but even one, such as the tragic loss of Ronan Kanda, is too many. I join the Minister in his admiration for the family and how they have behaved. However, for this ban to be truly effective, it must be robust and well implemented. I have a number of concerns; I would be grateful if the Minister could address them when he winds up.
First, if the people we most need to reach are not even aware of this ban or the surrender scheme, they are unlikely to have the desired impact. The Youth Endowment Fund says that this was a key failing of the previous scheme to ban zombie knives. Even some individuals working in this field were apparently unaware of the process. Clear and targeted communication is essential. Can the Minister outline how the Government will ensure that those who are the hardest to reach, who may not be easily identified or contacted, are made aware of these changes?
Secondly, I have a real concern that people surrendering zombie knives were asked to provide their personal details. Youth workers believe that this prevented many people coming forward, in particular those possessing weapons illegally, who already distrust the police completely. Will people be asked to provide their personal details this time?
Can the Minister clarify why the ban is limited to blades of up to 24 inches? Although most ninja swords are between 14 and 24 inches, knife enthusiasts are already bragging online that blades longer than 24 inches will remain legal. Was this intended to protect legitimate uses? From what the Minister said in his introduction, I assume that it was. If so, does the legitimate use exemption not already provide adequate protection? Is the Minister confident that criminals will not simply switch to longer blades to evade the law, which they seem to suggest online they would or should do?
I also want to ask about the exemption for fantasy swords. After the zombie knife ban, the BBC found that retailers were still selling them by claiming that they were for cosplay and could not cause harm unless modified. Is the Minister confident that this exemption will not create a similar loophole?
Furthermore, the legislation is narrowly drawn. The Home Office itself acknowledges that it may simply shift demand to other types of swords. It is unclear whether most swords used in recent homicides would even be covered by these new rules. What mechanism will be in place to review the effectiveness of this ban after it comes into force?
Finally, this law will make a difference only if it is enforced. The Clayman review suggests that the police currently lack the training, expertise and resources to police this effectively. Can the Minister provide information on how enforcement will be strengthened and what steps are being taken to improve police capability?
I would be grateful if the Minister would address these issues when he winds up.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I join the Minister’s expressions of gratefulness towards the family of Ronan Kanda for the way that they have taken forward this campaign. I also thank the Minister and his Home Office team for the really careful way that the order has been drafted. They have considered thoroughly the representations made by members of the antique trade, collectors, historical re-enactment groups and martial art practitioners, when the easiest thing would have been to have a blanket ban on every straight-bladed sword. This would have criminalised people involved in land management, antique collecting, living history and sporting activities. I am therefore very grateful for the care and trouble that the Home Office team have taken.
I am confident that this definition is precise and specific to just these swords, but it is complex in nature and needs to be accompanied by illustrated guidance notes, as was done with zombie knives. A great deal of very well-informed amateur effort is available to help the Home Office compile these notes. Perhaps, given the enthusiasm in some bits of this Government for AI and the progress that they are making, we could equip each constable with an app on their phone that, based on the detailed knowledge that can be provided, the illustrations and other details, would enable instant identification—at least in principle—for police officers, who would not have to receive deep, separate training. Maybe there is something that we can do here to improve enforcement. There is so much complexity in this area that the idea that we are going to train constables in how to recognise whether a knife is within or without this legislation is not practical, but there are ways in which it can be done.
I am delighted that the Government have recognised the importance of historical items by including defences that are identically worded to those in previous legislation. The role of amateur collectors and people who are interested in preserving our history is really important at a time when museums are strapped for cash and resources. That being recognised and supported is enormously appreciated.
I hope that we will—well, I am sure that we will—have an opportunity when the Crime and Policing Bill comes through the House to consider extending this defence consistently across the entire area of historical weapons. There is a set of inconsistencies at the moment, particularly around World War II items, such as the sort of stuff that the SOE used—I declare an interest as someone who is descended from the political head of the SOE. It is really important that this aspect of our history is preserved. There will be an opportunity with that Bill—not, as I say, to extend the idea of the legislation but to extend its ambit—to make sure that what has been done in this order can be extended to weapons of historical significance generally.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I begin by making it clear that we support the order before the Committee. The use of offensive weapons, such as so-called ninja swords, in violent crime is a matter of profound concern, and we recognise the devastating circumstances that led to this legislative action. The tragic death of Ronan Kanda was a heartbreak that no family should have to experience. We pay tribute to his family’s dignified and determined campaign, and acknowledge the Government’s response in bringing forward this measure.
As the Minister outlined, the order makes it an offence to manufacture, sell, import or possess ninja swords, a specific category of bladed weapon characterised by their tanto-style points and multiple cutting edges. It also introduces a surrender and compensation scheme modelled on the previous amnesty for zombie knives and machetes. These are measured and proportionate steps, and we recognise the effort that has gone into ensuring that this is a targeted and carefully drafted order.
However, we must consider what else is necessary and required beyond this intervention if we are serious about tackling the wider and more complex challenge of knife crime. We must be clear about what the order can and cannot achieve. Banning a specific category of weapon, although entirely sensible, will not address the root cause of knife crime. Tragically, those intent on violence will find other means. We must not fall into the trap of believing that legislation alone—in particular, legislation focused on the design or appearance of a blade—can resolve a problem that is systemic and growing in scale.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for noble Lords’ comments and broad support for the order. I will deal with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, first before I take the comments from both the opposition Front Benches. I am grateful for the noble Lord’s support for the exemptions. As he said, the Government have worked hard to ensure that we target knives and materials that are used for criminal and dangerous purposes and not for business purposes, as historical artefacts or, indeed, for historical antique purposes. I welcome his comments on that.
The noble Lord will know that Ministers considered illustrated guidance on the type of knife that would be covered by the order. That will be a publicly available. He made an interesting point about how we give that to police officers in a form that is understandable by them. He mentioned the interesting concept of putting things on an app. We can always reflect on those things, but it is important that police officers know exactly what is in place and exactly what type of knife is covered by the order. I will take away his comments and examine them in detail.
I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for the order. She asked a number of key questions. She asked how we deal with those who are hardest to reach. We have published guidance and made a public announcement in May that we are doing this. A number of bins will be placed in key locations across the United Kingdom for surrender of knives during the amnesty period, between 1 July and 1 August. We have also commissioned a mobile surrender van to go around certain key areas where we believe there has been a high prevalence of knife crime. However, she is right that we need to raise public awareness. It is already an offence to carry a knife in public, but there might be people who do not realise that and will not want to fall foul of the law.
The noble Baroness asked whether people surrendering knives would have to supply personal details. I assure her that nobody has to supply personal details if they surrender a knife. If they wish to have compensation for the knife that they are surrender then, self-evidently, we will need an address and bank details to process the compensation accordingly. If an individual wishes to turn up at a police station during the amnesty period and deposit the knife then they do not have to give their details should they not wish to, but, self-evidently, they do for compensation.
The definition of the knife that we have settled on—14 to 24 inches—is because that type of knife is most commonly used. There are larger knives, but crime with longer swords is extremely rare, and we have again tried to be proportionate in the legislation. We have determined that up to 24 inches is important, and the description of ninja swords in the legislation strikes the right balance between banning the type of ninja swords we have seen on the streets while protecting the interests that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned in his contribution.
The noble Baroness mentioned retailers trying to circumvent the law by describing their knife in a different way. Once the order comes into effect and ninja swords are banned, selling them will be an offence. We are providing defences for sale of those items, such as historical significance, being antiques, agricultural use or business use—even, dare I say it, use for theatrical performances and the production of films and television programmes—but there is a clear defence. We believe that the order provides details of the offence if an individual sells a ninja knife and tries to pass it off as something else, or defines it as not a ninja knife. It will then be up to the police to arrest and the CPS to determine whether to prosecute, for prosecutions to go forward, and for the courts to determine whether that defence was appropriate. I go back to the basic first principle: once ninja swords are banned, selling them will be an offence. I hope that reassures her.
The noble Baroness mentioned whether banning this type of weapon would transfer activity to other types of weapons. These are stark and terrible figures, but it may help to say that between April 2023 and April 2024, 262 people were killed as a result of the type of activity that we have been talking about. Kitchen knives were the bladed item that caused the highest number of homicides, with 109 people dying as a result of them. Only four people were killed with zombie knives in that year; 18 were killed with machetes, six with flick-knives, five with hunting knives, 48 with other knives, four with other sharp instruments, one with an axe, and 13 with Rambo-style military knives. A range of knives are already used. I will come on to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made in a moment, but we are trying to put some energy into the zombie knife ban following the very important campaign by Ronan’s family. Obviously, kitchen knives are domestic knives that are used for domestic purposes, and that is very difficult to address accordingly.
The other point that the noble Baroness made was around police training, expertise and resources. It is already an offence to carry a knife in public, and the police can enforce the legislation in this area. The order makes it an offence to possess a ninja sword in private. The police are not going to go knocking on every door in the United Kingdom saying, “Have you got a ninja sword?”, but if there is a police intervention into a property about another matter then possession of a ninja sword in that property might well be an example of where that offence is taken forward. It might well be that the police enter the property of an individual whom they believe might have been seen on a street carrying a sword, and then find the sword. However, this is about possession of a ninja sword in private, predominantly, because carrying that weapon in public is already an offence. I hope that helps the noble Baroness.
I welcome the support for the order by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He is absolutely right that it is proportionate and reasonable. He is also right that we need to look at the wider issue of knife crime as a whole in the community at large. He asked about the resources we have put in. Neighbourhood policing is a great investment by this Labour Government, who will put an extra £1 billion into policing as a whole this year. We anticipate increasing the number of neighbourhood police to 3,000 this year and, we hope, to 12,000 to 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. Neighbourhood police are, basically, community-based police officers who will be able to pick up intelligence, know their community, work closely with other individuals and, I hope, look at where there are pressures on knife crime to find collective solutions with other agencies, including youth support.
The Government are investing in youth hubs, which are one of our manifesto commitments. We have set up a coalition to tackle knife crime, on which we will work with a number of experts in this area, including youth organisations. In particular, the Young Futures programme is a key part of our mission to keep our streets safe. The noble Lord raises important issues. The Government have emerging and current plans to put additional investment into youth work. In particular, the knife-enabled robbery task force that we established will look at some of the root causes of knife crime. Ultimately, we have to tackle the long-term culture of younger people, in particular, carrying knives as a matter of course. Death sometimes arises through people carrying knives as a mechanism of defence, when all it ends up doing is causing attacks against themselves.
I hope, with those comments, that the Committee will be able to approve the order. It is a useful addition to the potential activities that government and police forces can undertake to prevent knife crime, and I commend it to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Exemptions for Certain Foreign Power Investment Funds, Education, Government Administration and Public Bodies) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Committee for allowing us to debate the four regulations relating to the foreign influence registration scheme as a single unit, but if noble Lords wish to discuss individual matters relating to them then we can do so. I know that, before I came to this House, noble Lords were instrumental in scrutinising and improving the foreign influence registration scheme during the passage of the National Security Act, and I am grateful for their consideration to date. There are four instruments to cover; I hope I can speak to them for possibly a little bit longer than I might normally have done just to outline where we are.
Noble Lords will know that, on 1 April, the Government announced the foreign influence registration scheme—FIRS, as I will call it—which I can confirm will go live on 1 July 2025. The Government also announced recently that Russia would join Iran on the enhanced tier of the scheme. FIRS, as set out in Part 4 of the National Security Act 2023, will serve as a critical tool in our efforts to deter and disrupt hostile state activity. It will also enhance transparency around the influence exerted by foreign powers in our democratic process.
As noble Lords will know, the scheme is underpinned by three principal objectives. The first is transparency. The scheme will require individuals who undertake certain activities on behalf of foreign powers to declare them. Where such activities constitute political influence, the relevant details will be published on a public register, ensuring openness and accountability.
The second objective is deterrence. The scheme requires those engaged in malign activities for foreign powers either to cease such contact or to register it formally with the Government.
The final objective is disruption. Failure to disclose relevant associations with foreign powers is an offence. This will be enforced by law enforcement, which can take decisive action against those who seek to conceal foreign state involvement. I hope that that broad principle is welcomed by the Committee; I know that it is.
I turn to the four instruments before us. First, on Russia and Iran, the first two sets of regulations specify the entirety of the Iranian and Russian states on the enhanced tier of the scheme. This means, for Iran, the Supreme Leader; the whole of the Government, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps; the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran; and the judiciary of Iran. For Russia, this includes the President of Russia; Cabinet Ministers; government ministries; regional Governments; the judiciary; and the legislature.
As my colleague, Dan Jarvis, the Minister for Security, set out in a Statement to the House of Commons:
“The Iranian regime is targeting dissidents, and media organisations and journalists reporting on the regime’s violent oppression. It is also no secret that there is a long-standing pattern of the Iranian intelligence services targeting Jewish and Israeli people internationally”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 195.]
As noble Lords will know, Russia poses an acute threat to UK security. In recent years, its hostile acts have included the deadly nerve agent attack that we witnessed in Salisbury, espionage, arson, and cyberattacks, including the targeting of UK parliamentarians through spear phishing campaigns.
Specifying Russia and Iran on the enhanced tier will mean that anyone acting at their direction in the United Kingdom will face a choice: either they declare their activities to the UK Government or they risk five years’ imprisonment. That choice is down to them from the beginning of the scheme on 1 July. Both sets of regulations include a statutory five-year review period and a grace period for those who are in ongoing arrangements at the point of the scheme coming into force in order to allow them to register arrangements without there being a need to impact on legitimate activities.
We have also set a number of exemptions in the scheme. This set of regulations introduces four new exemptions to the scheme. These exemptions, which sit alongside those already set out in primary legislation, are designed to uphold the principle of proportionality. They reduce the burden of registering routine or already transparent activities while ensuring that the scheme remains focused on addressing genuine risks. For example, these regulations include an exemption from the political influence tier of the scheme for a foreign power investment fund; this is intended to cover sovereign wealth funds and certain public pension funds.
Then there are three exemptions from the enhanced tier. First, there is an exemption for funded study arrangements, such as scholarships awarded by foreign Governments. Secondly, there is an exemption for activities related to government administrative and technical services, such as those concerning nationality, immigration and tax-related services. Thirdly, there is an exemption for public bodies and arrangements to which they are party.
Each of these exemptions has been carefully and narrowly defined to prevent the creation of loopholes that could be exploited for malign purposes. For example, a student from Russia or Iran on a government-funded scholarship would be exempt only in relation to activities directly connected to their course of study. Any other activity undertaken on behalf of those states would still require registration.
The final set of regulations concerns the operation of the public register, and I will talk a little now about publication. In my view, that is central to delivering the scheme’s transparency objectives. The regulations set out the categories of information that will be published on the register. They are carefully limited to what is necessary to fulfil the scheme’s transparency aims, while ensuring appropriate safeguards for individual privacy. By default, registrations relating to political influence activities will appear on the public register. Where activities extend beyond political influence, they are registered on the enhanced tier and will not be published. It is important to emphasise that individuals and organisations that register under the scheme, and whose details appear on the public register, are acting responsibly and in support of transparency.
The regulations also set out the information that may not appear on the register where it has been demonstrated that publication would be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK, or to the prevention of crime, a criminal investigation or criminal proceedings; where it would put an individual’s safety at risk; or where it could result in the disclosure of commercially sensitive information.
Lastly, the regulations also provide for information to remain on the public register for a period of 10 years following the conclusion of the relevant activity. This retention period is particularly important for identifying long-term trends and patterns in foreign influence.
There is legitimate activity, of course, and I want to be clear that the scheme does not seek to deter that legitimate activity. Registering with the scheme does not mean that an individual is doing anything wrong, nor that they must cease their activities. We are also taking steps to ensure that registration remains as straightforward and simple as possible, and that those affected by the scheme are aware of what they need to do to comply.
To conclude—I apologise for giving great detail on the four instruments before the Committee—self-evidently, the first duty of the Government is to keep our country safe; I know that view is shared across the Committee. That is why the Prime Minister placed national security at the heart of his plan for change. It is also why we are supporting the police and intelligence services to confront and combat the threats we face, including those from foreign states. The measures before us are among our decisive steps to bring into force the foreign influence registration scheme. I look forward to comments and questions from noble Lords, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. I am in favour of the foreign influence registration scheme and I well remember when the Act went through the House in 2023. I support the transparency that my noble friend the Minister talked about, and I hope that this works. I echo what my noble friend said towards the end of his remarks, which is that registration in itself does not mean that someone is doing something wrong, but it will be part and parcel of what we hope will be a successful series of measures in support of the Act.
I will raise a few items in the order in which they are laid before us, which is not quite the order in which my noble friend took us through them. The first relates to the exemptions for certain foreign power investment funds and so on. I understand—my noble friend made this point—that the exemptions are designed to ensure proportionality by reducing the amount of routine activity required. I am all in favour of increasing the transparency of foreign-power influence over UK democracy.
I refer to Regulation 3 which exempts financial arrangements to provide financial support to students in FE and HE. It says and uses the phrase
“where foreign powers give directions to the student or to the education provider”.
I hope my noble friend will not mind if I ask exactly what that phrase means.
The National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025 are very important. I do not know how big a website we will end up with. Regulation 3 provides a whole series of exemptions. They seem to add up to quite a lot and made me wonder whether we might end up with so much of the information being exempt that it might not yield very much. What is the procedure for the Secretary of State to exercise one or more of these exemptions under Regulation 3 of that SI?
On the regulations on Iran, I entirely understand—and this goes with the regulations on Russia—why Parts 1 and 2 cover the areas of official and government organisations and so on. In relation to the impact on businesses, charities and smaller micro-businesses, which the Explanatory Memorandum acknowledges will be the case, there are figures given about how long it will take to register—it is only £9.67 and so on. The draft impact assessment states that:
“Registrations are likely to be completed by an employee in a Human Resources or legal compliance department”.
Forgive me, but it seems that many micro-businesses do not have human resources or legal service operatives, so can my noble friend tell us whether that might prove to be a problem?
On the last regulations, those in relation to Russia, the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Without this instrument, it would only be necessary for people acting at the direction of Russia to conduct political influence activity in the UK to register with FIRS”.
That would not be enough. What in these regulations might be helpful in relation to the daily cyberattacks conducted on the UK? We have reason to believe that they emanate from hostile actors that might be based in Russia or acting on behalf of a hostile state.
Finally, this is not in any of the regulations in this group, but I noticed the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has asked—and I ask now—why, at the moment, has China not been the subject of this SI process? Can the Minister give some idea of the Government’s thinking at the moment about whether China might in future, and, if so, when, come within the purview of the operation of the Act that we are discussing and the regulations that seek to give it effect?
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for bringing these SIs to the Grand Committee. Like my noble friend, I shall speak briefly about one or two points, in my case, specifically about Iran and the provisions that apply to Iran and, more specifically, about the effectiveness of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has developed a notorious reputation over the past 30 or 40 years. It came along with the revolution in 1979 and has established itself as an arm of the Iranian state since then.
I particularly want to talk about Iran for one reason: Iran is probably the only significant world power that is effectively run by clerical fascists. I cannot think of a parallel country. It is a state that uses proxies all over the world. We all know about Hamas and Hezbollah, but there are other proxies, and this has been covered extensively in the mainstream press. The IRGC uses criminal gangs to further its aims in this country and other countries across Europe and the world.
I have two questions for the Minister. Can he confirm that anybody who does not register a relationship with the Iranian state, who fails to register an interest or a connection, will be committing a criminal act and be subject to criminal prosecution? Does that also apply to anybody who has a clear relationship with an IRGC or Iranian state proxy, for instance Hezbollah or Hamas?
Would that also apply to others? For instance, there have been parliamentarians in the past—I hope that there are none now, but there probably are—who have accepted money from PressTV. They will have to register that in the normal way, but do they also have to register it under the provisions of the statutory instruments that we are talking about today?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cryer. I have a high level of sympathy with the points that he raised. Indeed, when we discussed the Iran sanctions regime in Grand Committee, many of those arguments were made and made powerfully. I hope that the Minister will respond to that specific point. I also associate myself with the questions asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. I want to expand on a couple of them and ask some further supplementary questions.
First, I thank the Minister for outlining in clear terms the instruments. There are areas where I agree with him very strongly. The FIR scheme, which was passed as a result of considerable cross-party work, is one that I and my party support. As a veteran of each stage of that Bill, now Act, and all of the discussions there, I am very pleased that the Government are now in a position to bring this scheme into effect. It is an important measure. I thank the officials for their work in putting it together because its importance will rely on the fact that it is both reliable and enforceable; it therefore has to be right. I know that there has previously been some debate around the speed at which the Government are doing it but, from my point of view, it was always about getting it right.
On implementation, it is interesting to see these measures. I will ask a couple of questions relating to them. As the Minister indicated, we previously discussed in the Chamber the announcement that Iran and Russia and their state entities are to be on the first enhanced tier list. I will come to China in a moment. I am content on the publication of information under Sections 65, 68 and 70, as these regulations state, but can the Minister say a bit more about how searchable they will be and how easily accessible they will be on GOV.UK? I know that there will be an online portal. Can the Minister say a little more about that? The value of them will be in how transparent and accessible they are, rather than just being available online, but that is a minor consideration.
I now want to ask a couple of questions with regards to publication. The regulations state that, in terms of one of the exemptions from publication, the Secretary of State will be able to make a decision if a person will have information published about them that is likely to be seriously prejudicial to commercial interests. I would suspect that anybody who does not wish their information to be published, even if they have to do so under threat of prosecution, will state that that information is prejudicial to their commercial interests.
I hope that the Minister is able to say that that is an extremely high bar and it will be very hard to litigate, because what I want to see avoided is anybody who is in a position of seeking to hide the information, having been forced to register it, then having a whole phalanx of lawyers to state what the commercial interests may well be. That will drive a coach and horses through the principle of the transparency of this. I hope the Minister can reassure me on that point.
I will come back to some of the aspects of the exemptions in a moment, but first, on Iran, I am satisfied, as I said in the Chamber in response to the Statement. I hope that the Minister will take very seriously the points raised in the Chamber. It was referenced in the impact assessment of the regulations:
“Iran may introduce reciprocal measures to monitor the overseas activities of the UK government. Persons could be prosecuted if engaged in unregistered arrangements or activity, even if the activity itself is legitimate. There is a potential risk of discrimination and exclusion against the diaspora of Iranians living in the UK”.
What proactive work is being done, given that the Home Office has recognised that there may well be a threat to the diaspora within the UK? How has that community been contacted in advance of the scheme being put into operation, given the fact that the risk has already been identified? I hope that the Government are doing this, because we have already seen—as the Minister is well aware, and as we debated in the Chamber—the reach of the Iranian regime within the UK and the threat to those who have sought asylum from it.
The same will apply to Russia: the same risk assessment was provided for Russia, of course. I should state that I have a slight interest when discussing Russia and Russian sanctions, given that I have been sanctioned. I appreciate that the guidance is being issued, but can the Minister confirm that, for the bodies listed in the regulations, any commercial or legal entities in the UK that are providing services for these entities will equally come under the remit of the Part 1 and 2 bodies in the legislation? There should be no loopholes for UK-based entities providing services for those entities because, as we know, Russia and Iran are expert at seeking to circumvent arrangements that the UK puts in place.
I noticed that the impact assessment, under “Rationale for intervention”, mentions
“certain academic and research activities which are directed by the government of Iran”,
and it is similar for Russia. That leads me on to the exemptions. The Government have identified that “academic and research activities” are a tool that is being used, and they are now bringing forward an exemption for them. I do not understand this, and I hope the Minister can say in very clear terms the rationale behind exempting exactly those areas of activity which the rationale in the regulations cites as reasons for their being brought in. I hope that we will be able to have a bit more clarity when it comes to the exemptions. It is important because we know that these very areas, which include academia, research and the use of sovereign funds, and those that are facilitating the investment and advice of those sovereign funds, are exactly the instruments by which we have seen attempted foreign interference. The area where we have seen that on “an epic scale” is from China.
That leads me to the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, indicated with regard to China. This week, we have been debating the Government’s strategic defence review. It starts with reference to China supporting the Russian war of aggression on Ukraine. We know that the director-general and the former director-general of MI5 have referred on the record to the enormous efforts that the CCP and the Chinese Government have deployed with regard to espionage and attempted espionage in the UK. In October 2023, the director-general went public and said that more than 20,000 people in the UK had been approached covertly by Chinese spies. We know that that pace has accelerated since then, but the Government do not believe it is warranted for China state enterprises or state entities to register their activities under the enhanced tier.
The noble Viscount quite rightly quoted the Secondary Legislation Committee of this House, which drew to our attention the threat posed by China, and the Home Office’s response as to why China is not on the enhanced tier list. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee quoted the Home Office saying, and this may be in the Minister’s notes:
“Countries are considered separately for specification on the enhanced tier and decisions are made based on a robust evidence base”.
I have not seen any evidence base published by the Government as to why China would not be on an enhanced tier, given the “epic scale” of its attempts not only to subvert our institutions but to co-opt them to act in espionage. The director-general of MI5 gave examples of more than 20 instances where China was actively seeking to use UK companies and universities, through investments and learning agreements, to access sensitive information and technology. The Government are proposing to exempt those exact areas from these measures, and I do not know why.
The Minister also referenced the exemption of sovereign wealth funds. This piqued my interest, because I raised this during the passage of Bill. I raised it in January 2023 when I specifically cited the
“sovereign wealth fund of a state, which might or might not be listed on a stock exchange and which may or may not, in effect, be a private sector arm of the interests of a foreign power”.—[Official Report, 11/1/23; col. 1476.]
I sought clarification from the Minister in the previous Government with regard to that, and I was told that sovereign wealth funds would be within the scope of this legislation. I just cannot understand why this Government have changed the assurance that I received from the previous Government, so that sovereign wealth funds will no longer be part of this. The deployment and the investment of sovereign wealth funds and pension funds in key UK infrastructure is of course something that we should focus on, whether or not it is part of the information to be published. I hope very much that Chinese investment, sovereign wealth funds and pension funds, and also the lack of published information for those who will claim some form of commercial sensitivity, will not be used to circumvent what we worked very hard to achieve, which is to prevent the kind of interference that the Government have said they are concerned about. I hope that before we are asked to support these regulations in the Chamber, we are given very clear reassurances, so that my concerns can be assuaged.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, these four draft regulations represent the next step in operationalising the foreign influence registration scheme established under Part 4 of the National Security Act 2023, a piece of legislation introduced by the previous Conservative Government. I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to hear that we support these instruments. They provide essential tools better to protect our national security from covert foreign influence, a matter of the utmost importance.
As the Minister explained, the regulations are designed to enhance transparency, deter malign activity and enable earlier disruption of potentially harmful arrangements directed by hostile states. In an increasingly complex and contested geopolitical environment, this is both necessary and timely.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The noble Lord has obviously made a decision that, even though China is not on the enhanced tier, Confucius institutions, Chinese pension funds and Chinese state funds will now be exempted. I assume that the Conservatives support that.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
Indeed—I think I will cover that point as I go along.
Although we support the intent and scope of these measures, scrutiny must not end there. These regulations are not purely technical instruments; they go to the heart of how the UK responds to evolving and increasingly sophisticated state threats. It is in that spirit that I raise three points.
First, the omission of China from the enhanced tier is quite simply a glaring absence. There is now consistent cross-party consensus, reflected in previous debates in both Houses and across the intelligence community, that China poses a systemic and strategic challenge to the United Kingdom. China has targeted Members of this Parliament, launched cyberattacks on UK institutions and engaged in covert activity on British soil. In 2021, it sanctioned two Members of this House and, in 2024, the Government publicly attributed malicious cyber campaigns against MPs and the Electoral Commission to the Chinese state. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a wider sustained pattern. Given this record, it is difficult to understand why China has not yet been put under the enhanced tier of this scheme.
The Government have stated that they do not comment on individual countries, and that designations are made on a case-by-case basis. However, this is not about speculation but about providing clarity and strategic coherence in our approach to national security. The public and Parliament are entitled to understand the rationale behind such decisions, particularly when the state in question has been repeatedly named by the intelligence community as a principal source of hostile activity. Indeed, the Home Office’s own professional guidance lists Russia, Iran and China as the foremost state-based threats. The director-general of MI5 has echoed this view, as has already been said this afternoon. So why the inconsistency? What message does it send, either to those carrying out covert activities or to our international partners, when a state widely recognised as a threat is excluded from a scheme specifically designed to counter exactly this kind of behaviour? I therefore urge the Government to reconsider this decision, or at the very least to provide a clearer public explanation of their current position.
On enforcement and oversight, effective implementation is vital and registration requirements must be communicated clearly. Guidance must be accessible, and enforcement must be proportionate and consistent across sectors and regions. Can the Minister confirm that the necessary resources are in place to support enforcement, and that compliance will be monitored in a structured and transparent manner? We note that Section 82 of the National Security Act 2023 requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the scheme’s operation, which is welcome, but can the Minister confirm whether that report will include an assessment of the effectiveness of the current exemptions, and whether further exemptions or additional country designations are under active consideration?
Finally, although this scheme is a welcome development, we must acknowledge that it is only one part of a much broader challenge. Hostile states are adapting constantly. Disinformation, cyber interference, economic coercion and influence operations now span multiple domains. Responding effectively demands not just new legal frameworks but a whole of government approach, with sustained investment in resilience, cross-sectoral co-ordination and continued international alignment.
In conclusion, we support these measures, which are necessary, appropriate and overdue, but they must be implemented in a manner that is robust, proportionate and responsive to the evolving nature of state threats—not just today but in the years ahead. We remain concerned about the exclusion of China from the enhanced tier. We urge the Government to keep this matter under close and continuous review, and to act with greater transparency about the strategic direction of our national security posture.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful both to the contributors to this short debate and for the broad support that has been given for the regulations before the Committee. I will try to answer each noble Lord in turn. There might be a bit of overlap, because some of the issues that have been raised do overlap, but I will try to cover the points raised by each noble Lord in turn.
I shall start with my noble friend Lord Stansgate, who mentioned cyber and cyberattacks. I assure him that the security services, the agencies, the Home Office and the UK Government are acutely aware of hostile states potentially undertaking attacks, and of criminal gangs doing the same. Significant work, which my noble friend would not expect me to talk about in public, is ongoing to ensure the safety and security of our citizens. I give him that assurance as a whole.
My noble friend asked in particular about the exemptions for students and the impact on small businesses or small organisations. I will take the latter first. The registration process is designed to be as simple as possible—this touches on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The Home Office anticipates that the process should take a maximum of 30 minutes. We are not expecting small businesses or micro-businesses to register in large numbers if they are in direct relationships with foreign powers, but—again, this goes to a point made by a number of noble Lords—there is comprehensive guidance online to support the registrant and their process, and to support individuals and larger organisations. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating, self-evidently, but we are confident that that will be a relatively simple process from 1 July onwards. Again, I put out the hand of friendship to all noble Lords: if there is feedback downstream on how the scheme operates, from any perspective that is brought to their attention, we would welcome it.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate also asked for clarification on the education exemption. Where someone is in an arrangement with a foreign power and is completing a course in further study, they do not necessarily need to register activities, but it is reasonable to complete the course of education; to uphold the reputation of the provider; to meet the standards of conduct expected by the providers of financial assistance; and to notify any person of personal information. Again, I hope that that is helpful.
My noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned China. I may as well hit that point and discuss it at this time. I think that they all know the answer to the question they asked, but I will give it in the phraseology I have to use. Each country is considered on its merits and no decisions have been made. Countries are considered separately for specification and decisions are made on evidence.
On China more broadly, we have been clear as a Government that we are going to take a consistent, long-term, strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China. This means co-operating where we can, competing where we need to and challenging robustly where we must, including on areas of national security. However, each country is considered on its merits and no decisions have been made. The regulations before the Committee highlight two specific nations where we believe there is a significant threat—Russia and Iran—which is why we have brought them forward. I hope that helps my noble friend Lord Stansgate on his points.
I am pleased to see my noble friend Lord Cryer continuing his long interest in issues related to Iran. I know that he has raised this in the Chamber on a number of occasions. He asked what happens if there is a failure to register. That will be a criminal offence in the event of an individual’s activities coming to light linked to a registered nation under the regulations before us today and will carry a potential penalty of five years’ imprisonment. That is not for me to judge. That is for the courts to judge and the police to prosecute, but that is certainly part of this issue today.
My noble friend mentioned in particular the impact on parliamentarians. There is no requirement for parliamentarians who are being lobbied to register with the scheme, and that allows the democratic process to continue. He commented on proscription and mentioned Hamas. Hamas is not specified. The regulations would cover anyone in a relationship with the IRGC in Iran but, as ever, for any organisation, at any time, the Government keep under review the question of proscription. At the moment, this is where we are, but we keep everything under review at all times accordingly. As my noble friend will know, the arrests on 17 May of three Iranian nationals who have been charged with offences under the National Security Act show that the Government are consistent. That matter will go before the courts and be determined by the judiciary in due course.
My noble friend also mentioned proxies. Although I have touched on this, I think it is important that I say that it is the person who is in a relationship with the foreign power who has to register. Therefore, those who are proxies are within the scheme, for example, companies acting under the direction of the Russians or the Iranians. If the proxy is not registered, then the person in the UK acting on their behalf could well be committing an offence. Again, it is our intention to ensure that we act in the interests of national security and of the United Kingdom as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a number of points. Again, I am grateful for his broad support and thank him for that support to date and in getting the legislation in this House in the past. He mentioned commercial interests and asked whether this is a high bar. Let me, I hope, reassure him that the Government’s intention is that it should be a high bar. UK companies providing services to bodies listed will have to register. The exemptions are carefully crafted to ensure that what is out of scope is as narrow as possible, while still fulfilling the scheme’s aim. We have put in place exemptions on sovereign wealth funds, which he talked about. The exemption for sovereign wealth funds is not about prioritising growth over national security as national security remains the first priority of Government, but about ensuring that the scheme remains proportionate. The link between a sovereign wealth fund and a foreign power is inherently transparent, so requiring them to register with the scheme would bring very limited benefits. I hope that answers his point.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. On one hand I can understand it, on the other hand, I just disagree with him, respectfully. Sovereign wealth funds are not just one thing that is obvious to see. Sovereign wealth funds can be extraordinarily broad in their scope, their legal complexity and their financial instruments, which can be spread across a number of different jurisdictions. That is why they are used by state entities. We seek to have good relationships with some, because we want them to invest in the UK, but others are used for the very reason of their complexities. I just do not understand the rationale of the Government to have a blanket exemption for any fund that is principally owned by a sovereign Government. That is notwithstanding the further dilution of the share capital that the Government are now proposing, from 25% to 100%. I do not understand the rationale for this.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Well, we may end up having an honest disagreement, and that is fair. That is what politics is about; sometimes we do not necessarily agree. The exemptions that the Government have brought forward today match the exemptions contained in the primary legislation. They include routine diplomatic activity, recognised news publishers and legal activities carried out by lawyers. These were the exemptions introduced through the regulations being debated today. They ensure, we think, that the scheme’s requirements remain proportionate to the threats that we face. We have been very public about those threats in this debate, in the House of Commons and in the regulations.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
On the subject of exceptions, in Regulation 6 of the statutory instrument on publication, for example, how is Parliament going to know the extent of the exemptions that have been granted? On the face of it, we will not know.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
If my noble friend allows me a moment’s reflection on that detail, I will respond to him with a fuller, meaningful reply. I believe that we are going to be transparent in all of this. The whole purpose of these regulations is to provide transparency and ensure that we tackle national security and give proportionate responses. Colleagues and I will reflect on the point he has made and I will respond to him in detail if I can.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
This is our only opportunity to debate this in detail—by the way, I do not detract from the Minister’s intent at all. I have two questions. First, forgive my ignorance, but do the exemptions also apply—
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have not quite finished my responses to the noble Lord yet.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
Well, does he wish to do that now? I will then be able to ask him the question about it. Do the exemptions apply to the enhanced-tier activities too? The policy rationale in the Explanatory Memorandum cites academia and economic activity, and the Government are proposing to exempt those. My second point was that, if he wanted to write to the noble Viscount and myself in advance of us being asked to approve these in the Chamber, that would be of benefit.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am trying to explain to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that we have put exemptions in. I have explained in my opening speech what those exemptions are and have indicated that they are meant to be designed to be proportionate. If there are points that the noble Lord and my noble friend wish to press further, I will try to answer those today, but I have just indicated that I will reflect on those to see whether I can give further guidance prior to the end of this contribution. If we are not able to do that, then I will ensure that, before this is brought before the House on Monday or Tuesday next week—whichever day the final regulations are presented—we will have clarification on those points in the hands of my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. I am trying, as ever, to be helpful.
The noble Lord also asked the question about how accessible public registration will be. Information on only the political tier will be published. It will be accessible via an online register, which will be linked to the registration portal. It will be on GOV.UK, and there will be filters to support those searching.
Again, I say to the noble Lord that the purpose of that transparency, and the whole purpose of these regulations, is to ensure that the Government register concerns on areas of international security, look at where that registration and influence is and flush out that influence in terms of individuals who are currently operating potentially in a covert way but will, in future, have to register, with the details published online. If they are not registered and are subsequently found to be operating, they will have to face the force of the law in the courts on those issues.
The noble Lord also asked who decides and who polices the exemptions. That is a broad area of concern for him, I think. The exemptions have been set out in the regulations that we have laid. If an individual does not meet the exemption criteria, they must register their arrangement with Iran or Russia. If they do not register that arrangement, they will commit a criminal offence. There are existing measures to address risks associated with international students as a whole.
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the exemptions applying to the enhanced tier, there will be an annual report that will set out the exemptions under regulation. There will be different exemptions according to each tier. When I look later today at Hansard—which is always helpful to Ministers—I will reflect on what has been said by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, on that issue. If my response today has not met their concerns, I will ensure that they have a letter in their hand by Monday morning. I will hold myself to that over the weekend.
I think I have covered most of the points that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in our discussion today. Although I did not refer directly to him and the points that he raised, I think that I have covered elsewhere the issues that he raised on exemptions, China and so on. I hope that I have satisfied him.
In summary, I thank my noble friends Lord Cryer and Lord Stansgate and the noble Lords, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions. I hope that they have clarity that the purpose of these regulations is to provide protections on national security for UK citizens from malign foreign influences of countries that are undertaking activity in the United Kingdom that is causing disruption to indigenous citizens of those countries who live here and to the United Kingdom as a whole. The purpose is to provide openness and transparency around the links between the Iranian regime or the Russian regime and individuals who are operating on their behalf. The regulations are an improvement on where we are now and give clarity. They provide exemptions, but we believe that those exemptions are proportionate. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Publication) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Iran) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the National Security Act 2023 (Foreign Activities and Foreign Influence Registration Scheme: Specified Persons) (Russia) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, the regulations being introduced today will remove the time limit on a temporary exemption which pension funds currently have from clearing standardised over-the-counter derivatives contracts, such as interest rate swaps, through a central counterparty. This means that the exemption will continue indefinitely, ending the need for the Government to renew it every two years if we conclude that this is necessary. The draft regulations will help UK pensioners by supporting pension funds’ ability to invest in assets which generate returns for their benefit. Maintaining the exemption is also in line with the Government’s priorities to increase productive investment by pension funds to support economic growth.
Central counterparties, or CCPs, are a type of financial market infrastructure used by firms to reduce risks when trading on financial markets. They sit between the buyers and sellers of financial instruments, providing assurance that contractual obligations will be fulfilled. They do this by collecting collateral, known as margin, from all their users that can be used to cover any shortfall if a default occurs. The process of transacting through a CCP is known as clearing. In 2009, G20 countries agreed that certain standard derivatives contracts should be cleared through CCPs to help reduce risks in the financial system. In the EU, this was implemented through legislation and is known as the clearing obligation. At the time, it was decided that pension funds should be exempted from this obligation. This was because of the particular challenges that pension funds would face in meeting CCP margin requirements.
CCPs require variation margin, collateral which covers price movements on derivatives contracts, to be posted in cash. Pension funds do not usually hold large cash reserves, as they invest the large majority of their resources in assets, such as gilts and corporate bonds, to provide returns for pension holders. This means that meeting the requirement to post variation margin in cash can be more difficult for pension funds to meet than for other firms. Requiring them to clear their derivatives could cause them to increase their cash holdings, reducing their investment in other assets and their ability to generate returns for future pensioners. The UK assimilated the clearing obligation and this exemption in UK domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The exemption was initially designed as a temporary measure, but it has since been extended several times. The Government currently need to lay secondary legislation every two years if we conclude that it is necessary to extend the exemption.
The Government extended the exemption most recently in June 2023 and noted that it would be desirable to put in place a long-term policy approach to remove the need for future temporary extensions. That is what these draft regulations seek to achieve. The Treasury has since conducted a review of the exemption, working closely with the UK financial services regulators. The review also gathered input from industry stakeholders through a call for evidence which was launched in November 2023. The review found that requiring pension funds to clear derivatives could potentially bring financial stability benefits, such as reducing counterparty risk, and could enhance resilience to shocks by increasing pension funds’ cash buffers.
However, the review also identified concerns from some market participants that removing the exemption could increase pressure on the liquidity management of pension funds, particularly under stressed market conditions, which could increase financial stability risk. The review also found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in more productive assets if the exemption were removed. This could reduce their returns, potentially impacting the retirement benefits of future pensioners. This would be inconsistent with the objectives of the Government’s wider growth reforms—including the pensions investment review, the final report of which was published last week, which seeks to unlock productive investment by pension funds to support economic growth.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear and helpful introduction of these regulations.
I just have two issues to raise; it would overegg them to describe them as issues of concern, but we need to recognise them. First, these clearing obligations are there to protect investors. The level of risk is materially increased by removing those obligations; we need to understand that. On balance, it may still be a reasonable thing to do, but we need to recognise that there is risk involved.
The second, bigger issue is that the Pension Schemes Bill, which was published an hour ago—I am holding it in my hand—makes significant on pension schemes in terms of the investments that they hold and the way in which they undertake their investment policy. It needs to be recognised that this very minor measure is part of that more general review, which will take place because of the Bill. I was very glad to hear my noble friend the Minister report that the policy will be kept under review. The fact that we have this pensions Bill means that it will inevitably be part of that process. The whole thing needs to fit together both to provide the investments that secure members’ benefits and to provide members with the reassurance that their money is being kept well.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this important debate before the Grand Committee today. While technical in nature, the debate strikes at the very heart of our pensions system. It concerns the management of risk, the generation of returns for pension schemes and the financial security of our country. Derivatives play a crucial role in the operation of pension funds. They allow for efficient exposure to asset classes without necessitating the purchase of the underlying assets. They enable tactical asset allocation decisions to be executed more swiftly and cost-effectively than physical rebalancing and, through leverage, they offer the ability to increase market exposure without tying up significant amounts of capital. I know all of this from my experience as a trustee of the Tesco pension fund some years ago. Above all, derivatives are essential because pension funds face long-term liabilities that are highly sensitive to changes in interest rates, to inflation and to currency fluctuations.
These instruments are vital in managing such risks, especially in an uncertain and volatile world. Interest rate swaps hedge against fluctuations in interest rates that affect the valuation of liabilities. Inflation swaps protect against unexpected shifts in inflation, which is especially relevant where pensions are index-linked. Currency forwards and options manage foreign exchange risk where assets or liabilities are denominated in non-sterling currencies. It is the management of risk more than anything else that justifies their inclusion in the portfolio strategies of pension funds and, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, the level of risk is materially increased by this regulation. He also rightly referred to the Pension Schemes Bill, which has only just been published. I am afraid that due to other commitments, I have not yet had time to study it.
Since the European Market Infrastructure Regulation was introduced in 2012, pension funds have been granted an exemption from the central clearing obligation, recognising their unique challenge in meeting margin requirements as central counterparties. Pension funds operate on a long-term, illiquid investment model, and this fundamentally mismatches the short-term, high-frequency liquidity demands of CCPs, particularly under stressed market conditions.
Will the Minister outline the contingency plans in place should the absence of mandatory clearing suddenly appear to increase the risk of counterparty defaults?
I have to say that the exemption from these insurance-type arrangements of a CCP carries its own risks. The Government bear a heavy responsibility to maintain confidence in a financial system upon which livelihoods depend. The government review mentioned by the Minister concluded that removing the exemption could impair the ability of pension funds to invest in productive assets. That must be weighed carefully against the imperative of effective risk management. Can the Minister clarify how bilateral arrangements will be monitored for resilience, given that derivatives are no longer subject to central clearing? He talked about keeping this under review, which I think was helpful.
Our financial markets are deeply embedded in the global system. Can the Minister explain how this move aligns with international financial regulatory frameworks and, indeed, with the EU and US, which have slightly different rules from the UK? Furthermore, has the Minister assessed the potential reputational impact on the UK’s standing in international markets, particularly in the context of post-G20 commitments to mandatory central clearing, which the Minister referred to? Finally, will the Minister publish the underlying risk analysis or cost benefit assessment that supports the decisions to go for an indefinite extension period? Without such transparency, it is difficult to understand how the Government have reached their conclusion and indeed why they have chosen this policy path.
The current impact assessment states that the measure
“mitigates the risk of disruption to the market”
that might occur if pension funds were required to restructure their investment strategies “at short notice”. This would be ahead of the exemptions expiring, which happens to be 18 June—the week after next. However, this is a narrow, short-term cost analysis. I am interested in the wider picture of longer-term cost versus the benefits of alternative systems, so I very much look forward to the Minister’s response on whether he is willing to publish his cost-benefit assessment or, perhaps, to say bit more about the detail.
I urge the Minister to engage deeply with the concerns raised and to provide reassurance that the Government’s decision rests on a sound and transparent evidential foundation. We are dealing with an important subject and a risk that, as I am sure we all agree, needs to be properly managed in the interests of UK plc.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for their contributions and questions. First, to answer them both, one thing that the Government are after is growth, obviously, but the other thing is financial stability; both of their contributions referred to that. This is a key priority for the Government. However, the evidence on whether removing the exemption would generate direct financial stability benefits was mixed. For example, some responses to the call for evidence noted that removing the exemption could make stress events worse by increasing liquidity pressures on pension funds. In contrast, the Government found strong evidence that pension funds would need to hold more cash and reduce investment in productive assets if the exemption were removed.
On the other issues, such as how the underlying risk will change and how we will keep that under review, the statutory instrument provides long-term clarity for market participants, which is very important in terms of the policy position. This will help with long-term planning of investment strategies by pension funds to meet their future liabilities. As I have noted, the Government will keep this policy under review in co-ordination with the UK regulatory authorities. If there are changes to market dynamics or wider government reforms that have a material impact on the value of mandatory central clearing for pension funds, the Government may reassess this issue.
On the increased burden on pension funds, this policy maintains the status quo. Removing the exemption would have placed more strain on pension funds. This gives assurance to the pension markets around the long-term consistency in our policy approach.
Finally, on the international market, our market is different from those of the EU and the United States as far as pensions are concerned. The response to the call for evidence indicated that the UK defined benefit market is structurally different from that of other jurisdictions, such as the US and the European Union, so it is appropriate that we take a different decision on this issue. The Government are committed to maintaining our high standards of regulation and financial services, including adhering to relevant international standards, where appropriate. In the US, pension schemes tend to be of shorter duration. There is also a larger and more diverse corporate bond market, which can be used for hedging; this means that the derivatives are used less there than they are in the UK.
I hope that these answers are what noble Lords are looking for.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
That is very helpful—particularly on the international side. One does need to look at this in an international context; nowadays, we are so aware of the ups and downs of global markets. However, the Minister did not answer the question about the impact assessment. It may be that he does not have an answer today, but this is something that I am often concerned about because I think that good cost-benefit analysis is vital to good government. I made the point that the cost-benefit analysis that we got was a rather short-term thing; it would be very helpful to have a response on that.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
Basically, what we are doing is maintaining the status quo. Things have been like this for several years now; we are just ensuring that the status quo continues into the future. We will review it if we need to, such as if the dynamics in the market change, but what we are offering is consistency for the industry. That is an important aspect of this statutory instrument.
Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, financial services fulfil a vital role for people and businesses across the UK and the Government are committed to ensuring high standards of customer protection. These regulations form part of this commitment by strengthening protections for customers, including consumers, businesses and charities, when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their provider.
While decisions to terminate services are generally commercial decisions, customers must be treated fairly. Noble Lords will be aware that concerns have been raised in this area over recent years. This has included concerns about services being terminated on the basis of customers’ lawful beliefs and political opinions. The Government are clear that customers should not see services terminated due to lawful freedom of expression. There are already laws that prohibit providers discriminating against UK consumers on these grounds. However, in other areas existing legislation does not always provide appropriate protection and is not sufficiently clear.
Currently, payments legislation contains no obligation on providers to explain why they are terminating payment services, making it difficult for customers to understand the reasons for terminations, rectify issues or know whether to bring a complaint against their provider’s decision. Furthermore, the current requirement that providers must give customers at least two months’ notice does not always provide customers sufficient time to manage the impacts of a termination and, where needed, find an alternative provider. These regulations make changes to address these issues.
Specifically, the regulations will amend the Payment Services Regulations 2017 to require providers to give customers a longer notice period of at least 90 days before terminating a payment services contract and a sufficiently detailed and specific explanation so the customer understands why it is being terminated. Providers must also advise the customer of how to complain to their provider and of any right they have to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service. The regulations also clarify ambiguities in legislation to ensure that these new protections are applied consistently. There are some exceptions to the new requirements, mainly so that providers can continue to meet other legal requirements.
Lastly, the regulations make equivalent changes to the Payment Accounts Regulations 2015 so that people who apply for and use basic bank accounts will benefit from the new rules. These changes will increase transparency for customers, ensuring that they understand providers’ decisions and have more time and information to make a complaint or find an alternative provider. The changes will take effect from 28 April 2026 and apply to the termination of payment services contracts that are concluded for an indefinite period and entered into on or after that date.
I know that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised this measure as an instrument of interest in its 25th report, published on 15 May. I am grateful for the consideration the Committee has given this legislation, and I shall respond to the points it raised.
First, the Government acknowledge that there have been concerns about customers being debanked on the basis of their lawful beliefs and political opinions, and that this formed part of what initially led to a review of legislation in this area. Since coming into office, this Government have taken a fresh look at the issue from a broader perspective. As I said earlier, providers are already prohibited from discriminating against UK consumers based on their lawful beliefs and political opinions, but there are shortcomings in wider legislation that governs how providers terminate payment services contracts. The Government are therefore taking a wider approach to strengthen legislation and to enhance fairness and transparency for all customers more generally.
Secondly, regarding the length of the 90-day notice period and the implementation period for the instrument, the Government’s approach is based on extensive engagement. We have sought to balance strengthening the protections for customers with minimising the burdens on firms.
In conclusion, these regulations would make important changes to ensure that customers are treated fairly, while respecting providers’ rights to make commercial decisions. I hope that the Grand Committee will endorse these reforms. I look forward to the debate and beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this statutory instrument in this brief debate. We note that these regulations build on previous legislation and arise from a consultation that began under the previous Conservative Government in July 2023.
I agree with the Minister that the extension of the minimum notice period for contract termination from two months to 90 days is a prudent and welcome measure. Even more significant is the requirement for payment service providers to provide detailed and specific reasons for termination, thereby enhancing transparency and fairness and discouraging needless debanking; we all saw the unfortunate effect of Coutts’ closure of Nigel Farage’s account. Additionally, informing customers of their right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service is a useful safeguard.
I have two problems with these regulations. First, I am concerned by the wide-ranging exemptions to the new rules—“exceptions” is probably the right word. These include the anti-money laundering requirements and the suspicion of serious crime, as well as the possible commission of a public order or harassment offence. These are substantial exceptions that could be the subject of unfair debanking, with the accused unable to know what it is claimed he or she has done wrong. I therefore welcome the change in the threshold from “reasonable belief” to “reasonable grounds to suspect” for serious crime exceptions following consultation, but I wonder whether this is enough.
I should add that small and medium-sized businesses are not exempted from the new requirements. What targeted support or guidance will be provided to help these providers manage the increased compliance burden? These measures could cause problems for businesses already under pressure from NICs and the prospect of new regulation. We all want fairness but the net cost to businesses is £6.4 million a year, by the normally prudent Treasury estimates. This means a net present value of minus £55.4 million.
In the light of this, how do the Government plan to monitor and evaluate these regulations over time to ensure that the extended notice periods and disclosure obligations generally lead to better outcomes for consumers, rather than creating additional administrative burdens for the suppliers of financial services? Can the Government also clarify how conflicts between these termination requirements and other legal obligations on payment service providers will be managed, especially where other laws might take precedence? What mechanisms will be in place to resolve such conflicts fairly and transparently?
Secondly, the main problem for consumers of payment services is not being able to secure a bank account at all. I know this from my own family’s experience of being denied banking, reducing the scope for moving to a different, more competitive bank. This is on grounds such as being a publicly exposed person, which is our experience; selling arms, which it seems wrong to exclude given our growing defence needs; or ungrounded fear by the provider of money laundering. What is the Government’s position on this difficult area of securing a bank account?
I look forward to the Minister’s response and to continued engagement with the Government and regulators to ensure that these important reforms deliver tangible and lasting benefits for payment service users.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her speech and those questions. These are important regulations which clarify the situation we have lived under over the last few years, as far as this issue is concerned.
On the several points and questions she has raised, I will answer the last one first, which was about access to banking services. The Government recognise the vital role that financial services provide; that is why we have introduced these new rules. The Government are focused on account closures as a priority. We continue to monitor wider access to bank account provision but recognise this is largely a commercial matter. Some 120 banking hubs have opened; another 200-plus will be opened in the next few years. That is not the limit or the target; it could go beyond that, but it depends on what LINK, which provide them, wants to do. It is, obviously, an ongoing issue. We want to ensure everybody has access to them.
On the new requirements that the noble Baroness suggested, there are important public policy reasons for the exemptions, which are necessary to enable payment service providers to continue to discharge other legal obligations or manage complex scenarios—for example, in relation to financial crime.
On the question of whether we will publish guidance, the Financial Conduct Authority, as the relevant regulator, will update the guidance to reflect the legislative changes. The Government have worked closely with industry, law enforcement and regulatory partners to ensure that expectations of payment service providers are clear.
With that, I think I have covered all the questions. I conclude by saying that the Government are committed to ensuring high standards of customer protection and financial inclusion across the financial services sector. These regulations make important changes but address long-standing concerns about protection given to customers when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their providers. This increased amount of notice and transparency will make it easier for customers to understand and manage the impact of their provider’s decisions, and to make a complaint or find an alternative provider where necessary. The changes will help deliver fairer outcomes and support the Government’s ambitions to deliver for working people. I hope the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was a little disappointed about the response on two points. One is on this business of small and medium-sized businesses. The Minister rightly referred to the FCA as the body that is responsible for guidance. It is supposed to care about small businesses and growth, following the letter that the Chancellor wrote to them. The Minister mentioned that there are more small and new businesses in the pipeline; that is good news. Small business spectacles are important, both for financial service providers and, indeed, for unfortunate customers who are trying to get bank accounts.
That was the second point: perhaps it was not possible as I did not give notice of the question, which is not the subject of these regulations, but he did not inform us as to what the latest is on helping people to open a bank account. His objective is the same as mine: to make sure that everybody can do that. He may know from discussion with other parliamentarians that the publicly exposed person issue has been a big one, and there are other issues. I would be interested to be referred to an update on how we are getting on on getting people to open bank accounts. It is important, in societies, for people to have bank accounts and not to be excluded. It is a great pity that it is so difficult, if you are a publicly exposed person, to move banks. That seems unfortunate.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I think these regulations help clarify all that. As far as small and medium-sized businesses are concerned, the Treasury Select Committee published figures in 2024 on the termination of business accounts in 2023. They were sourced from eight UK banks. The Treasury estimates that, on average, around 64% of business accounts were terminated due to suspicious activity or financial crime, due diligence or fraud, 10% were terminated because of dormancy and less than 1% for political exposure or other issues. We can all amplify the politically exposed people, and we know it is important, but the vast majority of closures and issues that we have are with financial crime and due diligence.
On the other question, we all want everyone who wants to have a bank account to have one. The decision to provide banking services is generally a commercial one by providers. I have already mentioned that 120 to 150, I think, banking hubs have been opened already, and a lot more will be opened. It is not a target. Once we get there, we can probably open more, but that has to be in consultation with the industry. The Government want to ensure that customers are treated fairly when providers decide to withdraw those services. We are focused on account terminations as a priority, given the material impact that a loss of banking services could have on a business already in operation. More widely, the Government continue to monitor evidence in relation to accessing banking services and welcome the FCA’s work in this area.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am reassured. It is good to have the figure for politically exposed debanking of 1%, although the significance depends on the total figure for the number of cases. It is more about when people are trying to get bank accounts. I think that the Farage event has led to a degree of understanding that it is important not to debank people who are already customers. What I think is less well understood is how when people who are, for example, politically exposed try to get a bank account, they have difficulties. I hope the regulators such as the FCA think about this because we want to try to make sure that people can have proper bank accounts. If there is any more material on that side of things, I give notice that I would be very interested in it, though I appreciate that I sprung this question on the Minister today although it is not the subject of the regulations.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I think increasing the time period from 60 days to 90 days and banks now having to write to the customer to say, “These are the reasons why we have this issue with your bank account” and, where it is appropriate and where they can, having to say that they can refer it to the ombudsman all helps. Obviously, this will be kept under review, but I think it is an important improvement on where we were in previous regulations.
AI Opportunities Action Plan
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to implement the recommendations of the independent report AI Opportunities Action Plan, published on 13 January.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my technology interests as set out in the register.
The Minister of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)
The Government are taking action to capitalise on AI’s potential and welcomed the publication of the AI Opportunities Action Plan, accepting all 50 recommendations. Implementation is well under way. We have launched the AI growth zone application process, held the first meeting of the AI Energy Council and signed an MoU with Anthropic. We are delivering the AI research resource, including the Isambard-AI and Dawn supercomputers, which will boost the UK’s AI compute capacity thirtyfold.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, Matt Clifford delivered an excellent report, with 50 wide-ranging recommendations across our economy and society. Does the Minister agree that the fact that they rightly range widely makes clear the need for the Government to bring forward cross-sector AI regulation to ensure that, wherever we come across AI in our lives, there will be clarity, certainty and consistency on how we have that AI experience, which would surely be good for innovators, investors, creatives, citizens and our country?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
There are three approaches to making sure that we get consistency and appropriate regulation and support, as the noble Lord suggested. The first is that the regulators look after AI in the domains which they already look after. We are making sure that they are properly supported to do that and can join up—for example, in the Digital Regulation Cooperation Forum—to learn lessons across different areas as they apply AI in their domains. The second is the approach of assurance: to develop an assurance industry in the UK which can assure people that, when they use AI, it performs what they expect it to and in the way they expect. That is true both for the Government—the Artificial Intelligence Playbook for the UK Government addresses some of the wider issues—and in developing the assurance industry overall and looking at areas such as bias in systems. The third, as he alluded to, is the question of what happens as artificial general intelligence, artificial superintelligence and the latest models come along. We remain committed to bringing forward AI legislation so that we can realise the enormous benefits and opportunities of this technology in a safe and secure way. We continue to refine our proposals and hope to launch a public consultation before the end of the year.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister elaborate on what steps are being taken to promote more co-operation and collaboration between the public and private sectors in AI development and utilisation?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
The interaction between the public and private sectors is crucial in this, as it is in many other areas. UKRI is leading a number of public programmes which support universities and the ability to get spin-outs and developments from them, so there is considerable interaction at the beginning of the process. There is also interaction throughout the process; for example, the AI Security Institute is working with some of the largest companies and looking at their models to ensure that, as they are developed, issues that could come up are foreseen and, we hope, mitigated in advance. Collaboration between the public and private sectors is crucial in AI, as in many areas of technology development.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the Government have agreed to create a new function—UK sovereign AI—to partner with the private sector and maximise the UK’s stake in what is described as frontier AI. Further details were promised by spring 2025. By my calculation, spring is over. What powers will this unit have to invest directly in companies, create joint ventures or provide advanced market commitments, as recommended in the plan, and how will it ensure economic benefit and influence on AI governance in the UK?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
AI sovereignty is a crucial issue. It ranges from questions of what infrastructure and companies we need in this country to what public work we need to do to make sure that we can access the AI required. AI sovereignty is very much part of the AI action plan; the spending review is under way and there will be more information on what exactly will happen in its different areas post spending review. The areas the noble Lord raises are all important—they are the right ones. Spring is nearly over. It will not be in spring, but we hope to give more information shortly.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the press have indicated that there could be enormous improvements in public sector productivity if AI were introduced. What savings might be made in the public sector if we introduce AI?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
A series of funded programmes have been looking at the introduction of AI in government in particular. Some reports were published in the last couple of weeks showing time savings and degree of satisfaction, and identifying where the use of AI will be most useful and where it will be problematic. There are already some outputs from that work in the public domain. We will continue to make them public as we assess the performance of AI in government systems. A unit called i.AI is developing new approaches, such as Humphrey, which have been widely publicised.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I declare my tech interests as set out in the register. We welcome the GDS report, to which the Minister referred, on driving tactical productivity improvements in the Civil Service with AI tools. Does he agree that to realise deep strategic change through AI in the Civil Service will require a hugely ambitious digital transformation? Are the Government being realistic about how challenging this is likely to be? How will they keep Parliament updated on their approach and progress?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
Oddly enough, I am aware of how difficult this is and how much work is needed. The requirements range from data to the ability to get it into a form that can be read and be interoperable; that is behind the national data library and the health data research service which we have announced. There are skills issues right across the Civil Service and elsewhere which need to be addressed, with skills increased, along with the application uptake of AI by businesses across the UK. All those are part of the AI Opportunities Action Plan, and there are things under way in each of those areas. I do not think this is straightforward. It will require some experimentation. There will be some things that will not work as well as expected and others that we will need to move faster on. I expect this to be a very dynamic field over the next few years.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, a strong emphasis in the AI Opportunities Action Plan is the development of human capital to maintain the UK as one of the leading countries in the world for AI. In the last four years for which the figures are available there has been a decrease of 39% in the percentage of UK-domiciled computer science graduates undertaking doctorates. This year, the situation is likely to be even worse, as for the first time EU students finishing a four-year undergraduate course in the UK will no longer count as home students. Is the Minister as concerned as I am by the sharp decrease in home students undertaking PhDs in computer science and AI? Are the Government considering any measures to reverse this trend, perhaps by reducing the interest rate on undergraduate loans to zero while graduate students are doing their PhDs?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
As the noble Lord points out, there has been a decrease in PhD funding through UKRI from 2018 to 2022. The overall number of PhD students has not gone down, but the sources of funding have become more diversified. It is an important issue for the UK to be good and capable in the numbers of PhD students we have. Two new programmes are being developed as part of the AI opportunities plan: the AI fellowship programme and the AI scholarship programme. Both will be important to ensure that we have the skills we need to deliver on the plan. I take the point about the number of students who have gone from computer science into PhDs. That is an area that we need to look at and understand. As the noble Lord is aware, some of it is a classification question, in relation to EU students, but there is no doubt that we need to keep the number of students doing PhDs up.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, to follow on from the noble Lord’s point about skills, behind the flashiness and excitement of AI lie some boring things that have to be done. One of the big challenges to support an AI ecosystem in the UK is the byzantine procurement rules of government. Can the Minister tell us what he is doing to ensure that small and growing British-based AI companies have a crack at getting government contracts and therefore growing?
Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)
This is an area close to my heart. It is a crucial part of stimulating innovation right across the patch. Government procurement ought to be a way in which innovation companies get their first indication of a signal, in many cases, of a potential customer. A commercial innovation hub has been set up in the Cabinet Office, precisely to try to make it much easier to deal with SMEs and others, which has historically been extremely difficult to do from a government procurement perspective.
Ukraine: UK Security Guarantee
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ukraine about proposals for the United Kingdom to provide a security guarantee to that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, a strong sovereign Ukraine is essential for Euro-Atlantic security and the UK’s national security. The UK is steadfast in our support for Ukraine. When the war ends, Ukraine will need to be secure against Russian aggression. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister signed the 100-year partnership with Ukraine, which builds on our bilateral security agreement signed last year, strengthening our security co-operation and forging closer links between our defence industries.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
While recognising the sheer bravado of those who executed Operation Spider Web, we have to accept that action has undermined Trump’s wider initiative, jeopardised his offer on the provision of security guarantees and hardened Russia’s attitude to conflict resolution. How can we ever secure a settlement and avoid substantial defence costs being imposed on European taxpayers if Zelensky is allowed to run amok with unilateral actions, thereby scuppering any prospect of an early settlement? With our long experience in diplomacy, why can we not think outside the box and engage with Trump’s people in discussions with Russia over measures to end this war? We cannot rely on Zelensky—he is out of control.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, not for the first time do I profoundly disagree with the noble Lord. We have a long-standing commitment, which will remain for as long as it takes, to stand alongside Ukraine. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a responsibility and a duty to the people of Ukraine, many of whom are living here with us still, and we are very pleased to welcome them.
I completely reject the noble Lord’s analysis of the events he referred to, as do my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence. We speak all the time to our friends and allies in the United States about this. President Trump wants to see peace, we want to see peace, and President Zelensky has agreed to a ceasefire. The person who could achieve that ceasefire, who could bring peace to Ukraine and who could see the children returned to their homes is President Putin.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, from these Benches, I completely agree with the Minister’s sentiments. I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is absolutely wrong, and all of us who are strong supporters of Ukraine were greatly encouraged by the recent audacious attack on the Russian airfields—in which nobody was killed, by the way; it was just equipment that was damaged.
To secure Ukrainian sovereignty in the longer term, it is vital that Ukraine possesses armed forces which have a strong, strategic and tactical advantage in the region. So, I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the steps that the Government are taking to support the Ukrainian military to ensure that it has troops that are well trained and well equipped in the longer term, to a high standard, to help deter further Russian aggression.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We will continue to provide the £3 billion a year to Ukraine for as long as it is needed. Future defence and security co-operation is included in the 100-year partnership, and we have the coalition of the willing initiative as well, which is specifically designed to provide security assurance to Ukraine as we move forward, hopefully soon after the establishment of a ceasefire.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister noticed any reticence or reluctance on the part of President Putin to killing Ukrainian civilians while so-called peace talks continue? Has she identified any actions at all on the part of the American Administration to try to compel President Putin down that path of reticence?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not noticed any reticence on behalf of the Russian leader in that regard. I repeat that we talk frequently and in great detail about how we work together with our friends and allies, including the United States, to bring about peace.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we associate ourselves highly with the Minister’s initial response. One of the reasons why Ukraine will require long-term reassurance with security is the way they see their prisoners of war being brutalised, abused and mistreated in Russia. My noble friend Lady Suttie and I met with the leadership of the Ukrainian prisoner of war authority just before the Recess, and we were briefed on the horrendous treatment that is being applied to them, including the denial of human rights and Red Cross access. Will the Minister agree with me that the time is right now to send a very strong signal, by sanctioning those authorities in Russia that are denying the prisoners of war their very basic human rights?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
First of all, I thank the noble Lord for the commitment that he and his party have shown to Ukraine. It is pleasing that he is taking part in the meetings that he has described. One of the things that encourages us all is the united way in which we in this House and across politics in this country and elsewhere are able to stand together on these issues.
On the issue of sanctions, he is always keen to encourage us to go further. He knows that I will not be commenting on the specific request that he has made, but I thank him for always continuing to push the Government to do more and go further and faster on sanctions, and I hope he can see that we respond whenever we can to that encouragement.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, how effective can security guarantees be without some form of US participation? It is surely not a strong argument to say that some US personnel will be involved in mining their minerals, so what is the current position of the US Administration?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right that US involvement in the security guarantees is going to be essential. We continue to talk about this with our friends and allies in the US.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it may be unpopular, but the Russians do actually believe they have a case. If we are going to get peace, we have to get a neutral arbiter in there to try to start negotiations. The word that is missing is “Europe”. What are the Government doing to call together our European allies in the European Union to try to move forward towards a constructive dialogue that could lead to some peace?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I have not known the noble Lord for all that long, but I do not think that being popular is something that he troubles himself about too much when he makes his positions known, and I respect that. The territorial integrity of Ukraine and the extent to which that forms part of any negotiated outcome needs to be the result of a negotiation that has Ukraine at the centre of it, and it is not actually for us to tell Ukraine what it needs to accept by way of outcome, or to make points about Russia’s right, or otherwise. Russia has invaded Ukraine; it was wrong that it did that. It could bring about peace and begin negotiations now; it is choosing not to do that. So, as the noble Lord says, we will work with our friends in the European Union to support any efforts that we can to bring that about.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I am strongly committed to Europe—we set up Cambridge for Europe together. However, I wonder what the Minister thinks the message would be to our friends and partners in eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic states and Poland, if we were somehow to turn away from Ukraine or send a message from this place that we are somehow not united—because we need to be united.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point, and it is important that we remind ourselves about this. That counts for now, and it also counts after any ceasefire is achieved. We need to remember that Russia instigated this and, if we allow this to go unchecked or for there to be any kind of reward for this aggression, we cannot be confident that this would be the last time that we would see this kind of action from Russia.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the initial reply the Minister gave to the House, she rightly referred to those children who have been abducted from Ukraine. Yesterday, the envoy for missing children pointed out that the technology that is used to track more than 30,000 of those children expires this month with the ending of funding from USAID. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that the funding does not end, and what are we doing to ensure that the special tribunal to bring to justice those responsible for the abduction of children goes ahead?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What has happened to those children is abhorrent, and they should be returned immediately. My understanding is that the Ukrainians have now issued a list of names to the Russians, to enable them to be returned immediately. I will look into the issue of the funding for the technology—that is very important. I do not have an answer for the noble Lord now, but I will find out and write to him, and I will share that with other noble Lords, who I know have a keen interest in this—and I am pleased that they do.
Primary and Community Care
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hacking
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support primary and community care settings to integrate in vitro point of care diagnostics.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise the value of point-of-care diagnostics in enabling earlier detection, reducing avoidable hospital admissions and supporting more personalised care. As part of our 10-year plan, we will ensure that more tests, including in vitro point-of-care diagnostics, take place in the community, which will be closer to people’s homes. Use of in vitro point-of-care testing is encouraged where clinically appropriate, including in community diagnostic centres, and is supported by the development of 27 pathology networks.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her very positive reply, but I will take it a little further. Do the Government appreciate the enormous potential benefit of in vitro diagnosis for the National Health Service and patients? On the latter, patients would be able to go to their local pharmacy, away from the queues in their GP surgery or local A&E department, and be diagnosed and treated in a matter of minutes. My second question is: what government funding support will be given to pharmacies having to buy the diagnostic machines or boxes, which cost about £2,000 each, and to support the necessary training for pharmacy staff?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
This is a good news story, and I certainly share my noble friend’s view of the benefits that he outlined. Community diagnostic centres are now delivering additional tests and checks in 169 sites across the country. They have delivered almost 4.5 million tests, checks and scans since last July, and we have committed to expanding the number of existing CDCs and their opening times. In England, Pharmacy First clinical pathways have been developed closely with various experts, including pharmacists. The funding for the core community pharmacy contractual framework has been increased to over £3 billion, representing the largest uplift in funding of any part of the NHS. We are grateful for the role that pharmacies play.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, when we discuss in vitro testing, we should also talk about in vivo testing? That involves taking a history and doing a thorough physical examination of the patient on the spot, but it seems to be going out of fashion. I will illustrate that with the story of a member of staff who had consulted me. He had been investigated at the “St. Elsewhere” hospital for six months, but they had missed the fact that he had ruptured his Achilles tendon. I did an in vivo spot diagnosis. I put my index finger down his Achilles tendon—with his permission, of course—and I could feel the gap in his Achilles tendon where it had ruptured. They had not examined him. Is it not time that we did this inexpensive business of taking a history and doing a thorough physical examination?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am very glad that the noble Lord asked for permission. I take his point. I know that he understands the value of in vitro point-of-care testing, but he makes the good point that what matters is what is clinically appropriate in the circumstance. We would all expect that to happen for the benefit of the patient.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will follow on from the Minister’s Answer. While being supportive of the general trend, what metrics and measures have the Government put in place to ensure that those tests indeed create positive patient outcomes and healthcare efficiency to help future induction of the tests in the NHS?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We will ensure, through our 10-year health plan, that the additional tests, including in vitro point-of-care diagnostics, are taking place in the community. I look forward to being able to provide more information to the noble Lord.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government’s stated commitment to innovation in primary care and the commitment to continue the rollout of community diagnostic centres, which were started by the previous Government. However, unfortunately, last year the Patients Association highlighted barriers to the rollout of point-of-care diagnostics, particularly in rural areas. Is the Minister aware of those concerns, and what plans does the department have to tackle those barriers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Our commitment to moving towards a neighbourhood health service obviously allows for attention to be given to different circumstances, including in rural areas. It will mean that more care can be delivered locally and that problems can be spotted earlier, including any problems with rollout. We will shortly provide details of a national neighbourhood health implementation programme. We liaise with various groups, including the Patients Association, and I am grateful for their input and for flagging up any difficulties, which we absolutely seek to resolve.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, while I accept that in vitro diagnosis at the point of care has great benefits, it is important to address the challenges that we will need to face. They include quality control and the standardisation of equipment used, as well as making sure that the appropriate people are trained, that assessments are made of the results obtained and that proper, good outcomes are delivered. Who will be in charge of delivering this, at the integrated care board level and the national level, to make sure that it is effective?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that it is one thing to provide a service; it is another—and so important—to make sure that it is provided appropriately and accurately. ICBs will have their own arrangements. Within that, NHS England is currently responsible for ensuring that this takes place. We will ensure that there are regular updates. If any noble Lord is aware of particular difficulties, I would be very pleased to hear about them; for example, if there is a problem with quality control.
Lord O’Neill of Gatley (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that even deeper and wider embedding of diagnostics across the NHS, including more in community pharmacists and GP surgeries, would help in the fight against not only antimicrobial resistance but other infectious diseases? In addition, it would stimulate the venture capital business in diagnostics. All these factors together have the potential to boost NHS productivity dramatically, and would therefore help to boost the country’s growth trend.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly agree with the very strong points that the noble Lord has made. This is obviously a health improvement policy for patients and to support the NHS, but it is also about developing growth and the opportunity for new ways of doing things. We welcome and support innovation.
Lord Markham (Con)
Building on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others, there are many examples where the ideal place to do a diagnostic test is in a primary care setting. Urinary tract infections are a typical example of that, because you can solve it quickly in that setting, avoiding future hospital visits and much pain and suffering. However, that means taking budgets away from secondary care settings and giving them to primary care GPs, pharmacists, et cetera. Are the Government prepared to do that to see these benefits arise?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are constantly reviewing how best to support where we need to go. In this case, it is about getting tests done closer to home. The noble Lord is right that, for a number of people, the GP practice is a good place to do that, but not in all cases. What matters is doing what is appropriate. We announced an £889 million uplift for general practice in 2025-26, which is the largest uplift to GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework in 2019, and we have also agreed a new GP contract. The noble Lord will be aware that we recently announced over £1 million to help the quality of the primary care estate, to ensure that we can provide some 11 million further appointments this year. While I accept that this issue is about configuration, I assure the noble Lord of our support for GPs.
Creon
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the shortage of Creon, a cancer medication, reported by the National Pharmacy Association, and what steps they plan to take to prevent similar shortages in future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, while some supply constraints remain, predominantly with the higher-strength product, Creon stock is regularly being delivered to pharmacies. Alternative products and unlicensed imports are also available. Guidance has been issued to the NHS on prescribing available alternatives and utilising serious shortage protocols to limit quantities dispensed, with actions for integrated care boards to ensure that patients are not left without Creon or an alternative. We continue to work on the long-term supply resilience of Creon.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but there are some suggestions that pharmacies are struggling to obtain this important medication, which addresses pancreatic enzyme therapy. Given the struggles that pharmacies are facing, could my noble friend the Minister therefore outline what consideration has been given by the Government to provide a national plan to address shortages and to support patients with alternative care? What approval would be given to highly trained pharmacists to use their professional judgment to supply alternative medicines, where that is medically safe and appropriate, in the event of the prescribed version being unavailable to ensure that patients can enjoy longer, healthier lives?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can say to my noble friend that serious shortage protocols are a tool that we have and use to manage and mitigate medicine and medical devices shortages. They enable community pharmacists to supply a specified medicine or device in accordance with a protocol rather than a prescription, with the patient’s consent, without needing to seek authorisation from the prescriber. They are used in cases of serious shortage, and we develop those protocols with input from expert clinicians. In addition, we are currently examining options around pharmacists’ flexibilities, including how any risks could be managed, and further details will be set out on this. I hope this gives some reassurance to my noble friend.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, we know that these unexpected shortages occur from time to time, and that this obviously causes patients to worry. As the Minister said, I understand the advice is that alternative therapies are available but may not be sufficient for all patients. Given this, can the Government reassure patients that they are confident that those who cannot turn to alternative therapies will be able to get the appropriate doses of Creon that they require? Also, do the Government have any idea, or have they been given any indication, of when they expect this particular shortage to end?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The supply situation has improved since last year and there is now sufficient stock of lower-strength Creon to meet normal demand. There are still some supply constraints, as I have said, with the higher-strength product stock, but stock is regularly being delivered to pharmacies. As we have discussed, alternative products and unlicensed imports are also available. I totally accept that patients may have concerns, and that is why we have worked closely to keep in communication with patients to assure them that they will not be going without the medication they need. For example, it may be that lower strength in multiple provision can be made, or there are the alternatives that I have described. If any noble Lords are aware of real-life examples of shortages, I would be grateful to hear about them, because we believe that we have made the arrangements, and I can reassure noble Lords that these very important medicines are being provided to those who need them.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I suggest that the Minister ask her officials immediately to speak to the National Pharmacy Association, which published a survey at the end of last month that said that 96% of community pharmacies were finding problems with getting stocks of Creon and 89% of community pharmacies were having problems with alternatives. In light of that and the bigger picture, what actions are the Government taking to establish new suppliers and manufacturers of enzyme replacement therapy to reduce reliance on a limited number of manufacturers?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point, because the reality is that there are very limited manufacturers of pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy—which applies to a number of people, not just those who have pancreatic cancer—so I do understand that point. It is the case that several non-UK suppliers have expressed an interest in bringing their products to the UK, and they are currently under review with the MHRA. Of course, I hope noble Lords are aware that this Government prioritise UK life sciences, and that is absolutely key. We have established incentives to encourage manufacture, including up to £520 million to support businesses that invest in life-science manufacturing products.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, may I put it to my noble friend the Minister that there is also an underlying problem, which was also revealed during COVID, that too often the end-use manufacturers are highly dependent on a supply chain that is often in countries that are either unreliable or, indeed, even hostile? These may seem to be basic supplies, but in fact they are enormously important for the final product. Should not the Government in this area, and indeed in others, be looking at this more seriously?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I believe that we are looking at this very seriously. Of course, medicine supply chains are complex, global and highly regulated, so there are a number of reasons why supply can be disrupted and a number of reasons why supply might not be specifically as we would like. Unfortunately, some of those are out of government control. To be honest, we cannot prevent all medicine shortages, but we can take as many steps as possible. I can assure my noble friend that the whole point about increasing resilience of the UK medicine supply chain remains a key priority. We work with industry, we work with the regulator and we will improve the position of the UK as a destination for life sciences and manufacturing in this regard.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister referred to Creon being needed for a number of conditions. In Sheffield, when I was visiting POLARIS, the pulmonary lung and respiratory imaging centre, I met a mother of a cystic fibrosis patient—a young child, quite a small child—and that mother was suffering significant distress at having to spend time chasing around Sheffield to try to lay hands on Creon. The Minister just said that this is out of government control. Does she agree that this is a case where relying on markets to supply essential drugs is not working and that there needs to be more government control in the supply chain?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness puts forward an interesting perspective. There will always be a number of matters that are outside any Government’s control. What is in the Government’s control is what action we can take. In terms of alternatives to Creon, for example, supplies of Nutrizym have more than doubled since last year, and Essential Pharma has also secured additional manufacturing capacity for Pancrex. In May last year, pancreatin preparations—the active ingredient in the medicine we are talking about—were added to the list of medicines that cannot be exported from the UK or hoarded in order to reserve supplies. These actions, along with some of the ones that I have just mentioned and more, all show a very active government position.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, since we have a bit of time, perhaps I may be allowed a supplementary. Given that part of the answer is to import unlicensed medicines, what quality-control procedures are there in place to ensure that people can be reassured that these unlicensed medicines are suitable and fit for patients?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It would not be possible to prescribe them if they were not fit and safe for use. I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to make that reassurance. There is very clear information on ordering and prescribing unlicensed imports on the NHS Specialist Pharmacy Service website, should the noble Lord or any other person wish to be reassured of what that means.
Regional Growth
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Statement given in the other place yesterday made many references to the benefits of growth, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury could hardly contain his excitement when he said that increases in regional productivity could grow the economy significantly. We on this side of the House would of course welcome the prospect of economic growth. However, although the Statement mentioned “growth” nine times, there was little to no detail on how these proposals would in fact boost our economy.
One vital question is whether this level of investment—if it is in fact new money—will require an increase in taxation, given that national debt is already at around 100% of GDP. As we know from the country’s experiences with inheritance tax and the NICs hike, tax rises are bad for growth and bad for our economy. I hope that the Minister can provide the House with some clarity on this question. Can he confirm to the House what the net figure is for the projected cumulative impact of this policy on British economic growth by the end of the Parliament? Can he assure the House that this policy will not be met through any new or increased taxes?
This Statement also gives me a sense of déjà vu, because the measures announced are incredibly similar in scale and form to the funding announcements made by the previous Government under the City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements in 2023. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the West Midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the West Midlands. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; now, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion. Indeed, much of this investment touted by the Government appears to have been recycled—money already announced in different forms under previous schemes and now repackaged. This needs careful examination. Perhaps the Minister could help us here with an honest assessment.
The Government quote the Green Book, which they are revising to give more opportunity for projects outside the south-east—so a change in the way value for money is approached. Given that this has already been briefed to the media, what are the key features here and have the projects announced yesterday been assessed on the old or the new basis? How will the rules be honed to avoid Whitehall-inspired or ministerially-inspired white elephants?
I had the honour of chairing the Built Environment Committee, with many from across the House, and leading its work in 2022 on Public Transport in Towns and Cities. We found that nearly two-thirds of journeys on public transport were by bus. What do the Government’s plans do for bus funding? I am less interested today in the rapid bus routes planned for Liverpool than in basic bus services that so many people take to work, especially when they live outside our cities and commute. The Government have increased the maximum £2 fare that we introduced and have not guaranteed its long-term future.
The committee also found that light rail schemes—basically, trams—are very expensive but that very light rail systems such as that in Coventry, and bus rapid transit schemes, had more potential and needed to be assessed and compared. What have the Government concluded about the balance here, and how is that reflected in yesterday’s package?
We support infrastructure investment when it is targeted, timely and impactful. But what we heard from the Chancellor and Chief Secretary yesterday was less of a plan and more of a press release. The funding, spread over nearly a decade, will not begin in earnest until 2027. That is two years from now before the money leaves the Treasury. For communities in the Midlands and the north, this will sound like delay dressed up as action.
Can the Minister confirm when we will see the effect of this policy reflected in regional and national growth and productivity rates? Can he assure the House that businesses in the areas identified will see a tangible improvement in their day-to-day operations as a result of these spending decisions? After all, it is business, not government, that is more productive and the main driver of growth.
The noble Lord and I agree on the importance of productivity growth. However, to achieve the £86 billion productivity improvement in cities cited in the Statement requires much more than this largely welcome transport investment. We need a revolution in skills, innovation, digitalisation and public sector efficiency, and to solve the problem of uncompetitive electricity prices crippling our industries, especially in the very regions we are talking about today.
Finally, I must raise a note of caution on the fiscal front. At a time of considerable pressure on the public finances, we must be clear-eyed about priorities. A commitment of this scale, without clear delivery mechanisms or clarity on the projected economic returns, risks becoming a drain rather than a driver. Transport investment must support productivity, growth, and value for money. It must not become an uncosted political gesture, reliant on anti-growth decisions such as tax hikes. It is incumbent on the Government to be responsible in the steps that they take, so I look forward to the noble Lord’s answers today and to next week’s spending review, when we will return to some of these issues.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
The Liberal Democrat Benches fully support measures to grow our economy across every nation and every region. We therefore welcome this Statement detailing planned investment in public transport and infrastructure. It is good to see not just plans but the money set aside for some city regions, giving long-term transport financial settlements. Frankly, that is the only sensible way to ensure investment in transport infrastructure, rather than the constant stop-start begging-bowl approach we saw with the previous Government, which benefits no one and delivers nothing. For too long, communities have heard promises only, to be left with phantom transport networks, so investment in transport infrastructure is vital if we are to grow our economy and create access to jobs across the country.
In particular, we are very pleased to see the Metrolink to Stockport in this announcement, which is testimony to the hard work of the local Liberal Democrats, who have been campaigning and working on this issue for many years—indeed, long before the mayor and the combined authority were created. However, we have a number of questions. It seems that areas without mayors are being left behind or ignored. Where is the plan and money for rural areas? There are parts of the south-west, for example, which would benefit hugely from transport infrastructure investment, yet this area has been ignored in this Statement. It feels as though Bristol is as far west as the Government can see.
Whether it is Cumbria, Shropshire, Norfolk, Devon or Cornwall, there is nothing in this Statement for them, so what plans do the Government have for a rural growth strategy? What funding is planned for our railways as they come under public ownership? There is a desperate need for major investment across the network to enable more frequent trains to serve our communities. Will there be a railway investment plan? Will the Mayor of London and Transport for London be allocated further funding to maintain and grow the capital’s transport system, creating jobs across the country?
The cost of fares is a real barrier to many people. What plans are there to reduce fares—in particular, to reinstate the £2 bus fare cap—and to reform rail fares to make them affordable for passengers? Alongside the investment in infrastructure, there is the challenge of the skills and workforce issues. What plans do the Government have to ensure that we have the skilled and trained workforce to build this transport infrastructure, including fixing the apprenticeship levy? This is a welcome first step, but key questions need to be answered to ensure that every area can grow and prosper.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
I am very grateful to both noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Pidgeon, for their questions, and I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, to her place and look forward to speaking with her in many more of these debates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked a number of questions. She started by asking about growth. I noticed that she did not mention that, in this quarter, the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. I noticed that she did not mention that our growth forecasts have just been upgraded by the IMF. I noticed that she did not mention that, in many business surveys, business confidence is now at its highest level for many years. I hope that, when she talks about growth, she will always give a rounded picture of where we are on growth.
She asked whether these measures will contribute to regional growth, and yes, of course they will: that is the whole point of them. For too long, we have relied on just one part of the country to generate economic growth. We need to make sure that more parts of our country are contributing to growth and more people throughout our country are feeling the benefits of that growth. That is absolutely why we are doing what we are. It is why we started with connectivity: because we know that connecting city regions is incredibly important, enabling more people to travel to work, connecting labour markets and connecting businesses to more places so that they can sell more goods to more people. That is absolutely central to what we set out yesterday. The answer to the question, “Will this contribute to growth?” is: yes it absolutely will. We saw in the Spring Statement the OBR, for example, scoring for the first time some of our growth measures, and of course we hope that it will continue to score our growth measures going forward.
She asked: is this new money? Absolutely, yes—yesterday, we announced £15 billion of new money. It is the biggest ever investment by any British Government in our regional transport network. As a result of the fiscal rules and the difficult decisions that we have taken, we are in the spending review increasing the overall amount of spending by £300 billion: £190 billion on day-to-day spending and an increase of £113 billion on capital spending. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, welcomed—slightly half-heartedly—what we announced yesterday. It is notable that she welcomed the additional spending, but she has at no point welcomed any of the difficult measures we have taken to raise that money so that we can spend it on the things that she is now welcoming. I think that her shadow Chancellor is today making a speech where he is seeking to distance himself from the Liz Truss approach from the previous Parliament. Yet it seems to me that the party opposite is repeating exactly the same mistakes of the Liz Truss mini-Budget of spending money that it does not have. I think that is a huge risk going forward. As I say, she has welcomed this spending, but she has opposed every single measure we have taken to raise the money to fund it. She asks: will this policy require any additional taxes? No, because we have already raised the taxes in the last Budget—£40 billion—to enable us to spend this money for the rest of this Parliament. So yes, these measures will be met within the envelope that was set at the last Budget.
The noble Baroness said that these are the same measures as the previous Government announced. She kept using the phrase, “We promised”. I think that is a really important phrase because, yes, the previous Government did promise many things, but they did not put a single penny of funding behind any of the promises made. The big difference between what we are doing now, what the Chancellor announced yesterday, and what the previous Government announced, was that they made lots and lots of promises that they never funded—not with a single penny of funding. She will have heard me refer to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. That is exactly why that black hole occurred. What we announced yesterday was real funding for real measures going forward. That is the big, fundamental difference. She asked for an honest assessment, and I think I would call for some honesty from her too that the previous Government did not fund any of those promises.
She asked about the Green Book. We have set out that the Green Book was used by previous Governments against regional authorities and local mayors as a reason not to invest outside London and the south-east. We have changed that methodology. We will set out in the spending review next week the full details of that review, and I look forward to discussing the full details of that with her.
She said that funding would not be seen for two years from now. Of course, there was no funding seen under the last Government at all, so of course we have to start somewhere and we have to get the money out of the door—she is absolutely right. But spades will be in the ground in this Parliament, and we absolutely confirm that.
She asked: will we see improvements for business? Yes, it is absolutely the purpose of this announcement to connect businesses to more areas. It is why local transport networks are so vital and why we have started where we are. She talked about the fiscal front, and I completely agree with her. Of course there are increasing pressures, but that is why I say to her that we must not make promises that we cannot afford. The previous Government did exactly that; we will not make that mistake.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for her welcome for the long-term nature of these announcements, and it is obviously great that national government is working with local government and local government leaders to deliver on these promises. She called it a welcome first step, and I would agree exactly with that sentiment. We were very clear about what we were and were not announcing yesterday. Yesterday, we were announcing the connectivity of city regions, so of course this focused on certain city regions. Next week, we will set out in the spending review the entire regional plan for growth: for the rest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is what we will do, but yesterday we were talking purely about the connectivity of city regions, and we were putting the transport connectivity first, because we know that that is the essential underpinning for so much else in our growth strategy.
She touched on a number of other things that are important to growth. She talked about skills, for example. I completely agree with her when it comes to skills. We will be setting out in the spending review, and then in the industrial strategy in the weeks following the spending review, the measures that we are taking. She talked about having the workforce to build this transport infrastructure. Absolutely: I completely agree with her on that point. She asked about funding for railways, the rest of the country and regional plans, and about the Mayor of London, et cetera. All those questions will be addressed in the spending review next week, and I look forward to discussing that with her and other noble Lords next week.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Statement on connectivity across England, and I welcome the noble Lord’s commentary in relation to the spending review next week, particularly in relation to the connectivity of the different parts of the United Kingdom. He will know that I have mentioned the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, on union connectivity many times, and I urge the Minister and his colleagues to look at that report again, particularly in relation to the A75 in Scotland, which is very important for people and businesses travelling from Northern Ireland to England, because that road really needs an upgrade. I commend the Government for taking this initiative. I really believe in capital investment leading to economic growth, and I think that connectivity will be very much helped by that. I urge him to look at that connectivity review and to link up the rest of the Kingdom as well.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question and the points that she makes. I think we would agree with a lot of what she says. She is supporting the importance of connectivity underlying much of our growth mission. That is obviously what we were starting to set out yesterday—as I say, just in the city regions for now, but next week, in the spending review, in the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot comment on the specific road that she mentions ahead of that spending review, but of course I will take away what she says about that report and very much support what she says about connectivity.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Does the Minister accept that a key step in overcoming regional economic disparities is the mobilisation of the full labour force and, in particular, bringing into worthwhile employment young people who are fit to work and not in full-time education or training? What progress has been made to overcome regional disparities in that regard?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I very much agree with the noble Lord in what he says about bringing people in. We have far too many people inactive in our labour market. I think we are the only country in the G7 where inactivity rates have not returned to where they were prior to the pandemic, for example. At a time when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pigeon, mentioned, we need the workforce there to build this infrastructure, there are far too many people who are currently inactive, and it is a huge waste of potential. We have started, with the welfare reforms that we have set out, to get more people back into the labour market. There will be more detail in the spending review next week, or perhaps following the spending review, on the settlement that the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions will be receiving to ensure that we get more of those people who are not in education or training back into the workforce.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Pidgeon I support the announcement from the Government. I also support her call for the reinstatement of the £2 bus fare cap.
I listened with interest to the Minister’s comment about connectivity in city regions. I want to press him regarding South Yorkshire. I welcome the tram renewal. However, in addition to tram renewals, did the ask from the regional mayor include tram extensions? The Supertram system in Sheffield has been in place since the early 1990s, albeit that a small extension from Meadowhall in Sheffield to Rotherham was done during the coalition years. Was a tram extension asked for?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support for what we have set out and for connectivity in general. We announced £1.5 billion for South Yorkshire, to support the reopening of Doncaster Airport and to renew the existing and now publicly controlled Supertram network with track replacements, overhead line maintenance, rolling stock renewal and a full fleet of new vehicles by 2032, linking jobs and homes in Sheffield and Rotherham. It was also to reform South Yorkshire’s buses—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is keen on buses—with franchise buses operating in Sheffield, Doncaster and Rotherham by 2027 and across South Yorkshire by 2029.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I am curious about the relationship between the timing of this announcement and the review of the Green Book. The figures announced today are practically the same as those promised by the Conservative Government a year ago. We are expecting from the Government a review of the Green Book which is meant to tilt investment further towards the city regions outside London. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed in his Statement yesterday that the Green Book review will be published next week. Why have the Government rushed out these figures, which are clearly based on the existing Green Book and the Conservatives’ financial methodology? Would the city regions not have benefited more had the Chief Secretary waited until after next week’s announcement, when the new Green Book—we do not know what it will contain yet—is in place?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, that is not the case at all. The noble Lord refers to promises made by the previous Government, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also referred to. Promises were made. Let us be clear: not a single penny was allocated by the previous Government to a single promise that they made. The noble Lord can compare what this Government are doing with what the previous Government did, but this Government are putting money towards those announcements.
The noble Lord then said that announcements were—in his bizarre phrase—“rushed out”. Making announcements is not rushing anything out. It is setting out very clearly what our policy is for the connectivity of the city regions. We will publish the review of the Green Book next week. That will make sure that, in future, additional investment is not biased towards any one region but that the entirety of the country is considered when it comes to those announcements. That makes perfect sense. I do not recognise the analysis that the noble Lord is putting forward.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s announcements in relation to regional growth. As the sometime author of the Green Book, I welcome the direction of travel in terms of investment appraisal. However, inevitably, resources are finite. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the Government are prioritising those projects with the greatest economic return? Does he agree that the private sector also has a critical role in delivering regional growth? Can he reaffirm the Government’s commitment to sound public finances, the better to bear down on the cost of borrowing?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord’s points. He asks about the Green Book. He has much more experience in this matter than I do. We have set out—and I hope that he agrees—that for too long the guidance in the Green Book has been biased against certain parts of the country. We want to address that. On whether we will prioritise the spending on where it has the greatest return, yes, this is key to the methodology that the Green Book sets out. The Green Book reinforced investment in areas that were already successful. It did not necessarily enable investment in areas where there was a high degree of potential. That is what we want to do. By investing in areas of high potential, there will be huge returns. We have already set this out. There could be a potential increase of about 3% of GVA if we can get the city regions up to the average productivity of the country, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said. That is the intention and why we are doing what we are doing.
The noble Lord talked about the importance of fiscal responsibility. He will know that this Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. Restoring fiscal responsibility is the central driving purpose of the stability pillar of our growth mission. We have set out very clear fiscal rules that require no borrowing for day-to-day spending, unlike the previous Government, who had that £22 billion black hole in their day-to-day spending. We have repaired that. At the first opportunity, when the fiscal rules were tested at the Spring Statement, we repaired the headroom against the fiscal rules in full to what it was before. We have set out very clear fiscal rules. We will stick to them, and everything that we set out in the spending review next week will be shown to be fully funded and fully in line with the fiscal rules.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the proposals. I remind the Minister that the Leeds tram scheme was cancelled by the last Labour Government in 2009, so it is very good to see it coming back 26 years later.
I note that the Statement says that modern growth
“relies on dynamic, interconnected city regions”.
I live on the outskirts of Bradford, the largest city in Britain without a mainline station. I am conscious that the lack of a decent trans-Pennine link and the overcrowding of the existing rail links between Leeds and Manchester is a huge problem for interconnection between three potentially vital regions of Britain—West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and Greater Manchester. I remind the Minister that a new trans-Pennine rail link, Northern Powerhouse Rail, was talked about, planned and proposed, on and off, throughout the last Government. We need to make something which will be transformative for the entire north of England.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support and for what he says. He knows much more about that region than I do. He will know that in the previous Budget, we funded the trans-Pennine upgrade for the work that was under way. We gave a further £2.1 billion investment for West Yorkshire yesterday, which will deliver for the West Yorkshire mass transit system, linking up Bradford, Kirklees, Calderdale, Wakefield, Pudsey and Leeds. I hope that goes some way towards what he is asking for. There will be further transport announcements in the spending review next week. I look forward to debating those then.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I must apologise to the House and my noble friend the Minister for being a couple of minutes late for the start of the Statement. I hope that the House will forgive me; it is the first time that I have done that.
I want to ask the Minister about the east Midlands. We have felt very left out over many years in that important part of England, but I was delighted by yesterday’s announcement as it affects transport links between the two great cities of Nottingham and Derby. That is a great plus which we are very pleased about. Now for my slight gripe: I spring from Leicestershire, and we are feeling slightly left out, not from yesterday’s announcements but because, generally, Governments, and particularly the previous one, have failed to do anything to help in this way in the east Midlands and around Leicester in particular. Can the Minister and his colleagues consider that when future decisions are made?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend. Even though he was late, I was very happy for him to contribute when he was welcoming what we have done, for which I am grateful; I was less keen once he started with his gripe. We have pledged £2 billion of additional investment in the East Midlands to develop the Trent Arc, linking Derby and Nottingham to create tens of thousands of new jobs and homes, and to connect Infinity Park Investment zone and the East Midlands Freeport with sites including Ratcliffe-on-Soar clean energy and advanced manufacturing and East Midlands Intermodal Park—home of Toyota in the region. I absolutely hear what he says about Leicester; I will take that back and hopefully will have more good news for him in the spending review next week.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that some of these announcements sound familiar—that is why I welcome them—but I was concerned that the Ely Junction upgrade was not mentioned. I hope for better news later next week. The Minister referred to the Green Book. I am very interested in this, because it was changed in December 2020 specifically to make sure that the Government’s strategic priorities—of which growth around the country was one—meant that a project’s BCR could be lower than for other projects, but that it would still be awarded and could go ahead.
Based on what the Minister has said, I am just wondering what further changes are going to be made in the Green Book on the back of the changes that have already happened, which have meant that projects could be deployed—that is why so many of these projects were announced two years ago. I would be grateful if he could explain this further. He talks about black holes and the like; of course, he knows that the OBR does not agree with that assessment. I would also be grateful if he could clarify the spending announcement, because he said that this would be new money. Is that on top of the £36 billion announced two years ago for many of the projects that were re-announced yesterday?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The noble Baroness has asked a number of questions. When she stood up, I was hoping she was going to defend the Liz Truss mini-Budget that her party is trying to distance itself from today. I was disappointed that she did not do that. She did try to defend the £22 billion black hole, which is almost as enjoyable as defending the Liz Truss mini-Budget, and she will know that that is what we inherited.
The noble Baroness talked about re-announcements made yesterday. I will just make this point again: they are not re-announcements if actual money is put behind them. The previous Government announced many things and made lots of promises—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, used the word “promises” lots of times—but they did not put a single penny behind any of those things. Not one penny or pound of any of those announcements was ever funded. We are now funding those announcements, so it is a very different situation.
The noble Baroness asked about the Green Book. As she knows, the Treasury Green Book sets out the guidance for public servants on how to assess the value for money of Government projects. We have heard from many regional mayors that previous Governments wielded the Green Book against them as an excuse to deny important investment in their areas. That is why in January the Chancellor ordered a review of the Green Book and its use to make sure that this Government give every region a fair hearing on investment. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the Green Book is being used to provide Ministers with fair, objective and transparent advice on public investment across the country, including outside London and the south-east of England. We will publish the full conclusions of that review next week alongside the spending review.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, having just heard what the Minister said about the various regions, may I ask him what, if anything, will happen further west than Bristol?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I tried to address that in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. Yesterday we talked about interconnectivity within the city regions. We will be announcing the full regional transport plan and regional growth plan for the whole of the country—England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—next week in the spending review.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, one way you can tell that I am a Treasury nerd is that I am really looking forward to the Green Book review being announced next week, and I welcome what my noble friend has said about that today. There are many problems with the way the Treasury has, historically, allocated money for long-term investment. One is the regional bias that we have discussed today, but another is that capital budgets are allocated for short periods with an incentive to spend them by the end of a three-year cycle, whether it is appropriate or not for the project. Does the Treasury still intend to move towards longer-term capital budgeting, and will we hear something about that next week in the spending review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his question and for his expertise in this matter. He is right on capital budgets, with which, historically, there have been two problems. The previous Government’s fiscal rules did not prioritise capital investment, so when they had holes in their day-to-day spending plans, they would raid the capital budget to top up them up. That is why we have seen the infrastructure of our country deteriorate over the past 14 years. This Government’s fiscal rules ensure that we do not cannibalise those investment budgets to fund day-to-day spending. That is incredibly important, and it is why we have this £113 billion of extra capital spending to announce in the spending review. My noble friend is also absolutely right about the short-term nature of those capital budgets. Yes, three years is probably too short a planning horizon, which is why we will be announcing five-year capital budgets in the spending review.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not being here at the beginning of this important Statement. I was on the Social Mobility Committee, which is related to regional growth. As an MP, I represented the new town of Runcorn, and I was interested to see that the proposed new towns are in Essex, Surrey, Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Buckinghamshire, Bristol, Wiltshire, Warwickshire and North and South Yorkshire. There is no mention of the north-west or north-east of England. That is quite concerning when we look to achieving the growth we want to see in all the regions of our country. Can the Minister update the House on whether there are any proposals for new towns in the West Midlands and the north-west and north-east of England?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I will have to check with my colleagues in MHCLG on that point, and I am more than happy to write to the noble Lord to answer it. On growth plans for the rest of England—and for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—outside of the city regions that we announced yesterday, there will be much more to say in the spending review next week, but I will write to him on this point.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome yesterday’s Statement. London is grinding to a halt while, hopefully, we are seeing the rest of the country improve its communications. The Mayor has recently made announcements about changes to the congestion charge. I know this is not my noble friend’s direct area of responsibility, but should we not review the possibility of extending the congestion charge to the western part of London? We are grinding to a halt, and it is time we did something fundamental to stop it.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I think that may be a question for the Mayor of London.
Employment Rights Bill
Thursday 5th June 2025
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-VII(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Seventh Marshalled List) - (4 Jun 2025)
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(A1) After section 5(1)(ec) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, insert—“(ed) requiring employment businesses participating in employment arrangements to be subject to a licensing authority nominated by the Secretary of State.””
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin this Committee day on the Employment Rights Bill. This is probably the most straightforward of the amendments I have on the Order Paper this afternoon; it simply seeks to bring clarity, consistency and fairness to this whole area. What does the amendment do? It simply states that employment businesses participating in employment arrangements must be subject to a licensing authority.
The fairness this brings is across both employment businesses that operate in this country and those that may be outside this country but involved in employment arrangements in this country; thus a licensing authority would bring them into the same regime as businesses in this country. It also reflects the situation in other sectors of the economy, so it has an element of consistency and is thus easily understandable to people who come to this from other domains within our economy. It is simply a question of clarity, consistency and fairness in employment businesses. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am quite concerned about this amendment, although I rarely disagree with my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. I am just concerned about the number of agencies or government bodies that keep being created. We already have considerable regulation in this country; I am not convinced that this will add value. Although I recognise the reasons why my noble friend put this forward, I hope he might reconsider tabling it again on Report, if he was so minded.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how pleased we are to see my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond in his place. I had the privilege of moving his previous amendments in his absence, but we are delighted to see him back with us and I thank him for proposing this important amendment.
The way my noble friend did it was very welcome because, at the heart of his speech, was a recognition that the labour market—especially the supply of temporary and agency workers—has to be fair and transparent. He used those particular words and stressed their importance. I agree with him that it is essential that all companies involved in these arrangements operate under the same clear set of rules. Too often, we see instances where umbrella companies or certain intermediaries do not meet the standards expected of traditional employment agencies, whether on pay, workers’ rights or transparency. This inconsistency undermines the integrity of the labour market and can put vulnerable workers at risk. Licensing could, in theory, help address this by ensuring that any business participating in employment arrangements meets minimum standards and is subject to proper oversight.
However, as my noble friend Lady Coffey stressed, the amendment raises some other important questions. Clause 34 broadens the definition of “employment business” to encompass a range of activities connected to supplying workers who are employed by one party but work under the control of another. This means that the regulatory net will be set much wider than before, potentially to cover businesses beyond traditional recruitment agencies.
Moreover, it is worth considering whether the same objectives could be achieved through improved enforcement of existing regulations rather than by introducing a new licensing framework. In this Chamber, we have to weigh carefully the costs and benefits, particularly to smaller businesses that may struggle with additional compliance burdens. We must also consider the impact on businesses and the wider economy. Many employment businesses operate with tight margins; for them, licensing means added costs, added paperwork and longer lead times to launch new services or respond to labour demand.
This is not an argument against regulation per se; it is simply a recognition that badly designed or poorly phased licensing can create barriers to entry, reduce competition and even push some providers underground, where abuses are harder to detect. In sectors that are already experiencing labour shortages, such as social care, hospitality and logistics, the cumulative impact could be significant.
As my noble friend Lady Coffey pointed out, there is also the risk of regulatory duplication or conflict. Some sectors already have licensing or registration schemes; others are subject to sector-specific standards set by Ofsted, the Care Quality Commission or the Financial Conduct Authority. Without co-ordination, we risk creating overlapping regimes, with businesses subject to multiple audits, rival codes of conduct and inconsistent enforcement. Workers too may be confused about their rights and the mechanisms available for redress.
I also note that the amendment does not contain any provisions for parliamentary oversight or consultation. The power it seeks to create is broad and, while it is subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State, it is not constrained by any statutory duty to consult stakeholders. In a sector as economically important and socially sensitive as this, there must be consultation. Against that background, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his amendment concerning the licensing of employment businesses. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in saying how nice it is to see him in his place this afternoon. I share the privilege that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, noted as I responded to the amendments that were tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and these were on important issues that he was right to raise. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, these are around fairness, transparency, equity and the problems that some less than scrupulous umbrella organisations and employment agencies currently raise in the market. He is not raising unimportant issues.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already noted, through Clause 34, the Government have sought to amend the definition of “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, so that it includes the concept of employment arrangements. This expanded definition will capture so-called umbrella companies and place them in the scope of regulation. As your Lordships know, employment businesses are subject to regulation through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which were enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and subsequently will be enforced by the new fair work agency that Part 5 of the Bill creates.
The Government acknowledge that the current regulations are not appropriate for application to umbrella companies so, following consultation, we will set out a new regulatory framework that will apply to umbrella companies. In our view, these regulations are the most proportionate way of reducing non-compliance in the umbrella company market, without introducing a new regime that would add complexity for business. The creation of a licensing authority at this time would therefore not be appropriate. I am happy to say that on this rare occasion, we share the concerns of both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, from whom we heard earlier on this amendment.
The regulation-making powers in the Bill have been carefully considered and included only where the Government consider it justified and necessary. We are not convinced that the amendment will provide additional benefits for businesses or workers significant enough to expand this power, as it proposes.
The Government want to take care to get the regulations right. We have heard throughout our wonderful time spent discussing the Bill in Committee so far that there is a balance to be sought between the burdens that we create through new legislation and regulation on businesses, including small businesses, and protecting the rights of workers. It is a balance we get right, and we want to make sure that we get regulations right in relation to the new definition of employment businesses in this case. Our focus will be on that, alongside the establishment of the fair work agency.
Taking all these factors into consideration, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble lords who contributed to this short debate. I listened very carefully to the Minister, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for his comments. His drafting pen is always both sharper and smarter than mine, and we all benefit from that. I thank him for moving my amendment on Monday in my absence, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for doing so on a previous group. I accept the comments at this stage and am very keen to see what might be possible between now and Report. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
“Definition of AI System(1) For the purposes of this Act, “AI System” means an engineered or machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives, infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as content, predictions, forecasts, recommendations, or decisions influencing real or virtual environments. (2) AI systems may operate with varying degrees of autonomy and include use of algorithmic techniques such as natural language processing, large language models, multi-modal models, machine learning, speech or image recognition, neural networks, deep learning, or decision trees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the definition of an AI System within the context of employment rights as an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, first of all, I must make my apologies that this is my first contribution to the Bill. I have waited until day 7—I am not quite sure that that is entirely my fault—but it is a pleasure to speak in this group, particularly as I know that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, is on the same page, even if he has put forward a different set of amendments.
In moving Amendment 148, I will also speak to Amendments 149 and 150. I hope that these amendments are of interest to the Committee; they are certainly close to my heart. They address the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. Reports by the Institute for the Future of Work and the All-Party Group on the Future of Work paint a clear picture: the wide spread of AI at work is transforming lives and livelihoods in ways that have plainly outpaced or avoid the existing regimes per regulation. The impact of AI will be profound and, although there are potential benefits, there are also significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace. We must make sure that AI benefits are realised but also that the detriment is avoided.
As the All-Party Group on the Future of Work found, there is an urgent need to bring forward robust proposals to protect people and safeguard our fundamental values in the workplace. Existing regulatory frameworks are strained. Technical approaches commonly deployed before deployment of algorithmic systems are often inadequate. That is why a systematic framework for accountability is urgently required.
The workplace AI risk and impact assessments—WAIRIAs, as we have coined them—proposed by these amendments, are intended to provide such a framework. As the Institute for the Future of Work and others have argued, mandating such regimes of impact assessment is a practical response to a deficit of responsible foresight.
It is important for WAIRIAs to be made a legal requirement and for accompanying guidance to be issued to outline a framework. Amendment 148 defines what constitutes an “AI System” in this context as:
“an engineered system generating outputs from inputs using algorithmic techniques”.
That very clear definition ensures we are all addressing the same technology when discussing its regulation.
Amendment 149 introduces the cornerstone requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment mandates that:
“Before implementing or developing an AI system which may have significant risks or impacts on employment rights and conditions in the workplace, an employer must conduct a workplace AI risk and impact assessment”.
The rationale for this is crucial. AI systems can have a potential significant risk or impact on areas vital to workers, including:
“the identification or exercise of rights … work access or allocation … remuneration or benefits … contractual status, terms or conditions …”
and even
“mental, physical or psychosocial health”.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. It is a pleasure to follow him because this has always been his “WAIRIA” of expertise—bear with me. I will speak to my Amendments 289 to 298 and 314 to 316, but before doing so, I give full-throated support to everything the noble Lord said and his amendments. We are very much on the same page.
There is a strange situation with government at the moment when it comes to AI. That is not specific to employment rights but across the piece. We have been subject to it for the past year. We are told consistently that the Government will not be bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation. That position is to be defended if it is taken—the Government have decided on a domain-specific AI approach. But the difficulty with that is that whenever we have had domain-specific legislation coming through your Lordships’ House—be it product regulation, data or any of the Bills that I, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, have worked on—we have been told that those are not the Bills where AI is to be considered. In only a slightly reductive way, we currently have a situation, to be clear, where the Government are saying they are not bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation and specific Bills are largely—not exclusively—not the place to incorporate AI issues.
The amendments that noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I set out in this group are key to one of the most important sectors—it is broader than a sector, and such an important aspect of our lives. It is how we are employed, what that employment looks and feels like, and how it is experienced by all of us. These amendments do not seek to address issues that will occur next year, next month or even tomorrow. AI is impacting workers right now, oftentimes without them even knowing that it is in the mix.
My first amendment seeks to suggest that the principles that have variously appeared in White Papers and other reports are put on a statutory basis in the Bill. We give ourselves the best opportunity to optimise with AI if we take a principles-based, outcomes-focused and input-understood approach. Similarly, I set out in Amendment 290 that all employers and organisations that develop, deploy or use AI should have an AI responsible officer. For this, do not think burdensome, bureaucratic or overcompliance. Because of the proportionality principle, it simply means that there is an obligation on those employers to report on their use of AI in the workplace. It can be well understood through reporting obligations such as those set out in the Companies Act, which employers will be very familiar with at this stage.
My amendments then move to questions of use. What happens where IP or copyrighted material is being used in the workplace? There needs to be labelling so that everybody is clear on, and there is transparency about, what is going on. What about the use of workers’ data? This is an incredibly rich resource that should not in any sense be served up or sold off to the highest bidder. The use of AI in the workplace should be clear and transparent, and workers should have an opt-in, not an opt-out, responsibility, as set out in the amendments.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has touched on, there is the question of automated decisions. It is clear that workers not only have to be aware that ADM is being used—and have the right to opt out—but also need the right to a human explanation of what is happening in those situations. If we are to optimise things with these technologies, concepts such as “human in the loop” and “human over the loop” must be understood. Safeguards need to be in place, not least where ADM is used, and this could form part of the data protection impact assessment that employers have to undertake.
Then there is the question of regulators. Employment and recruitment currently find themselves wide open to the use of AI. An individual may find themselves not getting shortlisted, not getting hired and not even knowing that the reasoning behind that was algorithmic processing rather than human judgment and human reasoning. It is critical to consider the right approach to fill that regulator gap. Would a specific employment and recruitment regulator do the job? My view—and I think there is evidence to support this—would again be that we could have a cross-sector AI authority. Again, do not think of a bureaucratic and burdensome AI regulator; instead, think of a nimble, agile, adaptive and, crucially, horizontally focused AI regulator, not only in the area of employment rights but across the whole of our economy and society. It would deliver that clarity, consistency and certainty that we all need wherever we come across AI in our working, professional and private lives.
It is so significant that, in Amendment 315, I believe there should be a commission on AI in the workplace. Mindful of comments from Monday, I am certainly no fan of setting up a commission to delay or kick issues into the long grass. But perhaps by using the technology to solve some of the issues that are created by the technology, we could have a reimagined approach to commissions and consultations.
Finally, I come to Amendment 316 and the algorithmic allocation of work. This is already happening, and it has already been in front of the courts. It is clearly an issue and one that needs to be fully understood. The Government need to state clearly their position on this most significant of matters. I look forward to other speakers and to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow two of the House’s acknowledged experts in this area of the impact of AI. I will speak to my own Amendment 323B and also note that I attach my name to Amendments 294 and 298 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.
My Amendment 323B is quite a modest step. It calls for a review to be published within 12 months. In saying that, I thank the Ministers for having a meeting prior to the discussion of these amendments, which I very much appreciated. But I think the time for talk is over; the time for action is now. Twelve months is still too short, but it seemed the best timeframe I could reasonably give for this call for a review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. This picks up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. It also crucially points to the need to look around the world and see what else is happening and what we can learn from what has happened in other places. The companies selling these systems are global giant multinational companies. The companies deploying these systems are giant multinational companies in many cases. It is important that, rather than trying to pick this off ourselves, we look around the world and say that we want to be leaders in creating a different kind of model of how workers can be protected.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, following the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I do feel obliged to say some very brief words on this group of amendments. I was at the helm of the TUC when we produced an AI manifesto for workers and that manifesto was AI-positive and optimistic about the potential for AI to help us create more satisfying work for workers and also boost productivity if we share those gains fairly. But it was also realistic, because the real experience of workers at the sharp end in terms of technology more generally is that it has often been used to drive, for example, the gig economy that this Bill proudly is looking to tackle in terms of insecurity and low pay.
Workers also experience oppressive surveillance, with Amazon being right at the top of the rogues’ gallery in that respect. And, of course, technologies such as facial recognition have been developed that bake in race discrimination. So, of course workers are right to be wary and concerned. That is why one of the key demands in that AI manifesto was, as the noble Lord has talked about before, the right to a human review when it comes to decisions about hire and fire. The right to a human review is a fundamental human right. Critically, the manifesto called for a voice for workers in agreeing new technology, including AI agreements, so that workers’ concerns are addressed directly and agreements are made with employers about how AI is introduced and used.
Given that, in a very welcome sense, there has been such broad interest and concern expressed in this short debate, can the Minister reassure us that we will be addressing not just problems such as the gig economy that we saw growing in the 20th century but the new challenges of the 21st century, where workers urgently need protection?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their amendments in this group and for their thoughtful introductions and contributions to what is clearly a vital and timely discussion around the future of artificial intelligence in the workplace.
Amendments 148, 149 and 150, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seek to define AI systems in statute, mandate a workplace AI risk and impact assessment, known as a WAIRIA—I was not sure how to say it—and impose statutory consultation duties on employers prior to the deployment of such systems. In my respectful opinion, these measures go a bit too far at this stage.
To begin with the proposed definition of an AI system, I fully accept the need for clarity in legislation, but the definition offered here is overly expansive and risks capturing a vast range of tools, from predictive text and email sorting to payroll systems and basic data analytics. Technology evolves rapidly, and we think that any attempt to lock such a broad and fluid concept into rigid statutory language at this point risks hindering innovation and forcing employers into compliance regimes for systems that may pose no meaningful risk at all.
On the proposal for workplace AI risk and impact assessments, the intentions behind this are understandable. However, the execution here reads a little more like a blueprint for a full-scale regulatory regime rather than a light-touch safeguard. Employers would be expected to carry out detailed documentation, consult staff, assess and monitor impacts on mental health, contractual terms, pay and more, and then repeat that process at least annually or upon any system change—and that is no small task. For large employers it might be possible, but for SMEs it would surely be burdensome and, in many cases, entirely unworkable. Our concern is not with the principle of transparency or fairness but with the disproportionate bureaucratic weight that these provisions would place on businesses, particularly those outside the technology sector, which simply may not have the capacity or technical knowledge to meet such a standard.
The third proposal, which is a statutory duty to consult employees or trade unions at least one month before deploying AI systems, again assumes a degree of foresight and technical certainty that may not always exist in practice. The development and use of AI systems is often iterative, and definitions, use cases and impacts evolve over time. Requiring formal consultation at every turn risks paralysing technological progress and may well deter even the cautious adoption of beneficial systems.
I recognise that the amendments are rooted in a desire to protect workers and uphold ethical standards, but we have to resist the temptation to reach immediately for sweeping, front-loaded legislation in a domain that is still very much in its infancy. Regulation in this space, as I am sure all noble Lords would agree, must be agile, proportionate and grounded in practical reality.
We are entering a new phase where AI is no longer confined to research labs or boardrooms. It is appearing across ordinary workplaces, public and private alike. There are tremendous opportunities to improve productivity, streamline operations and foster collaboration between human workers and AI tools, yet we think many of the proposals in this group—including those seen elsewhere, such as the mandatory appointment of AI officers, rights to personalised algorithmic explanations, opt-in clauses, and statutory principles of fairness and explainability—share a common shortcoming, which is that they attempt to legislate about highly technical and fast-evolving systems with a degree of rigidity that may prove counterproductive.
We on these Benches share the Government’s ambitions to become a world leader in this space, and therefore we must remain mindful of all those factors, as well as of existing protections. Several of these proposals risk duplicating duties already present under UK GDPR, data protection law and various existing employment safeguards. The creation of overlapping, inconsistent or duplicative regimes could confuse employers and regulators alike, all while doing little to prevent truly harmful practices.
While we acknowledge all the opportunities that are potentially offered by AI, we must remain vigilant to the risks that it poses, including algorithmic bias, opacity and decision-making—which we have heard a lot about—and the misuse of personal data. But that vigilance must be coupled with regulatory restraint. We ought to be cautious to not impose premature, overly burdensome rules that stifle innovation and overwhelm well-intentioned employers, particularly in low-risk use cases, such as rota planning, document handling or payroll automation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 148, 149 and 150; the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his Amendments 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 298, 315 and 316; and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for her Amendment 323B. I thank them for generating an important debate on these issues. I thank my noble friend Lady O’Grady for her wise words on this issue.
I will take the amendments in turn. Amendments 148, 149 and 150 seek to introduce mandatory AI risk assessments in the workplace where there are significant impacts on workers, and would place a requirement on employers to consult employees and trade union representatives before implementing AI systems that might significantly impact employment rights and conditions. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his Amendments 315 and 316, which would establish an independent commission on AI in the workplace and a project to investigate the potential challenges posed by the algorithmic allocation of work by employers. Amendment 323B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, proposes a government review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. I agree with her that the cases that she cited were completely unacceptable.
As noble Lords will be aware, under data protection law employers are required to fulfil obligations as controllers if they collect and use their employees’ personal data. This includes the provision of meaningful information to the workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them having a legal or similarly significant effect will be based solely on automatic processing. Furthermore, as noble Lords know, the Data (Use and Access) Bill includes a range of safeguards relating to solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals. I reassure noble Lords that the Government’s plan to make work pay makes it clear that workers’ interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in the workplace. Our approach is to protect good jobs, ensure good future jobs, and ensure that rights and protections keep pace with technological change.
The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. The plan’s proposals regarding the use of AI and monitoring technology in the workplace were not included in the Employment Rights Bill to allow time for the full suite of options to be considered with proper consultation, given the novel nature of AI-enabled technology. However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work play plan in due course.
I turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, beginning with Amendments 289 and 290. The Government agree with him that AI should be used ethically, with proper mechanisms for redress. That is why existing data protection legislation provides safeguards for solely automated decision-making with legal and significant effects on individuals and the use of AI where personal data is processed, including in workplaces.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his Amendment 291, which would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and IP used in AI training and allow independent audits of AI processes. As he knows, this issue is under active consideration in the Data (Use and Access) Bill. A public consultation sponsored by DSIT, the IPO and DCMS on issues relating to copyright and AI, including questions on transparency, closed in February 2025. Transparency in the use of intellectual property material in AI training has been acknowledged in debates and government amendments as a critical issue. I committed only yesterday that the Government will publish a report on the subject within nine months of Royal Assent. I respectfully suggest that it is not helpful to have the same debate running across these two Bills at the same time.
In addressing Amendments 292 and 293 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am happy to reassure him that the UK’s data protection framework already provides robust and effective protection for processing personal data, including for workers. Consent is a lawful ground for processing personal data, but it may not be freely given in employment contexts due to the power imbalance between the employer and the employee. That is why we would not deem it appropriate to restrict the lawful grounds on which data can be processed in this way. In addition, when processing personal data, organisations are required to notify data subjects, such as employees, of matters such as the purposes for data processing, any automated decision-making, any recipients of the data and the data subject’s rights. This includes the right to object to it being processed or to restrict what can be done with it.
Amendments 294, 295 and 296 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, concern the use of automated decision-making. I reaffirm that, under data protection law, employers must fulfil their obligations as controllers if they collect and use employees’ personal data. They must provide meaningful information to workers when collecting their personal data if any decisions about them, having a legal or similarly significant effect, will be based solely on automated processing. This ensures that workers are informed about the logic involved in the automated processing, as well as the significance and envisaged consequences for them.
The reforms in the Data (Use and Access) Bill include a range of safeguards after a decision about an individual has been taken based solely on automated decision-making. I hope that noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady O’Grady, will be reassured that these safeguards include that the individuals receive information about significant decisions, as well as the opportunity to make representations and obtain human intervention.
Further, the Government agree that human intervention in automated decision-making should be carried out competently. The UK’s data protection regulator, the ICO, has existing guidance explaining how requests for human review should be managed. When it comes to high-risk automated decision-making, the Government do not feel it necessary to introduce an outright prohibition of processing of the nature described in Amendment 294. Specific requirements already apply for processing that could result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of individuals. Organisations must carry out an impact assessment and consult the ICO where such an assessment indicates a high risk to individuals in the absence of effective measures.
I turn to Amendment 298, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on the creation of a new regulator for the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord may be aware, last year the previous Government published guidance on responsible AI in recruitment, which was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The Government, via the AI Security Institute and the central AI risk function, are already progressing our understanding of AI risks, including AI and its impact on the labour market. This work is being carried out across government, with the involvement of each department where specific sector knowledge is valuable.
I remind the noble Lord that AI is not currently unregulated. Given the cross-cutting nature of AI, the Government believe that it is best regulated at the point of use by the UK’s existing sectoral regulators. As experts in their sectors, they are best placed to understand the uses and risks of AI in their relevant areas. That is why, in response to the AI action plan, the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.
As set out in our manifesto, the Government are also developing legislative proposals that will allow us to safely realise the enormous benefits of the most powerful AI systems. These proposals will be highly targeted and designed to be future-proofed and effective against this fast-evolving technology. We look forward to engaging further with a wide range of stakeholders on our legislative proposals, including providing clarity on where responsibility for compliance with any new rules will lie.
Noble Lords have provided some interesting areas for consideration, but we are keen that these far-reaching amendments are properly assessed. I reassure noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into. In this respect, I am pleased to note the active engagement between my officials and stakeholders, most recently with the IPPR, whose recent report on surveillance technologies makes a helpful contribution to the awareness and understanding of this context. As already mentioned, we intend to consult on these make work pay proposals in due course. Furthermore, I remind noble Lords that in response to the AI action plan the Government have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating their AI capabilities and understanding how they can be strengthened.
Finally, I thank noble Lords for their interest in how AI is being adopted in the workplace and the helpful way in which they have focused on these issues. I reassure my noble friend Lady O’Grady that we are working with the relevant stakeholders to build a strong evidence base to tackle the 21st-century challenges relating to these technologies. Our public consultation will be a crucial part of future-proofing the proposals. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to making sure that workers’ interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his Amendment 148.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. That is probably the most comprehensive statement about the Government’s intentions on AI regulation that I have heard in this Parliament, so I thank her and her officials for taking the time and trouble to set out their approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about gap analysis. I am very much in favour of that. I do not want to see duplication of regulation; I want to see effective regulation. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, set out the challenge: will the Government address the new challenges? That seems to be absolutely at the heart of this.
I thank the Minister for her assurance that there will be an imminent consultation. I think all of us with an interest in this will very much want to take part in that. I hope that this mini-debate has started the ball rolling in getting people’s thoughts about what we can do. What the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said was crucial; the illustrations she gave were exactly why we are concerned about these issues.
Talking of gap analysis, this morning I helped to launch the ICO’s new AI and biometrics strategy. We are all a bit nervous about this because we do not think the current ICO regime covers all the issues relating to AI use, particularly in the workplace. We are subject to exactly the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, put his finger on. The Government have no appetite for cross-sectoral regulation, but what does that mean? Does it mean having to pick off individual sectors, sector by sector, only to be told on individual Bills, “I’m sorry, it’s not appropriate to start legislating about AI in our particular bit of legislation”?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, before we move to the next group, I must inform the Committee that if Amendment 151 is agreed I will not be able to call Amendments 152 to 158 for reason of pre-emption.
Schedule 4: Pay and conditions of school support staff in England
Amendment 151
Baroness Barran
“(1) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(b) of section 148C, matters within the SSNB’s remit are limited to the establishment of a framework to which employers of school support staff must have regard when discharging their functions.(2) A framework under subsection (1) must include information on—(a) the remuneration of school support staff,(b) the terms and conditions of employment of school support staff,(c) the training of school support staff,(d) career progression for school support staff, and(e) related matters.(3) When taking any action related to the matters in subsection (2), an employer may disregard the framework only in exceptional circumstances.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), the definition of “exceptional circumstances” shall be set out in regulations.(5) In the case of staff employed under subsection (3)(a) of section 148C, the matters within the SSNB’s remit are matters relating to the following—(a) the remuneration of school support staff;(b) terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;(c) the training of school support staff;(d) career progression for school support staff.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, for the purposes of subsection (5)—(a) a payment or entitlement of a prescribed kind is, or is not, to be treated as remuneration;(b) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to terms and conditions of employment of school support staff;(c) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to the training of school support staff;(d) a prescribed matter is, or is not, to be treated as relating to career progression for school support staff.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would change the matters within the SSNB’s remit in relation to academy staff, limiting it to the creation of a framework to which academy employers must have regard in all but exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 151, 174 and 180, which are in my name. These amendments would address one of the most crucial challenges in our education system: how we value, support and compensate more than half the school workforce—the non-teaching staff. These teaching assistants, business managers, IT technicians, cleaners and catering staff form the backbone of every successful school.
While the Government’s intention to establish a school support staff negotiating body demonstrates a genuine commitment to these vital employees, and indeed fulfils a manifesto pledge, I am really concerned that the proposals as drafted are unworkable, expensive and time-consuming. They will add to the complexity and workload of every single school, not just academies. Individual maintained schools will often not be aware that the pay structure in their local authority is different from that in a neighbouring one. My amendments focus on academy schools, but the thrust of my argument to the Government is to think again because of the impact on every single school.
Amendment 151 seeks to mitigate potential damage by limiting the SSSNB’s powers to creating a framework that academies must consider regarding remuneration, terms and conditions, training, career progression and related matters. I believe that these flexibilities should extend to maintained schools. Amendment 174 would require the Government to produce before introducing these changes an impact assessment of the cost to the whole education sector, both academies and maintained schools. Amendment 180 would require annual reports of the SSSNB to include an assessment of the increased costs to the sector of any pay and conditions agreements.
It is important that we are clear what we mean by support staff. Support staff are not a homogenous group but an extraordinarily diverse workforce spanning many different roles, skill levels and contexts. Teaching assistants, while crucial, comprise less than half of all support staff. The remainder includes roles ranging from pastoral care to facilities managers, finance assistants, network administrators and school receptionists.
A small maintained primary school might employ a part-time administrative assistant handling multiple responsibilities, while a large multi-academy trust might maintain specialised finance teams, HR professionals and IT specialists serving multiple schools across a region. This diversity is intentional and beneficial. Schools and trusts have developed different approaches to organising their support functions because they face varying challenges. They serve distinct communities and operate at very different scales. What serves a 100-pupil rural primary school will not suit a 2,000-pupil secondary academy. What works for a stand-alone school will not fit a trust operating across multiple regions. Any national framework that fails to acknowledge this reality risks becoming either too vague to be useful or too rigid to serve communities effectively.
I am not trying to suggest that the status quo is perfect. The current National Joint Council arrangements have significant weaknesses in their application to schools, leading some local authorities such as those in the so-called London fringe to opt out of the Green Book terms and conditions entirely.
First, the NJC terms and conditions were designed for general local government workers—from refuse collectors to office administrators—but they barely address schools’ specific working environments and unique demands. Secondly, there is insufficient co-ordination between teacher and support staff pay negotiations. These separate processes often reach conflicting conclusions about affordability and appropriate pay increases. Did the Minister consider expanding the remit of the STRB to include support staff? Thirdly, the Department for Education has minimal influence over support staff pay decisions, and school affordability is not factored into NJC decision-making. Consequently, when resources are limited, teachers’ pay becomes the residual after other decisions are made, which is clearly an extraordinary outcome.
The current legislative approach is fundamentally flawed. Mandating a single detailed set of terms and conditions for all support staff will create more problems than it solves and certainly will not address the challenges schools face with recruitment and retention. First, it is essentially impossible to have a national set of pay scales for this very wide range of roles, given the vast variation in how schools and trusts organise their functions and their work. Consider this example: how can one write a generic job description for a finance assistant that serves both a small primary school’s sole financial administrator and a large trust’s specialist management accountant? Although sharing a title, these roles require entirely different skills, qualifications and responsibilities. What schools do for themselves, and what is done by the local authority or trust’s central team, varies hugely across the country. How many people there are to run finance or technology in a school, and therefore their seniority and skill, depends on the size of the school and on its legal status.
Secondly, at present, under the NJC each local authority sets its own grading structure. Even if you could find a role which was commonly defined across the country, you would find that it was graded and paid somewhat differently in different areas. The SSSNB would be expected to override these 150 grading structures and produce one national one. This would inevitably entail paying some people more, at potentially substantial cost in some areas, or paying some people less. I would argue that neither outcome is palatable.
Furthermore, much of this variation is driven by local labour markets. Some areas have to pay more than others to get decent IT skills, for example. It would be extraordinary to require schools in Cambridge to pay the same for IT skills as other schools if it meant that they could not get the skilled people they needed or that other schools had to pay significantly more than they do now.
I have heard Ministers suggest that their aim is to create a pay floor, not a ceiling, but that does not change the fundamental problem. It represents a full pay negotiation beyond NJC agreements, and therefore an effective national grading structure in which roles are mapped to a national spine in a consistent way across the country, rather than the more than 150 ways that currently exist. The task of trying to do that could begin only after considering every local variation. The floor points negotiation faces another challenge: employers cannot afford floors above current pay rates, plus cost of living adjustments, and understandably unions will not accept anything lower, even as a minimum. Given that the same role currently receives different pay across local authorities within the NJC, achieving both goals everywhere is impossible.
I hope the Minister acknowledges that this will create complications for local authorities, as their grading structures will likely not align with nationally mandated school support staff pay scales. Must authorities alter their grading structures to match the national framework, or will they apply it only to schools, or neither? Every possible answer creates serious problems of complexity and comparability within individual local authorities.
Most concerningly, this fiendishly complicated approach addresses non-existent problems. Despite repeated allegations of academies cutting and poaching support staff, sector colleagues can find no evidence of this. I find it hard to imagine that any rational person would take a cut in their salary to be poached. In fact, academies that have departed from standard terms and conditions have done so to enhance pay and improve conditions and career prospects, not to reduce them. Claims that support staff lack clear contractual terms are just not correct. Like teachers, they have specific contracts, often referencing established national or local frameworks. Contractual arrangements are not the issue.
Our school support staff deserve recognition, proper pay, good working conditions and career development opportunities. Above all, they need a policy framework that serves them and their schools effectively. We can build this through pragmatic reform, building on existing strengths, addressing real weaknesses, and respecting the diversity and complexity of modern school organisations. However, we cannot achieve meaningful improvement through legislation that ignores schools’ practical operations and imposes uniformity where variety better serves everyone. My amendments seek to make some progress towards this goal. I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s approach. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in my name, but first I fully endorse what my noble friend Lady Barran has said. It is worth the Government reflecting on her direct experience of this before Report.
My amendment is quite simple. It is about the practice and conventions behind whatever we get into primary legislation. Candidly, I object to the naming of an organisation that is not a regulator in this country as needing to be consulted by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can consult anybody they like when considering making regulations. I do not see why the TUC should be named in primary legislation. That is the reason for my amendment. This is poor legislation and adds nothing to the Bill.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Barran in her amendments, as I am rather confused by how this will improve the education system.
I speak as someone on the front line. As of today, my academy trust employs 717 non-teaching staff across our 18 schools. We provide high-quality benefits to our staff. We have to match the terms and conditions of the local authority, including a very generous pension, and we are proud to do so—but we go much further. For example, we offer a health scheme for all our teaching and non-teaching staff, which provides an online consultation with a GP and online access to prescriptions, so that they can get treatment far more quickly than through the NHS backlog, and we provide a dental scheme which gives access to one hygienist appointment a year, as well as theatre and retail discounts.
On top of that, we have been very assertive in pushing through apprenticeships for our non-teaching staff. We have put 69 staff through apprenticeships over the last couple of years, which is a pretty high percentage of the 700-odd staff we employ. We did that knowing full well that we would lose a lot of them as they became skilled and moved on to jobs elsewhere, which is what they have done.
How will this improve anything for teaching? It will add another layer of administration and costs, and more HR resource will have to be deployed to wade our way through these regulations. Listening to my noble friend Lady Barran, they sound extraordinarily impractical because, frankly, an IT support staff member in, say, Thetford, which is where we have our most westerly school, is in a very different market from anything in Cambridge. Indeed, what is an IT role? The role is changing almost monthly, as we try to create data lakes to access a large language model for our own teaching data. These things are undefined—you will have to create bands that are so wide as to be meaningless.
To the point made by my noble friend Lady Barran, we cannot afford to go higher and we cannot go lower, so what is the point of all this? I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of the proposed school support staff negotiating body, as set out in the Bill. Noble Lords may remember that such a body was established in 2010. All the things that have been said in the Chamber today on this issue were talked about prior to that. Unfortunately, there was a change of Government. The coalition came in and even though the arguments were dealt with, everything was set up and moving forward, and the school support staff negotiating body—which we had great hope in—had met once, the coalition’s first act was to abolish it.
Through the Employment Rights Bill, we can rectify something which was wrong. The new body referred to in the Bill is long overdue. It will work towards a number of goals for support staff, some of which have already been mentioned. It would give them a voice in the education debate, achieve fair pay, which is the law of this land, and create unified pay and conditions across the country—what is so wrong with that? Local government, which has been mentioned, negotiates on behalf of millions of local government workers who do different jobs in different communities, with different arrangements in place to meet the local conditions where the service is being provided. All that has been in place not for decades, but for a century. Look at our National Health Service. We all applaud joint working and the implementation of fair pay and conditions—fair pay for work of equal value— across the NHS and all the different disciplines it provides in our communities. Collective bargaining works well. Those bodies address and deal with any issues as they arise.
We are talking about a group of school staff who, for many years, have seen teachers have collective bargaining—which we obviously support. Other school staff have nothing; they are at the whim of the headmaster or headmistress, and of local conditions. Little is done on their behalf, which is why school support staff across the country welcome the re-establishment of the school support staff negotiating body.
The TUC is a voice for good. It is at the heart of the trade union movement and is respected by employers and governments alike. If there are differences or issues that need to be tackled, why not go to the heart of the trade union movement and ask for its advice and assistance? It has been doing it for nearly 100 years and doing it well. There is no reason whatsoever why it cannot be part of the arrangements for establishing the new body. I am proud of the work the TUC does.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was clear that the Secretary of State could consult whoever they liked, and I would not be surprised if that was the TUC. My point is, why is this being put into primary legislation when it is completely unneeded?
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that comment.
The whole intention appears to be to limit the scope of any collective bargaining. It is as clear as day. Different forms of words can be come up with concerning who is involved, who should clear what, and so on. That delays things, and that is the intention of the amendments before us.
Noble Lords have to understand that the proposals legislate for the Secretary of State or their nominee to be involved in the negotiating body. I personally have no reservations about that. We want to talk to the people who have the power and the influence to make decisions that improve the service and teaching in our schools. This proposed new body is intended to improve schools and education. What better way of doing it than to bring people together, give them a voice, allow it to be heard and come to conclusions which are for the benefit of all?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate, and I thank my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Coffey for their amendments in this group. We have had some very interesting real-life examples given by my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton, and an important dimension from the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, to which I will return in a moment.
I am, however, pleased to speak in support of Amendment 151, introduced by my noble friend Lady Barran. This amendment highlights an essential but often underappreciated part of our school workforce: the support staff. That is where I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds. Those support staff keep schools running smoothly every day. From teaching assistants to catering teams, their work is vital, and as my noble friend put it, they form the backbone of the whole system.
The Government’s Bill takes a step forward by proposing the creation of a school support staff negotiating body, and I make it clear that I believe that is a welcome move. However, the Bill’s current approach, with its push for a single set of national pay and conditions, risks overlooking the real differences which exist between schools, as my noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton pointed out, especially between maintained schools and academies.
What this amendment does so well is to recognise the need for a flexible framework for academies, one that they must consider and may depart from only in exceptional circumstances. This respects academies’ independence while still promoting fairness and consistency.
We must of course remember that “support staff” is a broad term covering a wide range of roles and responsibilities. The needs of a small primary school and a large multi-academy trust are not at all the same, and any framework has to reflect that diversity. Like in most areas of the Bill, the Government have taken a rigid, one-size-fits-all model that I am concerned could create confusion and strain resources. Instead, a balanced framework such as the one my noble friend proposes offers a practical way to support staff fairly, without unnecessary bureaucracy.
My noble friend also raised an important point about the potential costs and bureaucratic complexity that come with establishing another negotiating body such as the school support staff negotiating body. This is not just about money but about the practical demands placed on schools and trusts, especially smaller ones with limited administrative capacity.
Setting up and maintaining a new national negotiating framework involves significant resources: time, personnel and funding. Schools will need to engage with the school support staff negotiating body’s processes, potentially adapt to new systems for pay, terms and training, and ensure compliance with frameworks that may be complex and constantly evolving.
For large multi-academy trusts, this might be manageable, but for smaller schools—already stretched thin—it adds a layer of bureaucracy that can divert valuable time and resources away from teaching and supporting pupils. Moreover, the negotiation and implementation processes risk becoming slow and cumbersome, delaying important decisions on staff pay and conditions. This could lead to uncertainty and frustration among support staff and their employers alike.
I particularly thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her insightful remarks. She makes a compelling and important point: the Secretary of State is already required to consult the prescribed school support staff organisations, which represent the full spectrum of support staff voices, yet this amendment rightly challenges why the Trades Union Congress should be given a special, privileged position with an additional mandatory consultation in primary legislation that risks unnecessary delay, added bureaucracy and potential obstruction.
Although the TUC is of course a major trade union umbrella—many colleagues across the Chamber will remind us of its history—it does not have a monopoly on representing school support staff. Many staff organisations operate independently and effectively without TUC oversight. Therefore, by insisting on formal TUC consultations, we risk entrenching a narrow set of interests, potentially sidelining smaller or non-TUC affiliated groups that also deserve a seat at the table.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
What can I say? It is an utter pleasure to be here to respond to this debate. I was not aware that I had a choice; nevertheless, I am very pleased to make my first appearance in Committee on this Bill, which I see that noble Lords have been enjoying for several days already.
I am very pleased to consider these amendments on such an important provision in the Bill. Establishing the school support staff negotiating body is an important part of this Government’s plan to make work pay and of the opportunity mission. As several noble Lords have already identified, the nearly 800,000 support staff in our schools are playing a vital role in children’s education and development, are supporting teaching staff and parents, and are ensuring that our schools can run effectively. Despite their contribution, there is an acute recruitment and retention challenge. It is that issue that the SSSNB seeks to remedy and improve, along with providing a voice for those staff in negotiations.
We have heard from my noble friend Lord Prentis that a previous version of the SSSNB was established in 2009, but it was abolished very soon afterwards by the coalition Government when they came to power. Despite the arguments made by noble Lords opposite, in the 14 years between then and the opportunity now in this legislation, the previous Government did not choose to set up a framework to reduce complexity around the negotiation of terms and conditions for school support staff. They did not choose to make it more straightforward for schools. They stuck with the complexity inherent in the current negotiating arrangements through the NJC, which do not give a voice to the particular issues relating to school support staff that our proposals will. That is why the SSSNB, which is being established in this Bill, has a remit designed to reflect the needs of all state-funded schools in England today, bringing together employer and employee representatives with an independent chair to negotiate on pay and conditions and to advise on training and career progression.
As my noble friend Lord Prentis said, that enables the voice of those involved in this work to be represented both in negotiations about pay and conditions and in important considerations on how to make these roles something that people will want to come and do, will be trained to be as effective as possible in doing, and will want to carry on doing, staying in our schools doing their enormously important roles.
In thanking the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Barran, for tabling Amendments 151, 174, 175 and 180, I hope I can respond and provide some assurance on those. First, on Amendment 175, introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, on the role of the TUC in this legislation, it will be the case that the SSSNB will, as is clear in the legislation, allow representatives of the employers and representatives of the employees to engage in these negotiations. The Secretary of State will consult on regulations about precisely who those representatives should be, and that will be named then in secondary legislation.
It does not seem wrong to me—in fact, it seems quite sensible—when thinking about who from the trade union side should represent employees, that the TUC, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, is the umbrella body for trade unions, should be consulted about which would be the appropriate trade union representatives for school support staff. It is for that reason that we have included this within the legislation: to enable the Secretary of State to make an informed decision when deciding which unions should represent school support staff on the body.
Turning to Amendment 151, and several of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the nature, complexity and coverage of the SSSNB, we are, in this legislation, creating a new system for support staff in 2025. We are not trying to amend an existing one. It is appropriate, therefore, that we consider the coverage of that board in the light of the current make-up of the school system. Roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are academies, compared to around 200 when the original SSSNB was set up in 2009. Academies are a significant element of the state school system now, and it is therefore right that they should be included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools to ensure there is greater national consistency.
Our intention, however, is for the SSSNB to agree floors, not ceilings, for pay and conditions. Beyond minimum agreements reached by the SSSNB—which, by the way, I would have thought would actually make it easier, not more complicated, for head teachers, particularly those in small schools, to understand the context in which they were operating when considering the employment of school support staff—all schools will be able to innovate with pay and conditions to attract and retain the best workforce that they need for our children. The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, gave us some good examples of the ways in which schools are able to innovate and support the school support staff in his academy chain. Those things are admirable. They are facilitated by this Bill; they are not prevented by it. What is more, I am not quite sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, meant this, but there was a sort of implication that what was being proposed here was a body that would direct schools and head teachers as to whom and what they could employ with respect to support staff. That is not the intention of this body: it will remain the responsibility of the head teachers to determine whom they want in their team to meet the objectives that they have set. Nothing will mandate whom or what should be employed.
So, for all those reasons, we do not need to see the provisions that have been proposed in Amendment 151, which would in fact run against the idea that there should be a national, consistent approach to our school support staff. We already have the ability for academies to innovate, but we underpin that with a floor and a consistent national approach, informed by the voices of those who are employing school support staff and those who are representing their voice to enable it to be much more coherent than is the case at the moment.
On Amendment 174, the costs associated with changes to the constitution which are covered in this amendment are very unlikely to impact on the education sector. There will be limited administrative expenses and fees in setting up the negotiating board, but, for the reasons that I have already outlined, if anything, it is actually likely to make it more straightforward for schools to understand the scope—the pay levels that they would be offering to school support staff. So I do not think that it is necessary for the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment on the constitutional arrangements. There will be the consultation that I have already referenced with respect to the arrangements and the process for setting up those arrangements. We will work hard with stakeholders to ensure that the arrangements work for all schools, including academies, and provide all schools with a core pay and conditions offer in doing that consultation.
I think I have responded to the point about costs, although I will come to the broader point that is made in Amendment 180, which is about assessing the cost implications of agreements reached by the SSSNB on pay and conditions. It will, of course, be important for the Department for Education to be able to assess the implications of recommendations made by the negotiating body prior to the Secretary of State ratifying any agreements. The legislation also gives the Secretary of State the power to refer matters back to the SSSNB, or to make regulations otherwise than in terms of the agreement if agreements reached are not practicable. That is to ensure consideration of the affordability of agreements reached for the education sector. At that point, of course, changes to terms and conditions would be implemented through the use of statutory instruments.
Just to re-emphasise the point that I made about school employers deciding who they employ, there are also powers in legislation to allow the Government to determine, after consultation, which school employees come within the remit of the SSSNB. Yes, this is a complex area, and there may be some categories of school support staff whom it is not appropriate to include within this body, but that will be determined through a process of consultation and set down in the regulations that I previously referred to.
I hope I have covered, and provided some reassurance in relation to, Amendment 180. This is a reasonable balance between enabling the voice and the expertise of the employers and the employees of school support staff to be able, through this body, to reach agreements around pay and conditions, to be put to the Secretary of State, and to do that important work around advising on improvements to training, development—all the types of things that are likely to lead to even more effective school support staff, and therefore even better support for our children, our schools and the teachers that these staff play such an important role in supporting.
I hope, on the basis of those assurances, that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and add my support to in principle to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey: she makes a very sensible, practical point.
In picking up on some of the points made by the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Prentis of Leeds, I just make it clear for the record that I am not quite sure why the Minister thought I was suggesting that the legislation directed who—or “what” was, I think, her word—schools employed. I can re-look at my notes, but I am not clear why she got that impression. Of the many concerns in my mind, that was absolutely not one of them. Again, just to be absolutely clear, as I said in my remarks, we accept the principle of the SSSNB—I think the noble Lord, Lord Prentis, questioned that, but it was a manifesto commitment, and we acknowledge and accept that. What I was arguing for in relation to his remarks was a due regard framework, which I believed would deliver what the Minister says is the Government’s ambition: to create a floor, not a ceiling, and to create a system which permits innovation of the type that we heard about from my noble friend Lord Agnew.
I am sure that the noble Lord knows this, but in recent years, the pay increases for support staff have actually been significantly higher than for teachers. I think his concern was that somehow this group had been left behind, but, certainly in recent years, that has not been the case. I think my question to the Minister goes back to the cost. I understand the emotional pull, even if I do not think it reflects reality, of a single voice and a single settlement. The reality is that we live in different micro-economies around the country. But if that is the Government’s aim, surely, to be responsible, they need to work out up front what it is going to cost. If we are not going to take a cut, and every IT assistant is going to be paid the same as those who live in Cambridge, and that is applied to every other role, could the Minister kindly write to me and put the letter in the Library setting out what those adjustments are? To introduce legislation without having worked out what the cost will be once implemented risks being irresponsible. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I fear that we may revisit this.
Lord Hendy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to make the Negotiating Body a collective bargaining body rather than a consultative body by leaving it to the industrial parties to determine the matters which require to be collectively bargained (within the statutory definition of collective bargaining in s.178) and so partially fulfils the requirements of the ILO for free and voluntary collective bargaining.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 152 to 179, which are intended not to undermine but to improve the SSSNB.
First, I will say a word about collective bargaining relevant to these amendments and to later amendments dealing with that subject. The term was coined by Beatrice Webb in 1891. It means negotiations between one or several trade unions on the one side and one or more employers or employers’ associations on the other, with a view to agreeing rates of remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment for a defined group of workers. The term is defined in Section 178 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, which sets out various matters which may form the basis of such negotiations—not just pay, terms and conditions, but including dismissals, allocation of work, union facilities, dispute resolution machinery, and so on. The International Labour Organization—ILO—has a similar, but less detailed, definition in Convention 154.
Collective bargaining may be on a sector-wide basis across a particular industry or it may be confined to a particular enterprise. Where there are sectoral agreements setting minimum terms, they are usually improved upon by enterprise agreements with individual employers in the sector. The UK was the first country to establish widespread collective bargaining coverage. By 1948, the then Prime Minister could say in a broadcast to the nation that:
“We have built up in this country a system of collective bargaining without parallel in the world”.
That coverage was built upon two pillars: the statutory wages councils introduced by Winston Churchill in the Trade Boards Act 1909, latterly regulated by the Wages Council Act 1979, and the voluntary joint national councils, or Whitley councils, pursuant to the reports of the Reconstruction Committee after the First World War by JH Whitley. Governments of all persuasions were committed to the promotion of collective bargaining, particularly because of its very positive effect on productivity in both world wars. In consequence, collective agreement coverage of UK workers was in excess of 80% between 1945 and 1980.
Significantly, the proportion of workers covered by only an enterprise-level collective agreement was almost insignificant and had grown to only 9% by the late 1970s. The dismantling of sectoral collective bargaining since 1980 has produced a steady downward curve in the coverage, which was not halted by the introduction of the recognition machinery for enterprise-level bargaining in 2000. The percentage of workers whose terms are negotiated now is likely to be around 25%. The remaining three-quarters must take what they are offered.
The staggering decline from over 80% coverage to 25% has had a devastating effect on workers. The stagnation in the real value of wages and the meteoric rise in zero-hours contracts and job insecurity can be attributed, at least in part, to that dramatic decline. To achieve the growth and improvement in living standards rightly sought by the Government necessitates restoration of extensive collective bargaining coverage.
There are considerable benefits to that. A few years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada pointed out that:
“The right to bargain collectively with an employer enhances the human dignity, liberty and autonomy of workers by giving them the opportunity to influence the establishment of workplace rules and thereby gain some control over a major aspect of their lives, namely their work. Collective bargaining is not simply an instrument for pursuing external ends ... rather [it] is intrinsically valuable as an experience in self-government ... Collective bargaining permits workers to achieve a form of workplace democracy and to ensure the rule of law in the workplace”.
It has also been said that collective bargaining
“is the mode in which employees participate in setting the terms and conditions of employment, rather than simply accepting what their employer chooses to give them”.
Workers enjoy the benefits of increased wages and improved minimum terms and conditions. Trade unions can negotiate on a sector-wide stage without diminishing their ability to negotiate better terms locally.
The benefits of sectoral collective bargaining extend to employers too. Sectoral collective bargaining prevents undercutting and steadies labour costs. Employers in the same sector must compete instead in investment, innovation, efficiency and productivity—the fields of competition which foster growth. Employers, especially SMEs and micro employers, benefit from not having to research or negotiate wages with their workers. Instead, the minimum terms and conditions for their sector are contained in the sectoral agreement.
Employers profit from the increase in consumer demand, consequent on increased earnings generally. Governments enjoy increased tax from higher earnings and the diminished need to fund social security payments to subsidise low wages. Sectoral collective bargaining has proved to reduce inequality, not just between high and low earners but between women and men, and to reduce the pay gap suffered by disabled and ethnic-minority workers.
There is much research from academic institutions to support these conclusions, as well as from the ILO, OECD and IMF. In 2024, the European Union went so far as to adopt a directive requiring member states that have less than an 80% coverage of collective agreements to put in place an action plan to achieve such coverage.
A letter in last week’s Financial Times pointed out that Sweden—notwithstanding its conversion over the last 30 years from neosocialism to neoliberalism—preserved, at the insistence of employers and unions, the very extensive sectoral collective bargaining that characterises Nordic industrial relations.
Collective bargaining, and in particular sectoral collective bargaining, is not just desirable in itself; international law requires the UK to promote and encourage it. That is a subject I will return to in the next group.
It is unclear why the Bill does not stipulate the creation of collective bargaining bodies. The UK’s long and successful experience of statutory wages councils and voluntary joint national councils provides fine precedents. There are many other such precedents as well.
With that introduction, I turn to the proposition that the SSSNB is not the collective bargaining forum it should be, and which many unfamiliar with the detail of the Bill assumed it would be. To save time, I will also refer to the adult social care negotiating body—I wish the Government had chosen easier acronyms—since the Bill’s proposals and the arguments about them are virtually identical.
The relevant features are these. First, the Bill expressly states that nothing in the SSSNB is to be regarded as collective bargaining as defined by Section 178 of 1992 Act, and that any agreements reached are not to be regarded as collective agreements. The ASCNB is slightly different, in that the relevant Minister is given power to exclude the application of Section 178.
Secondly, the Bill defines a negotiating body, but its functions do not include negotiation. The parties have no power to decide for themselves the matters they wish to discuss and are confined to the four subjects permitted to each by the Bill, plus any additions conferred by the Minister. The very limited subjects so far permitted exclude, for example, work organisation, diversity and inclusion, eradication of pay gaps, health and safety, deployment of new technology, formulation of a dispute resolution procedure and the legal status of workers in the sector.
Thirdly, the Bill gives the Minister power to make regulations as to the nature of the consideration the negotiating body must give to the authorised subjects, with power to direct specific factors the body must take into consideration and any conditions that must be met in reaching agreement. Matters can be discussed by the SSSNB only with the permission, or on the direction, of the Minister, who can also specify matters that may not be discussed.
Fourthly, if the body reaches an agreement, the Minister can override it and require reconsideration, specifying factors that must be taken into account and conditions that must be met to reach a reconsidered agreement acceptable to Minister. Ultimately, the Minister can override agreements of the negotiating body.
Fifthly, if the negotiating body fails to agree, the Minister has the power to assume its functions and impose a settlement, regardless of the wishes of the parties, who may, of course, prefer their own dispute resolution procedure, or conciliation, mediation and arbitration by a third party in whom they have confidence.
Sixthly, terms agreed and approved, or simply dictated, by the Secretary of State will be set for all relevant workers. Consequently, any genuine collective agreement for more favourable terms will be void. Far from promoting collective bargaining, the effect of this provision is to preclude it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 152 is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 153 and 154 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I have put my name to only two of the amendments in this group, Amendments 154 and 164. Quite honestly, it took a lot of time and energy to read through all of his amendments; it must have taken an astonishing amount of time to write them all, so I am in awe of the work that the noble Lord has put into this Bill.
I was slightly nervous about the noble Lord’s mention of growth. I would like to know more about that later, perhaps, because growth obviously has to be of the right kind.
For me, collective bargaining is a way of making the world of work fairer. There are those who are vulnerable or not as talented who cannot argue for themselves, so they need support to do that. In a healthy economy, there is no place for poverty or for ultra-low wages, where people cannot pay their bills, feed their children or buy new shoes if they need them. It is incredibly important that people have a good wage.
My noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle tabled an amendment to be discussed later in Committee for a 10:1 pay scale, such that you can pay your senior managers or CEO whatever you like, but you have to pay at least 1/10th of that amount to your cleaners, doormen or catering staff. The idea is that everybody needs a proper wage and, honestly, what would rich people do with even more money? They usually plough it not into the economy but into yachts and things like that.
I support almost every one of these amendments, and I am sorry that I have signed up to only two, but this is an incredibly important area. I hope the Government are able to shift a little on this and take advice from a very well-known lawyer who knows what he is talking about. We all want a fair world, and this is part of actually developing it.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it will amaze the Committee to know that I do not support the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. This could be a golden moment—I do not want to spoil it before it happens—where the Minister and I are on the same page. We will hold our collective breath.
I will make a few points. It was helpful and genuinely interesting to hear the history, context and examples that the noble Lord gave in relation to collective bargaining, but the fundamental concern that we have is that we find it hard to see how many of those—he talked about zero-hour contracts, for example—really apply to public sector employees across our schools and academies.
Our sense is that, in a world in which the Secretary of State receives advice from the negotiating body—the SSSNB, although I noticed that in my amendment on the Marshalled List I cunningly dropped one of the S’s, which makes it easier to say—the principle that the Secretary of State retains discretion is a good principle to stick to. I think the noble Lord explained that there could be ways in which the Secretary of State could overrule, but I feel that that makes it unnecessarily complicated. Perhaps more importantly, it fundamentally changes the relationship between unions and employers, and risks—perhaps more than risks—creating a much more oppositional relationship, where trade unions on one side and local authorities and trusts on the other are directly opposing one another in these negotiations. I also question whether it is practical, given the nature of our schools landscape.
Can the Minister clarify a couple of points? Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170—the amendments that would leave out “employment”—would make the clause broader, to cover staff who are under contract rather than under contract of employment. Our concern is that that could cover people such as casual exam invigilators, peripatetic music teachers or staff who are under contract to look after the grounds. I would be grateful if she could confirm that the remit of the Bill refers to “terms of employment” as we understand it to mean.
Amendments 155 to 158 say to leave out “or is not”. This relates to the Secretary of State’s ability to prescribe the SSSNB remit through regulations. As the Bill is currently drafted, the Secretary of State can say that something is or is not to be treated as remuneration or a term of employment. For example, at present it could be said by the Secretary of State that an honorarium payment is not to be treated as being within the SSSNB’s remit. Removing “or is not” would mean the Secretary of State would have to be very specific indeed about what is to be considered remuneration. The current wording allows enough specificity about what is—and, importantly, what is not—within the remit of the SSSNB. We would argue that it is very important that that wording remains as is to avoid unnecessary confusion, tension or debate on its scope.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Barran for their contributions to this debate. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for getting rich people and yachts into a debate on the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. That is no mean achievement and she deserves our congratulations. I very much enjoyed the history lesson from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I learned a lot and I am very grateful, but I am afraid I have not necessarily arrived at the same conclusions or been swayed by his arguments.
I turn to the amendments. Amendment 153 seeks to confine the School Support Staff Negotiating Body’s remit solely to matters defined under Section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, effectively transforming the body from a consultative forum into a collective bargaining entity. It seems to us that this is a dangerous and fundamental shift. The negotiating body was designed to provide flexible, pragmatic consultation tailored to the diverse and complex nature of school support staff roles across a variety of settings. As we have heard, these range from small rural primaries to large multi-academy trusts. To impose the rigid and often adversarial legal framework of collective bargaining, as defined by industrial law, is to ignore the realities and needs of schools and academies. It risks bogging down negotiations in legal disputes and inflexible procedures that seem wholly unsuited to education.
Secondly, it dangerously extends the remit to include those working under contracts other than contracts of employment. That would create a vague and problematic category that threatens to blur employment relationships, dilute employer responsibility and foster legal uncertainty. Introducing such ambiguity would lead to confusion, disputes and potential litigation, detracting from the core mission of supporting school staff effectively.
Thirdly, Amendment 154, signed also by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, demands a formal dispute resolution process involving conciliation by ACAS and binding arbitration by the Central Arbitration Committee. While dispute resolution is important, mandating binding arbitration at multiple levels removes essential local discretion and flexibility. Schools and trusts require the ability to resolve issues quickly and pragmatically without resorting to protracted and costly arbitration. This amendment risks entrenching lengthy legal processes that are incompatible with the fast-moving and diverse educational establishment and environment.
Additionally, expanding the negotiating body’s remit to include discipline, grievance procedures and any “other matter” agreed by the parties is dangerously vague. It threatens to overload the body with operational matters that should be handled locally by employers, who understand their context best. It risks creating bottlenecks in decision-making, delaying essential actions and ultimately frustrating both staff and management. In essence, these amendments push for a highly legalistic industrial relations model that is inappropriate for school support staff and the complex, varied environments in which they work. It will increase bureaucracy, create inflexibility and heighten the risk of industrial conflict rather than fostering practical co-operation.
Building on these concerns, I will emphasise the significant risk of unmanageable negotiations that other amendments in this group introduce. If the negotiating parties are free to consider any payment, entitlement or matter without clear limits, the scope of discussions could become unwieldy and unfocused. Instead of concentrating on core issues, such as fair remuneration, reasonable terms and meaningful career development, negotiations would risk becoming mired in peripheral or impractical demands. This would risk slowing down the entire process, making it less efficient and ultimately less effective in delivering tangible benefits for school support staff.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I ought to clarify my comments on yachts. I have had a yacht of my own, but it was 21 feet long and I was referring to yachts that are 200 to 400 feet long. Sorry about that.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am desperately searching for the note in my folder on yachts. I may have to write to the noble Baroness on that issue later.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hendy for his introduction to these amendments. As others have said, it was an interesting and important history of the progress that has been made in this country through a recognition of the strength of the collective voice of workers represented through the trade union movement, which is, of course, the basis of our party on this side of the House. Although I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend would want me to go in this, I hope I can reassure him that I think these proposals for the SSSNB make considerable progress in recognising the need for the voice of school support staff to be properly heard in bargaining about pay and conditions and improving the training and development options for those staff.
I know my noble friend Lord Hendy has had the opportunity to meet with my noble friend Lady Jones to talk about these principles. I hope he recognises, as I certainly do, the phenomenal work that she and other members of the team have done in this House in taking forward this piece of important legislation for the Government and the difference it is making to the rights of workers across this country. Those of us on this side of the House are proud of this piece of legislation and the work that has gone into it.
I can also reassure my noble friend that this Government support the work of the ILO, value its role in upholding and enhancing workers’ rights globally and remain committed to upholding international standards. In fact, the UK is in full compliance with all our international obligations on collective bargaining.
I turn to the SSSNB and the associated amendments in this group. I know my noble friend is here for the other elements of negotiating bodies that my noble friend Lord Hendy referenced, but first I shall speak to Amendments 152, 154 to 158, 161 and 173 to 179, which relate to collective bargaining, the role of the Secretary of State and concerns about the remit of the SSSNB.
The existing remit is broad. It covers the areas that will help to address the recruitment and retention challenges that state-funded schools are facing for support staff. As it is a negotiating body, employee and employer representatives will be able to meaningfully negotiate on pay and conditions as well as advise on training and career progression. As I spelt out in the previous group of amendments, this is a major step forward in the process for supporting our school support staff, who play such an important role in our schools.
As it is a statutory body, it is essential that agreements reached by the SSSNB can be imposed in contracts only through ratification by the Secretary of State, and that the interests of the Secretary of State are represented on the body with a non-voting representative. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that the current wording provides the appropriate specificity on the remit for this body, appropriately involving the Secretary of State in the statutory role of the body but making a major step forward in enabling employees and employer representatives to negotiate on those areas.
I turn to Amendments 153, 159, 160, 162, 167 and 170, which relate to those who work under a contract that is not a contract of employment—in other words, to the remit of the employees covered by this body. The vast majority of school support staff are employed by local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts as employees. The remit for employees is consistent with the approach taken in the 2009 legislation that first established the SSSNB and the current remit of the NJC. I hope that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about the definition. We are content that the policy intent of the SSSNB provisions is met through the current remit, so the amendments are not required. They would broaden those under the auspices of the SSSNB in a way that would distort its role and responsibility, and they would introduce the sort of complexity that other noble Lords have talked about.
The remainder of the amendments in this group—Amendments 163 to 166, 168, 169, 171 and 172—relate to the protection of more favourable terms in staff contracts. As drafted, the Bill does not require regulations ratifying agreements of the SSSNB to impose limits on the terms and conditions under which school support staff can be employed. The intention is for support staff in all state-funded schools in England to benefit from a core pay and conditions offer, while providing the flexibility to respond to local circumstances above minimum agreements reached, and with more favourable pay and conditions for individuals protected.
We are taking concerns about the protection of individuals and room for innovation seriously. We will be consulting on the remit of the SSSNB and calling for evidence on terms and conditions in the summer. I therefore have some sympathy with those who might express concerns about whether there is sufficient protection for individuals, and I hope we will be able to clarify that.
I will not be able to go as far as my noble friend Lord Hendy asks the Government to go in his amendments, but I hope he will recognise that, in line with the progress of the collective representation of workers that he identified in his speech, this development under this Government represents a considerable improvement in the position of our vital school support staff. I hope that, on that basis, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her fulsome support of the amendments.
I am of course shocked that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I have reached a point of disagreement, and will make one or two points arising from what she said. She thinks that I was wrong to refer to zero-hours contracts. Of course, I accept what she said, that there presently are no zero-hours contracts in the school sector, but, as I am sure she is aware, there are zero-hours contracts in the university sector, and the fear is that they might then be introduced into the school sector.
The noble Baroness was worried about the reference to non-employees—that is, self-employed workers. Again, the problem is not so much the existing situation but fear of the future. The self-employed sector now has 5 million workers, who, on average, earn a lot less than employed workers. It is a growing sector, and the fear is that employers will resort more to the device of self-employment to avoid the consequences of employment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for his thoughtful contributions. He said that he thought the inclusion of the self-employed would bring ambiguity and be unworkable, but I respectfully disagree. The point is this: if people are doing similar work but with a different legal status, similar terms should apply to them. If there are few people, or none, in that category, I cannot imagine for a moment that the negotiating body, unions or employers will wish to say anything about it. What I am suggesting by enlarging the remit of the bodies is not that they should be compelled to negotiate all the matters under Section 178, but that it is an option open to them if those parties feel that it is profitable for them to negotiate those things.
The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was uncomfortable with my opposition to the Minister’s power to override agreements, or indeed disagreements, in the negotiating body. I point out that, in truly voluntary and free collective bargaining, it is always possible to have tripartite collective bargaining between the Government, employers and unions—but that is not what this body is. This body is bipartite, but with the addition of third parties and the power in the Minister to override any agreement that is reached. That does not seem to be compatible with proper collective bargaining.
I know your Lordships want to move on, so I will not deal with any more detail, but will make just one more point. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was against the inclusion of dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration. I make the point again that the purpose is not to impose this on the parties but to enable them to choose their own means of resolving disputes—whether that is conciliation, arbitration or some other means—and not to leave it to the Minister.
I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Smith of Malvern for her thoughtful and full response. She is right, of course. I do not think she goes as far as I would like her to, but I understand the reasons she does not. I agree that what is proposed in the Bill for the SSSNB is a “considerable improvement”, to use her words, on what exists. I accept too that it is a step on the road to proper collective bargaining in due course. I am very grateful for the two meetings I had with my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I was honoured and grateful to be allowed to spend time discussing my concerns with her. On that basis, I am very happy to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Can I seek a point of clarification on the noble Lord’s clarification, which I am very grateful for? Was his argument that extending and future-proofing—I think those were his words—this for the self-employed is because he feels that there will be more self-employed people as a consequence of this Bill?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
No, not at all. Growing self-employment has been a trend for the last 20 years, which has perhaps accelerated a bit in the last 10 years. The worry is that school employers may adopt the device of allocating work to the self-employed, rather than to employed persons. If that is the case, there ought to be room for the negotiating body to deal with that issue and the consequences of it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Hendy
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is one of several intended to make the Negotiating Body a bilateral collective bargaining body, in this instance to allow the industrial parties to select the Chair instead of it being a ministerial choice.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I apologise to noble Lords for inflicting my voice on them again. The amendments in this group are intended to convert the ASCNB into a collective bargaining forum and achieve the purpose we have already discussed for the SSSNB.
I mentioned earlier that there is some relevant international law. I propose now to deal with it. The UK is bound by the international treaty provisions it has ratified. That applies no matter the subject matter of the treaty obligation—whether it be trade, security, environment, labour, extradition or whatever. The obligation of conformity is not confined to the black letter of the treaty provision. It applies also to the decisions of the bodies on which the treaty has constitutionally bestowed the power of deciding whether or not a state is in compliance. If a state does not like the treaty provisions or decisions made under it, it has the right to denounce the treaty and cease to be bound by it.
The great jurist Lord Bingham made state compliance with international obligations his eighth principle of the rule of law. He said in his seminal book on the subject that
“the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Consistently with this, the current Ministerial Code binding on British Ministers places on them an
“overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations”.
The point was reinforced by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in this House on 26 November 2024, when he said of compliance with international law:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed the point in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute last week.
The relevant international law is based on two legal instruments. The first is the ILO, which since its founding in 1919 has acknowledged collective bargaining as an instrument of social justice. The 1944 ILO Declaration of Philadelphia, part of the ILO constitution, recognises the obligation to further
“the effective recognition of the right of collective bargaining”.
The 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work reiterates that
“all Members … have an obligation … from the very fact of membership in the Organization, to respect, to promote and to realize … the principles concerning the fundamental rights”,
which include the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining.
ILO Convention 98, Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949, was ratified by the United Kingdom almost 75 years ago on 20 June 1950. It is one of the fundamental conventions, binding, regardless of ratification, as a consequence of membership of the ILO. Article 4 imposes the following obligation on states:
“Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.
The Government were recently reminded of that obligation by the decision earlier this year of the ILO tripartite Committee on Freedom of Association, on which the UK is represented, on a complaint against the UK arising out of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Deliveroo in 2023. The committee had previously stated in the case of the United Kingdom that
“whereas governments are not under a duty to enforce collective bargaining by compulsory means, they are under a duty to encourage and promote voluntary collective bargaining in good faith between the parties”.
The Bill is the opportunity to fulfil that obligation. As yet, it does not.
Turning from the global to the European, I refer to the European Social Charter of 1961. Article 6, headed “The Right to Bargain Collectively”, materially provides:
“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Parties undertake … to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, on which a number of your Lordships sit, elects a supervisory body of jurists called the European Committee of Social Rights, which regularly includes eminent UK nominees, with the purpose of examining compliance by member states with the provisions of the charter which they have voluntarily ratified. Decisions of that committee are reported to the Committee of Ministers, which includes the UK Foreign Secretary.
The European Committee of Social Rights has held of the obligation of states under Article 6.2 of the charter that
“if the spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not sufficient, positive measures should be taken to facilitate and encourage the conclusion of collective agreements”
and that
“where only 30% of the total number of employees are covered by collective agreements, voluntary negotiations are not sufficiently promoted in practice”.
The level of collective bargaining coverage in the UK is now significantly below 30% but, in any event, it is clear that spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not occurring in fields that desperately need it, such as social care. The duty on the UK to promote collective bargaining, at least in these sectors, is thus triggered. The committee has also held:
“States Parties should not interfere in the freedom of trade unions to decide themselves which industrial relationships they wish to regulate in collective agreements”.
That is a matter to which the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association has also turned:
“It is for the parties concerned to decide on the subjects for negotiation … Matters which might be subject to collective bargaining include the type of agreement to be offered to employees or the type of industrial instrument to be negotiated in the future, as well as wages, benefits and allowances, working time, annual leave, selection criteria in case of redundancy, the coverage of the collective agreement, the granting of trade union facilities, including access to the workplace beyond what is provided for in legislation etc.; these matters should not be excluded from the scope of collective bargaining by law”.
Yet in the subsectors of adult social care and school support staff, this Bill proposes to violate than principle. The subject matter which the two negotiating bodies are permitted to discuss is limited to that specified in the Bill, to which the Minister may unilaterally add. Indeed, as we have already discussed in relation to school support staff, their negotiating body is not permitted to discuss even the matters within its statutory remit, unless directed or expressly permitted by the Minister.
Both the social rights committee and the ILO have made it clear that self-employed workers should not be excluded from collective bargaining machinery, a matter which we discussed earlier.
I also draw attention to Article 6.3 of the charter, which I did not mention earlier. It requires that
“conciliation, mediation and/or arbitration procedures must be introduced to facilitate the settlement of labour disputes”.
The European Social Rights Committee has held that
“recourse to arbitration should be voluntary (subject to the agreement of the parties) … All arbitration systems must be independent, and the outcome of arbitration may not be predetermined by pre-established criteria. Any form of compulsory recourse to arbitration is a violation of this provision”.
Yet, under this Bill, the remit open to negotiating bodies does not permit them to agree any kind of dispute resolution procedure. Quite the contrary: as we have seen, the Minister has power to override both the agreement of the industrial parties or their disagreement, and to impose an outcome on them—in my view, a wholly impermissible form of compulsory arbitration.
There is no disputing that the UK permits collective bargaining. However, the duty on states ratifying this provision of the charter, as the UK did on 11 July 1962, is not merely to permit; the duty is to promote collective bargaining machinery. It is true that we have legal recognition machinery in the 1992 Act, Schedule A1. However, there is no mechanism in UK law to establish or support sectoral collective bargaining. This Bill is the opportunity to establish that in the many sectors crying out for it, including social care.
I turn to my amendments in this group. Amendment 181 would allow unions and employers to choose their own chair. Amendment 182 would restrict membership to persons nominated by unions and employers. Amendment 183 would restrict third parties to those agreed by unions and employers, and to ensure that they will be in a minority. Amendment 184 would allow discussion of Section 178 matters. Amendment 186 would add training and career progression dispute resolution machinery, discipline and grievance procedures, and anything else the unions and employers want to discuss, to the list of permitted topics. Amendment 187 would broaden the definition of social care worker to that in Section 20 (3) of the Courts and Criminal Justice Act 2015.
Amendment 191 would substitute, where there is failure to agree, a dispute resolution machinery in place of the unilateral power of the Minister to substitute his decision. Amendments 193, 194, 198 and 199 mirror Amendment 192 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, making the output of the process a minimum floor permitting subsequent or indeed prior agreements for more beneficial terms. Amendment 197 would bring in the self-employed, so the arguments are much the same as we have already covered.
As your Lordships will have noted, I also seek to oppose Clause 51 standing part. It gives power to permit the Minister to disapply Section 178 to the adult social care body. I will not repeat the arguments. I beg to move.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, in the middle of all those amendments is Amendment 185, to Clause 38, which would ensure that training and education for social care workers are clearly within the remit of the social care negotiating bodies the Bill makes provision to establish, and that they are therefore considered as part of the fair pay agreement process in the sector.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, who is in her place, for her support for this amendment, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who, regrettably, is at a funeral today. I also declare my interest as co-chair of the All-Party Group on Dementia and as an Alzheimer’s Society ambassador. I am very grateful to the Alzheimer’s Society for its input into this amendment.
I do not need to tell this House that the social care workforce remains turbulent, inhibited by high vacancies, high staff turnover and limited career advancement opportunities, all of which significantly impact the quality of care that those drawing on it receive. I understand that the Government’s intention with fair pay agreements is to help address the recruitment and retention crisis in the sector, in turn supporting the continued delivery of high-quality care.
This has been reinforced in recent weeks in the Government’s Immigration White Paper, which points to proposed fair pay agreements as a means to improve domestic recruitment in response to ending overseas recruitment of care workers. With Skills for Care figures revealing that there were 131,000 vacant adult social care posts in 2023-24—almost three times the vacancy rate in the wider economy—there is no doubt that this drive to improve recruitment is necessary and that without it, our social care sector is at risk of further volatility.
However, as I highlighted during my speech at Second Reading, despite the clearly beneficial impact of training on recruitment and retention of adult social care workers, education and training are not currently specified as matters for the negotiating bodies to consider as part of the fair pay agreement process. We know from last year’s The state of the adult social care sector workforce report by Skills for Care that access to training was among the top five factors influencing the retention of adult social care staff, and that turnover rates were 7.4% lower among adult social care workers who had received training, compared with those who had not.
Despite the large numbers of those with dementia drawing on adult social care and their unique needs within this setting, there is no legal requirement for staff to undertake training in dementia, as I know from my own personal family experience. The Alzheimer’s Society is therefore calling for dementia training to be made mandatory for all adult social care staff. I support that, and I hope the Government, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, are giving serious consideration to this as part of their plans for future social care reform.
While Amendment 185 would not mandate dementia training, it would ensure that the training needs of the social care workforce are considered as part of the fair pay agreement process, which I hope will lead to improved training opportunities for staff in the sector, including training in dementia, and improved care for those receiving it.
I appreciate the indications that I received from the Minister at Second Reading—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, not the Minister responding to this group of amendments—that the scope of the negotiating bodies could be expanded through secondary legislation. I am very grateful for her letter and for her staff’s time in seriously considering this. When I read in her letter that the intention is to put this into secondary legislation and not into the Bill, I was immediately alert to the fact that I did not see any indication as to whether this would be secondary legislation in the affirmative or the negative. I hope that more information can be given in the response to this debate.
I maintain that improving training and education for social staff is so fundamental to improving quality of care, and to tackling the recruitment and retention crisis in the sector, that the Government should look again. What good reason is there not to include this in the Bill? That needs to be clarified.
On that point, training is very often just ditched when times are hard or when budgets are tight. I refer the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—to the Employment Rights Bill: Economic Analysis, published in October 2024, which I am sure is part of her bedtime reading. Under the heading “Unintended Consequences”, it says:
“Where businesses cannot absorb the increase in labour costs, they may look to pass them onto workers by reducing expenditures that benefit workers (e.g. staff training)”.
I repeat to the Minister that I am grateful for the work put in so far, but I believe that it needs to be brought up a level. I hope that she will assure me of that when she replies.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I too will speak to Amendment 185, to which I was very pleased to add my name. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on this amendment and my noble friend Lord Hendy, who spoke to his amendments in this group.
As the noble Baroness already indicated, Amendment 185 relates to training and education for the social care workforce, which is a critical imperative given the care and attention required by the people they care for. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the APPG on Dementia, and I thank the Alzheimer’s Society for its support in preparing for this debate.
Our social care workforce is vital in providing care to those who need it. However, they have been undersupported for too long. This amendment seeks to include training and education in the remit of the social care negotiating bodies that the Bill will create. These bodies will then determine the fair-play agreements in the social care sector, and, in so doing, improve training and education, which will also make a significant contribution to tackling the recruitment and retention crisis that the social care workforce faces.
However, of particular concern is the level of training and education in dementia among the adult social care workforce. The Care Quality Commission’s 2024 State of Care report highlighted dementia as a key area of concern and, specifically, that
“health and care staff do not always understand”
the specific needs of people with dementia. Many of those who, like me, have people with dementia in their families only realise this either when they are training to deal with it or when they are working with them on a daily basis.
A Nuffield Trust report from November also found that people with dementia in England are not consistently receiving good-quality social care, so this amendment seeks to build the foundations to change that, not only for people living with dementia but for all who draw on care, through the prioritisation of training and education within the workforce. That is a simple but vital aspect of ensuring that workers receive the recognition and the value that they deserve. That is what this amendment, if included in the Bill, would do. It would help in introducing opportunities for progression and development within the workforce and improving the quality of care that people receive.
I come to this debate as someone who strongly supports the Employment Rights Bill, because I believe it introduces a number of measures to increase the protection and rights of workers. In so doing, I hope that my noble friend the Minister and the Government ensure that training and education form a part of this legislation. I hope that the Government share these sentiments and see the value of the changes that this amendment would implement. I look forward to the winding-up comments from the Minister.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by mentioning that my sister and I cared for my mother in the last fortnight of her life, and we were significantly helped by carers—to whom I will be forever grateful—in that short time.
Of course, our social care workers right across the country were genuine heroes during Covid-19, and that recognition needs to continue. At the time of Covid-19, I was Secretary of State in DWP and, clearly, the workers there were carrying out tremendous acts of heroism right across the country—but there is a recognition, in a similar way to the NHS, that this drove quite a lot of burnout. However, recognising the importance of carers and the choices that people made in taking up that really important role, I felt it was absolutely vital that we tried to get better organised, to encourage people not only to stay in the sector but to join the sector. That is why I worked with the Department of Health and Social Care at the time, with my honourable friend Helen Whately.
I do not wish to lower the tone entirely, but I turn to the explanation of the creation of this negotiating body and to one of the things that I think is key. I am not at all opposed to it in principle. However, it suggests that the bargaining power of care workers has been low, partly because of low unionisation rates. This is only 20%, it is suggested, of a workforce of 1.6 million, which is about 5% of the total workforce in this country. I must admit I am somewhat sceptical about that.
I do not want to get into a huge debate about social funding. This is a challenge that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is taking up. With her capabilities, I am sure she will find a way through in this regard. However, I think we should recognise that there are a whole bunch of employers right across the country, and that social care funding is provided for through national government, through the hands of local government and, of course, council tax payers through the social care levy. That is the key challenge that we need to recognise, and we need to consider how this negotiating body could address that.
I will apologise to my noble friend Lady Browning for not speaking on something. When I looked at my amendment—I have an amendment coming up in the next group—I de-grouped it because I was trying to differentiate thinking about the progress of social care in regard to trying to split it away from the negotiating body. Perhaps I will explain briefly why and then, in the next group, come on to what I suggest could happen instead.
I have already set out that I started working on this, getting DWP to be engaged and thinking through about swaps and similar things. Indeed, one of the things that came out of that was the care pathway on a journey after People at the Heart of Care at the end of 2021, leading to the Next Steps consultation. I would say that the care workforce pathway is working.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Perhaps I can just clarify that we were very much sighted on the fact that in education, people who are on the non-teaching staff are included in the Bill in the pay negotiating bodies. We were not clear why it should be different for social care workers.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My noble friend makes an excellent point. I must admit that I had almost to force-fit Amendment 200A, which I am coming to, into the Bill in order to be able to talk about a very valid concern about the progress and retention of social care workers in our country, recognising the absolutely vital role that they play in many care homes across the country.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning, Lady Ritchie and Lady Coffey, for adding flesh to what we are discussing here today in these amendments.
I hope we all agree that the adult social care workforce plays a vital and often undervalued role in supporting some of the most vulnerable in society, as previous speakers have underlined. Care workers show remarkable dedication, compassion and professionalism in often challenging circumstances, yet the sector continues to face high turnover, inconsistent conditions and, as we have heard, limited opportunities for training and career progression. There is growing recognition that this must change. Supporting a stable, skilled and respected workforce is essential to delivering high-quality care and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the system.
The provisions in Chapter 2, including the proposal for a social care negotiating body—that is the principle that we are discussing—are a response to that wider need for reform. They seek to introduce a more formal framework through which pay, conditions and progression can be discussed and agreed between trade unions and employers. The inclusion of statutory mechanisms for negotiation, as outlined in Clauses 37 and 44, reflects an effort to bring greater consistency and accountability to the way the workforce terms are determined. Clause 48, addressing agency workers, is a notable recognition of the diverse nature of employment in the sector and the need for fairness across the board.
It is the amendments we are discussing, not the wider situation of the country. These amendments have been brought forward to explore how these proposals might operate in practice, including the remit, independence and legal weight of any agreements. These are important questions and it is right that the House scrutinises how this framework would function and how it may be made most effective. I would welcome the Minister’s response in relation to the amendments.
While views will differ on the detail, the broader case for supporting and strengthening the adult social care workforce is widely accepted. The Bill forms one part—and only one part—of a longer-term process to address this challenge. Sustained attention to training, career development and workforce planning will be needed, alongside any structural changes introduced here.
The future of adult social care depends not only on funding or legislation but on whether people who deliver care feel valued, supported and able to build lasting careers. This should be our shared focus as this Bill progresses. I hope the Minister, when she replies, will talk about how we can value those care workers and make sure that they stay there, are educated, progress and are an addition to the values of this country and the way we work. Too often, they have been neglected. This is a chance to remedy that.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, many of my noble friends have spoken about the possible collapse of the social care system. The toxic combination of chronic underfunding and the dysfunctional market system means that thousands of elderly and disabled people do not get the care that they need. I welcome the proposals in the Bill to establish a framework to establish legally binding agreements that, at long last, would set pay, conditions and terms for workers in the adult social care sector: an adult social care negotiating body in England made up of relevant employers and trade unions.
Staff in the sector are voting with their feet. They are leaving in droves. The vacancy rate is one of the highest in the economy and 130,000 jobs remain unfilled. Low pay is endemic. Over 400,000 adult care workers live below the real living wage, and 40% of the whole workforce live below the real living wage. A quarter are living on the verge of poverty and one-tenth are living with food insecurity. That is hardly a vote of confidence in our social care system.
Perhaps the most important reason for not delaying the action that is so desperately needed rests in the costs to our National Health Service. The latest State of Care report from the Care Quality Commission stated in April this year that waits for care home beds and home-based care accounted for almost half the delays in discharging patients who had been in hospital for more than 14 days. Nearly 4,000 people were delayed on an average day. The proposed fair pay agreement for adult social care staff has the potential to do so much good. Low pay, the lack of any career ladder and limited professional recognition are all inextricably linked in the social care sector. Experienced care workers with over five years’ service are paid, on average, just 8p an hour more than a new starter. There is little or no incentive for care workers to remain in the service; there is no meaningful career progression.
I cannot support the idea, which has been floated, that the new negotiating body would not apply to providers of care in the private sector. The whole point of the proposed fair pay agreement is that it will address low pay across the whole sector, not just those who are publicly funded. It would be deeply divisive, creating a two-tier care workforce with some benefiting and others shut out.
Privately funded providers should be requested to sit on the proposed adult social care negotiating body. We need that body to cover the whole sector, not just the public sector. If it is to work and to be successful in driving up pay standards across the whole sector, it must apply to the broadest definition of care workers. The proposed fair pay agreement is the first step towards a more structured pay system that over time should enable employers to offer a career pathway into social care, rather than low-status, low-paid employment with a high turnover rate.
So many of our citizens who need social care will benefit from the suggestions in this Bill. It is the first building block to a national care service. It will help with one of the most intractable problems facing our public services. The chief executive of the National Care Forum stated:
“We welcome any measures to strengthen the rights and improve the pay, terms and conditions of the social care workforce who make a significant contribution to our economy and the lives of millions of people”.
I ask that we allow this proposal, which will do so much good, to go forward, and that any amendments are no longer pursued.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I say at the outset what an important debate this has been. We on these Benches support fair pay, decent working conditions and recognition of the vital work that social care workers do. I join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, in his tributes, and welcome and thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this group. I want to say how pleased we all are that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has decided to come and deal with this issue, in a Bill for which she has no immediate responsibility but certainly does in the context of the social care negotiating body.
I had no part in deciding which group of amendments I would respond to, and I find myself in some difficulty, because the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, gave us the most brilliant exposition of the 126 years since the ILO was established in 1919 and the right to collective bargaining. However, in a way, that was directed not so much to the Minister but to his noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who, under the European Convention on Human Rights, signed to say that:
“In my view the provisions of the Employment Rights Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
Therefore, is it not the noble Baroness who should be responding to the tour de force that we received from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy? Perhaps she has already communicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, what she would say in response.
We on these Benches cannot support a structure that hands over the steering wheel of national employment frameworks to a narrow group of trade union and employer representatives with little regard for broader public interest, service user experience or the realities of a publicly funded care system. By insisting that the chair be chosen exclusively by agreement between union officials and employer representatives, and in the event of disagreement by ACAS, these amendments would introduce unnecessary complexity and risk deadlock. By removing ministerial appointment, a crucial source of impartial leadership and accountability disappears. We cannot afford a negotiating body that stalls at the first sign of disagreement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by acknowledging and associating myself with the very warm words about the value of care workers on whom we rely so much. The challenges are immense, as we have heard many times and not just in this debate—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that it is an important as well as a very interesting debate—and this is key to how we will support the provision of social care into the future. I too look forward to the work from the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and feel confident that we have Whitehall’s number one doer on the case.
On the value of care workers, I extend my thanks and appreciation for all that they do in very difficult circumstances. I can say to noble Lords and care workers across the country that that is exactly why we are bringing in the Employment Rights Bill. That is what we, the Government, are here to do.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his appreciation of my presence at the Dispatch Box. I am delighted to be—in the nicest possible way—across the Chamber from him. This is a key matter and one that is very relevant, because it is about the future of social care.
I now turn to the amendments and will then return to the more general points. On Amendment 185, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie, I am very grateful for the engagement of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, on this matter with my noble friend Lady Jones, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, said, has written setting out the steps we are taking on dementia training. I hope that it is useful reassurance that regulations can indeed provide for additional matters to be included in the remits of the negotiating bodies rather than being included in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, asked about procedure. I can confirm that the Bill states that any regulations to add a matter such as training to the remit of the bodies will be subject to the affirmative procedure in order that it may be fully scrutinised by Parliament. I can see that the noble Baroness is very pleased about that, and therefore I am very pleased.
I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie will understand that I very much appreciate the intent behind this amendment. Taken at face value, it is no comment on the importance of dementia training—to which I am very committed—but, by specifying in the Bill the extent of the bodies’ remits, it would prejudge consultation and limit the opportunity for sector engagement. That would create difficulties that we do not want to create.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie raised the importance of training in dementia, and its absence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. I reassure them that the adult social care learning and development support scheme in England supports adult social care employers through funded training opportunities, including a range of opportunities that cover the Dementia Training Standards Framework, and we are pleased that the scheme will continue in the financial year 2025-26, backed up by up to £12 million.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raised a question about engagement with Skills for Care. I confirm that Skills for Care is consulted with and that our working group, and task and finish groups, bring together trade unions, representative bodies of adult social care providers and other relevant stakeholders such as Skills for Care. I hope that will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who made specific reference to the role of trade unions. They do have a role; they represent and are a voice for working people, and we are extending our consultation beyond trade unions because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, rightly said, there are groups such as Skills for Care and others who also have a very helpful voice.
I turn now to Amendments 181, 182, 183, 184, 186 and 191 by my noble friend Lord Hendy. I know that he met the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, to discuss them on 3 June, and I am grateful to him for his time and engagement. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, might agree with some of the points, if not all the interpretations, in each amendment.
Amendment 181 seeks to change the appointment process by making the selection of the chair subject to a public appointments process. That is not an amendment we find favour with, because the Bill as it stands will improve transparency and confidence and ensure that all the right processes are followed. We feel that that is the right way forward.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everybody who has participated in this debate. In particular, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Browning and Lady Ritchie, for their Amendment 185. I completely support the idea that training and education should be part of the remit of the adult social care negotiating body. As the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, touched on, training and career progression are expressly part of the remit of school support staff and it seems inexplicable that they are not part of adult social care as well.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Prentis, that the adult social care negotiating body, in establishing minimum terms and conditions, will play a key part in the improvement of the provision of social care and of course the improvement of the lives of those who provide that care. I was moved by the fact-filled description by my noble friend Lord Prentis of the need for the adult social care negotiating body in that sector.
I realised the other day that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have known each other a lot longer than I remembered. He mentioned going to the retirement dinner of Albert Blighton, formerly legal officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I was there too, but I had forgotten. Of course, I do not agree with much of what the noble Lord has said today.
As for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and a certificate in relation to the European Human Rights Convention, I have not argued that there was any incompatibility with that convention. My arguments were about incompatibility with ILO provision and the European Social Charter—two very different things. States cannot pick and choose which of the obligations binding on them they wish to abide by.
With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think he misunderstands the nature of collective bargaining—not that I have done much of it myself, but I have been present when it happens and have had a lot to do with its consequences. It is not necessarily a confrontational process; it works collaboratively. That is why it has been so successful for decades—indeed, centuries—now. I was not suggesting—and do not think it ever is—that it is a legalistic process; it is an informal process.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also perhaps misunderstood what I was saying. I was suggesting not a dominant role for trade unions but a balanced role, where trade unions and employers have equal power. It is in their mutual interests to agree future terms and conditions and so on. I say to the noble Lord, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I am not suggesting that the subject matter for negotiation should be confined to Section 178 matters, but simply that those should be permissible matters for discussion, and that parties should be allowed to resolve whatever differences may occur between them by negotiation or by a dispute resolution mechanism chosen by them.
In relation to non-employment, or the use of my word “engagement” rather than “employment”, the purpose of that is to ensure that self-employed workers in the adult social care sector are covered by the benefits of whatever negotiations emanate from the social care negotiating body. Why not? Why should they not have the benefit of minimum hours, terms and conditions, and so on? In this sector, there are a lot of self-employed workers, because employers have resorted to that device.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her full response. I disagreed with one or two points that she made. I do not think it is right to say that Section 178 of the Act is confined to local agreements; that provision in the legislation, of very long standing, applies to all collective bargaining, sectoral or local. I noted that she did not say anything about the international law obligations on which my speech centred. Nevertheless, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Registration scheme: duty to provide access(1) Social care providers must ensure that their employees have access to any registration scheme which Social Work England may establish.(2) In subsection (1), a “registration scheme” is system where social care workers’ training is centrally logged, allowing their previous training to be recognised by a new employer.”
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have already set out, in the debate on the previous group, my appreciation of social care workers right across our country. I said that I would try to set out in this group one of the ways that we can achieve the outcomes that the Government, and, I think, this Committee, are seeking to see: improved pay, terms and conditions for social care workers, including for the benefit of the people they help, to try to increase retention and tackle some of the challenges faced.
In my previous role, I commissioned my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith to consider in-work progression. While in DWP, I was concerned more broadly about people getting stuck in low-paid roles and what we could do to help increase their prosperity. In looking at a wide range of sectors, her commission highlighted the challenges facing the care sector right across the United Kingdom. A variety of research elements went into it. It cited research that found
“little incentive to gain qualifications in a sector viewed as low status”,
and that:
“Those working in care perceive it as involving highly skilled work, but workers tend not to view care work as a profession”.
As I referred to in the debate on the previous group, and therefore will not repeat, it set out, in effect, the care workforce pathway, which got going and has been enhanced by the current Government recognising the progress that could be made.
It used to be the case that a lot of people went into the care sector through the apprenticeship route. A decade ago, Skills for Care would cite nearly as many as 100,000, but that has significantly changed and has gradually fallen over time. Some of that might be to do with the nature and the variety of the work, which does not necessarily lend itself entirely to being appropriate for the apprenticeship levy for everybody in that sector. Last year, we ended up with about 24,000, one quarter of which were at level 2 entry, with, I hope, some of the people who had already completed level 2 securing level 3, but it represents quite a shift. It is testimony to the Department of Health having put together and worked with an Ofqual-registered qualification at level 2 as part of this new way to try to make sure that there is progress.
I agreed with one recommendation that my noble friend made, but she made a recommendation that I did not agree with. One of the challenges she set out was the hugely diverse nature of the social care sector. In financial support, as much is given to adults, as opposed specifically to pensioners, when it comes to social care. Indeed, my longest-standing friend Dawn spent most of her career as a social care worker for adults with learning disabilities. There is variety within the work that 1.6 million people in the workforce undertake every day. One of the challenges—whether you are self-employed or are moving to an agency or local authority—is that there is no way of recognising your experience and any training that you might have done. That is one of the key challenges of people leaving the sector, or getting stuck—instead of, perhaps, the sector expanding.
One of the recommendations was to emulate what happens in the construction skills certification scheme in the UK construction industry. This has been developed with a card and it shows that individual workers have transferable proof of a level of training and qualifications. When you start with a new employer in the social care sector, you would then not have to go through all the training that you have already done heaven knows how many times. If you are perfectly well skilled that is a frustrating element as well.
I do not agree with one of the recommendations. I strongly do not believe we should be regulating this sector. I think that would become more of a barrier. There are now many careers and jobs that are regulated by some separate authority. My noble friend made this recommendation on the basis that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have done exactly that. Anyone who wants to be a social care worker has to become registered and be regulated by, for example, Social Care Wales or the Scottish Social Services Council. I am not convinced that we should be getting into that in this sector.
However, it could be possible—perhaps not for the negotiating body we have just spoken about, and I was suggesting why I did not think it would be appropriate—for Social Work England to establish something if people wanted to register and get their training recognised so that they had an equivalent to the construction scheme card. Again, the workers under that are not regulated by the construction industry in that regard. However, it has become a useful tool so that employers and workers are clear on what they can bring to the next employer they are seeking to have.
It will vary around the country but, quite often, social care workers will be contracted by multiple agencies. This recognises the flexibility of work that is available and wanted. This can sometimes lead to significant differential pay rates. Quite often, when working for a local authority, the pay will be considerably less than working for a private agency. It is important that we allow people to have this flexibility but, dare I say it, without the draconian regulation a whole body starts to bring about.
That is why I have put forward the suggestion that, if Social Work England chooses to establish such a scheme, any employees must be able to register training and any existing certificates with Social Work England to facilitate their personal choices on how to progress in work. I beg to move.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I was unfortunately delayed in getting here for the start of the previous group of amendments. I had added my name to the amendments on education. However, I am delighted to be here. I would have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, if I had realised what she was going to say.
I reinforce the need for education and monitoring what people do. The social care workforce is absolutely amazing. Its members work across an enormous range of people. When I chaired the National Mental Capacity Forum over six years, it was very evident that some people wanted to and had great talent for working with people with impaired capacity, and they wanted to learn how to do it better. There were others who did not like working with people with impaired capacity or people who had early dementia or even mental health issues, but they were extremely good at working with people with physical disabilities and impaired mobility. They were very good at manual handling, lifting and so on.
Over many decades, I have worked with social care workers in my field of palliative care. In the report of the palliative care commission that we wrote recently, we recognised the important role of many of these workers. When they look after people in their own home, they are often the person who spots deterioration first. Very often, patients will confide in them because they do not have the mantle of power that nurses and doctors have, and people speak very openly to them. They understand the problems and fears that people have in themselves and their lives. But they can see what is happening only when there is continuity of care—when they have seen the person before and will see them again.
I have to defend Social Care Wales; it has helped having a registration system because it has improved the perception of the status of people working in the field. When looking at this in detail in my field, we found that, although their time in post was transient, they often moved to a different employer. Although they did not remain with one employer, they would take their skills and what they had learned with them.
It has struck me over the years that this is a workforce thirsty for knowledge, skills and education, yet the group is not normally included among those considered as educated. When I first set up the hospice in Cardiff, it was the carers and kitchen staff who came in on their days off because they wanted to learn. Very often, because I had worked with them for 20 years or so, they knew best of all when I was worried about something and when to trigger calling me out of hours, because they had a whole set of skills.
Registering those skills will be very important in allowing career progression and recognition and allowing people in this workforce to work in the domains in which they have the best personality and skill set that suits them—where they feel appreciated and know that they are rewarded emotionally as well as financially. Some people are happy to drive around from one house to another in the ghastly traffic of the outer London suburbs or in cities. Others do not want to do that; they want longer one on one. Some are better working with disturbed young people or people with addictions. If we can have a way of recognising and building on that, we can go a very long way to improving the overall security of this very important workforce, which has, sadly, been tremendously undervalued across our society until now.
It was heartening to hear the Minister summing up on the previous group. I was absolutely delighted to have my name on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and to hear that the training will be set out via regulations under the affirmative resolution, which I think was going to be our next negotiating point when we were discussing what to do next. I hope that, with these amendments at different points in the Bill, we might find a way forward to get something on education and training recognised for the specific areas that people are in, so that they can gain credit for it, personally and in terms of career progression.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak because, in a sense, this is a continuation of previous amendments. I want to put in a word for this amendment, which recognises that there should be a registration scheme so that peoples’ talents, education and training can be recognised across the country. It is important to give them the credit for that accreditation and to use their talents. This amendment adds more to what we have already spoken about, because it provides a scheme that helps the patient and the client, as well as the care worker, in fulfilling needs. I hope the Minister will take account of this and include it in her reply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness Coffey for her amendment and for her thorough and comprehensive introduction to it. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, for her perspective and experience, which are very valuable contributions to this debate.
This is a measured and constructive idea. As we have heard, the social care workforce is highly mobile, and too often valuable training is overlooked or repeated when someone moves to a new role. A centralised system that records training could easily help ensure that skills are recognised across the sector, improve efficiency and reduce unnecessary duplication. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out, in many cases a unique expertise would be brought that deserves to be recognised. It would also show respect for the professional development of care workers. It would signal that their time, effort and learning are worth tracking and carrying forward and are not lost at the point when they change jobs.
I of course acknowledge that the practical arrangements for such a scheme would need careful planning, but the principle is sound. Enabling continuity in workforce development would support retention, raise standards and bring consistency to a fragmented sector. I seriously hope that the Minister is listening.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on Amendment 200A. I certainly can assure the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that I am listening very closely. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for tabling this amendment, which would require social care providers to ensure that their employees have access to any scheme logging training achievements that Social Work England may establish. Let me say at the outset that I understand the intent of the amendment, which is to give care workers development and extend their skills. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Palmer, said, this would contribute to what this Bill seeks to do, which is to improve retention, the quality of work and the regard for care workers, and encourage recruitment, among many other very positive outcomes. However, unfortunately, the amendment does not do the job that I know is intended, because Social Work England does not regulate the work of social care workers, but only that of social workers. The amendment as drafted gives us difficulty, but I do completely understand what it tries to do.
Let me respond to a number of the points that were made. There are currently no plans to add to the existing regulation of care workers in the sector undertaken by CQC, but let me refer to the care workforce pathway, which may be of interest and assistance to a number of the noble Lords who contributed. The care workforce pathway is the first universal career structure for the adult social care workforce. On 9 April this year—not so long ago—my department published the expansion and revision of the care workforce pathway, which includes the crucial role categories for registered and deputy managers and personal assistants, as well as the new enhanced care worker role. That speaks to some of the issues the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised about the social care workforce. When we talk about the social care workforce, this is a wide group; it is a team of people, and they are all working to support whoever is in receipt of their care.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—in particular, how we recognise experience and training—I completely take the point. I can give the assurance that the department is already undertaking work on skills and learning and developing a digital skills record, which will provide a permanent and verifiable record of skills and achievements for members of the adult social care workforce. Most importantly, to the point raised by the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, it can be shared with new or potential employers, which can help to reduce unnecessary duplication of training and make taking on new recruits faster, which is key. So, we are all in extreme agreement about the importance of training for the social care workforce, if not about the actual letter of the amendment.
On regulations being able to provide for other matters relating to employment, as we discussed in the previous group in respect of Amendment 185, the Bill already sets out that regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure in respect of matters that will be included in the negotiating bodies’ remits, which can of course include training and other matters. As a gentle bit of clarification for the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, I was making clear in the previous group that any regulations in this regard are subject to the affirmative procedure. I was not being as specific as I know she hoped I would be, but it is important to make that position a bit clearer. So, on any matter within its remit, the negotiating body could determine employee entitlements, which could be incorporated into relevant workers’ contracts.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about apprenticeships. Just last week, the Department for Education announced the launch of a health and social care foundation apprenticeship, set to begin from August 2025, which I am sure we will all welcome. This will offer young people a paid route into the health and adult social care sectors; I will not be alone in very much welcoming that.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about professional development and transferring across jobs. That principle is certainly being included in our health and social care sector, in respect of the digital skills record. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, this is a teamwork approach based around whoever needs the care. It requires different skills, which can be transferrable across different jobs, so the noble Lord makes a fair point.
With that, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will agree to withdraw Amendment 200A.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for contributing and for again recognising the great value we attach to social care workers across the country. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, that I am not trying to do down Social Care Wales at all; it was more that there is almost a regulation approach, which I am keen to avoid and which I believe is not entirely necessary. I welcome the words of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom in that regard.
I am really pleased that the Minister has flagged this digital record, which I was not aware of. I am really excited to hear about that. I had already referenced the care pathway in the previous group, and it is great to see it being built on, which is something the sector was keen to achieve.
With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(10A) But regulations under section 84A may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an agreement, or an amendment of an agreement, to come into force—(a) before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement, or(b) in a case where—(i) the provision is for the purpose of giving effect to an amendment of an agreement, and(ii) the United Kingdom would not be required to give effect to the amendment until it had been ratified by the United Kingdom,before the United Kingdom has ratified the amendment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that regulations under new section 84A of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 may not provide for provision made for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement, or to an amendment of an agreement that requires separate ratification, to come into force before the United Kingdom has ratified the agreement or amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 54 at page 72, line 16.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
“Chapter 4Industrial undertakingsRestriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakingsIn section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings), at the end of subsection (1) insert “(but voluntary work on a heritage railway or heritage tramway is not employment in an industrial undertaking)”.”
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 201 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank him for agreeing to put his name to it—I am delighted, and I look forward to his speech.
The amendment’s purpose is to remove what is, in effect, an unintended consequence of a piece of outdated legislation on the training, education and skills development for a group of young volunteers, particularly young female volunteers, on heritage railways. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 was passed in a very different era, some 33 years before the first preserved railway started operation using volunteers. It makes it unlawful to employ young people under 16 on railways and—by an extension through later legislation—that work now includes unpaid work by volunteers.
No prosecution has ever been brought under Section 1 of the 1920 Act, and the provision languished unknown on the statute book for many years until it was brought to light in 2015. The Heritage Railway Association—I declare an interest as its president—was so concerned at the implications that it sought counsel’s opinion, which confirmed that the 1920 Act remained in force and that it was unlawful to allow volunteers under 16 to undertake work on a heritage railway.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail held an inquiry into the subject and published a report with recommendations in July 2018. On 15 July 2022, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that sought to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act. My Bill passed all its stages through your Lordships’ House unamended and received widespread support across the Chamber. Disappointingly, however, the Bill made no progress in the Commons.
Subsequent meetings with, among others, the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road produced some helpful assurances—namely, that any prosecutions would rely not on this outdated Act but on more recent legislation, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the safety management regulations produced following the Railways Act 1993. Officials were unwilling to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act, partly because, in their view, it was unnecessary, and partly because it might have unforeseen implications on other activities, although those were never specified. To address this point, my Amendment 201 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the 1920 Act to heritage railways and tramways, rather than to repeal the whole section.
Although they were helpful, the HSE and ORR views do not solve the basic problem if the 1920 Act remains on the statute book. That is because, even if a prosecution may not be brought by official bodies, it could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young person, regardless of the assurances given. Heritage railway managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I rise to add my support to Amendment 201, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to which I have added my name in an expression of cross-party support for this very sensible endeavour. In doing so, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his tenacity on this issue, as well as to the hard work over many years by the Heritage Railway Association and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail, of which I am a member.
As the noble Lord outlined, he has been campaigning on this issue, along with those colleagues, for a number of years, including through the Private Member’s Bill that he brought in the previous Parliament. It was debated in this House when I was Heritage Minister but was responded to for the then Government by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She, and indeed all the noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate on that Private Member’s Bill, spoke very sympathetically about it. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spoke also with fondness of the Kent and East Sussex Railway, which passes very close to where she lives. Speaking from the Labour Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, who also mentioned the Talyllyn Railway and the Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway, said in her remarks from the Opposition Front Bench then:
“I have little doubt that achieving and delivering the desired objectives will eventually be managed, whether it is through this Bill or by the Government’s hand”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1724.]
Sadly, that “eventually” is still outstanding, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of this Bill to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others have been campaigning for so long.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very clearly the legal position as it stands, as well as very powerfully the beneficial impact that heritage railways have in communities up and down the country: the social skills that they provide to young volunteers; the employment that they offer in rural areas; the linchpin that they often are to the visitor economy in their parts of the United Kingdom.
It is very welcome that, as the noble Lord highlighted, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have made clear that they would not seek to enforce the 1920 Act to prevent children, women or young people volunteering on heritage railways. But the point, as the noble Lord rightly said, is that this confusing provision remains on the statute book. That has a potentially chilling effect for the voluntary organisations that look after our heritage railways. They are dependent on volunteers, not just for restoring and running locomotives, welcoming the many visitors from around the world who come to this country to enjoy them, but also the volunteer trustees and custodians who have to get their heads around the legal and regulatory position in which those organisations are operating. They take their duties in relation to the safety of the staff and visitors to heritage rail very seriously indeed, and the Heritage Railway Association does excellent work in providing advice and guidance to its member railways. But we should do our bit as legislators to make the job of all those volunteers easier by making sure that the law is up to date and clearly understood.
Amendment 201 does not seek to repeal the 1920 Act but to amend it, to put beyond doubt that it does not prohibit women, young persons and children from volunteering on our heritage railways and heritage tramways. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred in the previous exchanges he has had with many Governments that one of the arguments against doing this is “unintended consequences”. I have seen that many times myself in the briefings that I was given as a Minister at the government Dispatch Box. Often unintended consequences are also unspecified ones. It is hard to think what the unintended consequences might be, but the noble Lord has very sensibly drawn Amendment 201 very tightly in order to obviate that problem, so I hope the Government will look favourably upon it.
We all want to encourage volunteering, not just to help these cherished organisations to continue to bounce back from the pandemic and the challenging time that they had during Covid-19 and the challenges they face in relation to the supply of coal; their very purpose is to pass on to future generations an appreciation of our industrial past, the vital role that the railways played in the history of our nation, and to use the scientific and engineering advances of the past to inspire new generations to come up with world-changing advances of their own. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, some 22,000 volunteers are involved in keeping our heritage railways going, but too few of them are women or young people. The sector very much wants to welcome volunteers from an ever-wider background, and this piece of more than 100 year-old legislation stands in the way of their valiant efforts.
This is the year in which we are celebrating Railway 200, the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington, in my native north-east. I am very pleased to see my noble friend Lord Mendoza in his place. Historic England, which he chairs, is among the many organisations that are supporting Railway 200 with great enthusiasm to inspire new generations to get involved in our heritage railways but also to inspire them in the exploits of the future.
So, as we mark that important 200th anniversary, I hope we can finally take the opportunity to amend this law, which is already more than 100 years old and which has caused confusion for too long. I know that the Minister has a background in rail, and I hope he will look favourably on this amendment from his noble friend and agree to discuss with both of us how we might take this opportunity, finally, to solve the problem that he has been seeking to address for so long.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I certainly do not have the expertise that he has in heritage railways, but steam railways are an important part of this country’s heritage and, as each year passes, that importance surely grows. We are getting closer to a time when there will be no one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life. As well as being an enjoyable activity for interested and enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, says, in supporting our heritage—and support for our heritage is something that this Government have pledged to give. This is an instance that shows the world of work in all its manifestations as a very varied one, including voluntary work undertaken by young people. I hope that the Government show some flexibility in this regard and accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall also briefly support this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has made the case very well, well supported by my friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. The noble Lord., Lord Faulkner, will recall how we worked together to save Thomas the Tank Engine when we were having difficulty getting fuel for the heritage railways. I always like to take the opportunity of encouraging this extraordinary bit of our heritage, and I think this very simple and minimal amendment would help with that.
Lord Mendoza (Con)
My Lords, I also support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester. I have been pre-declared by my noble friend Lord Parkinson as the chairman of Historic England, but I am glad to see that we also have the chairman of English Heritage, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, here on the other side. If I can give the heritage argument, which has been made already, one of the most difficult things in the heritage sector is to encourage young people to come into it, to learn the skills, to learn the trades that we need, to keep our heritage environment going for as long as we can.
The heritage railways are no less a part of the heritage sector. In fact, they are a very important part of it. When I was commissioner for culture during the Covid period, we tried as much as we could to send a lot of money to the heritage railways to make sure that they were maintained and could survive that terrible period for them when they could not have any visitors. We want to do as much as we can to prevent there being barriers for young people to come into this sector and learn these trades and be able to volunteer, help and learn.
Next week, I have the great pleasure of going up to the Stockton and Darlington Railway 200 celebration, where we are going to be opening a series of murals made by artists along a walking trail. The point of this is exactly that we are bringing in young artists from the area, working with their local communities, to provide fantastic, illustrative visual content along the trail to attract young people and others to come into the celebrations for the 200th anniversary of the railways. We want to encourage them, and then, of course, we would like them to come and volunteer.
This whole celebration, as we know, has been put on by Darlington Borough Council, Durham County Council and Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, all very proud indeed that this is the very site of the beginning of the railways, the technology that changed the world. We want these young people to come and learn the skills, technology and heritage. Perhaps the Minister could see his way to accepting this very minor, tiny change suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that would really help. I commend him for having looked at this for such a long time. I also commend my noble friend Lord Parkinson for an excellent speech as well, so thank you.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, whom I have known for many years, mainly through aspects of the railways. There was a programme on television a little while ago showing youth workers working on the railway. They did everything, including collecting the tickets; they did everything but drive the trains. It was really great. The national memories will die. Who will remember “The Titfield Thunderbolt”, the film about a local group who took over a railway? I still look on my railway to see the Pullman car that does not exist.
Heritage railways are important. It is important to make sure that young people know what heritage railways are and are employed—or used—within the railway system. It will give them education as well as everything else. This is a strange addition to the Employment Rights Bill that I would never have thought of, so my compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for including it. I hope that this rather unusual addition to the Bill will be considered by the Minister before Report.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for introducing a fascinating debate. My own relationship with heritage railways goes back some 45 years, to when I participated in all those wonderful railways in north Wales. I took my daughter Daisy to the top of Snowdon in one of these wonderful train rides. Sadly, the Western Mail had a picture of Daisy and me driving the locomotive, illegally, with the headline, “Daisy drives Dad around the bend”. I shall never forget that.
Therefore, like my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Mendoza, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, I approach this debate with some degree of positive expectation, because the noble Lord, Lord Katz, is going to reply. If ever there was anyone who would understand the need for this amendment, it is the noble Lord, Lord Katz. Whether his brief will allow him to show that level of understanding, we will have to wait and see.
This amendment brings welcome clarity and common sense to an area where outdated legislative definitions risk interfering with well-established and valued community practice. Heritage railways and tramways are not industrial undertakings in the conventional sense. They are, overwhelmingly, charitable or volunteer-led organisations dedicated to preserving history, offering educational experiences and engaging communities, often in rural or heritage-rich areas. This amendment recognises the important distinction between exploitive industrial labour and safe, structured, voluntary participation. Many young people who volunteer on heritage railways gain practical skills, develop a sense of responsibility and form connections across generations. It is, for many, their first taste of civic engagement and teamwork and is often a path into engineering, public service or the arts.
By inserting this narrow and well-defined exemption into the 1920 Act, this clause would ensure that young volunteers can continue to participate safely and legally in activities that benefit not only themselves but the broader public. Importantly, this does not in any way dilute protections against child labour or weaken employment law. It simply makes sure that our legal framework does not unintentionally penalise or prohibit what is clearly a public good.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, my reputation seems to precede me on this amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for tabling Amendment 201 and have enjoyed a slight diversion in subject matter on the Employment Rights Bill. It is truly a pleasure to be able to continue the discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Faulkner about the railways for many years, both inside and outside this House. My noble friend is a true champion of heritage railways across the whole piece, not simply on this issue. I pay tribute to his role as president of the Heritage Railway Association.
It has been fantastic to hear from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendoza and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, all of whom extolled the virtues of heritage railways in providing a positive way of involving young people in transport, industry and civic engagement—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was just saying—as well as contributing to the tourist sector and the Government’s mission for growth. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke very strongly about that, and, as he pointed out, it is the 200th anniversary of the railway this year. We are doing a lot to commemorate that, and heritage railways will have their own role in that. I pay special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for being the first person to out me as a rail nerd in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also had that pleasure.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, took us on a little tour d’horizon of the Private Member’s Bill debate we had in this House on this topic a few years ago, and mentioned a number of heritage railways. I can speak of the pleasure I had as a young child travelling on the Ruislip Lido railway, which was small in scale but mighty in reputation for those of us in north-west London. The noble Lord is right to point to the virtues of heritage railways, both as an economic activity and in individual engagement.
As a Government, we recognise and support the valuable opportunities young people have through volunteering to do a wide range of different work activities, including on heritage railways. Obviously, it is important that these things are carried out in a safe way, with employers, organisers and volunteers supervising activities to make sure that risks are properly controlled. To give some background, I will say that noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for regulating health and safety at work, but, in the case of the heritage railways, the Office of Rail and Road is the enforcing authority. Both these regulators have considered carefully what powers they have and how these would be applied in the case of young people aged between 14 and 16 volunteering on a heritage railway.
The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to, is a long-standing piece of legislation intended to prohibit the employment of children carrying out high-risk work, such as construction in industrial settings. To be honest, amending or repealing it would not be a straightforward matter.
The law protecting children in the UK is also a complex area, and this amendment touches on not only health and safety protections but other legislation and local authority by-laws. These are all devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and this amendment would impose changes there too. The 1920 Act is old legislation; amending it should be considered only after a thorough review of the impact on other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences. It is worth pointing out that the primary legislation governing child employment, including light work, is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Amending or repealing the 1920 Act would still leave the 1933 Act in place, which—together with any by-laws made under it by local authorities—limits children to undertaking only light work. So repealing the 1920 Act could have unintended consequences across a number of sectors, and a full impact assessment would be required.
As we have heard, modern health and safety legislation does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to the Heritage Railway Association survey, which demonstrated that there are around 800 under 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways across the country. There may be activities that are unsuitable for young volunteers to carry out—for example, safety-critical tasks such as train diving—but I am pleased to say that both regulators are very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to determine what sorts of activities would be safe, appropriate and suitable for young volunteers aged 14 to 16 to perform on the railways.
Of course, regulators should, and do, take a proportionate approach to enforcement action. It is worth noting that the last time the 1920 Act was used to support health and safety enforcement was in 2009. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester told us, there have been no prosecutions under the 1920 Act, either of public bodies or private individuals, which proves that the status quo is not absolutely terrible.
The aim of this amendment is to remove any barriers to allow children to gain valuable experience volunteering on heritage railways and tramways. Nobody wants to see more young men and women developing an interest and, indeed, a career on the railway more than I do. It is not clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this legislation is creating any barriers and, as we know, many heritage railways run very successfully with young people volunteering in a wide range of activities to support those ventures.
Both the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive remain very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association to develop additional guidance and, possibly, examples of good practice to ensure that young volunteers can continue to work safely in heritage railway settings. While this is a sensible and proportionate way forward to address this issue, I have heard the strength of opinion on this matter from across the Committee. I am more than happy and willing to facilitate a meeting with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—other noble Lords may be interested—with the HRA, DfT, ORR and HSE to further pursue this issue. Without making any further commitments, I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment for now.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, when the Minister has his meeting with the Members of this House who are interested in this issue, I think he will need to hold it in quite a large room. I am very gratified by the strength and quantity of support that there has been for this amendment and issue from across the Chamber.
I intend to take up the Minister’s kind offer and I hope we can do that before we reach Report. If, by then, it is possible for there to be an understanding of how the law can be interpreted or possibly changed, it may not be necessary to come back on Report. However, I think the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on Report, particularly in view of the very strong support in the Chamber this afternoon, if we do not have a solution by then.
Meanwhile, I thank everybody who has taken part. I thank my noble friend the Minister; my co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; and all the other noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hendy
“Sectoral collective bargaining(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations for the establishment of Statutory Joint Industrial Councils.(2) The regulations shall provide that—(a) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall be composed of equal numbers of—(i) nominees of employers’ associations (or nominees of employers) which appear to ACAS to represent employers in the sector, and(ii) nominees of independent trade unions which appear to ACAS to represent workers in the sector,(b) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall have the function of conducting collective bargaining to—(i) establish levels and rates of remuneration (including pensions), terms, conditions and other benefits for those who work in the particular sector of the economy;(ii) determine any other matter within the scope of section 178(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (collective agreements and collective bargaining);(iii) formulate its constitution and procedural arrangements including a dispute resolution procedure; (iv) resolve any other matter which the Statutory Joint Industrial Council desires to consider,(c) any agreements reached by a Statutory Joint Industrial Council shall apply to the workers and employers in the relevant sector save to the extent that a previous or a subsequent contract or collective agreement makes more favourable provision,(d) it is for the Secretary of State (in the light of advice from ACAS) to determine what constitutes a sector of the economy for the purposes of establishing a Statutory Joint Industrial Council, and(e) a Statutory Joint Industrial Council may only be made following consultation with—(i) nominees of employers’ associations (and/or nominees of employers) which appear to ACAS to represent employers in the sector, and(ii) nominees of independent trade unions which appear to ACAS to represent workers in the sector.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to enable regulations to be laid for sectoral collective bargaining in particular sectors of the economy. The concept of the Statutory Joint Industrial Council is taken from s.90 and Schedule 8, Employment Protection Act 1975, reproduced in Part II of the Wages Councils Act 1979.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for supporting my Amendment 203. It is designed to give the Secretary of State power to establish, after consultation, a national statutory joint industrial council in any sector of the economy which appears to him appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked me to give her apologies to the Committee for having had to leave.
Amendment 203 is not intended to be mandatory; it is purely discretionary, leaving it up to the Secretary of State as to whether or not he or she wishes to institute a statutory joint council. The negotiating bodies that we have already discussed this afternoon are, without doubt, an improvement on the current situation, especially in light of my noble friend Lord Prentis’s earlier speech on adult social care.
In these circumstances, I regret that I take the role of Oliver Twist and ask for more. But the fact is that many sectors are crying out for sectoral minimum terms set by negotiation—social care and not just for adults, agriculture in England, hospitality, office cleaning, food delivery, parcel delivery, warehousing, garment manufacture, seafaring, bus services, and so on. There are other groups, such as teachers, where there is established collective bargaining across the sector but not on pay. The omission from the Bill of a power to establish sectoral collective bargaining in any sector seems inexplicable.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 322 in this group, which requires the Secretary of State, after the establishment of the new arrangements to deliver fair pay in the social care sector, to set out a timetable and process for an assessment of whether this approach could deliver similar benefits in tackling labour market problems in other sectors of the economy. The assessment should also take account of the process of establishing the school support staff negotiating body, in effect restoring arrangements abolished in 2010 by the coalition Government.
Setting up this new machinery in social care will be a major step forward in addressing the crisis in this sector. Low pay and poor working conditions are endemic across the sector, contributing to record levels of staff turnover and unfilled vacancies. This badly affects those who need care services and those who provide them. But this will be no simple matter establishing an entirely new bargaining structure for the first time in this part of the economy. All the parties—the Government, the employers and the trade unions—will need to navigate a number of significant complexities to establish this new body.
How should the membership of both the employer and the trade union sides be constituted? What should be the practical working arrangements to bring the parties together to work constructively to address the huge challenges faced? Will there be resistance in the sector to the changes coming out of this initial process? If so, how can they be overcome to establish the new body with the credibility and authority it will need if it is to become an enduring positive part of the social care landscape? This will be a learning process for all involved, and this amendment is intended to ensure that the learning is effectively captured from the process to inform the consideration of whether similar fair pay agreements could deliver benefits and tackle labour market problems in other sectors.
Agreements covering the terms and conditions across a sector exist in our major public services. In the private sector, as recorded in my register of interests, I also serve on the board of the JIB, the Joint Industrial Board, in the electrotechnical part of the construction industry, which brings together the employers’ body, the Electrical Contractors’ Association, with Unite the Union.
Working together, they maintain the core collective agreement setting out the terms and conditions in that part of the economy. They also work together in delivering a hugely valuable card scheme, recognising the key skills of the individuals working in the sector. This was referred to in the earlier debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. In addition, they provide an effective dispute resolution process for member firms and workers in the industry with a very high success rate.
Lessons can be learned in considering the possibility for other sectors from all these different arrangements. This is not to suggest that establishing new sectoral bargaining arrangements more widely in the economy is some kind of magic bullet, but in sectors with low pay, high turnover, recruitment and retention difficulties, and demonstrably inadequate investment in skills, they have the potential to play a part in transforming sectors that currently appear to have a labour market characterised by a race to the bottom to ones that build success based on decent pay and high labour standards. So, once the new social care body has been successfully established, let us develop a considered process, consulting all the relevant parties—employers, unions, ACAS—to learn the lessons and assess whether there are other sectors that could achieve similar benefits from such an approach. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to this proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 322 in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Barber and Lord Monks, who regrets he cannot be in his place. It addresses the same principle as the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hendy: extending collective bargaining is a common good.
I strongly welcome Labour’s commitment enshrined in the Bill to introduce a fair pay agreement in social care. As we have heard, social care staff put their health on the line during the pandemic to care for our loved ones, and it is only right that they should be front of the queue for a fair pay agreement. But that cannot be the sum total of our ambition. This amendment seeks to ensure that the Government make a timely assessment of other sectors that could benefit too.
There are around 4 million low-paid and insecure workers in Britain today. During the pandemic, many of these workers were classified as key workers—the people who kept Britain running in the toughest of times. They remain essential to our collective security, but their terms and conditions do not always reflect this. Very often, dominant companies in the sectors where they are employed could and should pay more but instead look to squeeze and undercut smaller companies that want to do the right thing.
There is little incentive to invest in new tech or equipment, which is essential to boosting productivity when labour is so cheap. As we know, young people are on the sharp end with over one-third of UK graduates employed in jobs well below their qualification level, representing an enormous waste of talent. Organisations from the Resolution Foundation to the Low Pay Commission have already documented which jobs and industries are both holding down workers’ aspirations and holding back productivity gains. The Government can use their convening power to bring employers and unions together to bargain for a better deal, not just on pay but with progression, training and skills too.
Collective bargaining is based on the simple premise that workers can achieve more together than we can ever achieve alone. In the UK, we have a national minimum wage. There is also an independent and voluntary real living wage, calculated on the real cost of living. In my book, though, the definition of a fair wage is different: a wage is only fair when workers have a collective say over it and agree it.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments relates to the role of collective bargaining and particular proposals concerning a social care negotiating body. At this late hour, I do not intend to repeat the detailed points already made in the earlier group, but I take this opportunity—and I hope the Minister listens to this—to recognise the Government’s ongoing work to address the significant challenges facing the social care sector. These are complex issues, and the sector continues to face real pressures on workforce stability, recruitment and pay.
Amendment 322, which touches on fair pay agreement arrangements in social care and the possibility of their broader application, reflects one approach to addressing those concerns. While views will differ on the precise mechanisms and scope of reform, it is important that the Government continue to explore options to improve outcomes for both workers and those who rely on care services.
Having listened to the previous speakers, I wondered, “Gosh, am I the only one who is not in a trade union?” It seems that collective bargaining is about the views not just of the trade union but of people the gathered together who are not necessarily trade unionists. I feel uncomfortable that the views of the trade unions will affect the Government’s view of this. Collective bargaining is good; I am all for it. The general reduction in trade union membership has affected the ability of collective bargaining, but very often collective bargaining produces some benefit for those who have been part of it. Those working in any sector in the country know that one person’s benefit is very often less of a benefit for another person, and there is possibly less employment because wages have gone up. The current collective bargaining in the medical world will have a knock-on effect, and we have to think about that. I am all for collective bargaining and people getting better conditions and pay for the job, but thought has to be given to the knock-on effect.
We on these Benches note the intention behind these amendments and the reference to international frameworks and obligations. At this stage, we remain neutral on their detail, but we support continued dialogue on how to strengthen the resilience and sustainability of the social care workforce. I look forward to hearing, when the Minister replies and on Report, how the Government intend to do that. Collective bargaining will probably be part of it, but it is a much wider issue than purely that.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady. I am not a trade unionist, but I am very aware that there are sectors of the economy that are not unionised. Can the Minister inform the House whether there are sectors that are disadvantaged in terms of wage levels, and whether there are plans to unionise them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been very interesting. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, talked at some length about delivering a new deal for working people. He ranged fairly freely, so I might, too.
Did noble Lords opposite notice that a report published yesterday showed that there are now 150,000 fewer jobs since the Government took power? It is all very well delivering a new deal for working people, but there will be fewer of them, and this Bill will contribute to that. Noble Lords may not have seen it because it has only just come out, but a British Retail Consortium survey has just been published which shows—I am sure we will return to this theme next week—that half of retail directors now think they will reduce hiring, and 70% say the ERB will have a negative impact on their business.
Frankly, I am slightly staggered at the noble Lord’s Amendment 260, which seeks to return us to various EU standards, given that EU unemployment is, of course, generally significantly higher than it is in this country. Is that what the noble Lord aspires to? I am sure he does not, but that is how it looks.
The proposal to create statutory joint industrial councils raises significant concerns, not least the proliferation of new public bodies at a time when government and regulators are already stretched. Each of these councils would require administrative infrastructure, governance mechanisms, sector-specific expertise and ongoing support from both ACAS and the Secretary of State. This approach risks duplicating existing frameworks. We already have voluntary collective bargaining structures, recognised trade unions and sectoral engagement mechanisms in many industries. Superimposing a statutory model could complicate rather than enhance industrial relations, particularly in sectors where informal or local agreements are working effectively.
There is also the issue of flexibility. The statutory model risks creating rigid sectoral definitions that may not reflect the realities of modern hybrid or cross-sector employment. The labour market today does not always fit neatly into traditional categories, and it is unclear how the Secretary of State, even with ACAS guidance, would determine sectors without inadvertently excluding or misclassifying employers and workers. We must not overlook the potential for conflict or delay. Setting up these councils, negotiating procedures and achieving consensus across large and diverse sectors could slow down progress on pay and conditions, rather than speeding it up.
That is not an argument against collective bargaining. It is an argument for targeted, effective solutions that reflect the complexity of today’s economy, not a revival of structures drawn from legislation that is nearly half a century old. The world has changed. Where stronger bargaining is needed, let us work through existing mechanisms and invest in enforcement, rather than defaulting to the creation of statutory councils that may struggle to function as intended. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Barber of Ainsdale for Amendments 203, 257, 260 and 322. I hope, despite my noble friend Lord Hendy’s concerns, that he recognises that this Bill is a major step forward in delivering a new deal for working people, exactly in the way our manifesto and the King’s Speech set out. I would also say that this is only the first step in our proposals, as we have made clear all along that the “make work pay” programme will, over time, roll out to a whole set of other issues we have flagged up as we have gone through this debate.
Turning to Amendment 203 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, I am pleased to be having the debate on sectoral collective bargaining and to set out the Government’s commitment to supporting it through the introduction of fair pay agreements in social care and the school support staff negotiating body, which we have just debated in detail. We want to ensure that the labour market works for everyone. A key aspect of this is allowing workers to participate in collective bargaining to improve pay and conditions. However, where labour markets are operating effectively or where existing collective agreements are working well, the Government recognise that sectoral collective bargaining may not be the best solution—I think this was the point the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, was making.
The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to establish statutory joint industrial councils in unspecified areas without parliamentary scrutiny or appropriate safeguards. We are committed to starting with fair pay agreements in the social care sector to address the stark and specific issues in the vital sector, which we have already debated. As part of our ongoing policy work, we are exploring how future sectors could benefit from sectoral collective bargaining. However, we first want to learn from this process to improve our policy approach and ensure that future sectoral collective bargaining arrangements most effectively respond to the complexities of the modern workforce. In the meantime, I assure my noble friend that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining and recognise the positive contribution it can make to the British economy.
Amendment 257 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy would add duties of promoting collective bargaining to ACAS’s remit. An existing ACAS code of practice provides guidance on the disclosure of information to trade unions for collective bargaining purposes. I have listened carefully to what my noble friend said, and I am afraid we will have to disagree on this. We do not support the amendment; we think it is important that ACAS maintains its independence and impartiality between employers and unions. We are concerned that the current status could be compromised by this amendment.
On Amendment 260 in the name of my noble friend Lord Hendy, we have debated the school support staff negotiating body and the social care negotiating bodies. A benefit of these sectoral bodies will be broad sectoral agreements. We expect that many workers in these sectors will be able to benefit from collective agreements for the first time. We intend to learn from the first fair pay agreement process in social care and the SSSNB, before considering rolling out agreements in other areas, as I have said.
Additionally, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to consult on and bring forward this action plan within six months. It is important that such policy matters have enough time for consideration, and we are keen that employer organisations and trade unions prioritise the consultations committed to in Make Work Pay, which will follow Royal Assent to the Bill.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, in particular my noble friends Lord Barber, Lady O’Grady and Lord Monks for their Amendment 322, which I support. I support any machinery for extending the hearing of the worker’s voice. My preference would be for collective bargaining rather the negotiating body model in the Bill, but if we cannot have the first, let us have the second.
I had the pleasure of spending time with the JIB, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Barber. It is a good example of successful sectoral collective bargaining. Earlier this afternoon, I tried to outline the benefits of collective bargaining. No one in the House has so far denied those benefits; indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, described the disbenefits of not having collective bargaining, which are, I think, acknowledged by my noble friend the Minister. Instead, the defence is that collective bargaining is unworkable or too burdensome. However, the JIB and other extant joint national councils of a voluntary nature, as well as the Whitley councils in the public sector, show that they are not unworkable or burdensome and that sectoral collective bargaining works.
I make two points to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. First, collective bargaining, even at the enterprise level, benefits non-unionists as well as unionists. Collective bargaining may be reached between a trade union representing only a proportion of the workers in a bargaining unit, but the output covers all workers in the bargaining unit. Secondly—this is a point that I need to make in relation to the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—collective bargaining has been proven not to create unemployment; academic studies and, indeed, studies by the OECD have demonstrated that. In response to the noble Lord, I make the point, in terms of the EU comparison, that unemployment differs from one European country to another. However, one thing is absolutely clear: unemployment in European countries is not caused or related to the extent of collective bargaining coverage.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked about the non-membership of trade unions. Tangentially to that, I will make one point: one of the reasons for falling membership of trade unions in this country—and, indeed, in other countries—is the decline in collective bargaining. People will not join trade unions when they know that the trade union will not have a voice in setting their terms and conditions. They would be paying a contribution as just a gesture, without any hope of getting anything back.
I will not deal with all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but there was one point about the definition of sectors. That has always been problematic, but it has always been resolved. For decades, there have been arguments about the definition of sectors for the purposes of wage councils and joint national councils, but, ultimately, they were all resolved.
In response to my noble friend the Minister, I want to pick up one small point in relation to the proposal that ACAS should have restored to it the duty to promote collective bargaining. ACAS had that duty for decades, and it did not mean that ACAS was partisan in any way. ACAS has always been respected as impartial and independent; having that duty again, in my respectful opinion, would not open it to that sort of criticism.
I recognise, as my noble friend the Minister asked me to, that what is proposed in this Bill is a major step forward. There can be no doubt about that. I acknowledge her commitment to go further; she knows that I would of course prefer to go further now, but I respect her commitment to support sectoral collective bargaining. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Clancarty
“Review: impact of employment law relating to casting directories and digital casting platformsWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review of the impact of employment law relating to casting directories and digital casting platforms on performers in the creative industries.”
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Freyberg, and the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Cashman, who unfortunately cannot be here today, and for the discussions I have had with them and other colleagues in the House, including the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, who I see her in her place, and with relevant industry representatives. I am also grateful for the meeting that my noble friend Lord Freyberg and I had with the Minister and her team on not just this but other areas of the creative industries in relation to the Bill.
This debate has been prompted by the ongoing dispute between Equity and the casting directory resource Spotlight around the levels of charging that Spotlight makes for the inclusion of performers in its now online directory. I declare an interest as my daughter is at drama school and signed up with Spotlight. Equity believes that Spotlight charges too much for this service and is bound by both the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003. Equity believes that, at the very least, Spotlight should not be charging more than it costs to maintain the directory. This dispute has resulted in a class action brought last year by Equity against Spotlight, and a High Court hearing is scheduled for next month.
I will not say anything about how the court case should or will pan out, and I am sure that the Minister will be equally as careful in her response in that respect. What I can say is that things very much came to a head in 2023, when Spotlight tried to launch its so-called “premiere service” at a time when we had only just emerged from Covid. This was widely criticised within the industry as invoking a two-tier membership which would only benefit the more privileged. To its credit, Spotlight paused this service, but there is no doubt that some damage had been done in terms of trust.
Equity says that the charges that Spotlight makes are their members’ number one concern and that, further, Spotlight is exploiting its monopoly position. However, there is a strong argument for a single, recognisable go-to platform for professional actors and other performers. This is a really important point, otherwise it could cost actors a lot more if it becomes necessary to sign up to more than one platform. This is a role that Spotlight has fulfilled for almost 100 years and continues to fulfil. I should say that, as far as I can ascertain, there is no substantial criticism of the service that Spotlight or indeed other platforms provide; this is a dispute about costs.
One potential outcome of the court case is that performers will not have to pay anything at all for inclusion in such directories. However, this raises very problematic concerns about how those moneys are made up for if that should be the case, as well as there being potentially wider implications beyond the entertainment industry.
I ask two things of the Minister. The first is very simple and modest: that the Government keep a watching brief on this. We may well return to this after the court case, and I will leave it to my noble friend Lord Freyberg to provide particular arguments about why we should have the review that the amendment itself asks for.
Secondly, and the reason for raising this issue at the present time, is that as I have tried to show, this dispute has not come out of the blue. I therefore ask the Government whether they believe that a legally enabled mechanism might have been useful in this instance and potential future instances in order to resolve such disputes and avoid court proceedings, which is always a nuclear option. In that respect, I listened with great interest to the previous debate on the group led by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and wonder whether the Minister has a response to that. I beg to move.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 204C. I thank my noble friend Lord Clancarty for tabling the amendment and I am grateful for the constructive discussion that he, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, and I had with colleagues, industry representatives and the Minister and her team. Like my noble friend, I do not intend to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings between Equity and Spotlight; that is rightly a matter for the courts. However, I believe that the situation that has prompted this amendment highlights an underlying tension that is worthy of review: whether the existing employment law and regulatory framework remain fit for purpose in today’s digital casting environment.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have said everything that I wanted to say. I just want to add that it has been a pleasure working with them and with my noble friend Lady McIntosh to endeavour to understand the nature of this dispute. It occurs to me, in the light of what we have been discussing this afternoon, that a good dose of collective bargaining and negotiation might come to the assistance of the parties.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I had not expected to speak at any point during this Bill, and I will do so now only very briefly to express my thanks to the noble Earl and his colleagues for praying my name in aid in relation to this amendment. I really just want to say that I may be the only person in the House—and I am certainly, I think, the only person in this Chamber—for whom a casting directory was the bible of my life for many decades. Therefore, I know exactly how important it is to performers that there should be a trusted published work of some kind to which they can refer their information which can then be the source of potential employment through the work of casting directors and other industry professionals.
I just say to the Minister, when she comes to consider this amendment—which, by the way, I do support, and I have nothing to add or anything I wish to contradict in what has been said so far—that it is important to recognise that this is an extremely delicate ecosystem in which there are many, many people who need to avail themselves, and have done over decades, as we have been told, of the kind of service that a casting director and a casting directory provide. Frankly, for most of all of our lives, it has been Spotlight, but it could be others. The people who need to avail themselves of that service are many in number, and the people who need to use it in order to find out about those people are much fewer in number—mostly casting directors. It is very important that they have a trusted source, that performers can rely on their information being carefully curated, looked after and protected in the way that the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have already outlined, but that we do not disturb the particular delicate relationship between those two aspects of the way that the business works. While I am not in favour of exceptionalism on the whole, I think we do have to understand that this industry operates not always perfectly but certainly in an unusual kind of way, and it is necessary that it continue to do so with the right protections in place.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lords, Lord Freyberg and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, for bringing this very important subject to the attention of this Committee. All sectors of the economy, including the creative industries, deserve fair and proportionate attention in the development and review of employment law, particularly when, as the noble Earl pointed out, the workplace is changing so fast and at such speed.
As the noble Earl reminded us, we need a framework which strikes the right balance. We are all grateful to him for not commenting in any detail about an ongoing dispute, which we will all carefully avoid mentioning any more, although we all agree we must keep a watching brief on what is happening as regards that particular instance.
However, as we consider wider reforms to employment rights and protections, we must ensure that we are not unintentionally leaving out those in less conventional work arrangements. Performers and others working in the creative industries often operate outside the normal employer and employee model. They frequently rely, as we have heard, on casting directories and digital platforms to access work—platforms that are increasingly central as to how creative labour is bought and sold, and have been for a number of years. Yet this part of the labour market is rarely the focus of legislative scrutiny. That must change.
I hope we are all agreed that we cannot claim to be modernising employment law if we ignore how it interacts with one of the fastest growing and culturally significant sectors of our economy. This amendment does not, of course, call for regulation but for understanding. A review will help us grasp better whether existing protections are functioning as they should, and whether any further action is needed to ensure fairness and transparency in the systems on which performers so clearly depend. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to how he would like to respond to what is a fast-changing situation.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very short but very interesting debate, and declare an interest that many and perhaps all my actor friends are registered with Spotlight. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, for tabling Amendment 204C.
Providers of work-finding services, which can include digital services, are regulated through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which are enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, and in due course they will be enforced by the fair work agency. I hope that answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on who enforces regulations in this area.
The conduct regulations also allow for employment agencies to charge work-seekers in specific occupations, such as actors, musicians and singers, fees for their inclusion in a publication for the purpose of work finding. These costs can be no more than a reasonable estimate of the cost of production and circulation of that publication.
I am sure that all noble Lords will appreciate that I cannot say anything more about the ongoing litigation between the actors’ union and that particular organisation. However, I will share with all noble Lords how the Government are supporting the creative sector.
The UK is home to world-class creative industries. Every single day, our arts and culture bring joy to millions of people, not just in our four nations but all over the world. Every second, someone somewhere will be listening, reading or hearing one of our creative artists. They are part of our soft power, part of our economic power and part of the joy that we so generously give the world. They enrich our lives, bring our communities together and drive our economy. The creative industries have been identified as a growth-driving sector in our strategy, Invest 2035.
People and skills are an important part of this strategy. The Government have been working closely with the sector, including through the creative industry sector plan task force, to develop a plan for the sector. The Creative Industries Taskforce includes Creative UK, the British Fashion Council and the Royal Shakespeare Company, and I hope that it will address some of the issues that were asked about earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. I appreciate the noble Lord’s efforts to improve the working conditions of those in the creative industries, and I will discuss this further when we debate a later amendment on the performing arts and entertainment sectors tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. He did not answer my question about a legally enabled mechanism, although I think it was probably answered at the end of the previous debate.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I think the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, about the delicate ecosystem is hugely important, and we upset that ecosystem at our peril. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for what he said about collective bargaining. That is something that we perhaps ought to be looking at, nevertheless. The claim that the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, repeated—that 30% of radio adverts are now AI-generated—is quite shocking. This is yet another stress on our artists, without remuneration. That leads me to my final comment, which is that it is probably not a coincidence that this dispute is happening at a time when, after 14 years when the subsidised arts sector, so important at the grass-roots level—the entry level for young performers for theatre, television and film—has been torn to shreds, when there are far fewer jobs in this sector and fewer new theatre productions across the country. Although that is not a justification for any particular stance taken, it is, nevertheless, a significant part of the wider story.
I hope that, with the spending review, this damage will start to be repaired, because what price employment rights for employees if there are no jobs to go to? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the statement of trade union rights applies only to larger employers.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Noakes, who is unable to be in her place today. I have to say that these parts of the Bill, Parts 4 and 5, will be the most contentious, but I think this is the meat and drink of what the Bill is intended to do, which is essentially to repeal most of the labour relations legislation put in place by successive Conservative Governments since 1992.
I am tempted by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, and her hagiography of labour relations and trade union activity before 1979, as if it was a land of milk and honey, the closed shop did not exist and the trade unions had not brought the country to its knees, to the extent that a third of trade unionists in the 1979 general election voted Conservative. In fact, Conservative trade unionists were one of the most powerful and influential groups in the Conservative Party at the time.
That was the reality of the situation then: the closed shop bringing the motor industry and various other industries to their knees. Many working-class people were sick to death of the trade unions, which is why they voted Conservative. The idea that it was a dark, draconian period of the evil capitalist bosses forcing the horny-handed sons of toil into penury was nonsense. I am more than happy for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, to disabuse me of my prejudices, but I do not think that she will. Historically, we won general elections as a party because trade unionists supported us as they knew that reform was vital. We will no doubt debate that at length as we go on.
While I am being slightly contentious, I note the Cross Benches are empty, bar the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, whom it is always a pleasure to see. In many of the Bills over the last two years, the Cross Benches deprecated the use of excessive reliance on delegated powers. They would pop up during every piece of primary legislation, every Bill, to complain about the ministerial misuse of delegated powers, which is happening in this Bill in spades. Yet where are they? They are not present to remonstrate with the Government, take issue with the Government or hold the Government to account on that. Anyway, we must proceed.
In moving Amendment 205, I will speak also to Amendments 206 to 208, and the Clause 55 stand part notice tabled by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The practical and economic consequences of Clause 55 without amendment are likely to be damaging to the very workers whom the Bill claims to protect. This is against an economic background where we have growth becalmed, flat growth of GDP and a very tough labour market out there. Yet the Bill will load further incumbencies on small businesses in particular.
Amendment 207 seeks to exempt micro-employers—those with fewer than 10 employees—from the obligation in respect of access. These amendments reflect a recognition that a one-size-fits-all mandate across employers of vastly different scale is neither fair nor sustainable. Micro-businesses and SMEs are already struggling under the weight of administrative obligations. Writing in an open letter, signed by FTSE 250 firm Mitie, industry leader OCS and other employers from the £60 billion facilities sector warned that the Bill’s radical package would “discourage growth”, damaging their businesses and harming their clients and, crucially, their staff. Tina McKenzie, policy chair at the Federation of Small Businesses, put it succinctly:
“The Government also needs to think again and rework the parts of the Employment Rights Bill that will wreak havoc on hiring”.
This is a Government ostensibly focused on growth who have created—although we have never seen it written down in a comprehensive way—the so-called growth test that the Chancellor has referenced. Tina McKenzie’s concerns are far from abstract. We are facing a sustained fall in payroll employment. Small businesses, the engine of British job creation, are being hit hardest. The rise in national insurance contributions and a growing web of compliance burdens are already pushing small firms to the edge. This clause in its current form risks tipping many over.
Amendment 205 seeks to ensure that the obligation to issue this statement applies only to employers with more than 50 workers. This is a reasonable and proportionate step. Larger firms are more likely to have a human resources infrastructure to absorb such obligations. For smaller enterprises, every new administrative requirement pulls resources from service delivery and job creation. It has an impact on the bottom line, which inevitably will feed through to decisions to not employ people or to make people redundant, which we would all deprecate.
Let us not be naive: the cumulative effect of obligations like this can and will lead to reduced hiring, increased redundancies and the potential acceleration of automation. Faced with mounting costs, employers may choose software over staff. The Government must be mindful that even well-intended regulation carries a cost. In the words of the very employees this Government say they want to support:
“We are deeply concerned that some of the Bill’s provisions will have serious unintended consequences that could harm both good employers and the very employees that the Bill seeks to protect”.
My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom referenced the British Retail Consortium survey published on 29 April. It bears repetition, because it is a pretty damning indictment of the very significant concerns that employers at the sharp end—this is a survey of HR directors—have about the Bill as it stands. Some 70% believe that the Bill
“would have a very negative or negative impact on their business”,
52% said it would result in fewer staff members in their businesses and 61% said it
“would reduce flexibility in job offerings”.
They have urged the Government to engage, and today I echo that call.
Finally, Amendment 208 seeks to probe why the requirement to issue this statement must extend beyond the point of employment commencement. Is there any compelling justification for placing employers on a continual alert to reissue the statement at “prescribed times”? What does that even mean? Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to intervene in the minutiae of a business—in the very weeds of how a business runs to make money, make profit, provide jobs, pay taxes and deliver public services for people? Why is it important for Ministers to involve themselves in the prescribed times a statement can be given? Surely, if the goal is awareness, combining this with the statement of employment particulars under Section 1 of the 1996 Act would suffice. We should not mandate bureaucracy for its own sake.
Let us step back and consider the broader context. If the Minister did not want to listen to the British Retail Consortium, she will no doubt be aware of other surveys published recently, such as that by the Federation of Small Businesses earlier in the year, which revealed that
“92 per cent of small employers are worried about the Employment Rights Bill, with 67 per cent saying they plan to recruit fewer staff, and 32 per cent set to reduce headcount”.
The Minister will know that her ministerial colleague, the MP for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, has been challenged in the other place on a number of occasions to name just one small business that supported the Bill, and has hitherto been unable to come up with a name. The Government have come forward with Richer Sounds—which is not a small business by any stretch of the imagination—and Centrica, which is a massive business. I know that, under the Bill, big businesses will probably soon end up as small businesses, but that is a different matter. They also mentioned the Co-op. There is a surprise: the Co-op supporting the Labour Party; “The Pope likes balconies” will be the next one. Yes, the Co-op supports the Bill.
It is important to step back and think about the Bill. In an already fragile market where businesses are battling inflation, rising taxes and regulatory fatigue, we must not view administrative obligations as cost-free, because they are not. They weigh heavily, particularly on the smallest firms. I speak from experience. A number of years ago, I was an Investors in People manager, when I used to help small and medium-sized businesses with their quality standards. They often did not want to engage, because they did not have the time and the energy as they were focused on chasing invoices, chasing new businesses and giving presentations to potential new clients. These are the burdens that small businesses face every day. They become big businesses, and they pay taxes, so I ask the Minister to give some consideration to that.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments and, in particular, my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough’s remarks. I agree with every word.
I vividly recall the change in this country, in 1979, when union power was such that people were frightened of starting businesses or to go to work. Murdoch took a brave stance to take the unions head on and, after 1979, the country emerged with much greater strength, economic certainty and prosperity. As a result, people like me chose to start a business in this country. That was because of the economic prosperity created by Thatcher’s Cabinet and team. Any attempt to go backwards rather than forwards is very depressing and disappointing.
My noble friend Lord Jackson is of course right that Clause 55 is the kernel of the Bill. It is an important clause that reveals why the Bill is so inappropriate and badly drafted, and it needs amendment or, if not, not to stand part.
I refer to the British Chambers of Commerce, an independent organisation which, as we know from Second Reading, criticised the Bill because of its lack of consultation, because of its greater restriction and penalties for firms that want to make workforce changes but, most importantly, because of the greater responsibilities, costs and complexity for employers. The Bill includes some of the most significant and widest range of changes to employment laws for decades.
The Government’s own assessment suggests that the legislation will cost businesses almost £5 billion a year, and that the SME sector will be impacted most. This is at a time when, just in the last couple of months, businesses have come to terms with the dreadful, unnecessary and wholly growth-destroying national insurance increase. It is literally putting businesses out of business. Your Lordships do not have to believe me; just look at the last insolvency statistics, which show record figures of insolvency, particularly for CVLs—creditors’ voluntary liquidations. People are throwing in the towel; they are not prepared to carry on business when they are faced with these increased costs for employing people and for properties and business rates, which the Bill imposes on all businesses.
My particular concern is with the SME sector. We debated this at Second Reading, and I complimented the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on starting a small business. He therefore knows and understands this, but many people on the Front Bench of the Labour Party do not have that experience and expertise and are not aware of the damage this will do. These amendments are vital, particularly to try to exempt small businesses—and, if not small businesses, micro-businesses—from these onerous requirements.
To take it to the point of absurdity, and to declare an interest, I personally employ one person—do I have to give that one person a piece of paper when they join? It looks like I do. Will I then be told by the Government that I have to give that person a statement “at other prescribed times”? What does that mean? It means that when the unions are short of members, as they invariably are, and they need to raise more money —we know where that money largely ends up—they will say to employers, “Right, you’d better give all your staff a statement to tell them that they have the right to join a union”, and encourage them so to do. It is on the point of absurdity.
The BCC goes on to say:
“the scale and scope of the changes is huge, with many feeling they are being rushed through at breakneck speed … Firms are particularly concerned about the lack of detailed consultation on the Trade Union changes, especially when the Government’s own assessment was so vague about the impact”.
It rightly points out that:
“Overall, there is a lot in the Employment Rights Bill that reinforces much of what good businesses already do. But the fear remains that certain elements could create huge costs for firms and damage the UK’s ambitions for growth”.
I repeat the request made to the Government Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to cite businesses—SME businesses in particular, but actually any businesses—that are in support. Richer Sounds is not a good example. Julian Richer sold Richer Sounds to an EOT—it is a co-operative. One of the firms mentioned last time was Nationwide. That is not an SME, and the Co-op is certainly not. So where is the support for this? Please can we exclude this extremely vague “at other prescribed times”, which is without any limitation or cap? If it said “annually”, that might be a start. Can we also exclude both SMEs and micro-companies from these onerous requirements?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group that seek to mitigate the impact of Clause 55, which amends the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 by inserting a new section with a
“Statement of trade union rights”.
I support, in particular, Amendment 205 by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would apply the statement only to larger companies. We have heard very good arguments as to why this should happen. I support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, which would leave open to employers the option to decide whether to apply the statement under the new Section 136A. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which would mean it does not apply to smaller employers and those with fewer than 10 employees, as well as her amendment that probes why such a statement should be given at times other than the start of the job. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, put forward some good potential reasons.
This a very bad clause. I oppose it for two reasons. I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on the Front Bench, who has stated that it should not be part of a Bill, certainly not in 2025. Such obligations interfere with the professional balance of duties and responsibilities in a business between employer and employee. The employer must promote the best interests of the business and, with the directors of the company, employers are bound to do so.
Employers are also bound under employment law. The 1992 Act, which this clause amends, already strikes a balance between the role of trade unions in the workplace and the employer. It sets out that the employer or business recognise trade unions that meet certain criteria, engage in collective bargaining, provide information to the unions and respect those engaged in lawful industrial action. We already have recognition of the responsibilities of employers to trade unions in the workplace; a balance has been struck, and it has worked, by and large, very well.
The interests of the business will also involve treating all workers not only legally but fairly and professionally. It should not involve employers being obliged, as the new Section 136A stipulates, to give a written statement that the employee has the right to join a trade union at the start of the job and at other prescribed times. It should also not be left to politicians, as the new section states—the Secretary of State at the time—to prescribe what information is included, what form the statement takes, in what manner it should be given, and whether regulations prescribing anything for the purpose of this section may make different provision for different purposes.
Are we making the law or are we leaving it to some executive authority to make something up on the back of an envelope and prescribe it through his or her officials in government? This is not lawmaking, and this Parliament should challenge this sort of power being given to a Secretary of State to do what he or she may like. This not only adds a layer of bureaucracy but brings uncertainty to businesses and adds costs, from which smaller businesses at least should be spared.
The individual choices that employees make should not be anticipated by presuming that union membership is an assumption that both employer and employee make. That undermines the freedom of both parties to have a non-politicised atmosphere and implies that a business will be run in an atmosphere of expected confrontation instead. It suggests that freedom is being undermined. Yes, it does not require an employee to join the union, but if an employer presents a new employee with this statement, what on earth is the employee to think except that this is what should be done in order to get on in this business?
The second ground for objection, however, is more general. Obliging businesses to make such a statement politicises the internal arrangements of business. Trade union membership may or may not be something individuals choose, but we must recognise that trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party; they founded the Labour Party. The Parliamentary Labour Party appears to be dominated by former union members—or perhaps continuing union members. At certain times of Britain’s history, trade unions have dominated many workplaces and paralysed public services. Indeed, we see that continuing this year in Birmingham, with the paralysis in relation to bins and the failure of the council to deal with the Unite union. They have stopped the productive activities of the British people in industry and in business, undermining the economic success of the whole country and the ability of people to earn a decent wage or salary.
I am afraid they have undermined freedoms and have undermined the democratic decision by the people of this country to live without fear—fear that their child’s school will be closed by strikes, fear that their university lectures may be cancelled because the union has called a strike, and the fear of many working people that they cannot get to work and earn their money because the railways are strike-bound. This clause should not be in the Bill. It undermines the freedoms that were fought hard for by Conservative Governments since 1979 to restore freedom in the workplace, with a fair balance between trade unions and working people.
When I first came to this country in 1979 as a student, one of the members of staff of my college told me, “I am the sole earner in my family now. My husband had to join a union because of the closed shop. He couldn’t get a job without joining a union. Now that he has joined the union, he has been told he can’t work. This is why I, for the first time in my life, am voting for the Conservative Party and Mrs Thatcher”. Conservative Governments have successfully and successively restored order to the economy, allowed this country to prosper, allowed people to get jobs, helped entrepreneurship and growth, and helped Britain to no longer be the sick man of Europe. People voted for that. We should not turn the clock back to a day when we are chipping away bit by bit at those rights, so that people will not have the freedom to earn and this country will not be able to pay its way.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, what a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Lawlor. I support the amendments introduced by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I am assured by my noble friend Lord Leigh that he believes that Hansard will record that he referred throughout his speech to “the noble Lord, Lord Jackson”.
Employment is a precious coin. It is the many coins of employment that keep this economy going. When there are more coins, the economy grows, and this whole House is united in wanting that to happen. We are all on the same side on that. We want the economy to grow, certainly not to shrink. And, like any coin, it has two sides: the side of the employee and the side of the employer.
Sitting through the many days of this Committee, any poor, benighted individual who has been watching on Parliament TV might think that this Chamber contains two parallel universes, with two entirely incompatible ideas of what employment is about. On the one side they are hearing about greedy employers, grasping capital, and the need for trade unions to protect the poor employee. But what is this coin of employment? It is a place where an individual says, “I want work. I want to go to work and earn money for me, my family, and my future”, and where an employer says, “I want to provide work. I want to risk my endeavours and my capital, even my solvency since I might go bankrupt, in order to give you that employment”. And it is a fair bargain.
Most employers, particularly small employers, who start up a business and employ people are not thinking, “I’m going to exploit these poor workers”. The vast majority of workers are not the victims that we have heard described as the reason why this clause is necessary. The vast number of employees work harmoniously with their employer, and the vast number of employers work harmoniously with their employees. I imagine this poor person watching Parliament TV and possibly, if the camera cuts to the faces opposite, seeing the looks of doubt, irritation and disbelief when I say this. But I have been an employer on literally scores of businesses, large and small, and I know how it works. What the employer wants is to provide a good or a service and sell it at a slightly higher price than the cost of providing that good or service, so as to make a little profit and employ lots of people at the same time. That is what they want to do.
What they dread is law upon law that they have to spend all their time on and which bad actors can use to exploit them. We all know that in the human population it is said that 3% are what they call “dark triad” personalities—narcissistic, Machiavellian and sociopathic—who are very good at concealing their behaviour and coming across as caring individuals, by the way. They are found in the most caring societies, and on all sides of the Chamber. The employer dreads that individual joining their company and having a mechanism by which they can exploit the company and make money out of it, taking it to the employment tribunal or threatening it with that and getting paid off, not working hard or doing whatever.
We are saying here that some poor person who is going to hire, say, three, five or 10 employees is going to have to spend all their time understanding these laws, doing the things that the laws lay down and responding to employment tribunals when a bad actor comes into their company—as they do, from time to time, in every company—rather than doing what they are there to do, which is to provide great goods or services to their customers. That is what nearly all of them, employer and employee alike, want to do.
Barbara Castle, the great Labour politician, recognised the problems with trades unions and produced a paper called In Place of Strife. I suggest that the Bill—you can imagine the poor employer with three employees having to go through its 300 pages to figure out what they are going to have to do with it, even as it is passed —is creating strife in many places, and that even Barbara Castle might be turning in her grave when she sees how far this Government are prepared to go. I have sat here sometimes wondering whether the Government really believe the things they are saying.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, to address the amendment. These sound like Second Reading speeches being redelivered and redelivered. When is the noble Lord going to address the actual amendment? This is just a tour de force around the 1970s and 1980s, with anecdotes from the Back Benches again. We are trying to do business.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention, but I hope I am forgiven for thinking he has not been listening to what I have been saying. As I understand it, this clause is about reducing the number of people down to more or less nothing who are necessary in a company in order for a bunch of trades union mechanisms to be created. The amendment would remove that and tries to push up the number of employees below which this clause would not take effect. That is all that I have been talking about and I am startled to believe that a noble Lord of such eminence apparently has not been listening. I could finish fairly soon, if not interrupted much more.
My concern is that we are all people of good will. I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, is rightly proud of the many good things that trades unions have done, but surely she cannot be unaware of how the people of Birmingham might feel about the striking dustmen or about how the people of this great capital feel about striking Underground workers and the commuter trains that so often muck up their daily life. She must be aware that, on another coin of trade unionism, there is the good and the bad. We have employment tribunals with two years of delay to even get to a tribunal, but clause after clause, including this one, threatens to increase the number of references to employment tribunals.
This clause is going to increase the awful number that we have just seen today of 150,000 job losses. In the parallel universe that we are in, can it possibly be that the Government Benches believe that that loss of 150,000 jobs has nothing to do with this plan, with their NIC changes, as my noble friend Lord Lilley said, or with so many other changes that are detrimental to employment in this country?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the Clause 55 stand part notice and Amendment 208. I have sympathy with my noble friend’s amendments regarding small and micro employers. We need to cut to the chase. I will probably irritate the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, but what is the point of this?
The Minister in the other place said that he hoped this clause would be “straightforward”—it is certainly straightforward—and “uncontroversial”. He said:
“Currently, there is no general requirement for employers to let their staff know of their right to join a trade union”.
and that there is a duty in this clause. He said:
“A lack of awareness of the right to join a trade union may be contributing to declining union membership and reduced worker engagement in collective bargaining. The clause will help empower workers to become active in protecting their rights. This is a step forward in strengthening worker representation”,—[Official Report, Commons, Employment Rights Bill Committee, 7/1/25; col. 517.]
and so on.
I go back to the point I made in a previous debate: the key headline in selling this to the public was that it was about day-one rights. As I have already explained to the Committee, this could have been done through a statutory instrument. Part 4 is a classic example of the fact that a lot of the motivation is about increasing trade union membership. Trade union membership is now at about 6 million people, I think; it might be just over that. By the way, as I said at Second Reading, I am not against trade unions, but I do not think it is the job of legislation to try to increase trade union membership as a consequence of our actions here today. I made the point about political funds.
To come back to the numbers, about 22% of employees are now members of a trade union. Of course, people have to pay a fee. I have recommended to people that they join a trade union, but we should be aware that the only sector where trade union membership is going up is the public sector. My general perspective on some of these things is that people tend to join a trade union when they do not trust their employer and they think they might need help, when they are not treated well or when there are other issues worrying them. That is when a lot of the benefits of trade unions come in, such as getting access to legal advice—I know there are plenty of other benefits as well. Family members of mine are trade union members and, as I say, I am not anti-trade union, but I am concerned about the approach we are taking in Part 4.
On Amendment 208, it would be useful to get an understanding from the Minister about what other prescribed times there might be. It is one of the oddest bits of this part of the Bill. When you join, you get to know certain things—it might not all be on day one; I accept that there is a bit later that talks about instalments and that sometimes you get to know certain key things, but you must do it within two weeks or two months, I cannot remember which. You may not get everything on day one, but, nevertheless, what are the other prescribed times? Will it be the same frequency as is being put in the Bill about the reminder to opt out of the trade union political fund, which will have moved to every 10 years? Why not put it in the Bill if we want an annual reminder, or we want it at the same frequency as a say on whether people can be part of the trade union political fund—or indeed on ways that that decision is made?
I am concerned about this element. There is no doubt that employer representatives are concerned about aspects of this Bill. In particular, when they spoke to me earlier this week, they said that quite a lot of the impact assessment is written on the basis that savings will be down to the fact that there will be fewer strikes. We should recognise the history of strikes happening in our employment places in the last couple of years or so: the number of strikes has gone up significantly in the public sector, exactly where trade union membership is going up—not the other way round. I appreciate that there has been a change in government and that Wes Streeting sat around a table, but we know that right now, where trade union membership is going up, the ballot papers—I do not quite know the process—are going out, calling for getting the vote together for a mandate for industrial action. It is happening right now.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that our very serious concerns about this clause would be assuaged were the Government to have properly followed Cabinet Office protocols and updated expeditiously the impact assessments, which are normally present in Bills of this size and magnitude?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I agree with my noble friend. I have tried to get deposited in the Library, or sent through some other form of communication to all Peers, a response I have received from the Secretary of State on this matter. By the way, I have still not received a reply from the Cabinet Secretary, who is supposed to uphold Cabinet Office guidelines. In essence, the answer came back: “We’ll do a full impact assessment once the Bill is completed”. We know that industry is looking for that. We have no idea when these regulations will be introduced; I assume that they could already have started the consultation. It is important that the Secretary of State—I am trying to remember; I do not have a photographic memory—basically said, “We haven’t really changed that much”. That is where we are. I will continue to make the point. My noble friend is right and reminds me to chase the Cabinet Secretary.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Perhaps I can help my noble friend by explaining that Section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 allows an employee to claim compensation of between two and four weeks’ pay. Does she think this will lead to ducks-and-drakes people trying to seek such compensation?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I expect the bigger employers, if they know about this legislation—although we are hearing from a lot of the employers’ representatives that a lot of their members had not even heard about the day one rights until very recently—will probably put their HR departments and lawyers on it. I am concerned about the smaller ones, which is why I am sympathetic to the amendments in this group on micro employers and small employers. Otherwise, this could start to become a very expensive business. It is yet another reason why the Government generally do not seem to understand the chilling effect that not only their economic policies but legislation such as this will have on the recruitment of people to jobs.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I had no intention of coming here today to speak until I had dinner last night. Having put in a day’s work, I thought it was time to come here and express an opinion.
I would like to describe that situation last night. It follows on from a lot of what my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley said and the powerful words of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor. This friend of mine, whom I have known for 30 or 40 years, is a small businessman in Bath, down in the West Country. He said to me, “Mark, we have a major problem coming. I have friends in similar places who run small businesses”—he runs a business of some six or seven people. “We are all talking together, because that is how we transfer knowledge, and the number of us beginning to think about throwing in the towel is significant. I want you to know about it”.
If this change were to happen, it would affect the poor employees of these businesses. There is nothing inherently wrong with these businesses but there is, as we have heard, more and more legislation coming upon them. It is the employees who are going. The domino effect through local economies is too much for these businesses. These small guys have to employ lawyers, HR experts and so on. I work for a company where we have those in house. They are just getting to the end of their tether. They do not want to stop, but I hope that Amendments 205 and 207 will help prevent that sort of thing happening and another nail in the coffin for these small businesses, which are really struggling as they think about the hassle of going on.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the provision of employment rights. The essence of the group is about requiring employers to provide workers with a written statement of their trade union rights. Even after seven hours, I enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, describe a romp through the 1970s and the bad old days of the Labour Party bringing the country to its knees and almost losing the car industry. He failed to skip into the 1980s, when the Government did destroy an industry—the coal industry—and did immeasurable damage to the trade union movement, which it has taken decades to recover from and is at the heart of the Bill. It is a direct result of actions taken by a certain Government in a previous life. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, I have been here since the start of the debate and listening. As the Companion says, it is courtesy to be here at the start of the debate to listen to the opening speeches and then the winding up speeches. There seems to be real departure from that by Members, who just wander in, make contributions and wander out.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, is not saying I was not here for the start of this debate. Of course, the Labour Government closed down more coal mines than Margaret Thatcher.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I did not imply that the noble Lord was not here—he was. He is assiduous in his attendance to this House and I enjoy 90% of what he says, much of which is quite amusing, but not much knowledge from it goes into my head.
I have one final point for the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for whom I have the highest regard. I thought she was an excellent Minister and makes excellent contributions. However, I have to gently remind her that I think she also made her contribution tonight a couple of nights ago, in response to my intervention about the reason behind the Bill. However, I enjoy the heart and soul that she puts into this. She is interrogating and pushing the Government, but I try to keep it to what we are trying to do here.
These provisions are intended to ensure that individuals are made aware of their right to join a trade union. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. It is a fundamental element of workplace democracy. The amendments in this group raise important and valid questions about how that requirement should operate in practice, especially for smaller employers—and, yes, it may put a burden on them. For example, Amendments 205 and 207 examine whether it is appropriate for those duties to apply universally, or whether the threshold should be considered to avoid placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses.
I am somewhat concerned about the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to remove the provisions from the Bill entirely. It risks sending the wrong signal about the importance of transparency around trade union rights. Although it is, of course, necessary to ensure that new obligations are proportionate and clearly drafted, deleting the entire clause at this stage could be seen as an overly blunt response. It would be preferable for the Government to engage with all the points raised tonight in these amendments and explore whether a more targeted approach could be achieved, with a fairer workable outcome that upholds workers’ rights without creating undue complexities for employers.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, even if he does not agree with my amendment in this group. Not that my noble friend Lady Coffey needs any defending, but I think she developed her theme admirably, which is surely the point of our being here. I thank my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for introducing our noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments, and for his excellent historical perspective. I thank my noble friends—perhaps I should call them my noble comrades —Lord Leigh, Lady Lawlor, Lord Moynihan and Lady Coffey for their contributions.
This clause may seem straightforward, and even beneficial at first glance, but its practical and legal implications reveal it to be unnecessary, burdensome, ideologically charged and fraught with uncertainty. For these reasons, it should be removed from the Bill. First, it is important—others have made this point—to acknowledge that workers’ rights to join trade unions are already comprehensively protected by our existing legal framework. These protections are well established in legislation such as the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, referred to by my noble friend Lady Lawlor, and the Employment Rights Act 1996.
These rights are well understood by workers, employers and unions alike, and information on these rights is widely available through multiple channels, including unions themselves, ACAS and legal advisers. Mandating a new written statement does not create or clarify any new rights; it simply duplicates what is already clear, adding unnecessary complexity without addressing any real problem.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, for tabling Amendments 205, 206, 207 and 208. I acknowledge that the noble Lord introduced the amendments on behalf of the noble Baroness. I will also address the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, on their opposition to Clause 55 standing part of the Bill.
I am sorry that the tone of the debate has somewhat deteriorated this afternoon. I thought that we were having a reasonable, grown-up conversation until now. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, because he admitted that what he was saying were his prejudices—and that is certainly what it sounded like. He was talking about a period 50 years ago, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, said, the world of work has changed significantly since then. As we absolutely acknowledge, we now have outdated employment processes and huge levels of exploitation, including a climate where it is not easy or encouraged to be a member of a union. That is one of the issues that we are seeking to address here.
I have to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, who tried to give us a talk about democracy, that this Government were elected with a huge win on a manifesto to introduce the legislation that we have before us today.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way, but I do not know that a mandate of 33% of the electorate is indeed a very strong mandate for overturning the reforms that have brought stability to the workplace.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We can have a long discussion about that, but if we are talking about mandates, it may well be argued that probably Baroness Thatcher did not have that kind of mandate either. The fact is that we won that election with a huge majority, and I am very sorry that the party opposite lost so badly. They might want to reflect a little bit more on why that was, because some of the issues that noble Lords have been talking about in relation to the state of our economy are exactly what we inherited from the previous Government. Those issues are absolutely the result of that Government’s economic policies and not ours. We have been taking great steps to improve the situation. While I am on that issue, I should say that, as a result of this Government’s actions, we had the fastest-growing economy in the G7 at the start of this year; we have done three trade deals in three weeks, with India, the US and the EU; interest rates have been cut four times—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The Minister is aware, of course, that interest rates are independently managed by the Bank of England.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I make my case. The only reason those interest rates were cut was that our economy has been improving. Some £63 billion of private investment was announced at the investment summit last year. Introducing this Bill within 100 days will boost protections and quality of work for the lowest-paid, raising living standards across the country and creating opportunities for all.
I turn to the actual amendments. Amendments 205 and 207, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would introduce exemptions to this measure based on the size of the business. The new duty on employers to inform all employees of the right to join a union is a key part of the Government’s wider commitment to strengthen workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Making exemptions of this kind risks creating a two-tier system in which some workers benefit from this important information while others do not, based purely on the size of their employer. We are committed to striking a fair and proportionate balance, ensuring that workers are aware of their rights without placing undue burdens on employers.
The statement will be provided at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which employers are already required to give under Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and on a prescribed basis. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we do not believe that this is a particularly significant extra burden to justify exempting certain employers because of their size, because they already have to give that information anyway.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked about the frequency. We will consult on the specific details, such as the frequency, manner, form and content of the statement before it is outlined in secondary legislation, and I can let noble Lords know that that will be via the negative procedure. We will particularly encourage input from both businesses and unions of all sizes to share their views.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
The Minister just referred to the negative procedure. Is that a final decision? Given that the Bill takes so much power to make a series of important decisions by statutory instrument, I think the general expectation would be that such an important decision would be made by affirmative resolution. Would she perhaps contemplate whether that might be the better solution?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that introduction, because I was going to go on to say that the Government think that the powers taken in Clause 55 are necessary and proportionate. Indeed, the Delegated Powers Committee said that
“it is heartening that in a Bill with so many delegated powers”
it had
“only found four on which to raise concerns”.
Clause 55 was not one of those four, and we will of course respond to the committee’s recommendations in due course.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
While we are considering what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded, I recall that the last time I raised the use of the Henry VIII powers, the Minister said that this Committee would see her draft implementation plan, to which my noble friend referred just a short time ago. We have not yet seen that plan, and a lot of businesses are very concerned about the uncertainty that is being created by not knowing, certainly by now, when these various powers are going to be brought into effect. Will she give some timescale by which we will see the implementation plan, if only in draft?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I know we have discussed the implementation plan several times now, and I can assure noble Lords that we are working at pace to finalise that. I do not think it would be helpful to see it in draft or imperfect form. We want people to have a categorical road map which shows the way forward. We absolutely understand that businesses need to see that; we are working on it. I am very confident that when businesses see it, they will be reassured that none of the things that we are proposing in this legislation will be rushed through. They will have time to prepare for it—I think we had a debate about this earlier. We know that businesses need time to prepare, we are absolutely aware of that, and we are going to make sure that they have it.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I just wanted to clarify something the Minister said. I think I heard her say that it would be done by negative resolution. Does that apply to all of Part 4 or specifically for every element of Clause 55?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My answer was specifically about Clause 55.
Amendment 206, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, would remove the compulsory element of the proposals, making it optional for employers to inform workers of their rights to join a union. To be clear, this is not about necessitating union membership but about ensuring that workers are aware of their rights and can make an informed decision about whether to engage. We want to empower workers to take a more active role in protecting their rights, and, where they choose, to participate in collective bargaining to improve their working conditions. Access to clear and accurate information is fundamental to that. This amendment would seriously weaken this measure by allowing employers to simply ignore the duty, defeating its policy intent entirely. It is vital that the right to union membership is made accessible to all workers as intended, that it is communicated regularly, and that employers are under a firm obligation to do so.
Amendment 208, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would remove the requirement for employers to issue a statement of trade union rights on a prescribed basis. We are legislating for ongoing reminders of the right to join a trade union to reflect the reality of the workplace. New employers may miss information at the start of employment or change roles over time within the same organisation. Limiting the duty to the start of employment would also exclude existing staff, who equally deserve access to that information.
This statement of the right to trade union membership is important in fostering worker engagement and meaningful dialogue between unions and employers. Ongoing reminders are a key part of this measure. The Secretary of State will be able to set the frequency of this notification. This will be, as I have said, outlined in secondary legislation, subject to public consultation, and we invite interested parties to provide us with their views on this matter when we launch the consultation.
On the wider issue, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, urged us to consult more. I can assure him that these proposals have been subject to extensive consultation, and we are continuing to consult on them. I can also tell the noble Lord that we had a very constructive meeting with the Federation of Small Businesses.
Finally, I turn to the clause itself. Clause 55 introduces a new legal duty on employers to inform workers of their right to join a union. Employers will be required to issue this statement at the start of employment, alongside the written statement of particulars, which I commented on earlier. There is currently no requirement in law for employers to notify their workers of the right to trade union membership. This lack of awareness may be contributing to the falling union membership and reduced worker participation in collective bargaining that we have been discussing. This duty intends to address this gap, ensuring that workers are better informed of this right and helping to strengthen the collective voice in the workplace and enhance their representation. This delivers on the Government’s commitment to improve working conditions through increased trade union membership and participation. Specific details of this measure, including the frequency, form, content and manner of the notification, will be set out in secondary legislation, as I have said. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and I urge that Clause 55 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Just to press the point on the implementation plan, I am sure the Minister saw yesterday that the OECD downgraded growth forecasts for this country. Obviously, it blamed the global trade picture for a lot of that downgrade, but it also talked about business certainty in this country—or the lack of it. She herself has just acknowledged that businesses need certainty. The OECD is saying this, this is not just us alleging it. Will she please commit to picking up the pace when it comes to delivering this implementation plan and delivering it as soon as possible?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am fully aware that it would help to see the implementation plan and, as I said, we are working at pace to get it to your Lordships as soon as we can.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who participated in this very interesting debate. I think you always know when your arguments are hitting home when you are admonished by the Front Bench about tone. It usually means that you are hitting the target. I particularly thank my noble friends for the typically erudite and forensic analysis of Clause 55 by my noble friend Lady Coffey, the excellent real-world experience articulated by my noble friends Lord Ashcombe and Lord Leigh, and, of course the passion, from real-world experience, of my noble friends Lady Lawlor and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea.
I do not want to get into a historical discussion, because the hour is late, but Margaret Thatcher was mentioned. Margaret Thatcher never won an election with the puny mandate that this Government had, because what we are seeing is a counterrevolution in favour of the trade unions based on 20% of the electorate, a turnout of 66% and a 34% poll. That is no kind of mandate. In fact, it is a post-dated cheque to the trade unions paid for by the British taxpayer and working people of this country.
There is news from Birmingham, incidentally, as Birmingham was mentioned earlier. Four hundred Unite members have just voted today to carry on striking all the way to Christmas. This is an interesting quote from Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, known to our collective trade union alumni. I do not know what the collective term is: union barons, perhaps. She said:
“It beggars belief that a Labour government and Labour council is treating these workers so disgracefully … Unite calls on the decision makers to let common sense prevail in upcoming negotiations”.
The reason I quote that is that I have to say very gently to the Government Benches: be careful what you wish for. The 1974 Labour Government was destroyed by the trade unions’ actions in the winter of discontent of 1978-79. If the Government proceed with this Bill unamended, they run the risk that that unintended consequence might also be the end of their Government. I would not wish that to be the case, of course, because I think that they sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. Nevertheless, it is a risk.
Let us step back from the historical discussions that we have had in what has been an interesting debate. We are being asked to vote for a clause in primary legislation with huge delegated powers in the hands of Ministers. That brings me to a very interesting quote, that
“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the Executive. This not only strikes at the rule of law values I have already outlined but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty”.
That was beautifully put, by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture, proving that he is not always wrong about everything.
We have tabled these amendments because this clause does not give us the detail, it will have unintended consequences, and it will have a real-world impact on small businesses in particular. It is not about bashing the trade unions. I would concede, as someone who was a trade union member, that the trade unions have done a brilliant job in terms of member welfare, insurance schemes, et cetera, over the years. They are a force for good generally, but the measures in the Bill far too easily tip the balance against businesses trying to earn a living, in favour of unions, by repealing all the legislation from 1979 and 1992.
The Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, are doing a difficult job and defending a sticky wicket, but I do not think that the Minister really engaged with the arguments. I hope that on Report there is an opportunity to alter this clause, to make it a little less onerous and burdensome to businesses while keeping the spirit of the legislation for workers. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend stands up—I hope he will not have to stand up—it is nearly 7.45 pm and it is Thursday. It is not just the convention but the firm convention of this House that the House should rise at about 7 pm on a Thursday. Therefore, will the Government Chief Whip move to resume the House?
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness very much for that. I was the Opposition Chief Whip for three years in this House and always played fairly and reasonably with the then Government, even though many times I opposed them fiercely. I try to be reasonable and fair in all the things that I do as Government Chief Whip. This House has an important role to play in challenging and scrutinising legislation. The Opposition have the right to oppose, and the Government have the right to get their business through. I know the point that the noble Baroness makes about conventions. However, equally, we have many times stood here in opposite roles at all hours, well beyond 7 pm on a Thursday, well beyond 10 pm during the week. I want us to continue. We will do one more group before I move that the House adjourns. I think that is fair.
I always recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord True, whom I like very much. He would often say to me at the end of the night, “Well, of course, Roy, for me it is True’s law that matters. What goes around comes around”. I always thought that I treated the Government very fairly and reasonably. I remember sitting here until four o’clock one morning on a Home Office Bill with the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I did my job reasonably and fairly. We will do one more group before we adjourn the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The Chief Whip is absolutely right that the Government will get their business through; I have never demurred from that fact, as he did not when his party were in opposition. However, this is a 298-page Bill. We have made really good progress today—as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said—but it is 7.45 pm and we are sitting tomorrow.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
It is because the Bill is so important and noble Lords have so much to say on it that I have given the Opposition three more days in Committee after this to make sure we have proper scrutiny. We will do one more group before the House adjourns.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment to section 70ZA(2)(a) removes the reference to union officials being able to “communicate with workers” as part of an access agreement.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 208A, 209A, 210, 210A, 213A and 213B, standing in my name. Those first amendments remove the reference to communication with workers as an element of access agreements between unions and employers. They further remove provisions that attempt to cement that right to communicate by any and all means, and which prohibit a party from relying on the availability of physical or non-physical communication as a reason to limit the other. Taken together, these provisions amount to a significant and unjustified broadening of what has traditionally been a clearly understood and workable arrangement: namely, the right of union officials physically to enter a workplace for legitimate access purposes.
This access, by its nature, has always been specific, scheduled and carried out in a manner agreed upon by both parties. It is bounded in both scope and form. The Bill as drafted risks blurring those lines in ways that introduce legal ambiguity, managerial uncertainty and operational disruption. The reference to communication
“by any means, whether directly or indirectly”
is particularly concerning. This is an extremely wide formulation that is open-ended in both language and intent. It creates uncertainty not just in principle, but in practice. What exactly does indirect communication mean in the context of an access agreement? Does it encompass digital platforms, printed material, third-party intermediaries, or perhaps the passive dissemination of content in workplace systems? Without clear boundaries, employers will be left navigating uncharted waters, unsure of what they are obliged to permit and what may lawfully be resisted.
We must also think about how such broad phrasing sits alongside an employer’s duty to maintain a safe, orderly and productive working environment. Workplaces are complex ecosystems. They are governed by routines, procedures and, crucially, the employer’s ability to direct the operation of their business. If union officials are granted sweeping rights to communicate “by any means”, without the tether of physical presence and supervision, there is a genuine risk that communications will occur in ways that distract, disrupt or even divide—not necessarily through bad faith, but a lack of structure.
Equally problematic are the provisions that state that physical entry to a workplace should not be refused simply because non-physical means of communication exist, and vice versa. These clauses, while perhaps intended to protect flexibility, in fact remove the very discretion that employers must retain in managing their own premises. They suggest that the availability of one channel of communication can never justify the refusal of another, regardless of context. Surely that is both inflexible and unrealistic.
There may be very good practical reasons for an employer to prefer one form of engagement over another; a highly secure site may welcome scheduled, in-person access, but find unsolicited, off-site communications disruptive or invasive. A remote or hybrid workforce may prefer written updates to physical visits. By attempting to lock in symmetrical rights to both physical and non-physical communication, the Bill as drafted risks creating conflict where co-operation is needed and rigidity where discretion would be more effective.
Moreover, we should not lose sight of the fact that union engagement can and does occur outside the framework of statutory access agreements. The purpose of this legislation is not to create an open-ended entitlement for unions to interact with workers in any manner they choose; it is to provide a draft legal mechanism for arranging workplace access for legitimate purposes—access that must be reasonable, structured and proportionate. That mechanism surely must not become a Trojan horse for a much broader intervention in the management of communications within private enterprises.
The cumulative effect of these provisions, if left unamended, would be to tilt the balance too far, away from the well-established equilibrium between union representation and employer control. They would introduce legal uncertainty, operational disruption and potential privacy concerns, all under the banner of modernising union access.
It is vital that we place Amendment 210 in the proper context. The idea that unions could gain access to employers’ digital platforms, including internal communication systems, company email servers and private digital infrastructure, was not part of the original Bill but was added by the Government in the other House only on Report, with minimal explanation and no real opportunity for detailed parliamentary scrutiny. That is simply not acceptable.
This House is now the first truly to consider the full implications of what would, without question, be a major expansion of union access rights into employers’ private and operational space—not their physical space, but their digital infrastructure which is, in many ways, just as sensitive, just as regulated and potentially far more vulnerable. I believe that we must take our scrutiny role very seriously and that this House must now do what the other House was denied the opportunity to do: we have to probe this new power fully and openly.
We are now confronted with a proposal that, for the first time ever, would allow trade unions to reach employees via internal platforms such as company intranets, corporate email systems, Zoom, Microsoft Teams and other work-based communication tools, many of which are governed by strict internal policies, compliance frameworks and even sectoral security requirements.
This is not a theoretical concern. The Bill now provides a broad enabling power, with the detail to be filled in later through secondary legislation. We do not yet know which platforms will be in scope, how frequently unions will be permitted to post or engage, or what rights employers will have to review, edit or even be informed of the content beforehand. We are being asked to legislate on the basis of a skeleton—a blank cheque—with the flesh to be added later by statutory instrument, and that is precisely when parliamentary control is at its weakest. It is in secondary legislation where the balance of scrutiny too often shifts from robust parliamentary debate to rubber-stamping.
So what are we really dealing with here? Employers will, under the current drafting, be expected to engage constructively with union requests for digital access and will be given as little as five working days to respond. This is not merely hypothetical; this is a system designed to operate particularly in workplaces where physical access may be difficult or impossible—for example, remote teams, field-based staff and distributed or digital-first organisations. This may sound practical in theory, but it raises serious unresolved operational questions in practice. Who controls the messaging? Who controls the content? Who approves it? Can unions directly upload material on to a company’s internal platforms, or is it the employer’s responsibility to upload union-drafted content? In that case, does the employer have the right to make edits or raise objections? Can the material be branded? Must it be neutral? Will it sit alongside or appear to compete with official communications from HR or leadership teams?
So will the Government publish guidance? If so, when? At the moment, we just do not know the answers to any of these questions. These are not small matters; they are foundational issues of governance, internal messaging and even risk. For some employers, particularly in finance, defence and data-sensitive sectors, internal systems are subject to strict regulation and security controls. Can they allow access to these platforms without compromising legal obligations? In some cases, they may not be able to grant access, even if they wish to, and in others they may face exposure to reputational or compliance risks if improper messaging is circulated without oversight.
We must also consider the precedent being set. Allowing third-party organisations, however well-intentioned, to access digital systems designed for internal business-related purposes represents a significant departure from current practice. The potential for confusion, conflicting messaging and unintended consequences is high. This should not be rushed through under cover of secondary legislation.
For all those reasons, the amendment before us is entirely justified. It places a necessary brake on an overreach that has not been debated or examined and certainly not consented to by both Houses. If the Government believe that digital access is necessary and can be sensibly and safely managed, then let them bring forward a fully detailed proposal in the proper way. Let us have the opportunity to debate that openly, with all the facts in front of us—not as an afterthought or implication and certainly not as a quietly drafted regulation.
I therefore strongly urge your Lordships to support this amendment. Let us draw a clear line around what “access” means in this legislation and what it does not. If Parliament is to grant new powers, it must scrutinise them fully, which is what this Chamber is supposed to do.
I turn to Amendment 213B, which goes directly to the operational realities of the modern workplace—the way in which access is exercised, whether it involves scheduled meetings, ad hoc visits, group briefings or one-on-one discussions. That all can have a substantial effect on day-to-day operations. The frequency and timing of those visits matter enormously. Daily interruptions at peak hours are not the same as occasional meetings during quieter periods. Repeated unfocused access can, however unintentionally, become disruptive, particularly in sectors where workflow depends on concentration, safety procedures or continuous operations.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to my Amendments 212 and 213. Naturally, I wholeheartedly agree with the excellent points made from our Front Bench by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, particularly on Amendments 210 and 213B.
My two amendments are probing amendments, essentially, and I think they are very sensible and reasonable. The perhaps slightly more contentious one would restrict these powers to businesses with over 250 employees. I cannot and will not rehearse the arguments my noble friend made about disruption, interference and taking resources and time away from the main job of work in the business. Interestingly, it could be “one or more” trade union officials, so it could be one but it could be 25 going into a small business. We do not know because the clause is drawn very widely and is very permissive. That is Amendment 213.
Amendment 212 is basic good manners and common sense. If you want to facilitate a good relationship between the trade union representatives—properly elected and appointed by the workforce—and the employers, you want an agenda and an objective place that you wish to reach. That might be to avoid industrial action, to look again at a pay offer, to discuss a suspension of a worker or something like that. But what is wrong with giving 24 hours’ notice? It takes the heat out of the potentially disputatious nature of the relationship that you might have between the employer and the trade union representative. I think it is just basic good manners and would make things work better. It does not diminish the role of the trade unionists and it does not undermine their integrity or their bona fides; it just says, “Let’s give 24 hours’ notice to enable a more fruitful and productive relationship to be expedited between the two sides”. For those reasons, I would like the Minister to at least consider the amendments, perhaps with a view to looking at them again on Report.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 214 is designed to provide an effective remedy against an employer which defies an order of the CAC to provide trade union access. This is a situation where the trade union has applied to the employer for an agreement for access and been refused. The trade union has then gone to the CAC and succeeded in obtaining an order for access, which the employer has defied. The employer has had the opportunity to appeal to the EAT and has either declined to appeal or has had its appeal refused. In that situation, the Bill merely provides that a union can apply for a fine to be paid, not to it but to the CAC. That is no real deterrent and no incentive either for the union to enforce the CAC award, knowing that it will not result in compulsion for the employer to obey the order of the CAC. My amendment provides enforcement by way of a High Court injunction. That is an established procedure often used against trade unions for breach of their obligations in relation to industrial action. Some equivalence is surely justified here.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I support Amendments 212 and 213 in this group tabled by my noble friend Lord Jackson. I agree that a 24-hour notice period is necessary, particularly for small businesses, because access to the workplace by third parties can be disruptive. Visitors calling unannounced can disrupt a carefully organised schedule between an employer and his or her employees. The 24-hour notice period would allow employers to prepare for a visit and to reschedule certain tasks. I support exempting smaller businesses from some of these arrangements, because it is very hard to organise smaller businesses with third-party interruptions.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and others. This clause strikes horror in my heart. The idea that someone could come into my business, access my premises with no notice—good luck with that, because I sit in a room on my own—or even worse, access my systems and my server, which are all heavily password-protected because I am regulated, strikes horror not just in my heart. I can assure the Minister, who says that she has consulted business groups, that she will see surveys coming out in the very near future that show the fear, horror and dislike that small businesses have of this Bill, and in particular the clauses we have been debating tonight. I hope she will have the opportunity to meet again with business representatives and listen to what they are saying.
The draftsman on this Bill is working in another era. What does physical access to a business mean? I like the clauses restricting this for smaller businesses, because most small businesses do not have a physical presence. In many businesses, literally tens of thousands of them, the employees work from home. They might have a WeWork office where they meet every now and then, but it is meaningless to give right of access to most small businesses. If we then go to right of access to digital communications, that implies, from the wording I have read, that a trade union official would have to be given the passwords to enter the systems.
What protection is there? What indemnities are there to ensure that this is not abused? We know that abuse happens, particularly in these days of cyber fraud, where someone who has accessed the system could take advantage. Obviously, I am not suggesting that that is going to be prevalent or happen in the majority of cases by any means, but I do not see any protection for small businesses should that happen.
It seems to me that the whole concept of access is misconceived. I would quite understand it if the legislation were drafted to require an employer of any size to pass messages to an employee—I would understand that; it would be reasonable—but can the Minister explain to us why she is demanding access to both physical and digital assets of small businesses?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak in particular to the amendments regarding communication with workers. I think it was Amendment 207 but, whichever one it is, I think noble Lords will know. The reason I bring this up is that my noble friend has just referred to aspects of cybersecurity. By the way, I am not suggesting that any trade union would be seeking to cause this havoc, but we know this is a particular challenge. I am struggling to understand how, under wider confidentiality, how anybody would have access to this or be expected to. It may be that the employer is required to pass on an email, I do not know.
I am also struggling to find the justification for this. In introducing the Bill, the Government did not make any reference to digital communication or this other communication; they referred only to physical access. I cannot find any justification put forward by the Minister for this. I cannot find the amendment in Committee, and I am struggling to find the amendment on Report, in the Bill documents on the parliamentary website. I am sure they are there; I am just struggling to find them. I certainly cannot find any reference by the Minister in the other place to why this is deemed necessary. I appreciate that it is not necessarily the job of the Government to do my research for me, but that would be very useful to hear, because it certainly was not in the Bill introduced to the Commons.
I would be grateful if the Minister could give this House a justification, because one of the things that is causing concern among employers’ representatives is this sort of process. It is fairly well established that trade unions are often invited in; that is all part of good industrial relations. The legislation talks about being able to organise. I think the Minister in the other place talked about using it as an opportunity to recruit new trade union members, to organise, to have meetings and so forth. I want to clarify something. The Bill states, in line 15 on page 75, that
“the access purposes do not include organising industrial action”,
so I would be grateful to understand this better. How is the Minister in the other place saying that you can organise different from organising industrial action?
I am genuinely concerned that anyone can just be told, “Please email all your employees with this material”. Fortunately, at the moment, it does not seem that we have prescription that the Secretary of State will write the words that need to be said—I expect they would not be writing on behalf of the trade union—but, again, I am trying to understand why employers would need to allow that to happen. On that, I will draw my comments to a conclusion.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I too shall be very brief. I strongly welcome this new right for workers to have reasonable access to their union representatives at their place of work—that is very important. It is also worth stating the good news that there are many voluntary access agreements already in place. I have had the pleasure many a time of visiting companies, big and small, walking the floor with the managing director and the union representative and having really good discussions, with an opportunity to meet workers and talk about the success of the business.
However, as a union official, I have also been in the position where I have had to meet workers in cafés, pubs, church halls, homes or anywhere, because they were too scared to be seen speaking to a union official outside their workplace with CCTV cameras trained on them. That is the reality that we are also dealing with, but there is plenty of good, practical practice to build on.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, she has had a go at Amazon twice tonight. I wonder whether it might be of interest to her to know that it employs 75,000 people in the UK. No one who works there is on a zero-hours contract. The minimum annual starting salary is between £28,000 and £30,000. It provides flexible working opportunities from day one, including term-time contracts, which it is currently advertising on the radio. That, obviously, allows parents, grandparents and carers guaranteed leave during school holidays. Since 2010, Amazon has invested more than £64 billion in this country and £12 billion in the last 12 months. It also supports a network of about 100,000 UK-based small and medium-sized businesses. It may not be perfect on unions in the noble Baroness’s terms, but it deserves a bit more respect.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I am sure the noble Lord opposite would agree that those workers who joined a union and wanted to have a union voice at work to improve their pay and conditions deserve respect, too, and that union-busting techniques and approaches to avoid even meeting unions to come to an agreement is, frankly, unacceptable in a modern, civilised society.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. This group of probing amendments relates to new provisions in the Bill concerning trade union access to the workplace. Amendments 208A, 209A, 210 and 210A would narrow the definition of access by removing or limiting references to communication with workers, including through digital channels. These changes would raise questions about how access is intended to operate in practice, particularly in light of evolving workplace models. It would be most helpful to hear from the Minister how these changes are expected to support the overall objectives of the Bill and whether they risk narrowing the scope of access in ways that may affect its effectiveness.
Amendments 209, 211 and 213 in this group would also address the application of provisions to small and medium-sized enterprises. Others, including Amendments 213AA and 213B, introduce specific considerations for sectors including healthcare—all very laudable and quite reasonable—or for the timing and method of access for those applications. These amendments appear to probe the balance between ensuring orderly access and managing operational pressures. Could the Minister clarify how the framework, as currently drafted, is expected to work in different types of workplaces as I have alluded to, and how it ensures that both the employers’ and employees’ work interests are taken into account?
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this group, and in particular I thank the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Hendy for tabling Amendments 208A, 209, 209A, 210, 210A, 211, 212, 213, 213A, 213B and 214.
Before we get into the detail, I will frame my remarks by pointing out that we have heard previously in this debate in quite heated tones a discussion of the role of trade unions in our society. From our perspective as a Government, and from my perspective—for what it is worth, I have been a member of a trade union all my working life—progressive legislation and reform, which we on this side have always tried to pursue through working with the trade union movement, have done much to improve not just the world of work and the rights of workers but the economy as a whole. We are proud of this progress and history. This Bill represents a further stride towards a successful, mature framework for employment relations in this country.
It is important when we talk about striking the balance between employers, unions and workers—in particular, between employers and workers—that we do not equate the two as having equality in terms of power dynamics. That is often missed from this debate. Many employees, whether they work in Amazon’s warehouses, an SME or a microbusiness, do not necessarily feel that they have the same equality of relationship with their employer as their employer has with them. That may be natural, but one of the roles of a trade union or employee representative is to level that playing field. It is always important when discussing trade union rights to bear that in mind.
In Amendments 209, 211 and 213, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, are seeking to exempt smaller businesses from Clause 56. The right of access is a key part of our wider commitment to strengthening workers’ voices in the workplace, enhancing their representation and ultimately improving working conditions through increased trade union membership, participation and dialogue. My noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway ably illustrated why, in some cases, trade unions do not need any improvements to access because they have a perfectly good and amicable working relationship. It is worth noting that in roughly 30% of the cases referred to the CAC the applications have been withdrawn because there has been a voluntary agreement, and that is a very good thing to see. However, there are cases where there is not that level of co-operation and access, which is why the Government are legislating to provide it.
We have heard in debates on previous groups that noble Lords on the Benches opposite think that trade unions are a good thing and have a role in the workplace. I absolutely take them at face value on that. To have that role in the workplace, they need to have access to workers. We cannot be starry-eyed about this; not all employers behave as responsibly and open-mindedly as we all believe they should in creating access for employees to their representatives. That is why we are discussing these bits of the Bill tonight.
The policy we have developed has been designed to be fair, consistent and workable for all employers. We will consult on specific details of the framework before they are set out in secondary legislation, including with the CAC, and we encourage businesses and unions to share their views. I understand the points around legal ambiguity raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, but, in the previous group, we discussed the levels of granularity and specificity in a particular statement that it is proposed that employers should give to employees about their rights to join a trade union. I posit that, if we had had the level of detail that the noble Lord suggested, we would have had a similar level of discontent from Members opposite. That is of course their right, but I make the point gently that you cannot have it both ways.
I turn now to Amendments 212 and 213B. Amendment 212 would require that trade unions provide a request for access to a workplace in writing, and with more than 24 hours’ notice from the requested date and time that access would happen. Amendment 213B would introduce two additional factors for the CAC to consider when making a determination on whether access should occur: first, the method, frequency and timing of the access requested, and, secondly, whether the purpose of access could be reasonably met without physical entry into the workplace. The Secretary of State will, by regulations, be able to set the time period in which an employer is required to respond to a request for access from a trade union, as well as the form that the trade union’s request must take and the manner in which it is provided to the employer.
I will respond to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, around the difference between this sort of trade union activity and organising for industrial action. As far as I am concerned, it is pretty obvious that this is about organising for recognition, where the legal conditions can be met, and indeed organising for recruitment and awareness for other very reasonable trade union activities, such as promoting health and safety at work, which we all agree is important and worthwhile.
The Secretary of State will also be able to set, through regulations, the circumstances the CAC must take into account when making decisions on access. These areas of detail will be subject to public consultation before the regulations are made, and we will invite all interested parties to provide us with their views on these matters when we launch our consultation. To pick up on the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, he may find that 24 hours after the consultation is deemed to be just right, or indeed too short a period. That is the reason for this consultation, rather than just prescribing everything at this point in time. If we had prescribed it in the Bill, and it was less than 24 hours, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, would not be at all happy.
Amendment 214 was tabled by my noble friend Lord Hendy. The proposals in this amendment would make declarations by the CAC under new Section 70ZI(5) enforceable, as if made by the High Court, opening a greater possibility of an employer being found to be in contempt of court. I am happy to reassure my noble friend that new Sections 70ZH and 70ZK, which were introduced by the Government on Report in the other place, already provide for a strong remedy against employers who do not respect these new rights of access, mainly in the form of CAC orders but ultimately backed by serious financial penalties when necessary. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway said, these need to be serious financial penalties and they need to have heft. The new sections that were tabled on Report in the other place say that penalties can be linked to various metrics, such as annual turnover or, indeed, the number of workers employed in the liable entity. In the case of large companies, that would make a very serious penalty indeed. We do not want them to be fined; we want them to grant the access to trade unions and trade union representatives that their employees deserve. In our view, the available remedies are already powerful and proportionate. The Government do not consider it necessary to go beyond these.
Lastly, I turn to Amendments 210, 208A, 209A, 210A and 213A. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, are seeking in Amendments 210 and Amendments 208A to 213A to exempt digital forms of communication from the right of access policy. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that can be found in new Sections 70ZA(4)(a) and (b) in the Bill as it left the other place. This clause was designed for the modern workplace and with various working practices in mind. It is important that this clause provides for a digital right of access to ensure that unions can reach workers who may not work in a physical workplace, such as home workers or those who work in a hybrid manner. In my opinion, if I may be so bold, the noble Lord, Leigh of Hurley, answered his own point. As he acknowledged, in some businesses, it is not as simple—
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I am a bit puzzled about how access to digital can work side by side with the protections we have for data security.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I was going to mention it later, but I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that existing data protection legislation will continue to apply. I do not want to say that shrouds were waved, but there were a lot of quite fanciful hypotheses as to what digital access might involve. To be frank, as the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested—sorry to pick him out—it could simply mean that employers are, through their own email system, obliged to cascade a message from trade unions to their employees without the trade unions having direct access to the systems at all.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Before the noble Lord moves on from that point, I am fully aware of where the reference to digital is in the Bill now. The point that I was trying to make to the Minister was to justify why, when the Bill was originally presented to the House of Commons—perhaps I should have been more specific—it was not mentioned at all. I believe it was not inserted in Committee, so it must have come somewhere on Report, but I cannot find any justification made by the Government for why they have added this digital communication when they had not put it in at either the introduction of the Bill or in Committee in the other place, when it has the most scrutiny at that end. I had hoped the civil servants might have sent him a note.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I assume my civil servants understand that I probably know the answer to that question—they might be right, or they may be wrong. To cast my mind to the inner workings of Committee in the other place, the reference in the Bill, as I understand it, is to communication with workers rather than explicitly to digital communication. I sometimes feel that I cannot speak for the way we examine Bills in Committee in this place, let alone in the other place.
We now have the opportunity to discuss, as we are doing, the fact that in the modern day, in 2025, the idea that access to a workforce would not include digital channels is, frankly, fanciful. Were we seriously to say, not to trade unions but to employees—to workers—that the only way that they could receive a message from a trade union or from an employee representative or, to turn it on its head, from an employer was on a piece of paper or in a one-to-one verbal communication, then I think we would all regard that as fanciful. There is a little bit of sophistry—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Just to expand on this a little further, we are not arguing that unions should not have the right to communicate digitally with workers. That is not the issue; the issue is the right of access. The Government are asking the House of Lords tonight to pass legislation that will allow a third person the right to access an employee’s computer—let us imagine that it is an SME business, possibly run on only one computer, which may contain highly sensitive information; in my case, that would be market-sensitive information— without any controls, references or parameters. I invite the Minister to commit that, before Report, further consideration is made of what such right of access means and the limitations on that right of access. We are not trying to exclude communication to workers; we are just trying to find out the channels and protect SMEs from intrusive activities.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more detail, but this is one of things that will be set out in regulation following extensive consultation. I go back to the original point of principle that I made about levels of granularity in setting out specific channels: if we specify channels A, B and C, as soon as the Bill is published we risk finding that employers are actually using channels E, F and G, because that is the pace of technology as it develops, so we have to retain flexibility.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Will the Minister write to me with a better, candidly, a more comprehensive answer than he has given so far in response to my questions? I would be very grateful.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write. I resist the idea that I am not being candid here. The noble Baroness may not like what I am saying, but the point stands. I am of course very happy to write to her and to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, with more detail.
In conclusion, we expect that, in many cases, employers and trade unions will be able to agree the terms on which access takes place, including for digital access. In the event that there is no agreement, the CAC can impose terms, including terms dealing with digital access. I repeat: the precise details of how this will work in practice will be set out in secondary legislation following further consultation. I therefore ask that Amendment 208A be withdrawn and that noble Lords do not press their other amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, first, I say to the House authorities that we greatly appreciate the way they have tolerated the fact that we have gone way beyond the normal rising time on a Thursday, particularly as we are sitting tomorrow at 10 am. In mitigation, I note that we have tried to truncate what is a hugely important group of amendments. There are many things that we would want to probe further, so we will have to return to this on Report.
I thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough, Lady Lawlor, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Coffey for their contributions. I was interested, as always, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, although I hope that she will mitigate the damage she may have done with her remarks about one of the biggest investors in the UK, Amazon.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
This is the second time the noble Lord has taken on my noble friend Lady O’Grady, who made perfectly reasonable comments. I do not think it is a good idea to be patronising in the House.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I am sorry about that discordant note, introduced into what has been a really useful day in Committee on this important Bill.
I hope that people outside will realise that we have been debating a group of amendments that were made at the last moment in the House of Commons. They have not had any scrutiny at all in Committee in the Commons. That is why this House has so much responsibility to ensure that, in a fast-moving digital world, we do not transgress in a way that places employers and employees in an impossible position.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. He asked some direct questions, but we have not yet had the answers to them. It may well be that the Minister will write generally to us all to respond to the points he did not have time to answer today. I appreciate that he has limited time too, but he might like to respond in writing to us all, covering the points that he has not yet been able to deal with.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I am very happy to write, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
On that positive note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Katz (Lab)
From our Benches, I thank the staff, the clerks and the Deputy Chairman for staying later than they usually would be required to do on a Thursday. I look forward to seeing noble Lords tomorrow.