Employment Rights Bill

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments and Reasons

Relevant documents: 20th and 29th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee and 7th Report from the Constitution Committee

15:23

Motion A

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because it is appropriate for workers who meet the qualifying criteria to receive a guaranteed hours offer without having to make a request for one.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion A, and shall also speak to Motions B, E, E1, H and H1.

I start by thanking your Lordships’ House for the constructive contributions, debate and scrutiny that this Bill has received throughout its passage. The Bill has been strengthened in many places in this House, reflecting the depth of engagement and careful consideration that it received during earlier stages. At this point, I place on record my thanks to my noble friend Lady Jones for all her work at those earlier stages.

I believe that the Employment Rights Bill as agreed by the House of Commons strikes the right balance between promoting secure employment and protection against exploitative employers, while providing the flexibility that good employers need to grow. Our approach is based on the recognition that an engaged and content workforce underpins success.

By now, after the extensive debates we have had at each stage of the Bill, I know your Lordships are fully aware of the arguments that have been advanced in support of this progressive piece of legislation. The Bill delivers on the manifesto commitment to make work pay, improving protections and standards for workers. These arguments have been thoroughly rehearsed, and I will not detain the House by repeating them today. However, I will speak to Motions A, B, E and H, which address amendments that remain to be agreed across the Bill. For each of these, I will set out the clear rationale as to why the Government cannot accept these amendments.

In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to zero-hours contracts, unfair dismissal and seasonal work. This House has debated these topics rigorously and we have had the pleasure to meet the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, to discuss their amendments. I will take these in turn, outlining why the Government believe these amendments are unnecessary or would disrupt the balance of the Bill.

On the right-to-request model for the right to guaranteed hours, I will speak to Motion A, relating to Amendment 1, and Motion A1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. The amendment in lieu would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period explaining the workers’ right to receive a guaranteed hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contributions on this matter. The Government fully share the objective of protecting workers from precarious employment, and we recognise that the amendment seeks a practical and balanced approach.

Having discussed this with the noble Lord, I understand the intention behind his amendment is for the initial reference period to operate as a right for eligible workers to be offered a guaranteed hours contract as the Bill currently prescribes. The intent of the amendment is that there should then be a right to request or opt into guaranteed offers after each reference period. I share the noble Lord’s desire to ensure a meaningful right for workers while seeking to carefully manage burdens placed on business. The Government share this intention and are committing to delivering the promises set out in Make Work Pay and supporting businesses to drive the country’s economic growth. I certainly welcome continued conversations with noble Lords on these important matters.

I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment as drafted. It would, however, undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it the most. I hope my comments will reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to supporting vulnerable workers and maintaining a workable approach for employers.

I move on to Motion B, which relates to Lords Amendments 7 and 8 on the right to payment and the definition of short notice. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for originally tabling the amendments for consideration. I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord that leaving the definition of short notice to future regulation could create uncertainty for business. Defining short notice in the Bill would pre-empt the Government’s planned consultation and limit our discretion to consider a range of options. The Government have chosen to retain flexibility to set the short notice period through regulations, allowing for careful engagement with stakeholders and ensuring practical implementation while enabling the Government to respond to evolving circumstances without further primary legislation.

There will be a familiarisation period, so that businesses, including smaller firms, will have clarity and sufficient time to prepare for their legal obligations once the period is set in regulations. I hope this reassures noble Lords and allays their concerns around business impact. I can also reassure the noble Lord that the Bill already provides that payments are not due when shifts are cancelled with more than the period of short notice, which is to be set in regulations. Therefore, Amendment 7 is unnecessary.

15:30

I turn to Motion H relating to Amendment 48, as well as Motion H1 relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The amendment in lieu seeks to insert into the Bill a new legal definition of “seasonal work”, to which the Secretary of State would have the power to add certain sectors. It would also insert a new obligation on the Secretary of State to have regard to the characteristics of seasonal work, as newly defined, when making regulations under Part 1. I thank the noble Lord again for raising the important issue of seasonal work.

The Government appreciate that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally. That is why consideration of issues relating to seasonal work is built into the provisions contained in Part 1. The Bill allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of an offer to enter into a limited-term contract if it is reasonable to do so. For example, a fruit picker could be engaged on a limited-term contract to perform a specific task tied to the end of the picking season. Following the end of the initial reference period, the fruit picker’s employer would need to guarantee their hours only for the duration of the limited-term contract, not permanently.

The Bill also provides the necessary powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve. We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making any regulations. I hope this reassures the noble Lord that the Government’s approach will provide clarity and certainty, while maintaining the flexibility needed to support both workers and businesses.

Motion E, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, addresses Amendment 23 and Amendments 106 to 120 on unfair dismissal, while Motion E1 insists on those amendments. The amendments look to reduce the qualifying period for bringing an unfair dismissal claim from the current two years to six months. They would also create a new initial period of employment during which regulations can provide for a different test for unfair dismissal and set a lower compensation cap.

We remain committed to our make work pay manifesto pledge to introduce unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment. This will ensure that the approximately 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years can challenge the fairness of a decision to dismiss them.

Our intention is to ensure that employment can provide security and predictability, and we intend to deliver this from day one on the job. The Government’s approach provides for a statutory probationary period, during which we will set light-touch standards to allow for fair dismissal for reasons relating to capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. This approach recognises the importance of employers being able to continue to hire with confidence.

The Government have been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. Contractual probationary periods are typically three to six months long, and nine months enables an employer to extend probation to give a new hire a chance to improve their performance. We will ensure that the framework is fair, workable and responsive to the needs of businesses and employees. I hope noble Lords will feel reassured that the Government’s approach upholds fairness while ensuring a balanced, evidence-based framework that supports both employees’ rights and employer confidence. I beg to move the Motions in the name of my noble friend Lady Lloyd.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu

1B: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) From the date on which this section comes into force, after the end of each reference period the employer must send the worker a written notice explaining their right to receive a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1) and giving them the opportunity to decline such an offer.
(1B) If the worker does not respond to the notice, or responds to confirm that they wish to receive an offer, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1).
(1C) A worker who is sent a notice under subsection (1A) may at any time ask not to receive any further notices or offers, after which the employer must not send further notices or make offers under this section.
(1D) A worker who has asked not to receive notices or offers under subsection (1C) may notify the employer that they wish to start receiving notices and offers again after the end of the next reference period, after which the employer must act in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B).”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think I am right in welcoming the Minister, noble Lord, Lord Collins, to the Bill. I too missed all of Report and so I thank my noble friends Lord Goddard, Lord Palmer and Lady Kramer for picking up the pieces. The Minister and I find ourselves at an interesting point in the Bill’s progress—the sharp end—when we come down to a small number of key issues. These issues are nevertheless crucial.

The Government have not been short of advice since the last time the Bill was discussed in your Lordships’ House. Some 13 major business organisations wrote to the Minister. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development set out issues in a report and, just a couple of days ago, the Resolution Foundation—an organisation not unfamiliar with the Treasury—set out serious concerns.

These and other warnings come at a time when unemployment is rising and job vacancies are falling; when inflation continues to be worse than most of our international rivals; and when growth is, at best, stagnant. None of these warnings came from organisations that are antipathetic to the lot of workers. Nevertheless, we should leave this to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who put it best when he said that Britain faces a “growth emergency”.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will go into more detail on some of those reports, so I will not attempt to undercut him. The unifying theme from all these commentaries is that the Bill is likely to—or will have, in most cases—a chilling effect on our economy. The Bill contains 173 statutory instruments and still awaits the outcome of dozens of consultations—for example, we await the conclusion of the consultation on notice periods that the Minister set out.

Even when the Bill gains Royal Assent—assuming that it will—no one will actually know the details of what it will do. This creates an environment of deep uncertainty, which is the enemy of investment and which leads to expansions being delayed and new hires being put on hold. At a time when things way beyond the control of national governance are running amok, this Government are wilfully adding something else to the uncertainty that business faces. They could control this, but they are instead adding more uncertainty. That is at the heart of our concerns.

As we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will introduce his Motions E1 and H1 in this group, and I will leave it to him to explain their intention. However, the need to place a qualifying period and initial period of employment in the Bill is an important concern on these Benches. As it stands, the Bill will remove this provision entirely. The noble Lord can expect our support should he move to a vote.

On Motion H1, we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right to focus on the need to properly understand and delineate how work organised seasonally should and could affect certain rights. This is largely absent from the primary legislation. Once again, we are going to rely on statutory instruments. I am not necessarily 100% convinced by the noble Lord’s wording for this amendment, but the intention is correct, which is why we will support him. Perhaps the Minister could take onboard this uncertainty and demonstrate how certain key regulations following on from the Bill will operate to manage the irregularity of seasonal work, while still making sure that such work pays for employees.

I turn to the detail of our Motion A1. A feature of the Bill is that laudable aims have sometimes been delivered clumsily. An example is in trying to tackle the important issue of zero hours, and we share the Minister’s aim to make sure that every employee has the right to move from zero hours to guaranteed hours. Nothing we have ever said or proposed in this House has undermined that from the start.

We support the aim that after a reference period those on zero hours should be entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours from their employer. Our original amendment, which the Commons rejected, sought to avoid the necessity of employers being compelled to calculate and make that offer from the outset. We understand—and heard—some of the issues that were raised: that it is difficult for certain employees working with certain employers to get past that first stage, initiate the contact and make the ask. Therefore, rather than reassert the amendment we tabled before, we have amended it. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did a better job of explaining it than I am probably going to do now.

In essence, we should start off and stay the same as the Government require. In other words, once an employee passes the reference period, the employer will be required to offer guaranteed hours. After that, if the employee indicates that they are not interested in that because they want to remain on zero hours, the employer will not be compelled to keep reoffering guaranteed hours, time after time, as each reference period is passed. Under the Bill, the process of calculating those hours has to be redone each time. That may seem trivial; certainly, for large employers, it probably is. However, for the smaller and medium-sized employer, it is an added burden that does not need to be there if the employee does not wish to leave zero hours.

The aim of the amendment is to make sure that both sides are managed well and have the opportunity to change. The employee can opt back in to being made those offers if and when he or she requires, and a letter from the employer will remind them of that opportunity. I am happy that the Minister wants to continue to talk about this, and I am very happy to continue to talk, but to do so, we need to agree Motion A1. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, I am also very grateful to the Minister and his new colleagues for their time during the past couple of weeks. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

15:45

Turning to Motion E1, on day one unfair dismissal rights, I am sorry that we find ourselves here again, given the overwhelming cross-party support the amendment received last time around. It is right that we remind ourselves of the background. Making unfair dismissal a day one right will inhibit hiring, and

“this concern is heightened in the current labour market context of falling jobs (the number of payrolled employee jobs has fallen by 127,000 over the past year) and slowing hiring (the number of vacancies employers are posting has been falling for two years, and is now below pre-pandemic levels) … The number of young people (aged 16 to 24) not working or studying has risen post-pandemic, and is at its highest level in a decade. And young people’s employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers because they are more likely to be looking for work … Making dismissals as hard as in the ERB might also be for little obvious gain to workers. Workers today are about half as likely to lose their job as they were 30 years ago, and, unsurprisingly, workers are less worried about losing their jobs … There is also a practical argument against ‘day one’ unfair dismissal protection: the employment tribunal system isn’t in a fit state to deal with more claims. The claims backlog has been growing, and some claims are taking as long as two years to be resolved, long enough that some companies go out of business before workers receive awards”.

The Government have suggested that they will propose a new nine-month legal probation period—indeed, the Minister has just repeated that—where

“dismissals have to be ‘fair’, but where the bar that employers have to clear to demonstrate they have acted fairly is set lower. This is a messy compromise, and there is a risk that it is likely to be poorly understood by many employers, meaning that it may not fully mitigate any adverse effects on employers’ willingness to hire … the Government should change tack, and opt for the much more straightforward approach of keeping qualifying periods, but massively reducing them. This needs to happen now ... the Government has pencilled this change in for implementation in 2027 … And, although many of the ERB’s reforms won’t effectively be finalized until secondary legislation is passed, scrapping qualifying periods is happening in the primary legislation itself. Reducing rather than scrapping qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the Government’s manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers (reducing the qualifying period to six months would give protection from unfair dismissal to an additional 6 million employees), but it would do so in a way that doesn’t needlessly put employers off hiring”.

That entire preamble was a direct quote from the Government’s favourite think tank, the Resolution Foundation, which topically entitled its paper on this subject, Day One Frights. As noble Lords will know, the Resolution Foundation’s previous chief executive was Torsten Bell, currently Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, so are we to infer that this report signals a split on this issue between the Treasury and the department?

Meanwhile, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned, noble Lords will have received a letter from 13 business organisations, and I will read them into the record: the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, Make UK, ADS Group, the British Beer & Pub Association, the British Retail Consortium, Care England, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Family Business UK, the Food & Drink Federation, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and UKHospitality. It is difficult to be precise, but we believe that they represent more than half a million businesses. Certainly, they represent the employers of many millions of workers. The arguments that they make echo those of the Resolution Foundation almost to the word.

Unamended, the Bill would, as the Resolution Foundation has warned us, take us from being an outlier in one direction to the other extreme. Our amendment proposes a sensible compromise in line with economies such as those of New Zealand and Korea, and more importantly, a compromise which all sides, including both businesses and left-of-centre think tanks, can live with.

The Minister talked about consultation and reviews and assured us that we can deal with all the detail in the secondary legislation. In answer to that, I repeat the Resolution Foundation’s argument that

“scrapping qualifying periods is happening in the primary legislation itself”.

Quite so, and as Politico mentioned yesterday,

“one industry figure … suspects some people are making noise about a climbdown now to get the bill through the Lords … only to close ranks again at a later date”.

That unnamed industry figure speaks for many of us. This Motion offers to the new Ministers an easy and elegant solution to a problem of the Government’s own making, which has zero support among the creators of wealth, including, we may infer, from the Government’s own Treasury team. They should accept it.

I turn to Motion H1, in my name. We on these Benches have repeatedly made the point that the Government should not pursue a one-size-fits-all approach to the labour market. For farmers in particular, the labour force rises and falls with the season. Harvesting, planting, the noble Lord’s example of fruit picking, and livestock management all depend on the rhythms of nature, not on the administrative convenience of Whitehall or, indeed, limited-scope contracts. The reality is that a farm cannot simply hold on to staff year-round when the work itself exists for a defined and limited period only. The same can be said for many other seasonal industries, as defined in my amendment. That is why 26 weeks has long been recognised across seasonal industries as the appropriate reference period. I urge the Government to protect our seasonal sectors by agreeing to this Motion.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

Motion E1 is the most important amendment we will be debating today. The introduction of day one unfair dismissal rights is the most damaging element in this Bill, in my opinion. While there are problems with much of the Bill, there will, I believe, be a lot of unintended consequences.

For most of the proposed changes to employment rights, the Government are trying to solve genuine problems. Zero-hours contracts can be abused, and the abuse of fire and rehire is well known, to give a couple of examples. But despite my asking many times, no Minister has yet provided any evidence that the current qualifying period is being abused or causing actual harm to employees, and the Minister has added nothing to that today. The impact assessment that accompanies the Bill likewise provides no evidence of cost or harm. We have already heard from the Resolution Foundation that it agrees, saying:

“Making dismissals as hard as in the ERB might also be for little obvious gain to workers”.


Uniquely among the employment rights changes in the Bill, there is little or no evidence that there is really a problem to solve or harm to be prevented here, but very real harms will arise as a result of this policy. The ability to claim unfair dismissal from day one will make it more difficult for employers to take a risk on new employees. The Government’s own impact assessment makes this clear, and it points out that the greatest impact will be on more risky hires, such as young people trying to get that first all-important break, people trying to get off benefits, ex-offenders and so on—all people the Government keep telling us they are trying to help. To repeat, do not take my word for that: the Government’s own impact assessment confirms this.

We have just heard about the business organisations. All that I have seen also points to these unintended consequences, but even if you think, “They would say that, wouldn’t they?”, listen to the Resolution Foundation, not an organisation that has ever been accused of being in hoc to employer organisations. It says, as we have heard:

“The Government’s plan … of getting rid of qualifying periods entirely by making this a ‘day one’ right—has the potential to inhibit hiring”.


It goes on to say, importantly:

“One group of particular concern at the moment are younger adults. The number of young people (aged 16 to 24) not working or studying has risen post-pandemic, and is at its highest level in a decade. And young people’s employment prospects are more sensitive to hiring conditions than older workers”.


I think we can all agree that the current two-year qualifying period is unnecessarily long. That is why the amendments passed on Report reduced it to six months, which should be long enough for most employers to decide whether the hire is working or not. That would bring us into line with countries such as Denmark, Germany, Norway and Sweden, none of which are well known for employment rights abuse. That seemed a sensible compromise, protecting around 6 million more people from unfair dismissal, while reducing the unintended impact on higher-risk hires such as young people. To quote the Resolution Foundation again— I think it is going to get quoted a lot today:

“Reducing rather than scrapping qualifying periods would still respect the spirit of the Government’s manifesto, and it would deliver a security upgrade to millions of workers …but it would do so in a way that doesn’t needlessly put employers off hiring”.


The Government simply rejected this compromise, while providing no reason and no evidence whatever of a problem.

What is needed for a probation period to allow an employer to give a potential new hire the benefit of the doubt is for there to be no risk of being taken to an employment tribunal during that period, other than for the standard existing statutory reasons, such as discrimination. Before anyone suggests, as they have in the past, that there will not be an increase in tribunal claims, I remind noble Lords that the Government’s own impact assessment states that a benefit of the policy is that there will be an increase in tribunal awards. That is actually in the impact assessment.

We have heard that the Government intend to consult on the matter and to create a nine-month, light-touch probation period. That sounds good, but the Bill pre-judges that consultation. New Section 98ZZA(3) sets out very clearly that certain fair reasons must be given to dismiss someone during a probation period, and unfortunately, those reasons are materially the same as those that must be given after the qualifying period. That means that, as the Bill is drafted, the risk of being taken to an employment tribunal will always remain. It will not in fact be possible to create a genuinely light-touch probation period after the Bill is passed, whatever the results of the consultation. So the Government’s suggestion that it will be okay because of the future consultation and regulations just does not stand up to scrutiny.

We have often heard that this is a manifesto commitment, but the Government never mention the other explicit manifesto commitment: that they would

“consult fully with businesses, workers, and civil society … before legislation is passed”.

It is in the same paragraph. It seems to be okay to breach that manifesto commitment.

As I say, the Government’s own impact assessment clearly acknowledges the harm this policy will cause. If you know that your actions will cause harm and you go ahead anyway, that is a deliberate act. So, if the Government are not prepared to listen, including to the Resolution Foundation, the only conclusion we can reach is that the Government intend, knowingly and deliberately, to damage the life chances of young and vulnerable people. Do they really want to do that? Please, Minister, take this seriously.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I oppose Motion E1, which is unnecessary. Under the Employment Rights Bill, employers can still dismiss workers fairly—for example, as they can now if they are incompetent or there is misconduct or a redundancy situation. But without the day one protection proposed by the Government, when workers move to a new job, they would continue to bear the risk that they can be sacked at whim.

I encourage noble Lords to put themselves in the shoes of a worker, who in good faith leaves a secure job where they have completed the qualification period with protection against unfair dismissal to take up a new post, and who then finds themselves sacked, out on their ear, stripped of a livelihood for no good reason.

I also remind noble Lords that many groups of workers are already protected against unfair dismissal from day one, as their dismissal would be deemed automatically unfair—for example, if they are pregnant, on family leave or are a trade union rep, or, indeed, if they are a whistleblower. The Government simply intend to extend that protection to all workers. In addition, if someone thinks they have been unfairly dismissed because of race, sex or another protected characteristic, this could be discrimination. They could make a claim to an employment tribunal for both discrimination and unfair dismissal, and for that discrimination claim, workers do not have to meet that qualifying period of two years.

Finally, so far, I have heard little mention of the thorny issue of job mobility in this country, which economists agree is a significant barrier to economic growth and productivity. In the UK, reports show that job mobility has fallen badly—according to one report, dropping by 25% over a period of barely two decades. Poor job mobility is bad for workers—they have less chance of improving their wages if they stick in the same job—and bad for the economy, because we are failing to move workers fast enough into areas of growth. Under the previous Government, we saw insecure contracts at work soar. In 2012, the Conservative-led Government shamefully doubled the qualification period for protection against unfair dismissal to two years, stripping workers with less service of protection at the stroke of a pen.

I am very conscious of the employer lobby that has mobilised in support of this amendment. But when I look back on employers’ opposition to the national minimum wage, to equal pay for women and to stronger health and safety rights, it is clear that business lobbies do not always know what is best for Britain. Labour’s manifesto commitment is clear—to deliver day-one rights in full. I hope that noble Lords will join me in opposing this amendment.

16:00

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have mentioned the lack of detail in the Bill. As somebody who has been heavily engaged in employment law over the last 40 years, I am very much aware of the need to ensure that there is secondary legislation to give time to consult on issues. You cannot simply put a lot of detail in relation to employment law in a Bill. That has been the practice, from my experience, since the mid-1980s.

My noble friend has just made the point about the business and trade discussions. Business groups have written urging many noble Lords to support amending the Bill, particularly the qualifying period. The Department for Business and Trade has held constructive discussions with business representatives and organisations through the development of the unfair dismissal. We will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect, adopting a very sensible approach of proper consultation. Any qualifying period is weighted unfairly in the employer’s favour. My noble friend made the point that repealing the two-year qualifying period addresses the issue by giving all employees the basic right from day one not to be unfairly dismissed. The reality is that most dismissals are fair, but there are occasions when they are unfair.

I welcome the current journey of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. As my noble friend pointed out, when this protection was introduced there was a six-month qualifying period. The Conservative Government increased it to one year, then to two years, so I very much welcome the pathway that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is now on. If he goes from two years down to six months, it will not be very hard for him to accept day-one rights. We are on the right pathway and can very much welcome that.

I welcome the Resolution Foundation’s contribution, which I have heard on the radio and read. It is important that employees can enforce their rights. We are contributing to how the tribunal system can be far more effective. But, to come back to my noble friend’s point, what often constrains our economic growth strategy is that many employees are resistant to leave jobs that they are currently in to seek new opportunities, new trades and new occupations. That is what is happening in our economy at the moment. The flexibility that we want can be better served, as my noble friend said, by day- one rights.

I come back to the other amendments. On the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, we are determined to address the issue of one-sided flexibility. I understand the points made about hours that fluctuate seasonally, but the current one-sided flexibility can leave people unclear on when they will next get paid work and how much time they need to keep available for work. Under the Bill, there are several ways, depending on the circumstances, in which an employer can approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, such as using limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways. The Bill absolutely covers that.

On the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the important thing is that he recognises the need for that right to be guaranteed initially. To create an economy that works for all, we want predictability and security to be a baseline in all jobs, and we think that employers should have to offer all qualifying workers guaranteed hours. The Bill is the best way to ensure that all qualifying workers benefit from that right.

The provisions in the Bill will apply to all employers, allowing good employers to benefit from a level playing field, which is the important point here. We need to recognise that most employers are adopting incredibly positive policies. This legislation is underpinning those good employers, so that the cowboys and others who are not playing a fair game can be properly addressed. We are trying to ensure that there is fairness at all levels.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I was hoping to hear an answer to the question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: without a qualifying period, will employers take on people with a criminal record? That question has not been answered. Secondly, Clause 25 talks about the right not to be unfairly dismissed, so this question of people being wrongly dismissed because there is a qualifying period is not quite right. Will the Minister answer that difficult question? Would you employ somebody who has a criminal record without a qualifying period?

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

I was about to make exactly the same point, but the noble and right reverend Lord beat me to it. The Minister has not addressed this point at all. The strongest argument against the day-one issue is that employers plainly will not take the risk with ex-offenders, who we are trying to get rehabilitated, or many young people—20 year-old boys and girls—who have never had a job before. The Government’s own impact statement seems to bear this out. The Minister has not even been briefed on the subject, and he certainly has not addressed it in his reply. This is the best argument made against the Government’s proposals.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Sadly, I have not got through my contribution in response to all the questions, so please give me a bit of time. I will certainly address that specific question when I get to it.

The general point on day-one rights that we are trying to make—my noble friend made it very adequately —is that they currently apply in certain circumstances, so they are not a novel, innovative thing, and they have been a demand for some time. On probation, most good employers have probationary periods that they use for a purpose. That purpose is ensuring that employers can retain an employee so that they can offer opportunities to improve and address issues of competency or capacity.

So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss; they are an opportunity to continue employment. It is important to say that, and the point about a chilling effect is not correct, because all good employers have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within the probationary period. This legislation tries to promote that and to ensure that it exists.

I was looking for a particular page, which I have now found. There was a particular issue in relation to offenders.

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

Ex-offenders.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, it was on ex-offenders. I certainly saw a page on that and will hopefully get to it soon. I will repeat the point I am making: the probationary period is an opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job.

There we go; I knew I had the page somewhere and that I had read it. Currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

[Noble Lords]

No.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Two questions were posed to me: one was about the employment of offenders and one was about young people. Am I not answering the right question?

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

We seem to be missing the point somewhat. The point is that, if this day-one unfair dismissal right comes in, the person will not be employed in the first place. It is not that they will be fired afterwards; it is that the employer will not feel able to take the risk or take a chance on them in the first place.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

If you have a spent conviction, you do not have to disclose it, so I do not understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I challenge noble Lords on their experience. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, sitting opposite me— I am sorry to name her in person—worked with me in relation to Tesco, the biggest private sector employer in the country. It has very positive employment policies, including very positive policies for flexible working, and also proper disciplinary and grievance procedures.

The simple fact that needs to be understood is that probationary periods provide the opportunity for an employer, who has spent a lot of money recruiting someone, to properly assess their ability to do the job. It is not an excuse to dismiss unfairly.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I think we need to consider the position of SMEs, as well as big employers such as Tesco. I cannot speak for Tesco any more, but it contributed to a letter that was sent to us all, and everybody was concerned on this point. Some of this probationary stuff has to be written into the Bill, or at least published before the Bill is passed: when I was a civil servant, you did the SIs at the same time as the Bill. We really need clarity here before we pass the Bill, because we cannot go into reverse once it is passed.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I wish I had heard the noble Baroness say that when she was a Minister and many other Bills were being pushed through in recent years and we did not have statutory instruments. A classic case that noble Lords here will remember was the minimum service level Bill that was pushed through the last Parliament. There was no indication of statutory instruments there. I repeat that the important point is about the opportunity to properly consult and agree a proper process to introduce the necessary secondary legislation.

16:15

I come back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made in relation to young people. This Government are already providing support for young people, transforming the apprenticeship levy into the new growth and skills levy, unlocking greater flexibility for learners and employers and aligning training with our new industrial strategy. I think what we can do is focus on the opportunities. Does the Bill present an opportunity for creating stability, security and innovation in our labour market?

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Well, I would argue very strongly that it does. I come back to the point—and I make it strongly—that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his party increased the qualifying period. It started at six months, then went to one year and then two years; now he is saying six months. Go that one step further and say day one rights at the beginning. That is what we need.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. I come very late to this discussion, but what does influence my mind is the Resolution Foundation. Could I ask the Minister what his answer to that is?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thought I had made my response. This is what we are trying to do: where there are specific concerns, we can address them in the secondary legislation. We have said that a probationary period of nine months would ensure that those companies and businesses have three or six months and can extend that to ensure that issues of capability and competency are addressed. We are also ensuring that we look at all other opportunities. My noble friend made the point that every change we have made in the labour market to improve the conditions and the opportunities for workers and employees has been resisted, and resisted strongly, particularly by the party opposite. But we now have the situation—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

Maybe the Minister could respond to this. There are more opponents to these parts of the Bill than just the party opposite, as the Minister described them. All the concerns that have been raised—across the House, but also outside this House—have come from a wide range of organisations and interests that are actually interested in workers’ rights. They are concerned that a lack of forethought about what day-one rights mean will impact some people, who will never get the chance to have workers’ rights because they will not be employed: it will lead to a risk-averse employer.

I think it is inappropriate for the Minister to constantly suggest that the only opposition to this comes from a particular, caricatured version of a Conservative, anti-workers’ rights view. That is misinformation and is not even reflected in the discussion we have had today. So will the Minister answer the concerns raised not just by the Resolution Foundation but by a wide range of employers and organisations that are worried that, just because it says on the tin that this is for workers, that does not mean that it is in the tin, and that the consultation afterwards will not help a Bill that is cemented into law?

This Government constantly tell us about the rule of law. We are worried that they are about to make a law that is unbreakable with any consultation afterwards and that that will be bad for workers. That is the driving factor of our concerns.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.

There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.

The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.

Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

16:24

Division 1

Ayes: 302

Noes: 159

16:36

Motion B

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7 and 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7A and 8A.

7A: Because it is unnecessary; the Bill already produces the effect provided for by the amendment.

8A: Because defining ‘short notice’ in the Bill would pre-empt consultation and limit the Government’s discretion.

Motion B agreed.

Motion C

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21A and 21B in lieu.

21A: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of extent of right to time off for public duties
(1)The Secretary of State must, before the end of the relevant period—
(a)review the purposes for which employers are required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (right to time off for public duties), and
(b)publish a report setting out the findings of the review.
(2)In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider whether employers should be required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with that section for the purposes of performing the functions of a special constable.
(3)In this section—
“the relevant period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
“special constable” means—
(a)a person appointed as a special constable for a police area in England and Wales,
(b) a person appointed as a special constable under section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (special constables of the British Transport Police Force), or
(c) a person appointed as a special constable under section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8) (special constables of the Police Service of Scotland).”

21B: Clause 156, page 150, line 13, at end insert—
“(za) section (Review of extent of right to time off for public duties)(review of extent of right to time off for public duties);”

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion C, I will speak to Motions K, K1, N and N1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to special constables, heritage railway volunteers and the school support staff negotiating body. The Government have listened carefully and openly to the concerns raised by noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons who have engaged extensively on these issues.

I will speak first on special constables and to Motion C, relating to Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would give employees who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, and Sir Ashley Fox MP for their championing and advocacy on this important issue. I am pleased to say that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place to address this matter.

This Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe—a role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. The amendment makes a statutory commitment to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and to publish a summary of the findings of the review within 12 months of Royal Assent, with specific reference to special constables. The Government have existing powers to deliver any updates to the list as a result of the review via secondary legislation.

As my officials have discussed with the noble Lord, the review is already under way and will consider whether the current list of eligible roles remains fit for purpose and whether any changes should be made, including the case that noble Lords have put forward to add special constables to the list. The review will consider whether changes to the list will deliver the intended support for public services and assess the potential impact on businesses. I hope this provides reassurances to noble Lords about our commitment to review this legislation fully, including in relation to special constables, as we all want to see them supported in performing their important duties. I thank the noble Lord for championing this matter in earlier debates, and I ask for his support for this amendment in lieu.

I now turn to Motion K, relating to Amendment 60, and Motion K1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their continued engagement on this important subject. While we recognise the important contribution that these volunteers make, noble Lords will know that the Government could not accept the original amendment as it risked creating inconsistencies within the broader legislative framework governing young people and volunteer work.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendment in lieu and seeking to find common ground. While we have concerns with the current drafting, the Government consider that targeted guidance for heritage railways can address his practical concerns, without the need for a legislative exemption, and support the intent of his amendment. This is why the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered to work with the Heritage Railway Association to produce written guidance for heritage railways, which will support them in actively encouraging 14 to 16 year-olds to take up volunteer opportunities on their railways. We are grateful to the HRA for its prompt response in relation to this offer and look forward to working with it on the guidance.

This guidance will have an equivalent status to that of other similar material published by both the ORR and the HSE. It will provide an authoritative benchmark for heritage railways of what we consider to be reasonable activities for children to undertake. Importantly, this will provide a benchmark for regulatory inspectors when making enforcement decisions. We would make it clear in the published document that following the guidance would not be compulsory and railways would be free to take other action, but that if they followed the guidance then they would normally be doing enough to satisfy the law. The Government are committed to this guidance. Both the ORR and the HSE agree that this work is a priority. Our officials are ready to begin work with the HRA on preparing the guidance, with an intention to publish it by 31 March 2026.

As I mentioned, the noble Lord’s amendment has some drafting deficiencies. For example, it requires an instruction to be given to the ORR and the HSE on the day of Royal Assent, which would actually slow down the timeline agreed with the HRA. At this stage, there is little that divides us. We are keen to continue our discussions with relevant parties ahead of the Bill being further considered in the other place in order to resolve the matter. The Government will therefore not oppose this amendment today.

I now turn to Motion N, which addresses Amendment 121 on the school support staff negotiating body, or SSSNB, and Motion N1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The proposed amendment in lieu would allow employers to employ support staff on pay and other terms and conditions that are below statutory minimums agreed by the SSSNB provided that their overall package of terms and conditions of employment meets or exceeds collective statutory minimums on an aggregate basis.

I understand that this was a point the noble Baroness wished to make on Report, though her original amendment actually offered an alternative form of words to a provision that the Government brought forward for the purposes of clarification. This new amendment would require employers to assess the relative values of different terms and conditions on a case-by-case basis. Such an arrangement would result in uncertainty for employees and remove the protection offered by statutory minimums. Ensuring a consistent flow for all support staff terms and conditions is fundamental to the purpose of SSSNB.

16:45

Such an arrangement would also cause uncertainty for employers, who would face a greater burden and legal risk in making their case-by-case determinations about the relative value of different terms. All school support staff deserve to know what minimum levels of pay and conditions they will receive. For example, an employer providing lunch during a shift may be regarded as a welcome benefit; however, it would be unlawful for the employer to deduct the cost of that meal from an employee’s minimum wage. The law is clear that the minimum wage must be paid in monetary terms and cannot be replaced or reduced by the provision of food, benefits or other non-cash arrangements.

The government amendment we tabled on Report secures protection for individual employees, in that terms and conditions cannot be changed to their detriment following SSSNB negotiations. It provides ample flexibility for employers to innovate in response to local circumstances and offer more favourable terms, irrespective of their structure.

I turn to paragraph (4) in the amendment. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been very clear that we will not impose a top-down approach from government. It is only right that the SSSNB, which will bring together employee and employer representatives and sector experts, should negotiate on which minimum terms and conditions support staff should be entitled to. It is not right to prescribe the terms and conditions to exclude in primary legislation, without the necessary consideration and consultation. The amendment would also allow employers to employ support staff on terms that are less favourable than the statutory minimum in those specified areas, without compensating staff through terms that are more generous than the statutory minimums.

Paragraph (5) would allow the Secretary of State to “add to the list” of areas to be exempt from the statutory requirements, which would further undermine the protections afforded to school support staff. The Bill already states that the SSSNB will have an advisory remit in relation to training and career progression, and therefore those areas would not be included in the minimum terms and conditions negotiated by the SSSNB. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions both during the passage of this Bill and in today’s debate. Across this House, we share a common commitment to ensure that the Bill achieves its full potential as effective legislation. I beg to move.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I can be very brief because the Minister has brought glad tidings. I thank him very much for that and for the way that he set out this debate.

As noble Lords who followed this narrow but important issue will know, this confusion stems from the question of how a 1920 Act of Parliament applies in the modern era to volunteers and young employees on heritage railways and tramways. For more than a decade, this has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has been campaigning to clarify this in law; I pay tribute to him for 10 years of hard work and for his efforts behind the scenes to secure this important change today.

I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, whom I welcome to her place. We had a very helpful meeting last week with them both. They were in listening mode and I am glad they have taken this away and helped to solve it. We welcome the drawing up of guidelines, as we said in our meeting, and I am glad to report that the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have already begun their work with the Heritage Railway Association, as the Minister said. I am delighted to hear that the target is for that to be completed by 31 March; I am sure that work can indeed be done.

The sticking point for us is that this needs to be clarified in law as well as in guidelines. In our debate on Report, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, said that it is no use Ministers saying that guidance shows that organisations will not prosecute; the fact is that the law forbids it—and if the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. That is why I was so keen that these guidelines should be given some statutory backing. In effect, the amendment that I tried to table sought to describe what the Government, the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered and are happy to happen. I am delighted to hear that the Government are happy for that to be written into the Bill. I accept that my version has some drafting deficiencies, which I would be very glad to work with the Government to clear up.

I have a non-financial interest to declare: I am the unremunerated chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. I am very pleased to have succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who had to give it up to become the Rail Minister. Next week, I will be in Southampton with heritage railways from across the country, which will be delighted to hear that this long-standing problem, which holds back young volunteers from getting experience and skills in our heritage railways, will finally be solved, and I am grateful to the Government for their part in solving it.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am almost lost for words. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, this campaign has been running for almost 15 years. The first stage was when I took a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House to attempt to address the problems of the 1920 Act. It passed without any opposition, except from the Government Front Bench, sadly—not this Government Front Bench but previous one.

We have reached this point because the organisations involved—the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive—have been instructed by the department to come to a conclusion. We had an excellent meeting on 21 October, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to, which my noble friends Lady Lloyd of Effra and Lord Leong also attended. I offer them, the ORR and the HSE my warmest congratulations and thanks for what is a very satisfactory outcome.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, in addressing Motion C, I thank the Government for their amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, in particular, has been very patient and has provided us with his time. He has responded to an issue that was first raised by Sir Ashley Fox in the Commons, when one of his constituents, who was a special constable, presented the unfairness of the fact that he could not get time off from his employer as a right. That issue was raised in his amendment, which was dismissed in the Commons but was supported in the Lords by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, which I appreciate.

Of course, I would have preferred that the specials were added to the list of those who get that right, but the Government responded by saying that they would have a review. I then said that reviews often do not happen—and if they do happen, they do not get any outcome. They replied, “In that case, how about making it a statutory one that is time limited? Now what is your argument?” That is a fair point, and I accept that the review will take place and is time limited, and I look forward to its outcome.

The Government’s other point was that, of course, there are other groups that might want a similar right on a list that is waiting to be addressed, and it would be unfair to consider the specials only. That is a fair point. Nevertheless, I am glad of the progress that has been made and the support that the Government have shown.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I feel in a lonely position in not being able to thank the Government for their comments on my amendment. I feel sad that I have to speak again, as I hoped that the Government would have talked to those running our schools and trusts and would have adjusted their approach. They clearly have not done that, so we are here again.

I feel slightly sorry for the Minister, because the remarks he was given about my amendment were—if I may say so—ill-advised. It is disingenuous to suggest that my amendment would have facilitated contracts where someone was offered a free lunch and then paid below the minimum wage. There is absolutely nothing in my amendment that suggests that, and both the Minister in the Department for Education and his predecessor, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, whom I met at the end of July, were very clear that there was nothing at all like that. I will also challenge some of the other remarks that he made, but there is nothing in my amendment that would worsen the terms for employees. It is therefore unfortunate that that was the advice he was given on how to approach this.

Before I come to my Motion, I remind noble Lords, by way of context, that this is—unlike heritage railways, with the greatest respect to my noble friend—a big issue. There are 800,000 support staff in our schools and about half a million full-time equivalent employees. Half of them are teaching assistants and the other half are in a multiplicity—literally thousands—of different roles, so when the noble Lord says that this is not a top-down approach, my jaw hits the ground. The idea that the SSSNB is going to be able to create a full range of role profiles, pay scales, et cetera, is just not realistic. We are going to end up with either a labyrinth or a straitjacket, and neither, I would suggest, is an ideal outcome. Despite me having raised this at every stage of the Bill, the Government have not explained how they will address the multiplicity of roles that exist. When the SSSNB was in existence previously, before 2010, we did not have about 2,500 trusts of different sizes and geographic footprints, organised differently with various roles within them.

The amendment also does not address the inconsistency in the Government’s approach between the schoolteachers’ pay and review body and the SSSNB. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government accepted the principle of a framework that academies must have regard to. In Schedule 3 to the schools Bill, it says that academies

“must have regard to any provision of an order under section 122 that relates to conditions of employment”.

It goes on to say that they

“must also have regard to guidance”.

We tried to bring in an identical amendment on Report—my Amendment 111A—which mirrored the Government’s own amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but, at the time, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, argued that it would be wrong to create a two-tier system. We actually have a two-tier system for teachers in maintained schools and in academies, but we are rejecting a system, proposed through my amendment, which would offer only upside to school support staff, so that we end up with a triumph of uniformity over innovation.

My Motion N1 aims to give the Government a practical way to deliver their objectives of consistency and fairness, without unduly constraining the judgment of school and trust leaders in managing their workforce. Without this amendment, employers in academies and maintained schools will lose their ability to design contracts which meet the needs of both the workforce and their pupils. That might include, for example, paying someone above the agreed pay scale if they agree to work towards a qualification or, in a trust which has schools in multiple local authorities, they may receive a higher salary in return for working across a wider geographic footprint. The Government’s approach removes the ability to do that; every individual element in an employee’s pay and conditions has to be above a minimum standard, rather than allowing an employer to pay someone more in return for greater flexibility or the commitment to a work towards a higher qualification.

The Minister wrote to me on 1 September. I will not detain the House by going through the examples, but all the examples in that letter were where this legislation will not apply. We are interested in and worried about where it will apply.

17:00

I feel this is a bit like Groundhog Day. We are back stuck with a model which will either be a labyrinth or a straitjacket, which will end up blocking innovation and—ironically—will damage and hold back the earnings and prospects of the very staff whom all of us in this House wish to support.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Motion N1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and declare that I am still a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney, east London.

In over 10 years of teaching, I have encountered tens—maybe not hundreds—of TAs, technicians, IT staff, catering staff, site staff and all the support staff who make schools function. My subject, product design, is entirely reliant on technicians. They set up and prepare materials, maintain equipment and teach skills to us and the students.

I have seen technicians who had to be hunted out from one cigarette break to another to do their job, and those who have used the school’s 3D printer to print a better 3D printer, to print a better 3D printer, and so on. Support staff are not all the same. Some are quite happy to do the basic 8 am to 3.30 pm job and are content to be paid for that, while others will take on extra responsibilities and duties.

I had one very fine technician who would not go into the classroom while students were there, because he used to be paid extra for a teaching role, but the Government abolished it. Quite rightly, he would say that if he was not paid to do the job, he would not do it. I have also seen technicians paid well over the going rate because schools could see that they were irreplaceable; otherwise, their job would have to be done by teachers who had neither the skill nor the time.

At the moment, these decisions rest with heads of department, who can make them. Schools need that flexibility. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, very sensibly creates a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, as in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, meaning that all get a decent wage, but those who put in extra time and effort get rewarded. Should she be minded to test the opinion of the House, I will be with her.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on making progress, along with the cosignatories of that amendment. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson, who have realised a lifelong dream of putting children back to work on the railways.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Less—or more—prosaically, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has set out the issues here doggedly and in detail. I still feel that we are in a “he said, she said” situation, and it is extremely difficult to unpick how this will work. I assume—I am sure—that the statutory instruments and the rules will probably fill in the detail. We on these Benches will wait to hear what the Minister says but we are not currently minded to support the noble Baroness.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the progress he has made on a very valid point he raised earlier in these debates. I also say to my noble friend Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: my goodness, they must be chuff-chuffed with the result. It has been a major step forward.

I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Barran on making some compelling points. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to them and rethink the approach that he outlined earlier. We were greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing his personal experience to bear on this problem.

If my noble friend wishes to test the opinion of the House, certainly, on these Benches, she will have our support.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to today’s debate. The debate has been wide ranging, from special constables and heritage railways to the SSSNB. I am grateful for everyone’s valuable insight. I will address the points raised by all noble Lords.

On Motion C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for indicating his support for the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu.

On Motion K1, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on his new role within the Heritage Railway Association. I am grateful to him for working with the Government on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with him and my noble friend Lord Faulkner.

I will address Motion N1 and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. First, I want to make one point absolutely clear: I can confirm that the Bill will not set a ceiling on pay. In fact, it sets a minimum standard—the floor—where all support staff are entitled to negotiated pay. When taken together, the SSSNB measures in the Employment Rights Bill, the teacher pay measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and subordinate legislation respectively will mean that teachers and support staff in all maintained schools and academies in England can rely on a minimum pay offer. All schools will be able to innovate with pay. No one is saying that they cannot pay more than the minimum pay offer; they can be innovative in their pay and conditions to attract and retain the very best workforce that they need for our children.

We are legislating for a new statutory body for school support staff rather than extending an existing system. School support staff have been without a school-specific national voice for far too long. It is right to establish a body where minimum terms are negotiated and agreed by school employer and employee representatives. As most noble Lords will know, roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, and the body is being newly established, so it is right that academies are included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools.

As I said earlier, beyond the minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions. The SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles and training, and no one is saying that staff cannot be accorded any training support and pay. It will be up to the SSSNB to agree how this is to be done and what the core offer will look like.

This can all be done by local arrangements. We want there to be a core offer that all support staff can expect to receive, with flexibility for employers to go beyond that in their respective local circumstances. Employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions than were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulation.

I hope I have answered some of noble Lords’ concerns. I urge all noble Lords to give due consideration to the Government’s amendments and trust that Members will feel able to lend support to our position.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s last point about employers being able to retain their existing contracts, in the letter I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on 1 September, she writes in relation to that specific point:

“As set out above, a term of an employee’s contract will only be altered by regulations where this is not detrimental to the employee. This allows employers to retain pay and conditions for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions … provided”—


and I stress this point—

“all terms are the same as or more favourable than statutory minimums”.

If an employer today has an employee whom it is paying well above the statutory minimum but is requiring them to work in more schools than would be in the standard role profile, that employer will no longer be able to continue the same contract. It will have to, I guess, reduce the scale of that employee’s work and reduce their salary. Does the Minister think that is a good outcome?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I must admit that I have not had a chance to look at my noble friend Lady Smith’s letter. As far as I know and have been told, employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable terms and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB. Basically, if they are offering more than what is negotiated, they can keep the terms, but it should not be less than that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene again on the Minister, but I asked this question specifically of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, because that is what employers are worried about: that their existing staff will suffer as a result of this. I think the noble Baroness’s letter is absolutely clear. It uses the same language that the noble Lord has in his speaking notes but with the additional detail that all terms are the same or as favourable. I believe that we will not vote on this Motion until a little later, so if the Minister is able to clarify things in the meantime, I would be grateful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will make sure that I read the letter and will ask my officials to confirm in writing for her.

Motion C agreed.

Motion D

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A and 22B.

22A Line 66, leave out from “within” to “of” in line 67 and insert “any of sections 13, 15 to 19A and 21(2)”

22B: Line 78, leave out subsections (5) and (6)

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Motions F and J. I first come to Motion D, on non-disclosure agreements, also known as NDAs. In the other place, the Government proposed two minor amendments to the clause on NDAs. The first will extend the scope of the clause to include staff of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. We are proposing this change following discussions with the parliamentary authorities. The second will extend the scope of relevant discrimination covered by the clause to include a failure to make reasonable adjustments for disabled persons under Section 21 of the Equality Act 2010. This will ensure that all forms of harassment and discrimination in the Equality Act are covered.

Turning to Motion F, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for her advocacy for reform of the whistleblowing framework in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Whistleblowers play a critical role in shining light on wrongdoing, and the Government recognise that the framework may not be operating as effectively as it could be. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has also championed the importance of whistleblowers, and the Government would welcome further engagement with her and others about their views on whistleblowing. The Minister for Employment Rights and Consumer Protection would be pleased to extend an invitation for a meeting to the noble Baroness to discuss this matter further.

Motion J relates to Amendment 49 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley. This amendment would require a formal consultation with at least 500 SMEs on the Bill’s impact, with a report to Parliament within 18 weeks. The Government have engaged extensively with stakeholders on their make work pay reform since August 2024. A major part of this engagement has been to seek the varied views of SMEs. As of 15 October, we had engaged directly with more than 250 stakeholders. This included 139 businesses, of which 75 were SMEs. This approach to engagement will remain throughout the various consultations, where due consideration will be given to views from small business organisations and their members. We will also look to arrange focused sessions with SMEs, specific to the practical implementation, to understand any challenges and ensure that we can target guidance where necessary.

We are proud to announce that the consultations for the duty to inform workers of the right to join a union, union right of access, enhanced dismissal protections for pregnant women and leave for bereavement, including pregnancy loss, are currently live. We encourage all interested stakeholders to respond.

17:15

As set out in our road map, Implementing the Employment Rights Bill, we will continue to consult during 2026 on exploitative zero-hours contracts, flexible working and industrial action, including the introduction of e-balloting. Each phase will be shaped by the voices of businesses of all sizes, ensuring that reforms are practical and fair. In addition, our impact assessment sets out a clear plan to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Bill and its secondary legislation following standard government practice.

I will not labour the point further: small businesses remain at the forefront of our minds as we move closer to the implementation phase of the Bill. We are committed to full consultation, including with SMEs. I hope this reassures noble Lords of our serious intent to consult thoroughly and responsively, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, for drawing attention to the importance of SME perspectives.

I thank noble Lords once more for their engagement on the Bill. We all share a commitment to producing legislation that is effective and practical. I therefore invite the House to endorse the government Motions before it.

Motion D agreed.

Motion E

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 107 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 23A and 107A to 120A, do not insist on its Amendment 106, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A to the words restored to the Bill by their disagreement with Lords Amendment 106.

23A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

106A: Schedule 3, page 189, line 14, for “(3)” substitute “(6)”

107A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

108A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

109A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

110A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

111A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

112A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

113A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

114A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

115A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

116A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

117A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

118A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

119A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

120A: Because it is appropriate for protection from unfair dismissal to apply from the beginning of a person’s employment.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, and do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment 106A.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to move Motion E1.

17:18

Division 2

Ayes: 301

Noes: 153

17:31

Motion F

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 46, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 46A.

46A: Because it is inappropriate to make changes in the manner proposed to the protections for workers who make protected disclosures and to the duties of employers in relation to such disclosures.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F agreed.

Motion G

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.

47A: Because requiring employers to permit workers to be accompanied at disciplinary or grievance hearings by persons other than trade union officials or other workers would likely lead to an increase in the cost, complexity and length of such hearings.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Motion G, I will also speak to Motions M and M1. In this group we will debate amendments relating to the right to be accompanied and trade union industrial action ballots. I will take these in turn, to outline the Government’s belief that these amendments are unnecessary.

I will first speak to Motion G, relating to Amendment 47, and Motion G1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I thank the noble Lord for his interest in this matter.

The Government believe that the existing statutory framework on the right to be accompanied works well. It allows workers to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings by a fellow worker or a trade union representative or official. This approach ensures that workplace disputes are more generally dealt with internally, with only people who work for the employer or who have a close relationship with the employer having a legal right to attend. This means that the conversation happens in a less formal setting, which helps the open dialogue that is often needed to resolve disputes.

Employers are free to allow workers to bring other people with them to these meetings if they wish and deem it appropriate. Indeed, some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional support body, partner, spouse or legal representative. But legislating to introduce certified professional companions to the list of people who can accompany workers to these meetings could create additional complexity.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling his amendment in lieu, which, instead of seeking to change the law on right to be accompanied, seeks for the current law to be reviewed to see whether any changes are appropriate. I am happy, today, to commit to a review of the relevant legislation to allow the Government to consider this issue in further detail. I hope that provides sufficient reassurance to the noble Lord and I ask him not to press his amendment.

I will now speak to Motion M, regarding Amendment 62, and Motion M1, insisting on this amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are clear that we want to foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government, putting us in line with other economies that already benefit from more co-operation and less disruption. This is why, as set out in our manifesto, we are repealing the Trade Union Act 2016—an Act which only makes it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes.

The existence of the 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots is not in line with the Government’s intention to create a positive and modern framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive, constructive engagement, reduces bureaucratic hurdles and respects unions’ democratic mandate. As the period of disruption between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. Some 2.7 million working days were lost to strike action in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022. These were the highest annual numbers of working days lost to strikes since 1989, all while the 50% threshold was in place. Indeed, as was mentioned in the previous stages of the Bill, the 50% threshold is a high bar not consistent with other democratic decision-making. Votes in Parliament, and elections for MPs and local councillors, do not normally include any turnout threshold, but are not therefore considered less legitimate. Further, local elections are contested with a turnout below 50%.

Those who oppose industrial action are free to vote against it in a ballot and will have their voice heard. The date for repeal of the 50% threshold will be set out in regulations in future, with the intention, with good reason—I notice my noble brother opposite has made a comment—that this is aligned with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. I hope that that will encourage greater participation than that provided by the existing statutory arrangements for postal ballots. Together with the delivery of modern and secure workplace balloting, the intention is that this will ensure that industrial action mandates have broad and demonstrable support.

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions they have made throughout the Bill’s passage. I hope your Lordships agree that a healthy relationship between workers and employers, where disputes can be resolved constructively within organisations, can be achieved through strong unions and the measures set out in the Bill. I hope noble Lords agree to the Motion before them. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 47B in lieu—

47B: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the right to be accompanied
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the feasibility of expanding the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
(2) The report must consider in particular—
(a) whether the categories of individuals permitted to act as a companion under section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 should be expanded;
12 Employment Rights Bill
(b) the potential benefits and risks of such expansion for employers and workers;
(c) any safeguards that may be necessary in relation to confidentiality, independence, or professional standards of proposed companions;
(d) the impact on access to fair representation, particularly for workers not represented by a trade union; and
(e) the potential impact of any expansion on individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, which may include—
(a) representatives of workers and employers;
(b) professional bodies;
(c) legal and employment rights experts;
(d) organisations with experience of supporting workers in grievance and disciplinary processes;
(e) organisations representing individuals with protected characteristics.”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, but I will speak to this Motion a little, to set it in context and perhaps put down some markers for the discussions that will be happening with the Secretary of State.

Responding to the spirited work of my noble friend Lord Palmer, this House voted overwhelmingly on Report, with cross-party support, to expand the right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a trained companion. The provision was removed by the Government in the other place because of concerns about potential increases to cost, complexity and length of such hearings. The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Government’s position, because there is no evidence to support it; in fact, there is excellent evidence to the contrary that trained companions reduce cost, complexity and escalation. We hear this from organisations that already accompany workers on a non-statutory basis, and we can see it in the research of ACAS and in other academic areas.

None the less, this amendment in lieu presents a reasonable compromise, as I think the Minister has conceded. It would allow the Government to conduct a proper review into the creation of a new category of trained companion, at which point any concerns could be properly examined. In the spirit of working collaboratively, I hope that we can now move forward on this and that, instead of frustrating this process, we can develop one that is a proportionate step to enable the Government to examine this issue properly and finally take into account the experiences of the vast majority of its own voters, let alone the country, who are not members of a trade union and still need support in times like this.

I turn briefly to Motion M1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and spoken to by his colleague, which would reinsert a Report stage amendment requiring that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in a ballot participate. We continue to support this amendment, which would maintain the status quo.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I speak briefly to support, from the perspective of teachers, the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Of course, teachers and other front-line caring professionals carry immense responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, which brings with it considerable legal obligations that few other professions face. Employers in schools are rightly duty-bound by safeguarding law to investigate every allegation, however unfounded it may later prove to be. As a result, teachers are far more likely than most to face formal hearings during their careers.

The number of allegations is rising sharply, with data from Teacher Tapp, which surveys about 11,000 teachers every day, showing that, in the last academic year alone, allegations against teachers increased by around 35% compared with the previous year; that figure rises to nearly 60% in schools with the highest proportion of pupils on free school meals. As we have debated earlier, in this Bill and others, technology is changing the landscape, with an ability to create ever more complex complaints using artificial intelligence.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said already, this carries a human cost but also a financial cost, with suspended teachers remaining on their salaries while schools fund cover. Some local authorities are spending hundreds of thousands pounds each year on suspended staff awaiting hearings, and still more when flawed procedures lead to tribunal claims.

The right to be accompanied by someone trained to provide calm, professional support is not an indulgence but a practical safeguard. The strength of feeling in the profession is clear and almost unanimous: according to Teacher Tapp, 97% of teachers believe they should be entitled to a trained companion, whether or not they belong to a union, and almost two-thirds say they would wish to have legal representation. This speaks volumes about the professional anxiety that teachers and other school staff face when formal allegations arise.

I hope very much that, when the Minister comes to close, he can confirm that this review will look closely at how accompaniment rights operate in practice, including teachers and other school staff within that to make sure that those who dedicate their lives to educating and caring for our children are treated with the fairness, dignity and compassion that they deserve.

17:45

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Government and the Minister for their comments. When we debated this earlier, we talked about who was going to represent and who was not. I felt at the time that there was an undue feeling that we were trying to get at trade unions. That is not the case at all. Trade unions have a really relevant part in this, but not everybody belongs to a trade union. Many people and firms are not trade unionised, and they therefore use the other course available, which is to have a co-worker there. That works very nicely—you have a good pal who comes along and represents you, but they are not trained to do so. All the amendment was doing was finding that, when and if a trade union is not representing them and can well do so, a trained person accompanies the person at a tribunal. I gather from what the Minister has said that there is some merit seen in this proposal; that is what I have read, and I hope the Minister will confirm that when he finalises. If my understanding is correct, will the Minister and his department keep us updated on what is happening on this issue?

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, on the Minister’s response, I positively welcome the Government’s commitment to this review of the right to be accompanied, and I thank the Government in this instance for listening to the concerns raised at Report and Committee stages. On Report, I put forward an amendment that would have allowed workers to have a companion of their own choosing at disciplinary or grievance hearings—I felt it should be that open. I was happy none the less to support the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which, as has already been noted, was overwhelmingly supported. I would still like it to be a statutory right for workers—as this is a workers’ rights Bill, as we are constantly told—to be able to choose who represents them when they face grievance procedures, but I am really pleased that the Government will look at this. I hope that they look widely and think about the issue and that we can resolve it.

I want to respond very briefly to the way the Minister talked about the decision on keeping the issues internal and to draw attention to one of the problems with that. Over recent years, sometimes the grievances that workers have been involved in have been quite ideologically contentious, and issues have been very difficult, so simply to call upon fellow workmates to come with you into the grievance internally has been difficult because of a nervousness about guilt by association. It is also the case that not everyone is in a union, so, when the union might be representing someone, that is the opposite of keeping it internal and informal, because the person in that grievance procedure does not even know who they are with.

I also want to draw attention to just one thing: I wish it were not the case, but sometimes trade unions’ own policies can see them at odds with their own members. There have been a few instances of that recently—see the case of Sandie Peggie, who is suing the RCN around the issue of single-sex changing rooms for nurses. These things have been well documented, so I will not go into them, but it is not always as straightforward as saying that the trade unions will be the best people to represent a member of staff.

To finish, I stress that, historically, trade union representatives have very often protected and represented brilliantly, and been brilliant advocates for many people facing difficulties at work. I sat in many grievance procedures, representing members of my own union when I was a trade union rep. That is an ideal. Now that only a minority are represented by trade unionists, and based on the aspiration of the Bill to represent all workers and give them more rights, I hope this review will broaden the rights that workers have through representation so that they can choose who represents them. In general, however, I am very positive about the Government’s decision.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on having introduced a really important issue. Undoubtedly, any appearance at a grievance or disciplinary hearing can be a huge setback for any individual and, as my noble friend Lady Barran pointed out, these individuals do need to be accompanied. I therefore thank the noble Lord for raising this, and I agree with his noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I also agree with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the points that have been raised in this debate.

Motion M1 is in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I must express my disappointment in Brother Collins—the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and his whole attitude that we no longer need 50% to call a strike. What sort of message does that send?

It has been over one year since this Government came to power. In that time, they have proceeded and presided not over progress but over paralysis. They promised to reset industrial relations and said that a new partnership was on the horizon. However, what we have had instead is a Government in retreat, tearing up safeguards, buying off disputes and calling it “reform”. Their great idea is to repeal the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, removing the last protection that the public have when vital services grind to a halt.

They handed out no-strings-attached pay rises to members of the RMT and the BMA, with no plan, no reform and no responsibility. What happened then? It spectacularly backfired. Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health, admitted that the majority of BMA members did not even vote for strike action. Yet this Government’s answer to that embarrassment is not to rebuild trust but to lower the bar for future strikes. The removal of the strike action ballot threshold will invite permanent disruption: hospitals stalled, railways paralysed, classrooms dark and the very arteries of our public lives clogged by chaos.

It does not stop there. Under these new so-called union access rights, small businesses already struggling with costs, labour shortages and regulation will now face inspectors at their doors; refuse entry and they face thousands of pounds in fines. What a message to the entrepreneurs, builders and wealth creators who keep this country moving. I urge the Government to accept this amendment to protect our small businesses, entrepreneurs and public services.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.

In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.

I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.

Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.

I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.

We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.

Motion G1 withdrawn.

Motion G agreed.

18:00

Motion H

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A.

48A: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H, that the House do not insist on its Amendment 48, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48A. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 48B in lieu”—

48B: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Definition of seasonal work
(1) In making regulations under Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the specific characteristics and requirements of seasonal work as defined in subsection (2).
(2) “Seasonal work” means work that—
(a) is performed during a particular period or periods of the year,
(b) recurs substantially in the same periods each year,
(c) is directly linked to a predictable and temporary increase in demand for
labour during those periods,
(d) is carried out in one or more of the following sectors—
(i) agriculture and horticulture,
(ii) the creative industries, including theatre and live performance,
(iii) retail
(iv) hospitality,
(v) tourism, leisure and events, and
(vi) construction and landscaping, and
(e) is entered into for a fixed duration not exceeding 26 weeks to meet the temporary demand.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument add further sectors to the list in subsection (2)(d), provided that work in those sectors meets the criteria outlined in subsection (2)(a) to (2)(c).
(4) Regulations under subsection (3) are subject to the affirmative procedure.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:01

Division 3

Ayes: 267

Noes: 153

18:13

Motion J

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49A.

49A: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.

Motion J agreed.

Motion K

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 60, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 60A.

60A: Because the existing legal framework does not prevent children from carrying out suitable voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways.

Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendments 60B and 60C in lieu—

60B: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—
“Restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings
The Secretary of State must, on the day this Act is passed, instruct the Office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to draw up guidance on the industrial undertakings which they consider are, and are not, appropriate for people under the age of 18 to carry out when employed by or volunteering for a heritage railway or heritage tramway.
(2) This guidance must take into account—
(a) the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920,
(b) the Children and Young Persons Act 1933,
(c) the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937,
(d) the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968,
(e) the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974,
(f) the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, and
(g) other relevant legislation.
(3) The Office for Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive must publish this guidance within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.”

60C: Clause 156, page 150, line 13, at end insert—
“(za) section (Restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings) (restriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakings);”

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion K1.

Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K) agreed.

Motion K (as amended by Motion K1) agreed.

Motion L

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 61A and 72A.

61A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

72A: Because it is appropriate to remove the requirement for members of a trade union to opt in to contributing to the political fund of the union.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 59 restores the long-standing practice that existed for 70 years—even during the Conservative Governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major—before the passage of the Trade Union Act 2016, whereby new members are automatically included as contributors to a political fund unless they choose to opt out. The Government believe, as I said earlier, that the 2016 Act placed unnecessary red tape on trade union activity that works against trade unions’ core role of negotiation, dispute resolution and giving a voice to working people. We have a clear manifesto commitment to repeal it.

We seek to redress this balance and remove burdensome requirements on how unions manage their political funds. We are not—and I make this absolutely clear—removing choice. At the point of joining, every new member will be clearly informed on their application form that they have the right to opt out. This same form will make it plain that opting out has no bearing whatever on any other aspect of their union membership. Most union membership forms are now online and most of these details are contained in a highly accessible form. So we are not removing choice; people will be very aware of what they are doing.

It is important to stress that trade unions are not groups that conscript or compel members to join them; they are democratic organisations whose political funds are ultimately controlled by their members through the democratic structures of the union. All members are free to participate in these democratic structures and thereby to decide how their political fund is used. Members who object to a union’s political fund can use the union’s democratic structures to close the fund, get involved in the union to be part of the decisions about how the fund is spent, and opt out of political fund contributions on an individual basis. These are all important elements of choice.

Political funds are one mechanism that union members can utilise to represent their collective interests. Political funds are not just about affiliations to certain political parties. Indeed, some unions do not contribute to any political party at all. Political funds can allow unions to participate in campaigns on a range of issues in their members’ interests. Examples include lobbying MPs, broader public campaigns, research to develop policy ideas, and paying travel expenses for workers to attend Parliament to give evidence about the issues they face at work. Indeed, as I have repeatedly said, UNISON operates two separate political funds, or two parts of one political fund, related to affiliation and to wider campaigning.

I also remind noble Lords that establishing a political fund is not a requirement for trade unions and that the majority of unions do not operate one. Political funds are set up through democratic structures of a union and must have sufficient support from its membership to do so. These structures make unions accountable to their members, who are free to participate in the democratic process to shape how political funds are utilised. What we propose today returns us to a system that is both workable and proportionate. We do not wish to saddle unions with excessive paperwork when the principle of choice is already safeguarded.

I hope this reassures noble Lords that automatic opt-ins will reduce the administrative burden on unions while retaining members’ capacity to make an active choice not to contribute to the political fund if they so wish. Once again, I hope we can move on in relation to this issue and respect what the Labour Party committed to in its manifesto, restoring the rights for unions that have existed for over 70 years. I beg to move.

Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)

[Lord Burns]

Moved by

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendments 61 and 72.”

[Lord Burns (CB)]

My Lords, in July, this House agreed my amendment on trade union political funds with a large majority. The amendment would maintain a position where new members have to opt in to make a contribution to a union’s political fund. This was debated in the House of Commons and rejected. I have had a conversation with the Minister and the Deputy Leader of the House about this, for which I am grateful— I welcome the Minister to her new responsibilities.

In the Commons, three reasons were given for rejecting my amendment; we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, make similar points. The first reason given was that it was necessary to lift the “burden” of the 2016 Act. I am sorry that giving members more autonomy and an active choice in the decision whether to contribute to a political fund is seen as a burden. If there is an administrative cost, surely the correct response should be to examine the procedures and methods within the unions that create this burden. My understanding is that today—we heard it repeated this evening—members generally communicate online with their union. This should be much more efficient than in the days of pen, forms and postage, and surely cannot be a decisive factor.

The second reason given was the familiar argument that the Government’s proposal simply returns to the long-standing precedent that has worked for 70 years. However, as I argued last time, using an arrangement whereby members are automatically opted in unless they take on the additional burden of opting out is no longer acceptable in most walks of life. In that case, members are not exercising an active choice; it is using passive inertia to reduce the likelihood that members will exercise their right to opt out.

The third reason given was that accepting the amendment would break a clear government commitment. I can find no reference to trade union party funds in the Government’s election manifesto—maybe I have missed something. I can find no mention of political funds in the paper Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay. That paper charges the previous Government with having “attacked rights at work” and says that Labour “will repeal” those measures, but in which universe is giving people the right to make a transparent and active choice about paying into a political fund attacking rights at work?

I recognise that since the 2016 Act came into force, the proportion of trade union members paying the political contribution has fallen. However, to examine the change and compare it with 2016, we have to omit the figures for Unite the Union, because it has not submitted figures for the past three years. Taking it out and making the comparison with the other unions with political funds, we see that 86% of members contributed in 2016-17 while in the most recent year for which we have numbers, that has fallen to 68%. I can understand the concern, but the real question is: what does this tell us?

For me, the most plausible explanation is that it tells us something about the decisions that members wish to make when faced with a clear choice. It is interesting that reduction in participation is not the same across all unions with political funds. I suggest that unions should ask themselves why they have failed to persuade those members to contribute to those funds, rather than relying on inertia and hoping that members will make their contribution without really considering the issue.

I want to address one further argument. Several times it has been suggested that trade unions are subject to constraints and regulations that do not apply to other organisations; for example, the National Trust. Some even question why they should be required to have a separate political fund. But to me, this overlooks a significant difference: trade unions are regulated bodies. They are protected against being sued for damages and have legal immunity for their funds in trade disputes and their core services. However, the law does not allow them to impose compulsory levies on all members to fund political representation. They are allowed to have a separate political fund but must have safeguards to protect individual members’ freedom of choice. Of course, the crux of the matter is: what do we mean by freedom of choice?

I would like to find a solution that provides genuine freedom of choice and avoids going through these arguments—rather bitter arguments, sometimes—with each change of Government. In my view, this means giving members a clear and equal choice when they join a union, or when that union votes to establish a new political fund. They should be required to choose between two options: do you wish to pay the fee to the political fund, or do you not wish to do so? This seems the only fair way to provide people with an equal choice.

I emphasise that I do not have a position on whether members should pay the political contribution. I am not trying to discourage them from contributing. All I am asking is that members be given a clear and equal choice that meets the transparent standards we expect today. I beg to move.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and of course I welcome the new team to the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, will recall that we had pretty much the same debate in 2016, albeit that we were facing in different directions.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced the debate on 23 July, which was day 4 of Report, about disclosure of payments made from a political fund. This is key, because if union members are going to have, in effect, an opt-in/opt-out arrangement changed, they need to know what the political fund is used for. When I pushed the Government on it, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said:

“My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000”.


I challenged her, and said:

“I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed”.—[Official Report, 23/7/25; col. 281.]


The noble Baroness ignored my comment, and we carried on to a vote on whether payments made by the political fund should be disclosed to the certification officer and members of the union in respect of their own money, as has previously been the case.

On 29 August, over a month later, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wrote to me with what was described as a corrections letter, which, while lacking in my opinion an appropriate apology, confirmed my assertion that this Bill removes the duty of unions to disclose the detail of expenditure from their members or anyone else. Accordingly, it allows the union bosses to spend their members’ money from the political fund exactly how they like, with no one able to see where the money is spent. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, just said that political funds are controlled by their members; he then said that those funds are accountable to members. I take issue with that.

My concern is that the vote on this issue took place on the basis of information and assurances given to your Lordships’ House at the Dispatch Box which the then Minister—not the current Minister, I emphasise—has now admitted were factually incorrect. It may well have swayed some noble Peers. This seems a very unsatisfactory situation, as it allows a vote to have taken place on incorrect information and assurances.

In the end, my amendment was defeated by 18 votes out of 360 Peers’ votes cast. I ask the Minister to explain this situation from the Dispatch Box so that we have a clear record of what has happened and so that legislation may be revisited at a later date. I ask noble Peers to bear this in mind when considering whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to advance a different argument from that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is rather more philosophical and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He mentioned “inertia”, and inertia sells.

Right across this House, your Lordships have worked on legislation that has sought to remove the perils for consumers trapped in deals and situations which are too difficult to get out of. We have made it easier for people to change their bank and to switch utilities. Those of your Lordships who lived through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will remember clearly a big debate about the automatic rolling over of subscriptions. Rather than the arguments that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I cleave to those that we heard from the proposer of this Motion. There is an element of liberalness and freedom about individuals choosing, rather than having to choose not to, which is what is asked by this change.

18:30

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief, because I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I found myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well. If the noble Lord, Lord Burns, seeks to test the opinion of the House, he will have the support of the official Opposition.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, context is of course all-important in this debate. An arrangement was made that lasted from 1945 to 2016, and the important thing to keep stressing is that this is about the ability of unions to express their policies and concerns in a particular way, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Burns, highlighted, is highly regulated. But the decisions of a union involve all the members. The policy of a union is decided by the democratic structures that determine the outcome or objectives of those political funds.

There is no doubt that we were all very surprised and concerned about the sudden introduction in 2016 of something that changed a practice that had existed from 1945, and in 1945 the opt-out was introduced to replace what a Conservative Government had done in 1921. As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said to me when we met, there had been a swing between two positions that could create uncertainty. But in 2016, everyone in this Chamber knew exactly what the impact of the original proposals in the 2016 Bill would result in, and that it would have a severe impact on the political activity of trade unions.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

Does the Minister accept, in talking about the impact on trade unions, that the position is now very different in terms of the historical context, given that union membership has shrunk to such a degree in the workplace that it is now more dominant in the public sector than in the productive private sector? Does he accept that, under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, we are pivoting one section of the workforce to a position of dominance over all sections, and it is rather undemocratic?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not accept the noble Baroness’s position at all. In fact, historically, a lot of public sector unions did not have political funds, and if they did, they certainly did not affiliate to any political party. I mentioned in my introduction that when NUPE merged with NALGO, they had two separate arrangements to ensure that the culture and traditions of those two unions could be maintained.

I come back to the point that no one was expecting the arrangement that had existed since 1945—a highly regulated arrangement, let us not forget, around political funds—to suddenly change. I know that noble Lords on the Opposition Benches expressed concern about that. In fact, such concern was expressed across all parties that it resulted in the noble Lord, Lord Burns, organising a Select Committee that actually mitigated against that sudden change of opting into a political fund. The noble Lord proposed a sort of soft landing, so that the measure would not impact on unions immediately, and it was introduced for new members. He has given us the figures about the new members, and certain unions have a churn.

I repeat: political funds are the funds of the whole union policy decision-making process. Individual members, whether or not they contract out of the political fund, still have an absolute right to determine the policy through the democratic structures of that union and can determine whether the union expresses support for one political party or another.

I come back to a fundamental principle, which I urge noble Lords to consider: that a vital ingredient of a healthy democracy is a vibrant civil society, and that is where unions can have an important voice. On many occasions I do not agree with union policies, and on many occasions we may feel uncomfortable about those policies, but they are a vital part of our democracy. What was decided in 2016 was to stop or hinder that voice, and we are trying now to recognise trade unions as a collective voice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns, that they are not like the National Trust or other such organisations. They are democratic organisations that are highly regulated through a whole host of legislation, and, of course, the political fund rules have to be submitted and approved by the certification officer.

I urge noble Lords to think back to the 2016 debate —to why all sides of this House were concerned about the impact of those proposals, and to focus on why trade unions need to have a political voice. I come back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, about new members applying online. The old idea was that the contracting-out provisions were in a rulebook, a magazine published once every so often. Now, the Bill will make it clear to members when they join what they can do. That is an important element of choice. I urge noble Lords to consider the position and to support the Government’s Motion.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I think it was suggested that it might be difficult, if not impossible, for members to find out how their political fund was expended. Does the Minister agree that Section 30 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 gives every member the right to inspect not merely the accounts but all the accounting records of a union political fund or general fund? That means every receipt, bill and invoice. They can inspect those records, even accompanied by an accountant.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, as I got carried away with the points I was making about contracting out and forgot to address his specific issue, which he raised with me previously. I have the letter that my noble friend Lady Jones wrote to him, and I am quite happy to be absolutely clear that we are removing the additional reporting requirement introduced by the 2016 Act for unions to provide additional information about their political expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer. We are simply returning to the reporting requirements that existed pre 2016, with unions’ annual returns available for public inspection—an additional point my noble friend made—and they will continue to include information relating to governance and finance of the trade union, including management of their political funds, as they have done for many years. Repealing the 2016 Act is of course a manifesto commitment. But my noble friend is right that accountability on expenditure is very much through access to information that is provided for already in legislation.

[Lord Burns (CB)]

I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed but not entirely surprised. I can assure the Minister that I have no objection to how political funds are used. When the whole notion of political funds was established, it was clearly for the support of political parties—that was what the debate was back in 1910 and 1920 and that is not the issue at heart.

The issue is how people express their decision on whether they wish to join the political fund or not. I continue to hope I can persuade the Government there is merit in trying to find a settled resolution to this issue which all parties can support. I believe it can be done. The Minister already outlined the procedures that will be required under the Government’s proposals in terms of telling people what the political fund is for and explaining to them that they have the ability to opt out. I think all we require is to move that along so that people are presented at the time they join with a clear choice. They should know exactly what is in front of them and what the options are. That is the way in which we can move this issue on; it has gone on, as we discussed when we met, since 1921. It has gone backwards and forwards. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

18:41

Division 4

Ayes: 249

Noes: 142

18:52

Motion M

Moved by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 62A.

62A: Because it is appropriate to remove the provision that industrial action is regarded as having the support of a ballot only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in the ballot did so.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.

Motion M1 (as an amendment to Motion M)

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 62.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

18:53

Division 5

Ayes: 240

Noes: 143

19:04

Motion N

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 121A.

121A: Because the Bill already enables employers to offer terms and conditions of employment that are more favourable than those determined by the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will confirm the policy in the letter sent by my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Jones, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred.

The purpose of the SSSNB is to ensure that school support staff are entitled to at least a statutory minimum level of pay and conditions that has been negotiated by the school employer and employee representatives, and is appropriate for the roles that staff are undertaking in schools. The SSSNB’s remit will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles, training and pay, and it will be for the SSSNB to agree how this is done and what the core offer looks like. Beyond this minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions where these are offered by the employer.

Furthermore, the SSSNB will receive a remit from the Secretary of State setting out what the body will focus on in a given year. In the first few years, the SSSNB will focus on terms and conditions that will most benefit school support staff, while giving the sector time to adjust to the new process. Where regulations make no provision in relation to particular terms and conditions of employment, the existing terms and conditions in the employee’s contract will remain unchanged, and schools continue to have flexibility to agree terms in local negotiations; for example, if a ratified agreement relates to minimum pay levels only, existing contractual provisions in relation to annual leave or another school that staff work in will remain unchanged.

I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.

Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 121B in lieu—

121B: Schedule 4, page 195, line 18, at end insert—
“(3) The SSSNB must not restrict employers from introducing terms and conditions of employment beyond the national framework, provided that such terms in aggregate meet or exceed any minimum standards set by the SSSNB and are designed to—
(a) improve the skill levels of staff,
(b) ensure that staff can meet the needs of children,
(c) raise standards of support for children, or
(d) improve recruitment and retention of support staff.
(4) In determining whether the terms meet or exceed any minimum standards, none of the following conditions may be considered as breaching the minimum standards—
(a) CPD and professional development requirements;
(b) promotion dependent on securing particular qualifications;
(c) working patterns that have pay consequences;
(d) role-specific responsibilities including requirements to work with other employees in other schools or locations.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, add to the list in subsection (4).”

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification, but I take little reassurance from it, in particular the idea of what will happen in the next few years to the focus of the SSSNB. In this House, we make legislation beyond the next few years. With that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

19:07

Division 6

Ayes: 184

Noes: 195

Motion N agreed.