Lords Chamber

Monday 19th May 2025

(began 7 hours, 11 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
It is absolutely right that we try to move forward to decarbonise our transport system, but many of our rural areas have quite the inadequate system and could the noble of the Minister tell us what is being done on this policy. We can't make sure we are getting levelling up.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I mean I would start by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I mean I would start by pointing the right reverend prelate to that work we have done discussing ourselves in recent weeks in terms ourselves in recent weeks in terms of the Bus Services Bill. And the of the Bus Services Bill. And the decarbonisation of the bus fleet. decarbonisation of the bus fleet. That bill took steps to accelerate the decarbonisation of the bus fleet and investment and 37 1/2 million in the rollout of more zero in buses. We have confirmed over £1 billion of investment in the budget, spoilers investment in the budget, spoilers across the country.

Including in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rural areas as well as keeping fares affordable. It is more than 40 years since

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is more than 40 years since Pieter Parker, recommended a program of railway unification in country of railway unification in country which has they said at the time would keep together the expertise of would keep together the expertise of those carrying it out as well as the long-term costs. Does he agree with me that Sir Pieter Parker was right me that Sir Pieter Parker was right me that Sir Pieter Parker was right me that Sir Pieter Parker was right Is an important part in decarbonisation, and achieving a net zero goals.

Electrification is the most widespread method, and in 39% most widespread method, and in 39% of the railway network being electrified, 74% of kilometres travelled are electric so we are making progress. I can't give him any further commitments but we are any further commitments but we are looking beyond the transparent upgrade to identify further opportunities for this. opportunities for this. Noble Lord Lord Hendy very kindly joined me in congratulating the Harrowgate bus company on its full electrification programme.

But, ask the Minister what more can be done to actually encourage bus companies around the country, particularly in rural areas, to join and produce electric buses for those that use them? them?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to join in both his and my noble friend Lord Hendy's congratulations in Harrogate's achievement. We have made some
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Portrait Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, Minister of State (Department for Energy Security and Net Zero) (Labour)
-
-
produces AC delay and obstruction from the government. The order books are rapidly filling up in other countries. The Chief Executive of Rolls-Royce has warned the government runs the risk that critical supply chains to support the development of SMRs will be built elsewhere if it fails to select the companies to build them by the end of June. Time really is of the essence but we must ask the noble Lord the Minister if he will also commit to urgently addressing the regulatory planning and environmental concerns that are causing the cost of nuclear this country to store.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

As for that, we inherited the regulatory and planning infrastructure that the last government left. Indeed we set up a government left. Indeed we set up a task for, a time-limited task for, to look at regulation, to see how actually in the experience of Hinkley Point C, to see how we can Hinkley Point C, to see how we can find ways without compromising safety, to speed up the regulating safety, to speed up the regulating process. We have a bill, the infrastructure and Planning Bill, coming to your Lordship's House very coming to your Lordship's House very shortly, which I look forward to the support of the opposition, in taking through.

As far as the issue of what SMR companies are saying, I have had the opportunity of meeting really the opportunity of meeting really very many companies who wish to develop SMRs. I have been to a number of international fora. What I can say is, the UK's vision, which can say is, the UK's vision, which after all, his party set up, Great
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:23
15:23
15:24
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Public safety implications of the Government’s plan to set a 28-day limit on prison sentences for recalled offenders
-

in a sensible way we will find that where violent offenders breached licence conditions, they may be
15:24
15:24
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
traffic offence, they should simply be a point system that is for a be a point system that is for a driving licence. So they receive one, two and three warnings about a breach of the licence will stop three points for one, three points three points for one, three points for another, three points for 1/3. And if they persist in breach of the And if they persist in breach of the licence conditions, then like a driving licence it will be revoked and they will return to prison.

The and they will return to prison. The fact is that the very vast majority of prisoners allowed out on licence are not violent offenders. The are not violent offenders. The latter should return to complete the latter should return to complete the sentence. Would the noble Lord the Minister agree that they have gone off on the wrong direction with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

regard to this proposal? Our mission is to protect the public, support victims and reduce crime. The worst thing is for us to crime. The worst thing is for us to run out of space in our prisons what this is forecast to happen in this is forecast to happen in November if we do not act now. The change announced last week will create 1,400 prison places and give us the time to carry out sentencing us the time to carry out sentencing reform alongside present building will bring an end to the prison capacity crisis.

The reasons for capacity crisis. The reasons for this are clear. We have had 11 Justice Secretary 814 years. Previous government built 500 prison
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:34
15:34
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch. I beg to move that the Commons reasons be now considered.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reasons be now considered. The question is that the Commons reasons be now considered. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. Motion a, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move in a this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 32 on which the Commons have insisted for which the Commons have insisted for their reason 30 2D and do not insist on amendment 30 2B and 30 IIC proposed to the words restored to the bill by the Lord's disagreement to which the Commons have disagreed to which the Commons have disagreed for the same reason I would also speak to motion B and D.

This first speak to motion B and D. This first group is concerned with amendments relating to sex and gender in digital verification services, the data dictionary and to scientific data dictionary and to scientific research. In relation to digital verification services and the data dictionary I am grateful to the noble Viscount Lord Cameron for his noble Viscount Lord Cameron for his continued engagement on the issue of sex data. Although we are not dealing with amendments in low today dealing with amendments in low today I want to take this opportunity to address some misunderstandings that I fear sit behind the misunderstandings of noble Lords which were raised in previous debates.

This bill does not promote debates. This bill does not promote one digital identity that lists attributes such as gender and it created a legislative structure of standards, governance, and oversight for digital verification services and creates and it is possible to create a digital identity, however when an organisation chooses to use if it will enter into a contract with that provider and that contract And the digital reusable identities can therefore only be reused when an organisation accepts in writing that it meets their needs.

If a reusable digital identity verified gender it could not be used to verify biological sex in cases where that And this will again set out which types of information DBS will be able to make checks against and for what purpose. And this is a clear what information is being put verified 20 DBS relies on public authority data through the authority data through the information gateway. I hope this reassures the noble Lords that gender data could not and would not be used to verify biological sex, similarly individuals would not be able to reuse additional ID verified gender to verify biological sex.

It is for these reasons I have laid the motions to agree with the elected house which removed lots amendments 30 2B, 30 IIC, 50 2B and 50 IIC. I am grateful to the opposition for accepting the motions of not tabling those on previous amendments. And in response to last week's debate I would like to respond to concerns raised by if you noble Lords about public data when Saxon gender appearing the same field. Existing legislation already requires those processing that data to ensure the data they process is accurate for the purpose it is being used.

As part of a digital verification check must be appropriate for the specific requirements of that cheque. The contract I have mentioned are a way to ensure compliance with this to ensure compliance with this principle. And the devious providers is a new instance of data processing and therefore the data accuracy principle is reapplied. That principle requires that the personal data must not be misleading and that is of particular relevance giving the they will be sharing data for verification purposes and as the Minister set out in The Other Place if Government identifies an instance where a public sharing data in a way that is misleading as to the way it cannot be used to verify biological sex it will, of course, respond appropriately.

In light of the recent reassurances and noting the clearly expressed view of The Other Place in these issues, I hope noble Lords will agree with motion this afternoon. Then turning to scientific research and Amendment 40 3B, I am grateful to the noble Viscount lot for the time he has afforded the Government on this issue and for our productive meeting last week. I hope to reassure him and other noble Lords that there are, as we argue throughout, sufficient protections against the potential misuse of the term scientific research.

It is not the effective provisions to provide a blanket approval of the reuse for AI training. Under the banner of scientific research and the policy intention behind the clauses is not to enable the reuse of personal data for AI training unless it is for genuine scientific research which is set out in the criteria in the ICO guidance. As part of their bill implementation were, the ICO will prepare advise guidance against processing for research purposes and I expect this will cover information on compliance with data protection principles including the fairness and purpose limitation principles.

This would include the reasonable expectations of data subjects for AI training when it constitutes genuine scientific research. As with the previous topic I have tabled motion B in this case to agree with the comments on this issue and I comments on this issue and I grateful to the noble Viscount for not tabling amendment in Leo. On the not tabling amendment in Leo. On the basis of this, I hope that the noble Lords will also agree to motion B this afternoon and secure the this afternoon and secure the continued success of the U.K.'s scientific research sector, I therefore beg to move.
15:40
15:41
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
sharing two different biological sexes. But will the Noble Lady the Minister confirm that because of the model that has existed for yeah's on this, you could have two documents, one seeing one gender, and another the other gender. I repeat that this bill is a missed opportunity, though I shall not seek to deprive the House on motion day.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Think the Noble Lord the Minister for her introduction, but in view of for her introduction, but in view of the remarks one week ago from the Noble Lord the Minister Lord Noble Lord the Minister Lord Vallance who referred to Government Vallance who referred to Government datasets of the last 15 years which mixed up sex and gender as accurate mixed up sex and gender as accurate or maybe sort of accurate because of the actual exchange in the court the actual exchange in the court slightly varying, does the Government defend the accuracy of Government defend the accuracy of those dataset 's? Even though they those dataset 's? Even though they were, and continue to be, modelled.

Quote because no one knew what sex meant unquote. Are we expected to have reliance on the accuracy of have reliance on the accuracy of data that actually mixed up sex and gender between personnel male and female or does the Government mean female or does the Government mean that we cannot, in fact, defend those data because they were modelled. They were only sort of accurate. I am not entirely clear what the Government is telling us in terms of the ability to rely on data, historical data.

It also concerned about what insight it gives into without the Government or what the Government really intends to regard as accurate from now on. I continue to think that the Government is on quite a sticky wicket in regard to data accuracy on sex and gender and its refusal to enshrine the true sex accuracy in this bill. I think we are continuing to have a bit of a fudge which shakes confidence in its intentions, I think this is a huge opportunity I think this is a huge opportunity missed, but I realise we are not having a further vote.

Could I just ask one question, clause 29 of this bill provides, or allows the
15:45
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
Secretary of State to publish supplementary award for DBS supplementary award for DBS providers. The Government commit to publishing a supplementary code to ensure that DBS providers understand how to verify sex accurately and avoid what has been described from avoid what has been described from the Government benches as the model I I start I start by I start by thanking I start by thanking all I start by thanking all the I start by thanking all the noble Lords that have contributed to this Lords that have contributed to this important debate.

I would first speak to the issues around accurate recording of sex data before coming recording of sex data before coming on to talk about scientific research. Throughout the passage of the bill, we have been clear that digital verification services are going to be a significant driver of going to be a significant driver of data reliability and of productivity. And that they are absolutely dependent on accurate recording and vigorous management of data, we supported Lord Lucas in his original amendments at report stage and we brought our own amendments from the Frontbench lots consideration of Commons amendments last week.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness the Minister for her engagement on this issue and I know she has taken her concerns seriously. That said, we do remain concerned about the accurate recording of sex data and in light of the recent Supreme Court and feel the Government must continue to remain vigilant and to take steps to ensure data sets held by the Government and large bodies are and Viscount Colville has illness. We absolutely recognise the points he has been racing and his amendment have been inventive and constructive contract to deliver a better definition of scientific research in the face of the bill.

I am pleased that ministers have engaged with him on this problem. So despite our main concerns on both of these issues, we feel have made our views very clear feel have made our views very clear to ministers and although they have chosen not to act, which I'm afraid we believe they may come to regret, we must be responsible in our we must be responsible in our scrutiny. We will not therefore oppose the government's motions today. today.
15:46
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I think that despite the fact this isn't being pushed to a vote, and I respect that, and I do concede that the government has made some clarifications, potentially concessions along the way in this debate. Directly think it is not yet resolved and I would like to call on the government to try and solve this problem now rather than leave the issue open to more years of muddled confusion and misinterpretation and that can happen away from here.

I have noticed the government is not a first using the odd Statutory Instrument and I'm usually opposed. In this instance, urge you to use the statutory entrance to a beast sort this out. Because I fear that unless you do to undermine trust -- Statutory Instrument. I want to clarify that what we're looking for is that identifying datasets that have muddled up sex and gender such as data from the HM PO and the DVLA, and those that have not such as sex registered at birth, because of that model, we can't rely on those databases.

And isn't that the very point? We are trying to this point point? We are trying to this point provide clarity to EVs providers that would not, in anyway, result by the way in touting individual transgender people in there using devious systems, to prove they identify whether they are actually, such as the age or whatever. But what are trying to do is ensure that each database has some consistency. If anyone datasets allow some people to be recorded as the wrong sex, then the whole dataset is unreliable as a source of sex data.

I thought it was very helpful that the government clarified in the midst of this there is simply for example an official document like a passport, whatever is written on it, cannot be whatever is written on it, cannot be proof of the, of a change of sex. It is not. It is simply just a record of the way somebody wants to be identified. But it's no use as a reliable source of sex data. There reliable source of sex data. There are other official documents such as driving licence where that is not driving licence where that is not the case.

So I would simply urge the government from their own point of government from their own point of view so that we don't carry on having this muddled and confusion, that the system becomes trusted, that they make sure that they sort that they make sure that they sort this out, even if they won't do it here and now.
15:49
15:50
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Can I also thank the Minister for her introduction to these three motions in this group. On these benches, we do welcome the Supreme Court 'Rust' judgement on the meaning of sex in Equality Act -- the Supreme Court's judgement. However how ministers have stressed it is paramount to work through the implications of this judgement safely and sensitively. As we have previously discussed, the EHRC is updating its statutory guidance. Ministers have previously given assurance that they are engaged in appropriate unbalanced work on data standards and data accuracy and we accept those assurances.

And they have also given further assurance today about the position in terms of the way that the digital verification services framework will operate, and again, we rely on those ministerial assurances. So in summary, we believe that the proposed amendments, previously proposed amendments, were premature in the light of the EHRC guidance, and they risk undermining existing data standards work. On that basis, we support the noble Baroness in her two motions, A and D. As regards a motion B, obviously unable Viscount Colville is not pressing his amendment at this stage, and he is accepting assurances given by ministers and of course we have consistently supported the noble Viscount's efforts to ensure that scientific research benefiting from the bills provisions for data reuse the bills provisions for data reuse is according to ethical frameworks.

-- Is conducted. There have been assurances from the government, likewise as regards this particular area, and we understand that the government's position is that the bill does not alter the existing legal definition of threshold for what constitutes scientific research under UK GDPR, the bill does not grant any new or expanded permissions for the release of data for scientific research purposes, specifically the bill does not provide blanket approval for using personal data for training AI models under the guise of scientific research, and the use of personal data for scientific research remains subject to comprehensive safeguards of UK GDPR, including the requirement for a lawful basis, adherence to data protection principles and the application of the reasonable which requires an objective assessment.

This collection of assurances, given during a number of stages of this bill, provides insurance against the bill, provides insurance against the risk that commercial activities such as training AI models purely for as training AI models purely for private frame could improperly private frame could improperly benefit. I very much hope that the Minister can reaffirm these specific Minister can reaffirm these specific points and repeat those assurances.
15:53
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions and I reassure your Lordship's House that the government is progressing work streams focused on the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets in a holistic and measured manner. As I've described in previous debates. And of course we welcome the Supreme Court ruling and we are now working hard to consider the findings and the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator which will help. I should reiterate to noble Lords that the trust framework requires devious providers to comply with data protection legislation including the data accuracy principles where they use and share personal data.

This includes creating reasonable digital identities as well as one-off tracks, if they fail to comply with these requirements they could lose their certification. This means if the sex information listed on a past which as we all know could a combination of biological sex, legal sex under the gender recognition act, or gender identity, this cannot be used to verify biological sex. The noble Lord Lord Arbuthnot said can a person have different genders appearing on different documents. And in response, can I say, yes you could have both genders appearing on different documents, but they couldn't be used to prove biological sex.

And I should also say to noble Lords that there is a requirement for all this information to be recreated and reused and rechecked each time, so in response to noble Lords who are asking about historic data, the data will be renewed and checked under the new information that is now available. I would also say in the majority of cases where DVS is used, there will not be a need to verify biological sex, as we have noted before, because many devious requirements do not ask that question.

Data sharing under the power created in clause 45 will involve new processing of data which must be in compliance with the data act principle. But is it must be accurate for the purpose for which the information will be used. For particular relevance given public authorities will be sharing data for verification purposes is the fact that data accuracy principles requires that the personal data must not be misleading. With regard to the noble Lady bonus 's three code of practice, I can confirm that the trust framework already requires requirements on data accuracy for DVS, providers, and that framework will be updated from time to time.

On scientific research, let me repeat my thanks to the noble Lord Viscount Colville for his contribution on this issue. I'm glad he was reassured by Myra and we have been able to come to an agreeable resolution and I very much concur with the comments of the noble Lord Clement-Jones, that of course these have to be ethical, and ethical basis to those standards and that point is absolutely well-made. On that basis, I hope I've reassured noble Lords and I beg to move my amendment.
15:57
Lord Winston Portrait Lord Winston (Labour)
-
-
Before the noble Lady sits down, I wonder if she has considered with regard to sexuality, those children who are unfortunately born with perhaps an oversight attested or genitalia which are difficult to identify. How did those become categorised under this regulation? The second thing is this, is the definition of science which has just been proposed in this bill, is not science, its technology and there's a big difference as I explained in the last speech. Science involves knowledge. And we don't know that knowledge until we have that knowledge, we can't act on that knowledge until we know what knowledge is, that is hugely important and is the noble Lord said, who is not now in his place, actually this really has the risk of holding up research which is really necessary and I would like to adjustment in for a close one example of this to the noble Lord Lord Cameron -- before I close.

He made a point which was derogatory about my comment about infection. And I didn't point to him that when I was seven, my father came home with a mild regular infection and it with a mild regular infection and it went on to be pneumonia. After six went on to be pneumonia. After six months with various inadequate antibiotics, because they didn't understand the dosage, penicillin understand the dosage, penicillin didn't work and he died when I was just eight. That is an example where just eight.

That is an example where research is needed continuously even when we don't know what we're doing. It is very important to understand that. This bill and the wording of the bill does not fully defined science satisfactorily, certainly to scientists. scientists.
15:59
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
Well, the first thing I would say, as I hope I have stressed all along in terms of categorisation, is that the data verification services will be required to provide accurate information. Normally biological sex isn't one of the things that most people need for their identity most of the time but there are provisions under the devious for categorising to take account of those variations, I spoke about biological sex, legal sex -- under the DVS. So I hope that the noble Lord, my noble friend has taken on board that point.

In terms of scientific research, we have a fantastic scientific research community in this country, it's our intention that scientific immunity will thrive and grow. We absolutely intend to provide the proper underpinning of that so that the scientific community do not feel that they are being undermined and I can reassure my noble friend that the provision in this bill does not undermine the scientific research community, and they can remain confident that they will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

protected going forward. The question is that motion A be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Motion B Baroness contents have it. Motion B Baroness The question is that motion BB agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Motion C. My Lords, I beg to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that motion see that this has do not insist on its addition to motion see as they have agreed for emotion 40 9C and I will also speak to motion 9C and I will also speak to motion one. I am conscious of the words of my Noble Friend at the start of our my Noble Friend at the start of our proceedings, so I will tie not to add unnecessarily to our ongoing discussion of the issue of AIM copyright.

As has been previously stated, we share the ambition of your lodgers has, to foster a vibrant, sustainable, and secure creative industry in the UK. We all want to get our response to this complicated issue right. The Noble Lady Baroness Kidron has twice introduced measures into this bill that would commit the Government to prematurely implementing transparent obligations on AI developments. Without consideration of the broader cancer supporting measures that are required, nor how measures would work in practice. Twice the elected house has removed these measures with the Government and elected members sending a clear message that while we take action in this area, this bill is not the right vehicle for tackle link this important issue.

Today we are debating the third iteration of the ladies amendment and governance reports other right mechanism to come to a clear view on transparency this amendment will not consider the relevant issues together as a complete package. I will not repeat Minister Brian's extensive remarks in full, but it remains the government's view that transparency cannot be considered in isolation. Regardless of whether amendment says must or may in relation to enforcement, it remains the case that careful thought must be given to how transparency obligations would be enforced and by whom.

And would be enforced and by whom. And alongside transparency we must also consider licensing, the renumeration of rights holders and solutions and any number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on each of these topics. We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright and the global nature of copyright and Away from the rest of the world. This is why the impact assessment that the Government have committed to publishing in a tournament movement of the bill will give probable consideration to the full range of issues in light of all available evidence.

I share the view expressed by the noble Lords and by Minister Brian that this is an urgent issue that needs to be addressed. That jumping straight from reporting on four things to regulating one thing is clearly not the right approach. Piecemeal regulations such as this is not the way to prioritise the protection of 2.4 million creatives. The fact remains that we must develop this policy properly, using the evidence we are gathering from each of the 11,500 consultation responses. We must devise a way forward that addresses these issues coherently and which works for all sectors involved.

I look forward to making progress on that soon. We will bring our reports forward as quickly as we are able to, but this is too important a topic to rush. A real example of acting quickly is, as Minister Bryant announced in The Other Place, convening technical working groups as soon the bill is passed. We will get the best minds from the creative industries and the AI sector together to help us to pin down solutions that would work. Our working groups will look indeed to add how measures and transparency can be delivered and how technical standards can be disseminated to support approaches like watermarking which I know is a focus on the Noble Lord.

We are ready and enthusiastic to get on with those discussions and get workable solutions in place. And our creative industries will be best served by this approach rather than only dealing with one, albeit a very important strand of a very complex issue. I understand that the Noble Lady could rinse desire for these issues to be properly addressed. I accept the wish expressed by this House to send a signal to the creative industries that they are of course cherished unsupported. We share that sentiment and we will through the process outlined deliberate properly on the basis in evidence and book ability.

There will be opportunities for the House to be updated throughout that process. Noting the clearly expressed view to bring forward our proposals as quickly as I can I urge the Noble Lady Baroness Kidron not to push her amendments motion see at the end of this debate. I picked it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move motion C. Question is that motion CB agreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to. Motion C1, Baroness Kidron. My Lords, I baked it move motion C1 as an amendment to motion see on the end insert and do propose amendment 4D in Lua of amendment 4B. Last week we had a decisive vote in favour of transparency for UK
16:06
16:08
None Portrait Amendment:C1 Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-

development of AI systems already enshrined in the bill as the mechanism by which it will come to a mechanism by which it will come to a view on how best to brave transparency measures whilst also ensuring that clear, relevant, ensuring that clear, relevant, accurate and accessible information will be provided to copyright owners so that they can identify the use of their copyright works and the means their copyright works and the means by which those works were accessed. by which those works were accessed.

It also takes at face value, statements made by Ministers at the statements made by Ministers at the despatch boxes that created UK AI companies and global trends will be companies and global trends will be in the room for discussions about in the room for discussions about copyright on no less a basis than simple representatives. And it simple representatives. And it accepts the Government will that they have free reign on enforcement procedures, so there are no procedures, so there are no financial commitments for enforcement as a result of this clause.

But it does require the Government to bring forward transparency regulation within six months of the report being completed. The Government has three times rejected my drafting that was more comprehensive, but they have also failed to bring forth something of their own. The amendment before us was drafted by an eminent lawyer with the very helpful support of the Public bills office. If the Government is not willing to accept a time limited outcome of its own report, we must ask again if the report is simply a political gesture to push tackling widespread theft of UK copyright into the long grass.

Because failing to accept that in the real world means starving UK industries of the transparency they need to survive. Ministers talk about balancing interests of AI and creative companies as if that is reasonable. Not only are they failing to listen to UK AI companies, but the idea is a little extraordinary. There is no other industrial sector in the UK that Government policy requires to give its property or labour to another sector. Which is in direct competition with it on a compulsory basis in the name of balance.

The Government should have lept at this opportunity to savour much valuable UK sector central to its own industrial strategy, but they have not. The amendment before us would provide certainty that a transparency regime will be forthcoming within 18 months of Royal assent, and it would signal once and for all that UK copyright law is, indeed, the law of the land. A fact that has now under duress been confirmed by Ministers at the despatch boxes, but still they have taken no action to defend it.

This combination, giving creatives and, by extension, reports, the information they need to enforce the law, is that minimum viable action from the Government if we are to believe them about the value of the creative sector. Because you can't see, you can't enforce. The amendment would allow UK copyright owners to police their own property, leaving Government to consider further legislative issues in a process that even Government Ministers admit may bear no fruit until the end of the decade.

We have had compelling speeches at each stage of our debate and I must say some notable acts of resistance and support and I am deeply grateful for all of them. Undermining copyright is a multigenerational harm because copyright not only supports today's creators, but it is essential to create opportunities for the creators of the future. And I want to put on record that young people refute the suggestion that emanates from Government that everything is already stolen.

Not only do models constantly need to be retrained, fine-tuned or augmented with up-to- date information but some people have not yet started their creative journey. And some things remain to be created. It is our duty as parliamentarians to ensure that we do not squander the future of the young. This amendment protects property rights of UK citizens and creative opportunities. It asserts the right for any worker, including a creative worker, to be paid for their labour. And it is about coherence of policy.

What or why change benefit or implement new workers rights if, at the same time, the Government undermines copyright in the creative industry which does act as paid? As pension. And as wages across a 126 billion industrial sector. The Government have got it wrong, they have been turned by the sweet whisperings of silicon valley, who have stolen and continue to steal, every day we take no action. The UK is extraordinary, beautiful, and valuable creative output. And Silicon Valley have persuaded Government that it is easier for them to redefine theft than to make them pay for what they store.

This amendment recognises the primacy of the elected house and I do urge all noble Lords from all benches, whatever your allegiance, and whatever you are with, to stand behind our creative industries. And our indigenous AI community. I have tried everything to persuade the Government in private. Everything. If the Government continue on its current and transient path with no meaningful alternative, we will begin to see the corrosion of our powerful industry, fundamental to country and democracy.

It will be a tragedy. And it is entirely
16:14
16:15
Earl of Dundee Portrait The Earl of Dundee (Conservative)
-
-
The original question was that motion CB agreed to. Since emotion see one has been moved, as an amendment to motion see insert that Woods is printed on the Marshall list. The question therefore is that motion see one be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This is a very useful proposal amendment that in further instance this stage of proceedings by the noble Baroness and the creative industries it offers certainty that a transparency regime will be in a transparency regime will be in place within 18 months of Royal assent. Within a timetable of its assent. Within a timetable of its own choosing it also gives the Government free to provide new legislation on the wider issues and legislation on the wider issues and legislation on the wider issues and I will reiterate how this amendment is also consistent with various is also consistent with various articles and conventions that state human rights affiliation with Council of Europe which the United Kingdom remains a prominent member which education committee and the recent chairman.

Firstly the article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to privacy including personal data, privacy including personal data, article 1 of its initial protocol protects property rights including protects property rights including international property rights and copyright, secondly, Lourdes Article 5 on cybercrime prohibits system interference by foot support the transmission of computer data, wallets article 10 stipulates offences related to infringements of copyright. And related rights. Thirdly, article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention artificial intelligence in human rights democracy of the rule of law safeguards privacy and personal data.

Not least as much advertised as the amendment achieved consistently as well with our United Kingdom protecting copyright notably often as early as the 17th and structured affair granting legal protection for publishers of books. The UK must continue to assist that good practice. And honesty grateful to the noble Baroness of this further proposed amendment and we further proposed amendment and we
16:17
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I speak reluctantly on the issue, said before I am a rights holder and I refer to my register of interest. I think following the intervention by the noble Baroness Lady Kidron, very little needs to be said. It was absolutely brilliant and searing. I will say this to the government frontbench. As a member of the creative industry, I don't want to be told how much cherished, and then see legislation that will actually begin to destroy us. We have heard much about the rights of those large rights holders such as Paul McCartney and Elton John, and I have to inform the House a note here, that I once received a housewarming present from Elton John Article 25 years ago, so it holds no influence over me.

But at me say this. The rights holder. I have thought long about this since my last intervention. Many years ago, a dear friend of mine who is no longer with us, Claire Davenport, a wonderful character actor, had an early and successful career and the like so many creatives, it waned. And she used to ring me and say, trip, I can't believe it. My day has been made. I have got a cheque. A cheque would arrive from something that she had done maybe 10, 15 or 20 years ago, and Claire, who was famous for her ample bosom, used to take the cheque, Robert across her ample cherished parts of her talent, and say, now I can eat.

That is the reality of what happens to people who receive repayment for the use of the creative material. If you strip that away, you are stripping away rights from those often most in need. The creative industries have long taken on board the challenges, and we have worked to find the technology to turn them around. We can do so again. This amendment is a brilliant, sensible way forward, and I urge every single member of your Lordship's House to stand firm with the creative industries and those amendment.
16:20
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to support noble Baroness kitchen's amendment C because I applaud her tenacity and dogged determination to make a difference to the future of our creative industries -- bonus Kidron. Fighting tirelessly to get the government to consider and accept amendments. This amendment is accepted, if accepted would tell the British creative industries, that the government understands their concerns and worries for the future. Most of all, it will secure a children's future, and not sell them down the river.

It will show them that there will be future opportunities for employment open to them, and that their creativity will not be stolen. But it will be compensated for and their copyrights respected. I hope the government will listen and put in government will listen and put in place to safeguard that Baroness Kidron is asking for. Transparency is the key, as creators need to know if they are being ripped off, when their work is being used. And by whom. Transparency will give them whom.

Transparency will give them confidence. I have the fortune to have carved out a career over the last 55 years in the creative industries as to benefit from it. And I feel it's my duty to ensure that those just starting off can have the opportunity to achieve the same. So I urge the government to listen to that huge concerns of those in the creative industries, who look to the government to protect their world. Our British industry, our British award-winning highly acclaimed creative industries are concerned that they are considered to be the best in the world, but is on its brink of falling apart, if it's not protected.

Also need to protect the possibility of the creative work for the next generation. And not steel their future, which is something I'm sure the government would not like to have on their conscience. So I hope the government will listen to my plea and those of members from around the House, and act on around the House, and act on Baroness Kidron 's vitally important and common sense amendment before and common sense amendment before its to late. And I declare an interest as per the register.

interest as per the register.
16:22
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
I want to make two brief points, and answer things both bonus Twycross and Chris Bryant have said in the last week, and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch has said today. The first is that when the government says this bill is not the right vehicle for my noble friend Baroness Kidron's amendment, one has to profoundly disagree. Concerns of copyright are integral to the use and access of data, you cannot price the two things apart. It's make no mistake about it.

This amendment belongs in this bill, the act belongs in law., The law belongs in the act I should say. The second point revolves around the principle of the argument, the government itself believes there is an issue with copyright. It believes there should be much greater transparency .and when Chris Bryant says we need to look at these things in the round, not piecemeal, I agree entirely. So if we agree between ourselves something is right, and that right is not previously enabled in law, we should pass the law and the principal will find the solution.

We do not legislate, we do not legalise against things that are criminally wrong because they cannot at the present time be sufficiently policed. Having this law will speed up the solution, not having it means inevitably we drag our feet for who knows how long and that will be to the detriment of the creative the detriment of the creative industries, as creators such as Elton John know full well and are rightly angry about. We agreed on the principle, this is the right the principle, this is the right thing to do, make it law.
16:24
Lord Brennan of Canton Portrait Lord Brennan of Canton (Labour)
-
-
In some sadness I rise again to talk on this matter and I would like to thank government ministers for the very positive way in which they have engaged with my noble friends and I to discuss how to make some progress and perhaps find some compromise in relation to this matter on this bill and I completely accept that the Commons voted overwhelmingly to reject the amendment, they'll be sent to them. The majority is always better than the best repartee.

But if you allow the majority in order to have your way, when others are trying to have their say, I think that is sad so I think I would welcome the government, doing a bit more listening, because this particular amendment were discussing at the moment does move quite a long way towards what the government is saying. When the Commons debated this matter last week, a number of us did go down to watch in person what the reaction was like in the chamber and I have to say there was quite a considerable amount of disquiet from the government benches itself about the direction of travel.

And a considerable number of interventions on a number of questions asked. And I thought Chris Bryant was extremely generous in the way that he gave way and entertained those questions and interventions from members of the House of Commons. And he said himself in the course of his remarks, we all agree that we should introduce transparency measures, those were the words that he uttered on the floor of the House of Commons and ministers of elsewhere have said, and we accept you can't have remuneration without transparency, unless you are an AI company.

You can have remuneration without transparency if you are an AI company. You don't have to reveal what you are training runs on, even if you're using electoral property of others. -- What you are training models on. We can't have a double standard in relation to this matter. My noble friend the Minister mentioned, made a point that ministers made a number of occasions and others have made about the fact we can't ring for our self from the rest of the world. That's true, we live in a highly interconnected world.

But that is the whole history of copyright itself. Has been about leadership, about having high standards, about showing why interaction property is a source point for economic growth, and the source itself of economic growth. This country has shown leadership throughout history in relation to copyright and setting the highest standards in order to try and drag people up to our level, rather than simply putting up the flag of surrender and going down to the levels of rest of the world.

And I fear there is a view perhaps that we have to allow companies to do anything they want because otherwise, they will just go and do it somewhere else in any case. Surely we should be showing some leadership in relation to this. And if anyone had the pleasure as I did of listening to my noble friend Lord Bragg is program manager for about history of copyright in the in our Time programme this week, then you also know, and if you haven't had the chance to listen to it on BBC Sounds, including the additional conversation that went on afterwards.

My preference is like made clear last week and made clear to ministers is that if ministers cannot accept the amendment that has put forward by Baroness amendment then they come back with their own amendment in Lou and make sure that phase of the bill ministers are given power to transform transparency and that can be a list of a must. It can be a syllable must because what is needed is a reasonable concession that provides a backstop power to ministers which will focus the minds of all concerned on the need to deal with this issue, without waiting for a piece of primary legislation, vehicle which may be down the road, even if commitments are made from ministers.

So I would say to your Lordship's House, if these amendments are carried today, I hope the government will come back with their own amendment in lieu which will enable there to be that kind of backstop power, even if it is not exactly the amendment we are considering today and it will be a great way to provide a level playing field for our industries.
16:29
Baroness Harding of Winscombe Portrait Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Conservative)
-
-
It seems to me that the government is relying on two arguments now. To reject the amendment from the noble Lady kitchen. First is, this is such a complex problem regulating IR, we can't deal with one bit, we have to deal with all of it. The second is, it's so big, it's global so we can't do anything local. The noble Lord Brennan has just demolished the global argument, so I'm sure noble Lords you are pleased I will not repeat his argument.

I just want to demolish the first argument as well which is that we should wait to do everything in one place on AI. That is old world technology, not new, agile technology. If we are going to regulate the digital world, you're going to need to test and learn, we are going to need to collate things that are necessary, even though we know that they are not sufficient. I haven't had a single argument from the government in any place suggesting that transparency is not his very.

It is. So this amendment is necessary. It's not sufficient to regulate this extraordinary groundbreaking technology called AI about that doesn't mean shouldn't regulated now in this way and build on it. I'm afraid we will be debating AI for decades to come but that doesn't mean we should reject this amendment, just as the noble Lord Brennan has said, really hope Lord Brennan has said, really hope that the other place and the government will really hear the cross-party support for the work cross-party support for the work that the noble Lady Kidron has been doing and bring back something that doing and bring back something that
16:30
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
In supporting my noble friend,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In supporting my noble friend, Baroness Kidron, could I make one or two things clear. The creative industries are not against AI, industries are not against AI, indeed filmmakers, television producers, composers, writers have also helped to create the very also helped to create the very technology that goes into AI. So, the creative industries are not the creative industries are not trying to pull up the drawbridge, but rather they want to monitor what is going across it. They want to is going across it.

They want to police it. As is the Elton John said, not to do this could amount to a trail, because things begin to move very much in an increasing move very much in an increasing volume. He said and I think this is a very important point that it is a very important point that it is not about people like him actually, it is about, as another Lord Cashman said, the next generation. The people who are creating, writing novels and getting a pittance for it.

They do not want to see, we do not want to see their work taken and exploited, for nothing. I would say to noble Lords and indeed the Minister, can you think of yourself and maybe you have, writing a novel over say two or three years, creating a film, creating a record, a disc. This takes perhaps two or three years, you have had to put your own money into it and then finding that your rights are being stolen. This is burglary, My Lords.

stolen. This is burglary, My Lords. It is nothing else. And I come as a composer, I should declare that interest have had music taken and put onto film and onto adverts. And it is a very difficult to stop it. The only way you will stop it is by acting now, before the gate is trampled down by the horses and the stable is empty. It is all very well talking about a vehicle, in the future, we have heard several noble Lords say the time to act is now.

Sir Elton John has said that, many famous composers. It is not just those composers at the top of the pop tree, it is classical composers to add contemporary composers who make a pittance, a few hundred pounds, perhaps. The fact that there is a saying in a tin Pan Alley there is a hit, there is a writ. That is Come up with something good, everybody wants it. We would destroy the future of our creative industry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let's stop it now. May I join in with thanking
16:34
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

May I join in with thanking Baroness Kidron for her efforts. She has argued persuasively, patiently has argued persuasively, patiently and passionately and there is nothing wrong with a bit of passion in this chamber. It is not just Baroness Kidron we have already heard from Elton John over the weekend. He is a national treasure, an icon, working class boy, made good. A role model. The creative industries from the very bottom. A man who is worth listening to, I would have thought, particularly as he was a Labour supporter, at the last election.

Yet, in his outrage, Elton John called this government total losers. Harsh words, the real losers are going to be those of us and I must declare my own interest, those of us who work in the creative industries, nearly 2.5 billion of us, all of us will be losers. And yet, My Lords, all this amendment really asks for is a little bit of transparency, so that we, we in the creative industries and no who is going to be using our work.

The work we have slogged away at, suffered to create. The elected government must of course get what they want. They do not know what they want. Only at the other day the same government was proclaiming their commitment to soft power and declared the creative industry is a vital part of that soft power. Ministers say that our world beating creative industries are one of the country's greatest assets. Did they mean it? Were they just empty words? Why are Ministers burying themselves in their departmental silos? All we are asking for is for the government to support its own policies, join them support its own policies, join them Following a Seldon down that yellow brick Road, who has created so much success.

Not only for him, but the entire country. It is because we are such a success, because of that great success, because our creative industries are world beaters. That so many others would love to have a part of that. Of course, we must protect our creative rights, our intellectual property. So why is the government leaving the front door open and the lights on, with the guard dog chained up at the back, for those who simply won't even come they won't even need to hack our work, they can simply walk in and take it.

We should listen very closely to the Baroness Kidron's wise words. The world is changing at a speed almost beyond our imagination. So please allow us, the writers, the songsters, the artist, the composers a little protection, so that we can carry on creating and enabling Britain, not just to punch above our weight, but to sing above above our weight, but to sing above the song. I would much prefer to see the noble Lady the Minister, not I think it is totally inappropriate, as a great listener.

I wait with bated breath.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As my noble friend of the Chief Whip said at the start of this debate, we are now into the second round of ping-pong on this bill. round of ping-pong on this bill. These issues have been debated These issues have been debated extensively across committee, and report last week. I urge all laws to keep the contributions a brief and
16:38
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest Portrait Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Labour)
-
-
focused.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a little bit

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is a little bit funny, this feeling inside. Then I rise to support the noble Baroness rise to support the noble Baroness Kidron's amendment today. An amendment that my Frontbench so clearly opposes. I am still clearly opposes. I am still standing. I'm still standing, standing. I'm still standing, because I do not yet believe that Ministers have heard the clarion cry, from our country's creators. That they need more from this bill. That they need more from this bill.

And in supporting this amendment, I draw the House to my declaration, in draw the House to my declaration, in the register, as the proud chair of UK Music. And as an author, although I say to my noble friend Lord I say to my noble friend Lord Cashman, sadly I have not the benefit of right holders check to rub across my bosom for several years. I'm supporting this because it brings a measure of balance and I understand the government's reticence to get this right. I believe it is entirely possible to offer a concession to the creative industry, without jeopardising the Prime Minister's commitment to the AI revolution.

I think I need to say that Elton John was wrong yesterday to personalise this debate. But as one of this country's greatest ever songwriters, he is entitled to ask what has he got to do to make you love him? In fact, more importantly he is entitled to ask what has he got to do to make you hear him? I say to the Minister you might not like this amendment but if not this like this amendment but if not this one, then what? No credible alternative has been offered and so reluctantly, but firmly I should be voting for the protection on offer voting for the protection on offer today.

Because, you failed to today. Because, you failed to listen, you leave people with no choice but to sing another tune. choice but to sing another tune.
16:40
16:41
Lord Knight of Weymouth Portrait Lord Knight of Weymouth (Labour)
-
-
I will be brief, we are in a pickle. This is an important bill that needs to quickly gain a Royal Assent, if nothing else for EU data adequacy reasons. I incidentally don't believe that the bill does an active harm to the creative sector as it is written. Since the copyright consultation referred the wrong option, the sector's trust in the government, on this issue has collapsed and I pay tribute to the way the noble Baroness Kidron has represented. That distrust means that Ministers are subsequent words of reassurance are not trusted by the sector.

We therefore need campaigners and Ministers to meet and find a way through, with meaningful action. Ministers are trying, I believe it to act in good faith. I believe they are sincere in wanting a creative environment for AI in this country and to protect the renumeration of the creative industries that are so important, to this country. Artists are also raising their voice. Although I agree with my noble friend, it may be helpful to personalise some of the debate. It is important to give the Secretary of State himself another opportunity to personally speak, in the others place, on the record, at the dispatch box, having had a few days to reflect and negotiate and reassuring the sector that Ministers see the urgency, in Of artists were big tech.

Whilst taking advantage of the creative and taking advantage of the creative and economic opportunities of AI. I think Baroness Kidron's amendment is a good basis for proceeding. In order to give the Secretary of State that opportunity, I will be supporting Baroness Kidron's amendment, if she chooses to divide the House. the House.
16:43
16:44
16:45
16:47
Viscount Camrose Portrait Viscount Camrose (Conservative)
-
-
It's probably redundant to pay tribute to the noble Lady for her tenacity and determination to get to a workable solution for this because I think it speaks for itself. It has been equally compelling to hear such a strong argument from all sides of the house and all benches, including particularly the government benches, that we need to find a solution to this complex but critically important issue. Noble Lords will recall that we on these benches have consistently argued for a pragmatic, technology based solution to this complex problem.

Having made our case for the digital emerging -- watermarking. When we considered Commons amendments last week, we work closely with the noble Lady Baroness Kidron to find wedding for her amendment, which we support, and we were pleased to be able to do so and vote with her. It is so important that the government listen, take action to protect the rights of creatives in the UK. We will not stop making the case for our flourishing and important trait of sector.

We have put that case to ministers, both in Your Lordships' House and at meetings throughout the passage of the bill. As a responsible opposition, it is, though, our view we must be careful about our approach to amendments made by the elected House. We have, I hope, made a clear case to the government here in Your Lordships' House and the government have, which I deeply regret to say, refused to act. I'm afraid they will regret their failure to take this opportunity to protect our creative industries.

There comes sadly a point where we have to accept His Majesty's Government must be carried on and the government will get its bill. Before concluding, may I make to final please to the noble Lady the Minister. First, as others have asked just to listen with great care to the many artists, musicians, news organisations, publishers and performers who have called on the government to help them more to protect their intellectual property. And second, to find ways to create regulatory clarity faster.

The process the government envisages for resolving this issue is a long one. It's too long. Actors on all sides of the debate will be challenged by such a long period of uncertainty. Now, I know, I understand that the noble Baroness the Minister is working at pace to find a solution, but not necessarily with agility. I echo the brilliant point made by my noble friend Bernie's Harling -- Baroness Harding that the solution will be so important to pick up the pace at this because the enemy -- the perfect is the enemy of the good in this instance.

So I hope when she gets up to speak, she could tell us a little bit more about the timeline that she envisages, particularly for that she envisages, particularly for the collaboration for DSIT and DCMS. Ministers must script this with

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agility. Once again I acknowledge the passion and depth of feeling from passion and depth of feeling from those noble Lords who have spoken. Again, I emphasise that we are all on the same site here. We all want
16:51
16:52
16:52
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
that have been expressed. I have to say that, of course, we are still going through the 11,500 responses to our consultation. We are still to our consultation. We are still going through those. I have to say to noble Lords that there are some incredibly creative solutions that incredibly creative solutions that people are proposing to the debate people are proposing to the debate we are having today. They have a right to be heard as well. This is not about silicon valley, it's about not about silicon valley, it's about finding solution to the UK creative finding solution to the UK creative and tech sectors.

We have defined solution that protects both sectors. solution that protects both sectors. And pleased that the noble Lady Baroness Kidron is now endorsing the government's reports is the right government's reports is the right way to identify the right solutions. However, I will address some of the However, I will address some of the noble Baroness's other points directly. As the committee talked about her amendment providing certainty to the creative certainty to the creative industries. I can provide that certainty now as Minister did in the other place aspects of the copyright law in the UK is unchanged by this bill.

Works are protected unless one of the existing exemptions, which have existed for some time, such as exemptions for teaching and research applies. Other rights holders have permission further work to be used. That is the law. This is the law now. It will be the long tomorrow. And I also want to reassure my noble friend who talked about stripping I rights today. I want to be clear that the government has proposed new legislation decision. The bill does no such thing.

I have to say the noble Lady Baroness Kidron's amendment will not provide certainty for anything except the certainty of more uncertainty. Of continuous regulations stacked one upon the other as part of instruments. This cannot be what anyone desires and this is why the government does not agree to it. The noble Baroness Baroness Kidron and Baroness Harding suggest that her amendment requiring regulations on only one issue ahead of others and via a different process would somehow leave Parliament free to consider all the other issues independently.

I'm afraid this is not the case. This is a policy decision with many moving parts. Especially because, as I said earlier, this is a global issue, and we cannot ring fenced the UK away from the rest of the world. We refute the suggestion that we are being complacent on this. I would say to noble Lord Brennan that of course I agree UK should be a global leader but we need to make sure that we have the right approach before we planned our flag on that.

There is no reason -- there is a reason that Northern Territory has cracked this either. I know that the EU are still struggling to find a workable solution. It is not easy. But we are working quickly. The noble Baroness's amendment once again raises enforcement and she has left the mechanism to the discretion of the government in her new amendment. And whilst we are pleased the noble Lady has changed her approach on enforcement in the light of the Commons reasons, we'll agree that for new transparent requirements to work, enforcement mechanisms will be needed and must be effective.

The noble Lady says she has tried everything to persuade the government, and I would have welcomed a further meeting with the noble Lady to discuss this and other aspects of a revised proposal. Unfortunately, that invitation was accepted. I reiterate that in spite of all of our different positions on this bill, we are all working together towards the same goal. Following proper consideration of consideration -- consultation responses, we will bring forward proposals which will be comprehensive, workable and give certainty to all sides.

If the house has strong views when these proposals come forward, there will be opportunity for it to be debated. We have made clear that our reports will be delivered within 12 months and earlier if we can. My noble Lords that Baroness Kidron's amendments will not take a friend for 18 months. There is not an instant solution. Neither the noble Lady nor ours is an instant solution. It will take time and we have to recognise that. We don't believe in the meantime the protected ping-pong on this one remaining issue on the bill is in anyone's interest.

The elected house has spoken twice and through legislative and non-legislative commitments, the government has shown it is committed to regulating quickly and effectively. So I do hope the noble Lady and Your Lordships' House will accept this assurance and continue working with the government to make progress on this important issue. A lot has been said in this debate about the importance of transparency. I would say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that the government has said from the very beginning that we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do as we go forward.

Transparency is essential to the issue of licensing. Licensing is essential to the question of remuneration and remuneration is essential to AI being a high quality, effective and able technology to be deployed in the UK. I have to say to all noble Lords, all these things have to be addressed together and not in a piecemeal fashion. Noble Lord is absolutely right to say that without transparency, it is with nothing. On enforcement, the government is sympathetic to the argument that is a different matter for individuals to enforce the rights via the courts as opposed to large creative agencies to do so.

This is the kind of thing networking groups that I have mentioned will explore, as Minister Brian -- Bryant said last week. I will finish with something I'm sure we can all agree on. The urgency of the problem, need to be evidence-based, that solutions will require collaboration between the creatives and the AI sectors, and that these solutions must work for everyone. Can I assure the noble Lady Baroness Kidron that everybody will have a seat at the table in these discussions. I do hope noble Lords will agree with me and truly support the innovators and creators in the UK.

By voting with the government on this motion that will deliver a full compressive package that will make a difference to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

crater sector for years to come on this country. Victim. I must thank everybody who has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I must thank everybody who has spoken in the house, outside of the house, on this issue, and I house, on this issue, and I particularly thank the amendments of particularly thank the amendments of the government benches. I know it comes hard to disagree with your party, and I really appreciate it, party, and I really appreciate it, as to other people outside. I'm going to try and sign -- take the high road from the ministers passionate speech passionate defence passionate speech passionate defence -- passionate defence.

I do think that if the government had spent as that if the government had spent as much time talking to me as it did to its own backbenchers to say, please don't rebel, we would be in a don't rebel, we would be in a different place. And I did say that I wasn't able at that particular time but there was quite a lot of time but there was quite a lot of other occasions on which ministers knew where I was. Just to go to the real crux of the matter is this.

The noble Lady the Minister said at the dispatch box again this is UK law and the government has done nothing to change it. Precisely. This is the problem. It is UK law but it's unenforceable because what you can't see, you can't enforce. That is the problem we are trying to solve and that is a separate and different problem from the enormity of all the other issues she rightly raises, and while I did accept the report as the mechanism and I did accept the idea
17:01
17:01
17:02
17:14
17:15
None Portrait Amendment:82A Baroness Morrissey (Conservative)
-

the workplace. Amendment 82 K is designed to properly address
17:15
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - committee stage (day 4)
-

designed to properly address instances of sexual harassment, if
17:15
None Portrait Amendment:82A Baroness Morrissey (Conservative)
-

they do occur at work -- 82 A. Chairing of the diversity project, through that role I have received reports of all behaviours submitted by the sector through confidential hotline set up after the CBI sexual harassment scandal. Over 30 reports, 90% from women, it is clear that if someone makes an allegation of sexual harassment at work, the investigation process that follows It is often compounding embarrassment and shame which might be misplaced and making it exceptionally awkward, especially when their complaints concerned someone more senior and powerful than them at the firm.

When working in an executive role and no expert in the field, I was once asked to in the field, I was once asked to oversee the process following a woman who had brought forward a case of serious sexual misconduct, only for her to withdraw her case when the process was so excruciating. The pattern I see from so many of the reports submitted is that the woman's life, including her life at work gets worse, much worse, and she ends up leaving the firm while the perpetrator's career is often completely unscathed.

Amendment 82A calls for a full investigation to be carried out and for all those involved in the case to be appropriately protected during the investigation. It also requires firms to adopt the independent reviewers recommendations following their investigation. You may be amazed, and in fact, I hope you are amazed, to find that many cases today, even if a serious complaint is upheld and the firm decides to take action against the perpetrator, it often errs on the side of leniency, especially if the perpetrator is senior or a significant revenue generator.

So, I'm afraid, abuses of power continue. Even if a firm does dismiss, they can fail to qualify references so the bad apple is put back in the system to reoffend. I received a tip of a couple of years ago from a former colleague that a man who had been let go from a city firm for sexual harassment committed the exact same thing at the same firm. -- The next firm. He was then let go from that firm. I've just discovered he is in a senior role at another one.

Clearly, something is very wrong with the system that makes this happen, especially in a highly regulated financial sector. Those of us who work in financial services hope very much that the regulators will eventually produce guidance for firms providing what they euphemistically call non- financial misconduct. The problem goes far beyond the City. I urge the government to consider reasonable
17:19
17:20
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm a signatory to this excellent amendment but I'm also speaking from amendment but I'm also speaking from . I will be touching on these issues . I will be touching on these issues in a later group. This is so important and I'm so glad that Baroness Morrissey brought forward an amendment that focuses on the an amendment that focuses on the issue of investigation and action. She has made the case powerfully. She has made the case powerfully.

But for many people, I think it is such a shock to realise that it is the victim of sexual harassment, usually a woman, sometimes a man, that finds themselves in effect on trial. That's how the investigative process when it happens generally progresses. I think we will all know progresses. I think we will all know that that is wrong and has to change. Also, if you go and talk to change. Also, if you go and talk to people who have been victims and you ask them what do they want most is a response to the fact they have now spoken out, and again and again, despite what they've gone through themselves, the answer is two things.

One is I never want this to happen to anybody else. And secondly, I want investigation and action. And the systems we have in place never focus on that issue and arrived that is the primary response when somebody speaks out with a serious complaint of this nature, and indeed, we will be talking later of complaints of another nature. I hope very much that people will engage with this issue that has been so well represented here today.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I do commend noble friend Baroness Morrissey on moving
17:21
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
friend Baroness Morrissey on moving this important amendment. She speaks from her personal experience with wisdom and understanding, in particular on the whole issue of investigation and action. I also agree with the noble Baroness lady Kramer. The victim can so often find themselves on trial, and that is unacceptable. So I have some sympathy with this amendment in that it seeks a more proportionate approach to the matter then the bill currently contains. We all agree that harassment, particularly when it is persistent and even worse when it comes from a senior colleague, as a stain on society.

Not only does it a stain on society. Not only does it Lead Lead to Lead to serious Lead to serious allegations Lead to serious allegations such Lead to serious allegations such as sexual assault or harassment by a senior member of staff. And to protect the well-being. We believe that proper measures to address the issue are critical in building safer and more respectful workplaces. Clause 20, as currently drafted, does also raised concerns about free expression and it is our view that the amendment would be better placed the amendment would be better placed elsewhere in the bill, without the issue of freedom of expression being engaged.

I want to emphasise from these benches, to tackling sexual harassment in a meaningful way, but we also believe that the right to free expression is carefully protected. So we will be listening very carefully to the noble Baroness the biggest pupils work response to these concerns -- the noble Baroness the Minister's response. We must protect the dignity and safety of individuals whilst preserving fundamental rights.
17:24
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
This has been a good introduction to the further the rates -- debates we will have further and the bill on we will have further and the bill on harassment. And grateful to Baroness Morrisey for tabling this amendment. The noble Lady and the bonobo Baroness Kramer -- bonobo Baroness Kramer made important points about investigation and action being absolutely crucial -- noble Baroness. It is important to ensure that specific steps are taken by employers to combat sexual harassment in the workplace.

This is why in addition to strengthening the preventative duty, we are introducing a delegated power enabling us to specify steps that are to be regarded as reasonable for the purpose of meeting the obligations set out in the Equality Act 2010 to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment. The regulations may also require an employer to have regard to specific matters when taking those steps. The regulations that the power well introduced will help clarify what is expected of employers, as well as guide the EHRC or employment tribunals when taking enforcement action.

These steps may require, may include undertaking investigations in addition to the requirements set out in the code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. However, to better Effective for evidence and we will Effective for evidence and we will give responses careful consideration. Have to say to the noble Lady it would be premature to introduce specific requirements in introduce specific requirements in relation to investigations at this stage, and I do ask her to withdraw amendment 82A, I hope she will take amendment 82A, I hope she will take on board that I'm happy to continue discussions with her on these issues after the court -- call for evidence after the court -- call for evidence concludes and I'm sure we can reach an agreement for that on that basis.

an agreement for that on that basis.
17:27
17:27
17:28
None Portrait Amendment:83 Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-

83. I declare my interest. As your Lords now... They will have to take all reasonable steps to protect their employees from further harassment and if they fail to do so, they could be sued an employment tribunal. Don't let the proponents of course 20 muddy the waters by claiming it will protect workers from sexual harassment by third parties. Employers are already liable for third-party sexual harassment thanks to the Worker Protection Act 2020. Where is the evidence that nonsexual for the party harassment is a problem in the workplace? There is none in the final stage impact assessment.

That can we have returned to a fact sheet produced by the Office for Equal Opportunity published last year, which says, for the year ending March 2024, 9.2% of people aged 16 years or over so they have experienced sexual harassment in the last 12 months. The report they have been harassed by a client or a member of public contacted through work. Only 5.5% of the respondents in that survey reported experiencing nonsexual harassment and 9.2% of 5.5% is 0.51%.

To be clear, only 0.51% of the respondents in the survey reported experiencing nonsexual third party harassment in the workplace or through work in the past year. As the quality -- Equality and Human Rights Commission said, evidence of the prevalence of third party harassment in the workplace sexual harassment is limited. Incidentally cover that is of the opinion of the regulatory policy committee. This clause is a solution in search of a problem. I described clause 20 as the banter banned because I believe employers will interpret it as meaning they have to protect their employees from overhearing jokes remarks or exposed relations that they meet -- may find offensive about protected characteristics.

For example, take a football fan who shouts are you blind to a referee. If the club employs a partially sighted Stewart, he or indeed anyone of his colleagues could take the club to the employment tribunal for not taking reasonable steps to protect him from having to overhear this remark. The club will have to ban banter such as this. If sir Keir Starmer has his way, every stadium in the country will become a library, not just his beloved library, not just his beloved No doubt many will want to scrap clause 20 were together.

Amendment Harassment by third parties, such as the example I've just given. The noble Lady the Minister will tell you I have misunderstood what employers will have to do to comply with this amendment, it will just mean they have to, sorry to comply this amendment to the. To protect from direct harassment. If we look Has defined the harassment provisions in section 26 of the equality act, harassment does indeed include overheard remarks. It follows that unless it is amended, clause 20 will mean employers having to take all reasonable steps to protect their employees from overhearing banter, between third parties, e.g.

Customers, or members of the public. That would place a huge additional burden on employers, particularly small and medium-size enterprises, like family owned clubs. During the second reading of this bill were hired several of my noble friends raise some of these points, the Minister said we had a misunderstood how onerous clause 20 would be. An employer can reasonably take steps and are clearly more limited than those for the employees, she said. If the noble Lady the Minister really believes overheard conversations, jokes, remarks etc.

Will be out of scope, then why not accept amendment 88, which exempts employers for indirect nonsexual harassment, by the parties. The hospitality sector My Lords is a deeply concerned about liability for incorrect non-sexual harassment, by third parties and hospitality UK fully supports amendment 88. As do mineable laws are Lord Strathclyde, Baroness Moyo and Baroness Deech. Another argument the Minister will make is that they are already putting safeguards in place to protect freedom of expression, such as article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Should I also remind mineable laws that employers won't be able to discriminate against customers, expressing those beliefs which are protected by the equality act. How clause 20 should be interpreted, so as to be compatible with articles 8, nine and 10 of the convention, as well as how it should be interpreted when a third party opinion employers complain of enjoyed protected status under the Equality Act are uncharted, in the waters. As flagged by the EHRC, is briefing note on clause 20, the conflict between 20 and eight 910 of the convention, the EHRC said should any third party harassment occurred, employers will need to evaluate whether any action they take a disproportionate interference, with the third parties ECHR rights, in the circumstances.

It went on to say this can be a difficult exercise. On the conflict between clause 20 and the obligation of service providers have not to discriminate against other customers on the basis of their protected beliefs. The EHRC had this to say that the interaction of the third parties protection from discolouration and the employees protection from harassment is complemented and likely to be challenging for employers to navigated. Navigating will certainly be challenging. Especially for SMEs, which you don't have HR departments, or firms with employment solicitors on retainer.

What would the cost be of employing external counsel to advise them on how best to limit Be of implementing this advice. The Government has described the Employment Rights Bill as progrowth. But for many small businesses, struggling to make ends meet, particularly in the hospitality sector, this clause will be the final nail in the coffin. The noble May say it will become clear, in due course, just how light touch at this new clause is, as cases are brought before the Employment Tribunal.

But the financial Times reported on 5 May the backlog of cases, in the tribunal has hit record levels, with a queue of almost 15,000 cases, the beginning of this year. It will rise significantly, when this bill comes into force, thanks to day one employment rights. To lessen the burden on the tribunal I would urge My Lords to support amendment 85 which were to supply clause 20 from the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education settings. I would also urge mineable laws to support amendment 80, which would exclude from the definition of harassment clause 20.

Conversations or speech, involving the expression On political, moral, religious or social matter, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive. This amendment is supported by the noble ladies Baroness Fox of Buckley and Baroness Deech, as well as the Lord McDonald. As the EHRC said, in his briefing, head of second reading, "There is a risk that employers will impose excessive limitations on debate and discussion, to comply with clause 20. " If the noble Lady do the Minister doesn't want clause 20 to protect employees from hearing opinions on political, moral, religious or social matters that they may find offensive, upsetting or disagreeable.

She genuinely doesn't want it to have a chilling effect on a discussion, as worn by the EHRC. One of six that this amendment? I also propose 83, which would limit the definition of harassment in exactly this way, in all parts of the equality act, not just with respect to third party harassment. My view that will go some way to advising the chilling effect of the equality act has had in the workplace. Employees having to look over their shoulders now, before saying what they really think about the Israel-Palestine conflict, or gender neutral toilets, or , I refer you to amendment 86, to reproduce the three strike rule, then applied to the third party harassment clause of the Equality Act, as originally enacted in 2010, whereby an employee couldn't sue for third party harassment unless it had happened three times, regardless whether the third party was the same person or a different person.

The third party harassment rules in the equality at was repealed by the Enterprise and regulatory reform act 2013, after it proved so unpopular with employers. If bringing back the three strike rule is too much, then I hope the noble Lady the Minister will at least accept amendment 87 proposed by my noble friend, Baroness Noakes which would place some reasonable limitations on the number of claims that can be legitimately brought. If clause 20 is an amended My Lords, it will plunge employers into a legal quagmire, force them to spend a fortune, attaining and implementing legal advice.

Inevitably have a chilling effect on free speech and those very places, pubs, bars restaurants, football stadiums, universities and people should be free to speak their minds. He will bother to pop into their local for a drink, if there are banter bounces in every beer garden. A pronoun and policy in every wall and proof you had DNI training before you can get served. In this clause, if it enters up an amended the only growth it will achieve its growth in the debt restructuring business, growth in law firms specialising in equality law and growth above all in the dole

**** Possible New Speaker ****

queue. I big to move. Amendment proposed, clause 20,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment Amendment proposed, Amendment proposed, clause Amendment proposed, clause 20, Amendment proposed, clause 20, page 42, line 24, the end insert the words printed on the marshalled List. I have several amendments in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have several amendments in this group. In the name of my noble friend. The extension of the friend. The extension of the equality act harassment provisions
17:39
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
equality act harassment provisions is not new territory. Included in the Private Members' Bill in 2023, which became the 2023 work protection act. A number of us were concerned about the employability for nonsexual harassment contained in amendments to remove that part of the bill. In the event, that, I suspect of the bill was dropped and we all heave a sigh of relief until we saw this bill published, last autumn. Clause 20 in many respects is worse than the 2023 bill.

But did at least try to address the issue of freedom of speech. I did not go far enough, but at least you tried. This bill is saying that freedom of speech is not an issue. Absolutely essential to be a fair extension of employer liability the harassment. I will not repeat the arguments put forward but I do want to emphasise how burdensome such a requirement will be for a small business. Most businesses in this country are small, accounting for a bit less than half of the private sector employment.

Clause 20 is a very big problem. It is hard enough already to run a small business, with all of the regulatory burdens that the state imposes. But this new requirement will extend to the realms of impossibility. How can a small hospitality, retail business realistically cover itself against every possibility that a member of staff might perceive it being harassed, by a customer, or even a passerby. I have A1 a specific question, for the Minister. This is on the territorial scope of clause 20, or section 40 of the Equality Act, as amended by clause 20.

Does the duty to prevent harassment apply only to UK-based employees, or does it also apply to those who are overseas. I'm sure that noble Lords who have dealt with overseas call centres recognise that this can be a somewhat vexing experience. Recently, a young man, who was almost certainly in India insisted that he must educate me for 10 minutes on frauds and scams, before he would unblock one of my credit cards, which had to hit one of those fraud tripwires, in connection with a perfectly straightforward transaction.

A transaction I had already completed, on another card, with no problems whatsoever. Explaining this to the young man, I explained that I knew quite a bit about fraud and scams in financial services, but he was absolutely adamant about my educational needs. I hope my responses were not perceived as harassment, one can never tell these days. My question is this. Does the clause 20 mean my clod provider would be liable -- card provider. If I chose to harassment my overseas employees.

How does that work? Let me turn to my amendments in this group. Amendment 87 is a softer version of my noble friend Lord Young's amendment 86, seeking to avoid single incidents being treated as harassment. I should stress that I'm not talking about sexual harassment, a single incident of sexual harassment is one too many. Rather talking about the kinds of harassment that Lord Young has been describing. We really cannot expect employees to be able to prevent every single incidents of hurt feelings, the highly subjective nature of the work as perceptions means that employers are facing an impossible task.

My other amendments, 89 and 96 concern 21 of the bill. It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations and reasonable steps in the case of sexual harassment. I have to say that I always think that the Equality and Human Rights Commission was the correct source of guidance on the application of the 2010 act. If we accept that it is right for the Secretary of State to get involved in S specific case of harassment and the reasonable steps that are required.

It should extend to all forms of harassment where an employee has to take reasonable steps. This is what my amendments 89, 93, 95 and 96 seek to achieve. Furthermore, if the Secretary of State issues rules about what constitutes reasonable steps, we need to see what the consequences of that are. I believe that if employers can est that they have followed the steps set out in the regulations there should be no question of falling foul of the harassment regime intersection 40 of the 2010 act.

It should be for the Secretary of State to make sure that the rules are comprehensive and for employers to follow them. My amendment 94 would then give employers protection from the harassment provisions. Last for good measure I am including a, must amendment, in amendments 90 and 91. The Secretary of State would be required to issue regulations dealing with all reasonable steps. This is such a difficult area for employees, particularly in customer facing businesses, it should be encumbered on the Secretary of State to set out clearly and comprehensively what employers need

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I focus particularly on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I focus particularly on amendments 83 and 84 which purport to deal with hypothetical banter to deal with hypothetical banter ban. I listen very carefully to what ban. I listen very carefully to what the noble Lord Lord Young site in speaking to these particular amendments, because I have been struggling to understand why these struggling to understand why these amendments are thought necessary, and I regret to say with the and I regret to say with the greatest of respect, I'm still none the wiser.

I suggest that the wording in those two amendments does wording in those two amendments does not need to be included on the face not need to be included on the face of the bill, and that is because most overheard conversations that someone who hears them might not like would already fail the test of unlawful harassment in the equality act 2010. Most overheard
17:47
17:47
17:47
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
include the noble Lord's example he gave of a blind person and a football match -- in a football match. To be caught by the match. To be caught by the definition, something an employee here's at work and finds objectionable or defensive would objectionable or defensive would need to be relevant to a protected characteristic. It would also need characteristic. It would also need to have the purpose or effect of violating the person's dignity or violating the person's dignity or creating an intimidating, degrading, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment.

And if this were put to environment. And if this were put to the test, it would not just be about the employees subjective perception. If a case like this ever ended up in If a case like this ever ended up in court, which is highly unlikely, the court would also have to take into account all the circumstances and it would need to decide if it was reasonable for the overheard conversation to have had the effect of violating dignity or creating a degrading, hostile, humiliating or offensive environment.

In other words, the subjective is balanced against the objective and context will always be of crucial importance. My Lords, the average, every day chat in the pub or elsewhere would not pass these tests however much someone dislikes what they hear. So the bill would not require employers to take steps to prevent conversational expressions of opinion in the words of the amendment on political, moral, religious or social matters. And, of course, in some circumstances, third parties do abuse and harass employees.

This happens with the copper -- depressing regularity, notably in hospitality, which the noble Lord would seek to exclude from the bill where it directed an employee by way of a directed for conversations that is obviously intended to offend. That is the whole point of this clause. Instances of obvious, direct harassment of parties would rightly be protected by the bill under current definitions. I suggest is also important to note that steps to prevent this would not place an onerous burden on employers.

Regulations, as my noble friend the Minister has said in her interaction, set out what steps employers should take but already many employers take relevant steps to prevent this sort of offensive behaviour. Your Lordships will be very familiar with signs on public transport or in healthcare settings warning that abuse of staff will not be tolerated. It is very familiar to all of us. The broader point here is that the bill's purpose is to require employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent their staff being harassed and abused by customers or members of the public.

It is not about preventing or regulating private conversations or restricting free impression. So I would suggest again that amendments would suggest again that amendments 83 and 84 do not add anything and are not needed. are not needed.
17:51
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, in general I think the whole of clause 20 should be dropped from the bill. The other amendments I put my name to not dropped but I remain hopeful the government will realise that despite what the noble realise that despite what the noble Baroness just argued, that no doubt unintentionally this will not only be bad for business and range of institutions that are public facing, but will also be detrimental to workers. I appreciate the government is seeking to reassure and dampen down the public needs about this clause.

Suggestions that companies are hiking up the threads that oppose free speech. I'm yet to hear a positive argument for why legislation is being used to create a sweeping new duty that will significantly expand all employers liability for third party harassment of their employees. It's unclear to me why if any employee has evidence of harassment as just described then they don't call the police. Shouldn't this be left to the criminal law to deal with it rather than extending employment law? This clause puts all the onus on employers to plan for, prevent and police allege it problematic interactions, a task they are simply not qualified to do and indeed should have no right to do.

This should have no right to do. This clause amends the Equality Act. After the then coalition government consulted on the matter, there were such a negative feedback that was kicked out in 2013. Why is it now reappeared with no consultation? Was more, this new duty is considerably more onerous. For example, there are no exemptions and one of the amendments that I have my name to try to carve out especially vulnerable sectors. What's more, as referred employers would be liable for any single act of harassment by 1/3 party.

And its previous iteration, they would have only been liable if the employee is harassed for the third time. There is an amendment to remedy this. Today, -- to date, the government has not presented any evidence justifying this. What has changed that answers? -- demands this? A lot hinges and will be considered harassment to mean. Firstly, when confusion to clarify. Sometimes, the clause is bundled together with sexual harassment. This conflation can't harassment. This conflation can't live -- can give clause 20.

Close 20 is liability for nonparty harassment. Then there is a sense of harassment in people's minds. This is understandable but$$JOIN. The noble Lord side of harassment that it is an ordinary English word with a well understood meaning. He went on to say harassment is a persistent and deliberate cause of reasonable and oppressive conduct targeted at another person, which is calculated to enter is because that person alarm, fear or distress. If only that was the definition. Unfortunately, the noble Lords wise thoughts that harassment has a well understood meaning is not true in 2025 error of law fair.

In relation to section 26 of the Equality Act, harassment is defined as unwanted conduct relating to protected characteristics. According to the HSE guidance, were given examples of this can include spoken words, banter, jokes, written word and physical gestures, facial expression and social media posts. That is a very broad list of definitions of harassment that employers will have to protect employees from when encountering third parties. Harassment under the Equality Act also includes indirect harassment and I cannot see any way for an employer to seek to comply with this when they will be compelled to take all reasonable steps to prevent their staff from encountering, even overhearing, those conversations, jokes or remarks they might find upsetting in view of their protected characteristics.

Also come harassment cases take into an improvement -- employment tribunal so the motives of third parties are irrelevant. I've noticed that in response to previous features which have raised concerns about this clause, the government has argued that it will be enough for the claimant simply to claim that someone's conduct is offensive. There is an objective test in which the reasonableness of the individual situation will always be considered. In every iteration of harassment and law, and codes of conduct including our own here in the Lords, and all elements of regulating hits which cover example, a key factor is the perception of the claimant.

It is unduly subjective. Something I've raised is a problem on numerous occasions, only to be told by government ministers that victims feelings are a core component. I would be more than happy if the government were proposing amending the Equality To tighten this up and narrow it down but in the present circumstances, close 20 is a minefield. Opens the door... I also want to consider who are these third parties. Maybe they are rich, drunk businessmen shouting abuse or British figures running around public facing establishment, Harding hunting down hard pressed staff to harass.

Who are they? They are other workers who under days of blacks by supporting their sports clubs and don't mince their words while doing so. Who do the government think frequent clubs? It could be workmates who go for a pint after a long shift and might want to let off steam by morning about a boss. Only for a member of staff to take offence. Or a group of co-workers gossiping away as they get their nails done, maybe by discussing the grooming gang scandal.

What about apprentices who are night out enjoying heckling banter on comedy gig. Perhaps hurting something that the staff member or steward says insults their protected characteristic. Or the ex-police officer reading something in the parfait and chatting to a member of staff and about five. Third parties beyond some abstract legalese in the flesh are fellow workers trying to spend private time. Universities third parties are not just external speakers but students who are now considered consumers and customers. Already without this course, there is a growing phenomenon of university management imposing rigorous speech codes on the student body in the form of antiharassment policies under the guise of dignity at work and study policies.

Many of us were campaigners for free speech, the free-speech union or my colleagues at the Academy, are working with students drawback these -- drawback these policies that are a serious threat to academic freedom. Close 21 and just justify such policing a student speech. Necessitate it's because it would be remiss for any university not to take steps to minimise the liability risk of students offending academic staff and making them feel unsafe and complaining of harassment. I am also finally concerned about the disproportionate fact this will have on groups in society who hold dissenting views.

This could be misrepresented assessment. It is a risk averse approach to any potential... You could just imagine the conversations. That pro-Israel group to hold a meeting here. Lots of the staff are Palestinian migrants. That would be risky. That's bound to wind up are transverse to. Just tell them we are fully booked. Close 20 could lead to overly cautious, better safe than sorry, informal blacklist. I could radically change and detoxify the relationship between businesses and their customers.

It's no longer the customer is always right. You can forget about improving customer service. Now customers are third party risk to staff. We live in an area of divisive cancer culture. This misplaced assertion of the right not to be offended certain social cohesion. We as legislators should not be seeking should be seeking to dismantle this culture, not adding to it. This clause I rise to speak to my amendments as well as amendment 80, for the same reasons so clearly highlighted by
18:01
Baroness Meyer Portrait Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Fox. Of course no one should ever face a sexual harassment at work. That is why we passed the worker That is why we passed the worker protection Act 2023. Placing a clear protection Act 2023. Placing a clear duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent it. Including from steps to prevent it. Including from third parties. The law came into force, only six months ago. So as a Baroness Fox quite clearly highlighted, why are we adding this highlighted, why are we adding this sub- banter clause.

Clause 20 is not just unnecessary, but it is a threat to free speech, apply to small businesses and a betrayal to the businesses and a betrayal to the very spirit of this country. It amends the equality act 2010, to extend third-party harassment to extend third-party harassment to nonsexual conduct. A casual comment between customers, misunderstood or between customers, misunderstood or simply unpopular could trigger a legal claim, as noble Lords have legal claim, as noble Lords have previously explained. This is not the same as the Conservative government, third part reforms which explicitly protected political, moral, religious or social opinions.

Are we really expecting shop pump keepers -- publicans, shopkeepers. Banter bouncers, the government laughed. But for small businesses it is not a joke. Even the Equality and Human Rights Commission warns this is legally complex and challenging. Employees will need legal advice, staff training, new policy and the risk of getting it wrong. Clause 20 also demands employers to take all reasonable steps to protect their employees. This sounds brilliant, but it creates a major uncertainty.

What does all reasonable steps mean? To make matters worse, the Secretary of State will define reasonable steps by secondary legislation. Without parliamentary scrutiny. This is not good governance. And it would cost the budget, itself estimates an extra 3.4 billion cost to the hospitality sector, alone. Dozens of pubs are already closing, every week. Do we really want to make it worse? This is not a debate, it is not only legal and economic, it is not only legal and economic, it is also cultural.

And for me it is personal. I became a British citizen, not because I had to, because I wanted to. I fell in love with this country, for its soul, it's quite strength, its humour and its tolerance. In Britain we did not take offence, we took the Mickey, we disapproved without outrage. We rolled our eyes and moved on. We didn't report people, or call a lawyer. As was once quoted, "The English man is never quite so natural as when he is being artificially humorous.

" That gentle irony. Refusing to take ourselves too seriously is part of who we are. This clause legislated out of existence. This isn't dignity at work it is paranoia in public. Clause 20 creates a society where offence becomes power and litigation will replace common sense. We will become a society that silences its own people. We have seen it in regimes, built on censorship and enunciation. These amendments are crucial, without them, the consequences will be a more regulation, more red tape, more job losses, more silent voices, before once again we will be forced to admit that we have gone too far.

I support all noble Lords who have spoken before me, in favour of these arguments, sorry amendments and in particular I want to reiterate that
18:06
18:06
18:06
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to speak to the group of amendments, particularly 83, 80, 85, table by the noble Lord, Lord Young table by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Clause 20 harassment by of Acton. Clause 20 harassment by third parties, though well- intentioned has triggered this batch of amendments, none of which are of amendments, none of which are perfect. Most are seeking to damage perfect. Most are seeking to damage and limit the bill, or bring in exemptions. Our focus on the exemptions.

Our focus on the exemptions proposed an amendment 85, upfront a relevant interest that I hold a significant minority stake in a rural, community pub in Wales. As a rural, community pub in Wales. As we have already heard the we have already heard the Is a low margin and struggling, with a range of issues, including shortages of staff, smoking bans, competition from supermarkets, the rise of home entertainment, big tech and social media. Pub specifically have had an horrendous time in England was alone.

We have lost 30,000 pubs in the last 35 years. Each and every week sees another 10 close their doors, for the final time. And now, this bill is expecting the owner, or the bar manager, often on low pay and experience to take on the role of conversation arbiter or chat monitor, and case a customer says something to the drinking or dining partner that is overheard and is deeply offensive, by an employee. To be clear, I accept the employer should step up their customers, or clients are being offensive to their staff.

Yes, they have a responsibility, in terms of their staff and their code of conduct. I ask is legislating this way the answer? It leaves so many questions at a subjective level of what is offensive and what isn't. Which brings me to the second centre proposed exemption by amendment 85, how sports venues. This is where clause 20 threatens to become unworkable. It struck me only yesterday, while in the London Stadium were 16,000 others, watching West Ham stumble to get another home defeat, this time against Nottingham Forest.

There was a lot of anger in the crowd, much of the language the crowd, much of the language could be described as a vulgar, or offensive. Others would call it passionate, fruity, spiky, or humorous. But these views could be heard, or overheard by club officials, security staff, stewards, pulleys, bar staff, program sellers, burger flippers, all of whom are employees. Either by the club or the stadium or various contractors and subcontractors. These views concluded manages are questioned vigorously, savaging the players and the work ethic.

Forthright suggestions that the referee's assistant should have multiple appointments at Specsavers. Finally the referee himself repeatedly accused of practising a self-love. I am choosing my words carefully, not quoting it directly in order to meet this houses code of conduct, which I respect and I have signed up to. If I did not and repeated some of the profanities are heard yesterday, I would be in trouble and here is the thing, Parliament as an employer would not currently be taken to a tribunal by a colleague or a doorkeeper, or Hansard employee, when finding my language offensive.

That could change if this bill has its way. The point is that most workplaces are covered by a code of conduct, or employers handbook that sets out the markers and helps sort most of these without the need for dispute and litigation, employment lawyers or indeed tribunal's. Much of this is driven by common sense and human decency and also the mutual interest and employee, to ensure a productive and harmonious working environment. Clause 20, in my view.

I asked the Minister and this government to seriously think again. I rise to support amendments in
18:11
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
the name of my noble friend, Lord Young and Baroness Noakes, the Young and Baroness Noakes, the clauses 20 and 21. Both have already noted as a father noble Lords the noted as a father noble Lords the impact they could have, these clauses will have on small businesses, already struggling, under a juggernaut of burdens, particularly introduced since last particularly introduced since last July. I begin with Baroness Noakes's July. I begin with Baroness Noakes's amendments. Clause 21. Which she noted amends at the 2010 equality noted amends at the 2010 equality act.

These amendments, 89 to 96 would require regulations to specify would require regulations to specify the steps needed for the employer to take, to prevent harassment of an employee, to cover all forms of harassment and did from liability. This change is both reasonable and This change is both reasonable and proportionate, in that it will oblige regulations to specify the steps needed to protect employees from liability. It is a matter of fairness and good law tape measure should be clear about the measures under it rather than leaving it to litigation.

Precedents. Think about health and safety regulations, where employees duties are set out, take the management of regulations 1999, were the main duties are to a Cesc risk, and identify risk assess to reduce them. The workplace safety and welfare regulations, which require employers to provide require employers to provide adequate heating, ventilation workspace and keep them in good condition and so one, throughout the health and safety regulations of the 19 nineties. As if, we have the HSE's guide on the steps needed to manage risk.

Settled, step-by-step process for controlling, as follows and in line with the regulations which are clear to identify hazards, assess the risks and so on. Baroness Noakes is amendment, clause 21 will ensure that employers know what is required in respect of harassment, which matters in itself and is to make good laws. I therefore support them. I also support the amendments in the name of my noble friend, Lord Young and another, Baroness Noakes. Two amendments, to clause 20, 83 to 87 and 88.

And in respect of what is, that is not required of employers, in respect of protecting their employees, clarifying harassment to exclude expressions of an opinion, on a political or moral or social matter, provided the opinion is not indecent or grossly offensive, to exclude the hospitality sector, university settings. As the obligation on the employer does not apply. To exclude indirect harassment, to take account of the employee's perception of the circumstances. Whether reasonable to have the effect and whether an isolated incident.

I think these are all important and amendments which have a great deal of support across the House. Noble Lords have already explained how clause 20 could undermine the freedom of speech. I'm not speaking of an employer liability for harassment by a third party against an employee, covered by section 40 of the Equality Act, 2010, which deals with harassment by third parties, like customers and clients. Rather the clause has the effect of making the employer liable for what a third party say, when speaking amongst themselves.

Which is overheard by an employee. This might occur in a bar, restaurant, shop, a cinema, theatre, or public transport. What of customers in a restaurant or a bar, discussing the latest immigration figures and the likelihood of yet more unsustainable migration, into the country. The shortage of housing, schools and a longing waiting list. For a place or a bed. Or the inability to understand English. To hold an employer liable for a private conversation amongst customers, overheard by employees is wrong.

It would bring the law into disrepute. To take another example, one can well imagine the complication for church. This is of course the charitable sector, which is appalled by a sermon and a critique being overheard, by the pastor vicar, priest, as the congregation is leaving as they chat amongst themselves. The ecclesiastic may well be an employee of the diocese and so in a position to use against its employer, the church. How And how farcical the law would be thought to be.

Amendment 87 would protect against such a ridiculous situation because the situation would have to be taken into account and without the writer reply in the church, the congregation would be more than entitled to discuss each other on the way out. Or suppose another example used here, the university lecturer overhears students commenting amongst themselves in a highly critical, personal terms, about their teaching. As, I average, many university students do. They could hold their employer, the University, liable.

Without such amendments because the clause is so widely drawn, it could lead to an explosion of litigation, prompt vexatious accusations, undermine a businesses ability to operate effectively and efficiently, and so undermine employment. The obvious course for an employer would be to issue guidance on best practice. Sheets for customers that they may not use certain words, phrases, or express certain opinions in the venue, or they will be asked to leave. Restrictions on discussing lecturers and professors would be already added to and there is a long, there would be added to an already long list of forbidden speech for university students.

This frightening scenario has further complications and costs. Think of the pub. What happens if the point is pulled? Or the meal is cooked, and the customer is asked to leave? Before they can start. Who pays the bill. The business or the customer who ordered? Will an insurance policy cover the loss? Or employers could have a policy of silencer customers only to be broken when leaving the establishment when they would pass a notice on the door which says you have left the mark, which says you have left the mark, you may now speak.

These clauses are not fit for any bill which passes through legislation in this House. I can see that an entrepreneurial country like the UK might develop a flourishing free-speech underground cafe and bar culture, but driving freedom of expression underground is the hallmark of totalitarian repression cultures. On my last visit to one such country, I was given university lecture courses on 20th-century British political history, I was advised to avoid the word democracy in public discourse. Later, the sponsor of the series explained it was fine to speak freely on any subject in a setting such as a dinner in a restaurant.

such as a dinner in a restaurant. Indeed, that was part of the course. Are we, in what has been a free country, to introduce a law that may lead to restrictions undreamt of, even by totalitarian regimes?
18:19
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise to support the Noble Lord of actin. It is great to have another champion of free speech in this House. I put my name to two amendments. 84 and 88. But I would happily have supported all of them in this group. May I raise this to a slightly higher level? Earlier this afternoon we heard a great deal of justified passion and appeal to principal in relation to creative rights. This time we are talking about free speech which I see as cripplingly under attack in recent years, under this Government.

The situation is really getting very bad. Whether it is the halting of a higher education freedom of speech bill, or whether it is the failure, bill, or whether it is the failure, conversely, to stop hate marchers proceeding through Jewish areas on Fridays and 60s, or indeed outside of this House. Whether it is arresting people for tweets, bursting into their houses, with police, because they have made an unpleasant tweet. We do not know where we are with freedom of speech any more.

All we know is we have to be very careful. And this is highly significant. If lady card Gail was right IN her analysis that I think we do not need clause 20 at all. There are other protections for the sorts of things we are worried about. But let me give you a couple of examples that puzzle me. I have read that the Co-op is now applying a policy, a boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel and Israeli products. Some would say that is my anti-Zionism.

Some say it is anti- Semitism. If I go into my local Co- op, let's say wearing a yellow ribbon, noble Lords will know that a yellow ribbon which I see some members of the House are wearing, stands for freeing hostages. If I go into the wearing a yellow ribbon, and my offending those employees of the Co-op who are firmly anti- Zionist? If I go in there and ask for a tub of hummus and am told they do not have it, am I upsetting the employees or the policy of the Co- op? And what if there are Jewish employees of the Co-op who hold different views? The other day, and I have often talked about this, I have often talked about this, noble Lords will know that the main road from my home in Oxford to the station is completely blocked.

I cannot get to the station except by walking about half a mile over cables. And I think it was yesterday I made my weary way through and there was one of the builders employees pointing me in a different direction. I have to say that I lost my temper, then I got worried afterwards that may be I had harassed him, but frankly any way to stop the harassment of those employees is to get the work done but I mentioned those because I think the definitions will be extremely difficult.

I worried about freedom of speech, about the chilling effect that legislation and indeed social attitudes have had. Schoolchildren have recently been told that there should not be so much definition in their unhappiness as mental health. Many things which are regarded as mental health one might say grow some great. I would say grow some great from some of the things that people are worried about expressed in clause 20. There is no right not to be offended short of heat speech and terrorism.

Let alone having someone else be offended on having someone else be offended on one's own behalf. And clause 20. one's own behalf. And clause 20.
18:23
Lord Strathcarron Portrait Lord Strathcarron (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 83, 85, 86 and 88 in my name. I am sure noble Lords will have noticed that after the second reading of this bill the report the next day focused disproportionately on what was reported as the absurdity of employers being held responsible for employees being offended by third parties, in situations where the employers had no referral over who said what to whom and when and why and where. And the aspect is important because this also applies to real or imaginary offences taken by employees of site of the employer's premises.

It was rightly reported that next day as an Alison wonderland proposal where the whole concept of responsibility is topsy- turvy. Another reported this kindly as bonkers, and yet another for another way for scrupulous lawyers to make a claim and one can only imagine the fresh media vertical to which your Lordships house would be open to ridicule unamended, only of course there is no ridicule for employers or taxpayers with established in a public sector and potentially a very expensive and time-consuming burden, and of course wide-open to vexatious misuse.

Amendment 83 removes employers having to be responsible for their customers being overheard talking about matters of the day, and if the proposers of the bill had visited a pub, for example, they would know that a pub is a parliament in which customers have just as much right to discuss the ways of the world as we do here in this Parliament. Amendment 85 refers to the hospitality sector, sports venues, and higher education settings. To given example close to home and why it is needed in the hospitality sector, say I invited someone to visit me here in your lot ships house and this person did not have English as their first language.

Further, my guest had stopped at red lion on the way here for refreshments. And if after the meeting I took him or her down to the restaurant for a quick meal, and if this guest happened to see that one of the items on the menu was a curry, and the guest remarked on the unprotected characteristic employee serving the curry that no one in England knows how to make a proper curry, and that remark was overheard by a chef with a protected characteristic, this overhearing person could take this real or vexed issues offence and the House of Lords to the tribunal, or, more likely, after several months and thousands of pounds, what would be a pre-tribunal tax funded payoff.

I am sure that noble Lords do not need reminded that these vexatious claims are significant contributors to the 50,000 tribunal case hearings awaiting that time back log. Indeed, they would be laughing stocks for allowing our own legislation to be used against us like this, or even to exist at all in the wider context. But 85 should only apply to sports venues would be obvious if proposers had attended a sports event. Where support for a competing individual or team is necessarily enthusiastic and often boisterous.

The crowds speech is so impossible for the venue employer to control, a protected characteristic steward takes offence at the remark aimed directly at an official and employers would inevitably raise waivers with the organisers who might quite reasonably think the whole idea is not worth the gamble, and so unintended consequences would strike again as we recently saw with the terrorism protection offence law, leading to a long-standing local event in one case 150 year old local flower shed being cancelled.

Because it was caught in the collateral damage of well- intentioned legislation. Just like this part of the bill we are discussing now. Amendment 85 also seeks to exempt higher education settings, where, surely, hearing and coping with diverse opinions is what education is supposed to be about. Amendment 86 seeks to remove any offence taken by casual overhearing, if that happens just once. By applying the rule to make the offender causing offence doing so on purpose rather than by mistake casually.

Or with the recent enormous rising employees whose first language is not English, doing so through an understandable lack of familiarity with the language. And with its nuances, subtext, sarcasms and ironies that a native speaker would understand. Amendment 88 seems the most reasonable of all. Removing the overhearing aspect of the legislation which is not only the one most open to vexatious claims, for which you are no employer can reasonably be held responsible under any foreseeable circumstances. My Lords, I hope that after hearing all of the arguments against these clauses, the Government will agree that these amendments remove the most egregious parts of it.

And bring an amendment of reality to their full these unforeseeable and uncontrollable circumstances in which the employers might find themselves.
18:29
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 83 tabled in the name of my Noble Friend, the Lord Hoyle of Acton and others in this group tabled by my Noble Friend. I would like to reflect on the practical implications of these amendments for companies that receive visitors in the course of their business. As noble Lords may be aware, I work for the international American insurance broker. We are fortunate to welcome clients from across the globe, individuals from many cultures with diverse values.

Who come to London to discuss their insurance needs. As the Noble Lord noted, we are guided by a strong internal code of conduct known as the greater good. This code outlines our organisation values, individual responsibilities. It is built on three pillars. When with integrity, you are never alone, and speak up. These and suppose are designed to ensure a safe, respectful, and inclusive environment for all our employees, wherever in the world we operate. It matters not whether it is London or However, we cannot reasonably expect all our visitors to our offices to be bound by the same code, much as we might expect it, nor can we protect or control every comment made.

Is it really fair or practical to hold companies liable for remarks made by visitor, remarks that may be touched on political, moral, religious or social matters as we have heard? That are not indecent or grossly offensive but which might nonetheless be perceived as offensive by an employee or another guest. My Lords, such a standard would replace an impossible burden on businesses as we have heard. Not just the hospitality and so on. It is simply not feasible to monitor all pre-empt every interaction that takes place on our premises.

Consider for example a casual exchange will be between two clients, overheard by a member of staff, or a third-party, may be another client from a different part of the world. I would like to think this would never happen. But life is never predictable. Should the company be responsible for that? I would argue not. In effect, the legislation is to discourage companies from welcoming clients from crossbench to their offices. They will risk undermining one of the most successful and globally respected industries, the insurance industry.

This alone all the other industries in this country. This is a sector that contributes significantly to our economy through invisible earnings and supports the government 's growth agenda. For these reasons, I support these amendments. They offer a realistic approach to the responsibilities of business while continuing to uphold the principles of dignity and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respect in the workplace. It has been helpful, the anxious

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been helpful, the anxious speeches during this debate, I'm speeches during this debate, I'm grateful to colleagues but also to the noble Lady Baroness Carberry, the noble Lady Baroness Carberry, whose intervention this afternoon is problem the most enlightening and the most helpful. And I say that
18:33
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
the most helpful. And I say that because throughout her speech, she described how improbable it was that anything described in the other speeches would happen. Unfortunately, we don't have the promise of Baroness Carberry, adjudicating on the claims that will be brought as a result of this clause. I should have declared at the outset that I spent 15 years as a libel barrister, specialising in media law and freedom of expression and I'm also a commissioner of EHRC.

I know only too well that the law, as attended, gets misconstrued. If one looks back at the EHRC's code of practice in relation to equal pay, one sees very clearly that code was issued under Trevor Phillips, very clearly that it was never intended to be deployed in litigation which has resulted in the bankrupting Birmingham council or in the absolutely constraining circumstances imposed on large companies. It's just not there. Similarly, the reputation of our immigration tribunal's is on the floor.

Because they are, likewise, applying provisions in the Human Rights Act, which are banned by in the EH rates are to apply, but they are applying them in a subject of ways. Absurd ways, ways I don't doubt for a minute that Baroness Carberry would throughout if they were in front of her. What are we to do? We know there is common sense in all sides of this chamber but our job is to scrutinise the legislation and to ensure that when it gets to court and to a judge, it can be properly implied and safely applied, and that is the reason why I stand in support of these amendments and/or some of them, but there must be away, and I beseech the noble Lord the Minister, to review this, and look at what anxieties on this side of the House could be closed by some of these amendments.

I have also done a search of the article 10 case law under the human rights and European legislation where there has been tension in other countries. France, for example, where employees were harassed because of smoking outside, only in France of course. Germany, because they were wearing uniforms while biking. But in all of those cases, article 10 rights were protected because the legislation was specifically drafted to say the harassment was directed at the employee. When one looks at the original clause here, that isn't safely drafted.

And that is why I'm writing to my feet to ask the Minister that she looks at this again. It isn't clear that it is only direct discrimination or harassment of an employee that will be caught by this. That is why, we have had so many speeches this afternoon, worried about what loopholes are being allowed to happen with the clause is currently drafted. To be compliant with out a call tone, we need to tighten it. We need, in this chamber, we need to scrutinise it and ensure that the message goes back to the government, that it needs to be tightened.

The other thing, Baroness Carr so beautifully enunciated in her speech was how it ought to be a reasonable perception of the activity that was deemed to be harassment. And again, you would hope that any sensible court would look at that and say, yes, absolutely. But that test isn't in the clause is currently drafted. I'm going to read it. It's not there is currently drafted. Clause 20, harassment by third-party. In section 40 of the Equality Act 2010, employees and applicants asked for...

And employer A must not permit third-party to harass a person B who is an employee, though. That is the first problem, we don't define, we don't limit the harassment to direct harassment. And we need to do that. To ensure that the way Baroness Carberry envisages the will actually be applied and interpreted by tribunal's, we need to ensure that that is tightened. For the purposes of subsection 1, A, it permits third-party to harass B only of the third-party harasser is still no tightening of the definition of harass, in the course of employment by A, in the case, A took steps to prevent the third- party funding to.

The party means a person of than A or an employee of A. No reference at all in that section to test the court is to apply to the perception by the employee of the harassment. All of the European cases by which we are still bound require an objective test to safeguard our rights under article 10 and what I have heard this afternoon is that there is no dispute between the two sides of this House, and that is the right thing to do to protect article 10 and the balance that it happens here.

That test is not in this section. And that is why the proposed amendment here also important. We need that test and we need that direction of the harassment at a specific person, so that it cannot scoop up the other conversations or any of the other activities that are happening around, must be, like the French case, the German case, all the other cases which anyone is welcome to look up as I did, and for that This.
18:40
18:42
Lord Fox Portrait Lord Fox (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
he would add something to your Lordship's House from which we would Lordship's House from which we would benefit. I think that has two great benefit. I think that has two great extent revealed itself today. In a cleverly and carefully constructed cleverly and carefully constructed strawman, he has set up today's debate. And that strawman has been paraded, hoisted aloft, by a series of speeches, either wittingly or of speeches, either wittingly or unwittingly, this apprehending the unwittingly, this apprehending the purpose of clause 20.

But before we purpose of clause 20. But before we get to little more of that, I have been worrying, and I have been worrying about the word banter. It's worrying about the word banter. It's a word that causes me to worry. I will explain to the noble Lord young will explain to the noble Lord young why I find the word worrying. The word house, as long as I can word house, as long as I can remember, been used as a defence. It was only a bit of banter.

It was only a bit of banter about what was it? It was justifying racism, sexism and homophobia, since time immemorial. So I was very surprised that the man who understands words the way that the noble Lord young does would have coined that phrase. I think the alliteration works, but I'm really not happy with the word I'm really not happy with the word banter. Because however, as I understand it, the point of this bill is not the noble Lord 's strawman of policing personal conversations.

No, what this is for is to take on the problem of workplace bullying by customers and uses a particular facilities and ensure that the employers adequately defend the workers. Particularly those who have to interact with the public and to my otherwise feel exposed. I briefly drag this debate into the practical reality of many people. Often young, who work in industries where contact with customers is unmediated. I ran a bar after graduating for a year and I know it's like for people working in those environments.

It's largely in service industries, the very industries that some of your Lordships seat to absent from this bill. -- Seek to. Understanding of this part of the bill is that it aims to protect people from having to withstand unreasonable behaviour. And I think if we were to throughout this objective in the way that these amendments adjust which is actually to declare that we don't care about the plight of these employees and how they are treated. Baroness Fox talked about the customer is always right and what that is one of the problems, in the past, bosses have taken the side of customers against employees because they need to trade.

And this is a bill that seeks, a clause that seeks to address that. There are other potential economic benefits. For example, many people talk a lot about recruitment problems in the service industry. One of the ways of enhancing such jobs would be for potential recruits to know that the employer has their back. Good employers already do this. Many do it already. Everybody needs to know that there is an expectation across-the-board that they will be protected. Echoing Mike right at the very start of the committee, we need to see how the government expects this to operate, and here I do join forces with the Baroness Noakes.

We need to see what the draft regulations will look like and we need to understand how the guidelines will interpret those regulations, so that I think your Lordships can be calmed down and brought down from the position where we are now. And I think one of the issues is the skeletal nature of this bill makes to paint the very worst picture that they can and worst picture that they can and direct the biggest, I would say,...

But without any sense, constructing their own fears and bringing them here which I think is what we have seen, we have seen synthetic, that is the word I was looking for, a synthetic rage about something that does not exist and will not exist. But we need those guidelines and we need to understand before we get to need to understand before we get to report how the Minister and the Government will take this forward, but that is the only issue we need but that is the only issue we need to fill in the details.

This strawman is a straw man and I genuinely believe the Government is genuinely believe the Government is right in pursuing this entry on the benches will support that.
18:47
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
I wonder whether I might contribute. I apologise to the committee that I did not leap to my feet. I was, I was sitting over there. I apologise to the Noble Lord Fox for speaking after him, and I am sure he is welcome to speak after me if he might disagree with anything I have to say. Obviously, I am a barrister, as many of the Ministers this evening, I practised in the Employment Tribunals Act in human rights and was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Joint committees wrote to the Government in respect of this bill Government in respect of this bill expressing concerns that were reflected by the equality and human in particular the potential for a conflict between the right to freedom of expression guaranteed as we heard from various noble Lords and the article 8 right to a private and family life.

And on that dancing exercise it would be difficult for many employers to carry out and the previous iterations of measures of this type included safeguards which have been omitted from this bill, as have been omitted from this bill, as the Noble Lord Young pointed out. In the worker protection amendment of Equality Act 2023 there was a measure which sought to place a duty on employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of their employees which is now section 40 a of the Equality Act and during its passage in Parliament that bill included provisions which sought to induce a duty on employers to prevent nonsexual harassment of their employees by third parties.

That was of course one of that bill brought in the House of Commons. That section failed and the provision would have required all reasonable steps to be taken to prevent harassment of the employee solely because they did not seek to prevent expression of an opinion in circumstances where the conduct constituted harassment involved a conversation in which an employee was not a participant. In short, the Government have failed so far to answer the question from the Joint committees as to its reasoning for not including an act for overhead opinions in the new duty in clause 20 of the Employment Rights Bill.

And that had been echoed in the original iteration of the 2010 Equality Act as passed by the previous Government under sections 40 subsection to subsection 4 of the Equality Act as originally enacted. And that would have required an employer to be liable for third- party harassment were the employer fails to take such steps as would have been reasonable to prevent the harassment, however in order to be vulnerable the employer would have had to none that they've been harassed on at least a number of occasions by a third-party puzzle the Government has decided not to adopt the same three strikes policy contained in the provisions, or indeed in the earlier potential measure posed in the 2023 act.

And, instead, what we have is a rule- making power which it is said will provide what steps are to be regarded as reasonable, but, to my mind, there sits uneasily with the mandatory terms set out in the clause 20 suppose one, and for those reasons it should not be a part of this legislation.
18:51
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank my noble friend's Lord Young of Acton and Baroness Noakes very much for their expert valuable and I think important introductions and insight into this. I also would like to thank my noble friend's for their practical, legal, and indeed philosophical objections to clause 20, which, perhaps, noble Lords will be pleased to know I may regard as strawman arguments. Think it was also wise of my Noble Friend to note that these are men and have the support of hospitality UK and also of the British Beer and Pub Association.

These amendments are vital in ensuring that we do not inadvertently restrict fundamental rights of free expression in the workplace and beyond we can all recognise the importance of protecting employees from harassment and it is not about not caring about their plight, as the Noble Lord Fox implied, it is also about ensuring we are not creating a framework that stifles open and honest conversation, and that is especially true in matters of political, moral, or political debate. Clause 20, as it stands, yes, as my Noble Friend Baroness Cash pointed out, poorly drafted, and therefore risks leading to unintended consequences in fact, I would agree with the Noble Lady Baroness Deech in her comments about the speech I think the Noble Lady made a very persuasive case that clause 20 is actually superfluous in its current form.

The inclusion of speech was a conversation that simply expresses an opinion on a political, moral or social issue that would lead to significant restrictions on individuals freedom to speak openly. This could lead to employees feeling they cannot express their thoughts and ideas or perhaps being penalised for exposing an opinion that someone else might find uncomfortable or offensive. And as my Noble Friend has pointed out we must be mindful of the unintended consequences that can arise from an overbroad definition of harassment.

Both he and the Noble Lord Londesborough gave very strong examples and if I mess because a fellow West Ham United fan I am very aware that being a supporter of the club can be a very testing experience and drive onto the occasional profanity. It is not just in sports where these concerns arise. Think about public spaces like pubs, as we have been hearing about. If an individual has a conversation that they find offensive or upsetting, where does the line by? What happens if somebody misunderstand something that is said and is taken to unemployment tribunal? As a case of harassment.

In such situations, the burden placed on employers would become unreasonable. Would they be required to intervene every time someone overhears an opinion that they find discomforting? Or indeed just dislike. And, if I may ask, it is a genuine question, how are people supposed to judge wary conversation is obviously fake or not. In fact, as my Noble Friend Lord Young and monster argued are we expecting the public as a finely calibrated judgement on ECHR ruled 10? In particular, and those judgements we should remember that even senior police officers who are trained in these matters often struggle to make.

Employers will inevitably error on the side of cautious. That is chilling. I believe that we must ensure that harassment in this context remains focused on behaviours that are truly indecent or grossly offensive and not on speech that is merely uncomfortable. People must have the right to engage in conversations to express different opinions and to debate issues of public importance without the fear of being accused of harassment. To allow an employer to be forced into silencing this kind of expression or encouraged into silencing this kind of expression would be a serious violation of freedom of speech, which is of cough a cornerstone of our democracy and society.

The amendment before us offer a balance. Ensure that they are not required to prevent their employers from expressing those opinions, provided they're not indecent or offensive. This is a reasonable and sensible approach. It respects individuals rights to express their views without creating an environment where every opinion has the potential to be deemed harassment. Moreover, these amendments recognise a specific context in which such protection should apply. Excluding certain sectors like the hospitality industry, sports venues and higher education, we acknowledge the diverse nature of these environments with regard to disagreement and the expression of different opinions often the fabric of daily life.

To apply district same rules which can be misguided. The Noble Lord Fox may well say this is not the purpose of clause 20, but as my Noble Friend Baroness Cash pointed out and Lord Murray has pointed out that drafting Or unlikely to be the effect. The requirement for repeated instances of harassment before an employer must take action is outlined in amendment 86, aligned with the principles of proportionality. We should not expect employers to become the arbiters of every comment or opinion expressed, especially when such comments are made in good faith.

The amendment rightly recognises that harassment should be something that occurs repeatedly, not something that might result from a single isolated incident of disagreement and discomfort. I agree with my Noble Friend Lord Young of Acton, this is a solution, not a problem or perhaps based on the statistics a sledgehammer instead of a note. Please do not forget when responding to the Noble Lady Baroness Noakes, for example, of territorial extent. And these issues are clearly not going away, so I would urge the Government to think very seriously as it stands clause 20 really does need rewriting.
18:57
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
Can I find that noble Lords who have spoken? And I hope I can reassure your Lordships house on the government's approach as well as settings and what I feel are some considerable misunderstandings on how the provisions will operate, and I should stress at the outset that provisions in the bill will reject employees whilst preserving existing human rights such as freedom of speech which I hope we can all agree our core British values and also caught it, writes and with that comes responsibilities.

If I'm out first address the noble Lords young, the noble Baronesses Fox, who oppose clause 20. And I also grateful to the Noble Lord Young of Acton for meeting with me to share his views and when we met he pushed his position with me that his proposals were anti-banter, or our proposals are, should I say, and he is reiterating that today. Can I make it clear that we are anti- harassment, not an Thai banter. And this is what clause 20 delivers.

And I agree with the Noble Lord Fox that I feel we have been subjected to a wave of synthetic rage by many on the other benches this evening, giving examples which would simply not be covered by the harassment provisions in clause 20. Not only does this go against the Manifesto in which this Government was elected but it would also deprive employees of the protection from all kinds of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act, 2010. No, this Government is committed to tackling all forms of harassment in the workplace.

In order to make workplaces safe when must require employees to create or maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment. Including by third parties. Including when a customer is sexually harassed they have very few effective options to seek legal redress, even if her employers make no effort whatsoever to address the issue. The only possible action in this scenario at present is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to exercise its unique enforcement powers against the employer.

However, such powers can only be used very selectively and strategically by the commission and it would be unlikely to be used on anything other than an exceptional case. Of course, sexual harassment is certainly not the only type of harassment that is experienced in the workplace. Employees can experience racial harassment, harassment related to other disability or harassment related to other protected characteristics. And in the case of nonsexual harassment, not even the possibility of enforcement exists at present. As such, clause 20 is required for employees to be able to seek legal redress where they have experienced third-party harassment, and to ensure that employers are Harassment in the workplace can contribute to issues such as employees underperforming at work, high staff turnover, staff shortages and lack of diversity in the workplace.

All of these can be costly for businesses. This is what most good employers already have policies which seek to protect their Feeling safe at work improves employees well-being, resulting in reduced stress and anxiety and therefore reduced illness, burnout, staff turnover, staff are likely to be more motivated and creative, resulting in increased innovation and productivity. In contrast to the noble Lady Baroness Fox and others, I would say our measures would be good for business, not bad for business. The burden of holding perpetrators to account and of driving change is too great to be shouldered alone by employees who have experienced harassment.

These cases are too serious to be dismissed as examples of banter. We know that the vast majority of employers agree that harassment is unacceptable and they are working to ensure that there employees are treated with respect and will go on working with partnership with them towards a shared goal and supporting them with these changes. A wide- ranging employers in the hospitality sector such as Hawksmoor and curb welcome the new harassment measures that will help create a safe, respectful workplace for everyone.

If I turn to the specifics of the amendments in this group, firstly amendment 83, 84, 85, 86 and 88 in the names of the noble Lords young of Acton, Lord Strathcarron and noble Baroness teach in Baroness May, they seek to create exemptions from employer liability for harassment meaning certain conversations would not be in the scope of clause 20 other workplace harassment protections more widely. They also add a new concept of indirect harassment so that employers only have to protect their employees from nonsexual third-party harassment if it is directed at the employee which would carve out over heard conversations, and in addition the noble Baroness Lady Noakes has tabled an amendment 87 so that in deciding whether conduct amounts to harassment in the workplace, various factors must be taken into account, notably whether the conduct was an isolated incident.

I would like to assure all noble Lords there is no need for such amendments as the law ready covers this and clause 20 does not threaten free speech. My noble friend Baroness Carberry set out the case in a very compelling way, much better than I am able to do but it is important to reiterate that there has been a lot of misinformation and inaccuracy about what this clause will require of employers and its impact on freedom of expression. Today couple of examples, this clause will not require employers to foresee the wholly unforeseeable or foresee the wholly unforeseeable or control every customers private conversations.

It will not require public laws or anyone else to act as the banter police. It would not the banter police. It would not since the will fans or because... Harassment requires more than a subjective offence taking. I daresay the noble Lord Lord Young was aware of this before he tabled his amendment. I would say to the noble Lady Baroness Fox and the noble Lord Lord Londesborough and others that that football clubs quite rightly have policies to protect staff from abuse. My own football club, Brighton and Hove Albion, make it absolutely clear they have a zero tolerance policy to abuse and defines breaks that they will be eventually sanctioned and removed from the stadium.

But I also have to say there are really serious problems in football grounds, racism as we know in the past has been widespread. It's been quite right that they have been major campaigns to stamp out racism in football so we can't just allow some of that bad behaviour to be condoned or allowed as banter in the words of the noble as banter in the words of the noble Lord. No carveout so needed as the hospitality, for the hospitality sector because they are experienced in dealing with incidents of harassment by customers and making judgement calls about steps to take.

For example how they handle customers who are racist when drunk. I reiterate that this clause is about harassment, not banter. The definition of harassment means significantly more than conduct that leads to the taking of offence in order for it to be unlawful. Conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet the definition of harassment. To meet this test it is not enough for the claimant to simply feel someone's conduct is Where the Speaker had not intended to create an intimidating hostile or degrading mediating or offensive environment the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have had that effect.

This is an objective test in which the reasonableness and the facts of the individual situation must always be considered. An isolated or one-off incident including an overhead conversation is much less likely to create such an environment in itself. As compared to continuing acts as a factor that unemployment tribunal already needs to consider. And this could of course include the one-off incident listed by the noble Lords about whether it's the quality of a carryall the various political views mentioned in the debate.

We do not agree that traditional carveout for one-off incidents or overheard conversations are necessary. Likewise introducing new concepts to allow for these carveout would, Kate the law unnecessarily. Employers already have an understanding of how to apply protections in practice and new concepts could cause confusion. Even when such tests are met, tribunal's will be required to 's competing rights on the facts of a particular case .this includes the right to freedom of expression and freedom of thought, justice, conscience and religion under articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as academic freedom.

We can say quite clearly that any step that has a disproportionate interference with a third parties right to freedom of expression would not be considered a reasonable step. The second key point to make is that the steps unemployed can reasonably take in respect of third parties are clearly more limited than in respect of their employees and this will be taken account of by an employment tribunal. Nevertheless, employers obviously have some form of obligation to make sure that their employees are protected and examples of this could include signage or a could form part of conditions of service.

This isn't owners or burdensome, as these signs already exist in spaces such as pubs, universities and sports venues -- owner is. Good employers already make their employees and customers aware they have a zero tolerance approach and quite right too. Indeed on the subject of signage, my noble Lords will be familiar with in this House, dotted around our Parliament notices detailing behavioural code, making clear everyone on the estate should treat one another with respect and unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously.

Do noble Lords think this has had a chilling effect on free speech in this place? Amendment 85 also seeks

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to significantly reduce the scope... Can I just clarify because I do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just clarify because I do understand that the noble Baroness, there is some confusion over what there is some confusion over what the definition of harassment is as the definition of harassment is as in the law because if you said to me, and I for the harassment of workers, I would say of course I'm not for the harassment of employers not for the harassment of employers and workers but the law and the way the law defines harassment can mean, physically indirect harassment, some physically indirect harassment, some of the issues that were raised and the right noble Lord Lord Fox imagining we have all been whipped up into some synthetic rage by the noble Lord Lord Young because we are incapable of working out what we think about a piece of legislation ourselves, that to one side, there ourselves, that to one side, there is concern about free speech and now I'm confused about what the Minister I'm confused about what the Minister is saying free speech is.

She keeps saying, we can't allow some of that bad behaviour to be allowed, that unacceptable behaviour to be unacceptable behaviour to be allowed. Is that part of the legislation? What unacceptable behaviour? Is it detailed in the law? Which things are you talking about? One thing a football team has got rules, but if you come up with a new behaviour code that society must adopt, in this bill, because I haven't seen the detail.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There's harassment and what we're debating now is third-party debating now is third-party harassment. And what I'm trying to say is that obviously tribunal's would have to take into account the practicality of enforcing third- party harassment and I have been trying to set out the grounds on trying to set out the grounds on which that would be considered reasonable and unreasonable so obviously that would have to be obviously that would have to be considered case-by-case but nevertheless, the issue here is very different from an employees absolute different from an employees absolute right not to be harassed directly in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the workplace. I thank the noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord the Minister. I'm a bit puzzled as to Minister. I'm a bit puzzled as to how will the tribunal measure this alleged harassment given the alleged harassment given the different interpretations that could different interpretations that could be put on it, which the law itself, there are some conflicts as we have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

heard today? I thought I had explained that actually. In the description that I actually. In the description that I have just given. And I don't really want to have to repeat it. I think I want to have to repeat it. I think I explained the grounds that would considered, harassment compared to something that was acceptable something that was acceptable behaviour. Amendment 85 also seeks to significantly reduce the scope of to significantly reduce the scope of Sports venues and higher education for stock this would create a disparity in the hierarchy of protections across employers and sectors leaving swathes of employers without equal protection.

This can't be justified given employees, employers the sectors would only be employers the sectors would only be required to deal with reasonable, and this will depend on their specific circumstances. Amendment 86 6 to reinstate the three stripe rule that was repealed in 2013. However that was repealed in 2013. However as I have said on isolated or one- off incident is much less likely to amount to harassment, as compared to continuing acts. The recent free- speech union campaign against this clause stated that " where the Equality Act was originally passed it included a clause making employers liable for the harassment of employees by third-party but it was third parties, but it was repealed in 2013 because it proved to be so so difficult for employers to comply with.

" We agree with that. And we agree we shouldn't make that mistake again. And we can't see why Lord Young factor and would wish to impose the unnecessary cost and burdens on employers at this amendment would bring. I contrast the government's approach will make it simpler for employers to understand their obligations and will ensure victims can be confident they are protected by law. Turning now to amendment 93, 94, 95, 96, 89,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

91 and 92 table by the nodal bonus Lady Noakes... I'm grateful to the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. In relation to the last passage of the speech, it appears to be the position of the government that is not accepted that carve outs for three strikes carve outs for three strikes unnecessary because that would impose a burden on business. And the Explanatory Notes to the bill, and to the Equality Act, specifically state that in determining the effect of the unwanted conduct, courts and of the unwanted conduct, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights, point the noble Lady has just made.

Will she not accept that just made. Will she not accept that the effect of the provision as its present drafted would be for sensible employer to take overly sensible employer to take overly defensive approaches to prevent action is being brought against them action is being brought against them under these provisions and it's that reaction which will cause a stifling of free-speech, is that something this House is worried about?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I cannot see why we should carve out for some of the areas that are out for some of the areas that are the most customer facing sectors, where the sorts of harassment we are talking about is more probable to be prevalent, I cannot see the point of all of that. Surely every employee in this country has the same was to be protected from harassment and be protected from harassment and that is what we are attempting to achieve here. I have to say to the noble Lord, most of the pubs and noble Lord, most of the pubs and sports grounds that I frequent already have these policies.

So is already have these policies. So is the minority of pubs, offices the source of pubs that the noble Lord Lord Young likes to go to where they Lord Young likes to go to where they Lord Young likes to go to where they don't have those policies. But most people would like to frequent places where they feel the customers are treated with respect and have that treated with respect and have that treated with respect and have that I will not list all of those amendments again.

These amendments seek to make the steps in the regulation that we need to do. This would remove the flexible and context independent nature coming to the proposed requirements. This creates a tick box exercise attached to the actual risks to employees at any given workplace stop it could also leave employees unable to seek redress because an employer was not invited to stick steps that could have prevented it. Employers are already considering the specific circumstances and taking steps to avoid social harassment of their employees to comply with the duty that came into force in October, so taking such steps would not be new to them.

Unlike these amendments, we do not wish to undermine and employers expertise. Therefore, the Government also proposes the amendment that seeks to make it a requirement that the Government must make these regulations was indeed, we will maintain the flexibility while only creating requirements for specific steps to be taken when the evidence justifies this, providing employers with certainty in certain areas. As such, we will only introduce steps where there is a strong evidence-based that they are affecting in combating sexual harassment. It will also take sick careful incineration of who they apply to because we do not want to enforce a one size fits all approach.

This is a complicated area and we can see better practice evolving over time and the flexibility is required to ensure that this remains up-to-date, therefore this power will also allow changes were necessary in the future without needing further primary legislation. The noble Baroness Noakes also seeks to require other forms of harassment in this section of the Equality Act 2010. This would broaden the intended scope of the regulations under this power which is to assist the employment tribunal when considering whether an employer has taken more reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.

Any such broadening would require careful consideration and consultation with employers or would otherwise risk unintended consequences. This is why we will ensure that any regulations that are made at clarity for employers and employees, hoping to avoid the need for claims being informed to an deployment tribunal at all. The Noble Lady Baroness Noakes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the Minister explain why clause 21 only gives power to the clause 21 only gives power to the secretary of state made provisions relations to these steps for sexual harassment but not nonsexual harassment. I think she said something about a scenario where something about a scenario where there was evidence that this would be useful. I cannot remember the exact words that the Noble Lady used. And I cannot understand why she has not, the Government had not she has not, the Government had not extended the logic of giving assistance in this area to assistance in this area to tribunal's beyond sexual harassment.

Especially given the broadening of Especially given the broadening of the extent of nonsexual harassment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by including third parties. My Lords, I can only say it is for the reasons I have outlined previously in my speech and we want previously in my speech and we want to make sure that where we do broaden the protection they are done on a very careful basis and achieve

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the desired effect. Broadening projections, we are

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Broadening projections, we are talking about setting out what constitutes reasonable steps in the constitutes reasonable steps in the case of sexual harassment which is included in clause 21 and other included in clause 21 and other kinds of harassment which, in comprehensively, is not included in clause 21. I am simply asking by the Government have gone down that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular route. I think the easiest thing is if I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the easiest thing is if I wrote to the Noble Lady to explain, this is obviously based on previous this is obviously based on previous experiences and I would write to the Noble Lady. And can I also say I would just follow-up with a previous would just follow-up with a previous question which was about the jurisdiction of the bill on overseas jurisdiction of the bill on overseas employees, so whilst I cannot necessarily speak to the examples necessarily speak to the examples she raised, the bill does for the jurisdiction of employment tribunal is beyond their current jurisdiction is beyond their current jurisdiction over any overseas employees, so the situation will remain as it stands.

I have spoken for some time now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the Noble Lady explain what the current territorial extent is then for tribunal cases?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am presuming that it is where employees are based here in the UK, employees are based here in the UK, but if I am wrong I will write to the Noble Lady and clarify. In conclusion, I grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these immense, but for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. The Government is on the side of workers, not abusers, and we will workers, not abusers, and we will ensure that workers have their protections at work that they deserve.

I therefore ask that amendment 83 is withdrawn and that amendment 83 is withdrawn and that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clause 20 stands part of the bill. Before the Noble Lady Baroness Stern, very briefly, I did ask that she sets out in some detail how she sets out in some detail how these regulations and future regulations and these clauses will work in practice and I do hope she

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is able to take that on board for the committee. I will attempt to update your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will attempt to update your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will attempt to update your chips house on these issues at the time suggested. Before the nobility sits down, my I just ask her about one very troubling case which I am sure is useful. Professor Stock from the useful. Professor Stock from the University of Essex faced three years of doubting because she had and still holds gender critical views. She was bullied and harassed views. She was bullied and harassed by students and other staff, resulting in her resigning.

The University was fined for breaches of freedom of speech, but the freedom of speech, but the University still continues according to the Vice Chancellor's belief that the fine was wrong and that free the fine was wrong and that free speech was being hindered by, speech was being hindered by, presumably, Professor Stock's having presumably, Professor Stock's having to resign. How would close 20 effect this well-known situation? Professor Stock, bullied for three years because of her gender critical views. The University, like all universities, signs everywhere that is we do not tolerate abuse, et cetera but that does not do much good.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I do not think it is appropriate to talk about an individual case, to talk about an individual case, but can I make it absolutely clear here that we are committed to defending free speech and upholding academic freedom? The significant penalty shoot in the Office for penalty shoot in the Office for Students that will take action where universities failed to do so. If you go to university, you must be prepared to have your views challenged, here contrary opinions and be exposed to uncomfortable and be exposed to uncomfortable truths.

We recently announced we are giving the OfS stronger powers on freedom of speech. The sector needs freedom of speech. The sector needs to take academic freedom and freedom of speech seriously and we hope that of speech seriously and we hope that the report and action will incentivise providers to fully comply their freedom of speech duties.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

duties. I thank you for an excellent debate. I thought on all sides of the House. I think the noble Lords who have contributed. Just one final who have contributed. Just one final point, the Noble Lady the Minister made, the government's commitment to academic freedom and free speech and upholding them in universities, it was not particularly clear at the beginning of the government's term within days of getting her feet under the desk Richard Phillips had torpedoed the higher education freedom of speech act, and has only reluctantly agreed to implement some of the clauses that were due to be implemented last year on August 1 thanks to a judicial review brought by the free-speech union.

I am not sure that the Noble Lady the baroness responded to the point that might no front Baroness Noakes asked, every good question, but without the liability of employers for the party harassment would for the party harassment would extend to their employees overseas. I would think like to respond in a bit of detail to the points made by
19:26
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
the Noble Lady of Muswell Hill. One the Noble Lady of Muswell Hill. One of the safeguards she mentioned against the over application is that against the over application is that only someone with the relevant only someone with the relevant protected characteristic, only an protected characteristic, only an Sue if they had been offended or upset, if they were harassed by virtue of that protected virtue of that protected characteristic that is not quite accurate. You do not have to have the protected characteristic in question to sue your employer for failing to protect someone with that protected characteristic from being protected characteristic from being harassed, as established in the case of English versus Thomas Sanderson Ltd, in which someone did successfully sue the tribunal for successfully sue the tribunal for not protecting a notional employee with a relevant characteristic and she, herself, did not have the she, herself, did not have the protected characteristic.

They also said it was very unlikely that an employee could sue their employer for failing to take all reasonable steps to protect them from overhearing remarks, jokes, et cetera. Made by customers or members of the public. But, actually, in the case of that shoesmith's in the tribunal, a woman did successfully, For a conversation she overheard about immigration. She was a Nigerian lady and she found this conversation, she overheard, was not directed at her, she overheard it she found the conversation upsetting or offensive in virtue of her protected characteristic.

If that woman had been employed in Downing Street and his aides last week about the speech, the primitive is about to give up on immigration it might well be that she could have sued the civil service for not taking more reasonable steps to protect her from being harassed and that we overhearing a conversation about immigration that she found offensive or upsetting. And if the Noble Lady sincerely believes that clause 20 is not intended to be invoked then why not accept amendment 88 to exempt employers from being sued for indirect third party harassment? We have had a lot of arguments on the other side of the House that the that my Noble Friends and I and other noble Lords have suggested have ways of improving and clarifying exactly what the steps are to take to protect third party harassment.

We have heard the argument over and over again that they are completely unnecessary because the clauses not intended for things like overheard conversations and banter to be its scope, but it seems a little naive to imagine that the clause will only be applied in ways that Government currently intends. What about unintended consequences. You said that you were not untied banter, just anti harassment. I am an Thai unintended consequences, and if you want to avoid these unintended consequences materialising, if you want to avoid these vexatious complainers, complaints being brought, if you want to avoid eccentric decisions being made by the tribunal, why not clarify exactly what the limits of employers liability is by accepting some of these amendments? My Noble Friend, no, the Noble Lord accused me of erecting a straw man and said that I was trying to generate synthetic rage with the risks I claim arises from this court.

Well, it is not synthetic. It is real, and I know this because the free-speech union has taken on I can think of at least five cases in which people have been silenced because of a misunderstanding about the Equality Act, because of the belief that the Equality Act, as it stands, does require employers to protect their employers from third-party harassment, the Noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley mentioned that one of the likely consequences of this clause is that gender critical diminished groups might find it difficult to book spaces in public and other venues for fear that trans-and other folk of those venues that I'd object that merely inviting people with those views into the pub would constitute a form of harassment.

I can tell you that as happened three times, we have got three cases of gender critical female groups being rejected from pubs because the managers have misunderstood what their responsibilities are, what their legal duties are under the Equality Act. They believe that it does extend to protecting their trans and non-binary employees from being harassed by allowing third parties to discuss views they find offensive or deeply upsetting and or deeply upsetting and disagreeable. The case of Rosa Friedman and Joe Phoenix, to feminist professors, both of whom were no platforms at Essex University.

They were no platforms because a policy at Essex University wrongly said that the University had a responsibility to protect its employees from third-party Aqua Randolph was investigated to see what happened and why it was these two professors had been no platforms and she concluded that the policy that had been invoked which referenced the University's duty to protect its employees from third- party harassment was, she said, "in my view the policy which stated the law as Stonewall would prefer it to be rather than the law as it is.

" It's not synthetic. I can give you numerous examples of how and imaginative duty has been invoked to silence, to no platform people, whose views, political activists, who work for those organisations, disagree with. It's not synthetic, it's not a strawman. I just found an article in the trade magazine of the HR sector, personnel today, which found that in 2024, 57 cases involving banter were brought before the employment tribunal. How many more will be brought before the employment? If clause 20 is passed.

employment? If clause 20 is passed. I thought my noble friend Lord Strathcarron pointed out, made a very good point, in claiming that this clause has been branded bunkers, and gave several excellent examples, the bonkers way, in which it could be enforced. My noble friend Lord Ashcombe explained how hard it would be, even for large employers to comply with this clause, not just SMEs. As my noble friend Baroness Cash pointed out, the law is applied in unpredictable ways.

Just to respond to a couple of the points that the noble Lady the Minister made, she said, about the three strike laws, I have not understood the point about this, you said that if you replicate it, the three strike caveat that was originally in the third-party harassment clause in the Equality Act is enacted, it would place an undue burden on employers. But when we met you refer to our meeting earlier, when we met, one of your object -- objections to caveat in the clause in that way was that between 2009 2013 only two cases for third-party harassment were brought third-party harassment were brought before the tribunal.

It sounds to me as the value want more cases to be brought before the tribunal which will place a greater burden on employers, not lower burden on employers. And the caveat of the third-party harassment clause, the weight was caveat would reduce the burden on employers. It seems an odd ambition indeed for the government to want more cases to be brought before the employment tribunal, and to regard that as the metric by which the success of this legislation will be measured, when the employment tribunal is so overwhelmed that there is a backlog of almost 50,000 cases.

What that backlog means is that the genuine cases of harassment, genuine grievances, aren't being heard. We have one case at the free-speech union in which someone is bringing a case for unfair dismissal to the implement to in that case -- to the employment tribunal and that case has been scheduled for July 27. That is how long you have to wait for a case to be heard in the employment tribunal and yet it is absolutely clear, I think, that in all source of ways, but physically with respect to this clause, you are going to massively increase the number of cases that are brought before the employment tribunal as a result of this bill.

And given the extraordinary extent to which the ET is overwhelmed, given the waiting list, someone said a year, it is longer than a year. It is almost 2 years.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I point out respectfully that we have now had more than two hours on this and indeed we have had more this and indeed we have had more than, we are just coming up to 12 minutes on the response to a long debate which let's face it conventionally I think you would say conventionally I think you would say is excessive free-speech, so I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

respectfully ask the noble Lord to bring his remarks to conclusion so we can make some progress. I will bring my remarks to conclusion, sorry, I thought I had conclusion, sorry, I thought I had conclusion, sorry, I thought I had 15 minutes. I do and it has only been 12. But I will not use my been 12. But I will not use my allotted time of three more minutes. allotted time of three more minutes. I will just conclude by saying, the risk of over application of this risk of over application of this clause, hospitality, sectors, and football grounds, universities, that football grounds, universities, that risk is not a strawman.

We see that risk materialising due to misunderstanding, due to imagining that third-party harassment is ready part of the Equality Act 2010 eight. That risk will multiply. When this clause goes on the statute books. It's not a strawman, it's not complex of rage. And if you think it is a strongman, if you are convinced -- a strawman -- but none of the risks will materialise, at the very least make that clear that accepting these amendments. You're losing nothing if you think I don't rule out of scope stuff which you don't want to be in scope in any case.

I would urge you to accept those amendments, for the sake of clarity, and for the sake of employers. I will make one final point. When the noble Lady... Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He's misunderstanding his 10 to 15 minutes which was in his early 15 minutes which was in his early intervention. I think has made some really good points, a number of times now, can we have a break

**** Possible New Speaker ****

please? I will wind up. I'll make one

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will wind up. I'll make one final point. The noble Lady the Baroness, the noble Lord the Baroness, the noble Lord the Minister, said that in due course, the employment tribunal will make it clear that reasonable steps with respect to protecting employees from harassment will not be the same steps that employers are expected to steps that employers are expected to take with respect to rejecting the take with respect to rejecting the employers in third party harassment as opposed to employer harassment.

That may well be the case. But if... That may well be the case. But if... What that amounts to saying is, that the jurisprudence in the employment tribunal when it comes to the definition of harassment will not be definition of harassment will not be physically reliable guide for employers when it comes to how they should define harassment, when it comes to protecting their employees from third-party harassment. So what you are effectively saying is, if you cannot rely on the definition of what a reasonable step is, in the ET hitherto, employers will be in the hitherto, employers will be in the dark, they will be having to chart these uncharted waters.

Wouldn't it be helpful to employers, wouldn't it be helpful to employers, wouldn't it be a boon to the beleaguered hospitality sector industry in particular to make it clear by particular to make it clear by accepting these amendments what their liabilities are and what they their liabilities are and what they not? I finally say, I was going to not? I finally say, I was going to say the final words. I withdraw my amendments.
19:39
19:41
19:42
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Instrument, and the regret motion made by the noble Lord Lord Moylan, and I will cover both in my remarks. These draft regulations aim to support transition to zero emission vehicles to reduce the regulatory burden on businesses and to unlock economic growth on our journey to becoming a clean energy superpower. This is his and families are choosing to make the switch to cleaner, greener vehicles that are cheaper to run and reduce noise and air pollution on our streets. The UK was the largest electric car market in Europe 2024 and so far this year demand is by over 1/3 according to industry figures.

While demand for zero emission fans is also increasing, this government is determined to go further to give businesses and consumers the widest range of options which is exactly what these regulations will do. Zero emission vehicles can be heavier than the equivalent petrol and diesel vehicles because of the weight of their battery or fuel. This can push them into a high driving licence category than the petrol diesel equivalents. Other than their weight these vehicles are almost identical in size, design and payload to their petrol and diesel counterparts.

Regulations to partially solve this problem will four post by previous government that passed in 2018, allowing category B licence holders to drive alternatively fuelled vehicles weighing up to 4.25 tons, if they fulfilled additional requirements. Alternatively fuelled... Hydrogen gas, these requirements include five hours of additional training from an accredited instructor, only driving for the purpose of transporting goods and nobility to... The fuels and other synthetic fuels were not included. As they are no heavier than conventional petrol or diesel vehicles.

However with the rapid advancement of zero emission technology since 2018, the existing regulations now represent an unnecessary barrier to switching to zero emission vehicles. This instrument will enable holders of a standard category B licence to drive standard category B licence to drive a fully electric or hydrogen powered vehicle up to a maximum weight of 4.25 tons without these additional requirements. Existing category B rules will apply. Category B licence holders can also usually drive minibuses wing up to 3.5 tons providing a full.

Additional requirements including the driver being over the age of 21 stop these requirements will also apply to 0 emission buses weighing up to 4.25 emission buses weighing up to 4.25 tons. These regulations also allow zero emission vehicles of the 4.25 tons 2 to a trade in line with rules currently in place for their petrol and diesel counterparts provided that the total combined vehicle and traded weight does not exceed 7 pounds. To ensure disabled people are not excluded from benefits that the Statutory Instrument allows, and eligible zero emission vehicle may weigh up to 5 tons if it is attributed to specialist equipment for the carriage of disabled passengers.

This also applies to minibuses. Finally, the eligible fuels will be limited to 0 emission only, this means electric and hydrogen powered vehicles, this differs from the previous rules by removing gas and biogas fuelled vehicles from scope. This brings me to the issue raised by the noble Lord Lord Moylan, in his regret motion, that the regulations do not include non-zero emission alternative for. This was also raised during the debate on the other place, on the same issue. I would first like to explain the would first like to explain the In 2018 when the original licence for flexibility was introduced, the alternative fuels that were in school or electricity, Hydrant hydrogen, gas and hydro gas and they have never been as flexible as they do not require an additional weight allowance as they use the same type of engines as petrol and diesel vehicles.

This instrument, therefore, now proposes to remove gas and biogas from the scope as they are not zero. Additionally, the Department of transport statistics show that there are less than 30 gas and biogas vehicles in this which range in the United Kingdom and removing these vehicles from the scope would therefore have a very minor impact. Gas, biogas, you feel and synthetic fuel powered vehicles may continue to be driven by a category licence of up to 3.5 tons. Electricity and hydrogen remain included in the legislation as the implementation of these technologies means that they are often heavier due to the weight of their battery or fuel.

I want to be clear, if you will and synthetic fuel will have a role to play as we decarbonise our economy, for example sustainable aviation fuel which is the one in which the Government is supported through our sustainable if fuel mandate as well as the support as part of a long-standing renewable transport. This instrument is not seeking to put one technology above another, instead it was designed to remove barriers in an equal playing field and on this basis I hope that the Noble Lord feels able to withdraw his motion and I also want to take this opportunity to reassure Noble Lord that road safety is the utmost priority of this Government stop during the consultation in 2022, some respondents raised safety concerns and these concerns relate to the removal of training and weight of the vehicle which could have a possibility of increasing the likelihood or severity of incidents respectively.

Following a detailed analysis the Government is clear that these pose a risk to road safety and across the years 2020 to 2023 there were nine collisions involved in these vehicles. We will, however, be closely monitoring this data as it becomes available to protect the safety of road users and in the unlikely event that a concerning trend images, swift action will be taken to protect the public and the department will be publishing detailed guidance on the safe operation of these vehicles which we are working with the industry to decide.

Your Noble Lord chip secondary legislation is any noted that these regulations apply noted that these regulations apply And there matter for the Northern Irish assembly and we are in close communication with the Northern Irish Department for info/ on this issue and the decision on this policy would be the Northern Irish Ministers. In closing, these relations are a common sense measure to equalise driving licence in petrol and diesel equivalents and I hope that Noble Lord has been reassured on the matter raised by his regret motion and that he feels able to withdraw.

I also hope noble Lords will join me in supporting this instrument. I beg to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this motion be agreed to. My Lords, as the Noble Lord the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as the Noble Lord the Minister has explained, this is a very narrow and technical instrument, but it has some very instrument, but it has some very interesting, and indeed rather sinister ramifications. If we start with the first interesting ramification we can talk at least briefly about the state of the roads. There is a great deal of complaint about potholes in the road complaint about potholes in the road and I would go a bit further and suggest there are many roads in this country now which not merely have potholes in them but where the base of the road, the underlying structure of the road, is now structure of the road, is now Maintained.

It is true this was not looked after by the previous looked after by the previous Government, but it has gotten worse under the current Government. I was in Oxfordshire at the weekend. I drove along one road in the country that was so, in such an appalling that was so, in such an appalling condition, it was more reminiscent, it was reminiscent of the sort of travel writing one red in the 19th century of enterprising journeys into Calabria from stringent unexplored parts of Europe at the time.

It was a virtually about to rake up completely. Our roads are falling to pieces and the Government is doing nothing about it. Why is that relevant to this instrument? I hear noble Lords asking that question, gasping in fact in exasperation. Why is it relevant? The relevancy is that the principal reason why roads are breaking up in
19:52
None Portrait Orders and regulations: Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 - motion to regret Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-

this country is due to the weight of vehicles. Not the occasional juggernaut that passes down juggernaut that passes down Oxfordshire Lane, but the relentless beating they take from heavier and beating they take from heavier and heavier vehicles. Now, part of that, of course, is due to the fashion for SUVs, which I personally do not appreciate and cannot entirely understand, but a great deal of the rest of it is to do with the thought that electric vehicles are, as the that electric vehicles are, as the Minister has cut said, notably Minister has cut said, notably heavier than petrol vehicles.

And that is what is breaking up our roads. This Government is doing roads. This Government is doing nothing at all about it, and it is getting worse. They said they would be better than the last Government not making those improvements. And not making those improvements. And that brings us to to try to make it easier for vehicles to be heavier, easier for vehicles to be heavier, if I can put it that way. It removes certain restrictions that have been placed on the driving of electric placed on the driving of electric vehicles, in particular.

That are heavier than electric vehicles. It removes those restrictions. Now, I think we should start that the purpose of putting conditions on driving licences which we have done for very many decades since they started, almost, is the purpose to achieve road safety. And that is why we have different licences matching different sorts of vehicles. But what we are here to see, and these conditions under removal today were put in place for safety reasons. And the Government is making the case that they are no longer required for safety reasons.

And the official opposition accepts that, so to the extent that these restrictions are being removed, we have no objection to it. On safety grounds. Government has made that clear to us, but they are being removed solely for electric vehicles. And I think it is very important to draw two conclusions on this. The first conclusion is the Government is sending whatever the Noble Lord the Minister says, a very powerful signal to those people trying to develop synthetic and alternative fuels where the limits are not being reduced.

But they do not matter. The Government has taken its choice and it is going to back and it is not backing the other alternatives. That is the first and it is not a good message. It was, as the Noble Lord says in The Other Place. The second, which was not, I think, in The Other Place, is that the Government is doing this by and I refer here to the explanatory memorandum attached to the instrument and if I may quote from it briefly, paragraph 5.6, it says although alternative fuels and vehicles produce less CO2 emissions than petrol and diesel vehicles, alternatively fuelled vehicles still leave CO2 emissions at the tailpipe.

Consequently, these vehicles would not meet the government's objective for all new cars and vans to be zero in at the tailpipe by 2035. My Lords, this is, I think, the first time, and this is what is sinister, this is the first time that conditions are being attached to driving licences. Not for the purpose of road safety, not to match skill to the type of vehicle that is being driven, but rather to achieve a Government net zero policy. And, in principle, it opens the door to other measures in the future where driving licences are restricted so as to match Government policy on net zero.

And that those people, many of them on lower incomes, who are dependent on combustion engines and will probably never be able to afford an electric vehicle as things currently stand will find themselves squeezed out the possibility of driving them as more and more restrictions are placed on their driving licences. This would be a genuinely sinister and worrying trend and I think the Government should be ashamed, quite frankly, of paragraph 5.6 in the explanatory memorandum, and it should be eliminated.

Finally, of course, a driving licence is no use whatsoever if you cannot get a driving test and that is another point that rises from this and it is true again that the Government inherited a situation where there was a large backlog of driving licence bookings. People could not get through. At that has now risen to 600,000, a queue of 600,000 people waiting for driving tests. And, again, the Government, although we have heard this in the House recently by way of an Oral Questions, the Government is making known progress on this.

Things are going backwards. It is not better than its predecessor. It is palpably and measurably worse. I hope the Noble Lord the Minister is able to address that point as well. This instrument in itself is not Of the signal it sends to synthetic fuel manufacturers, but, most importantly, the introduction of the principle that driving licences can principle that driving licences can be manipulative with other policies but it is also an opportunity for the Government to explain why it is that money is not being put in on the other hand to strengthening our roads to carry these heavy vehicles roads to carry these heavy vehicles rather than roads are breaking up and, also, to explain what they are and, also, to explain what they are doing to make the driving licence eight reality by allowing people eight reality by allowing people access to driving tests, so I wish to move the amendment standing in my name.

name. name.
19:57
Viscount Goschen Portrait Viscount Goschen (Conservative)
-
-
The regulations laid behind the House on 14 March, proved. Since then, amendment has been moved by Lord Moynihan and we end to said that would set out on the order paper. The question I therefore put to you is that this amendment be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I do not have any

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I do not have any argument with the Government over its laudable environmental and other its laudable environmental and other objectives in bringing forward these but I do have a question and it is but I do have a question and it is really to do with the physics of the really to do with the physics of the matter. We know that kinetic energy matter. We know that kinetic energy is perhaps the key determinant in the severity and impact, the damage the severity and impact, the damage caused by roads and kinetic energy is of course calculator as half of the mass times the squared velocity.

Essentially, if the Government is Essentially, if the Government is content that it is safe for a content that it is safe for a licence holder to drive a 4.2 tone as I understand it vehicle empowered as I understand it vehicle empowered by zero emissions means essentially why is it not safe for that same driver to drive another vehicle powered by any other means? In the event of a road accident or collision, it will make no difference to breaks to the tyres, to the impact caused to the other vehicle involved in the road accident, as the power source powering the vehicle that the driver powering the vehicle that the driver is at the wheel of, so, my Lords, I think that when we are legislating around road safety, we have to take into account that reality, that the physics of the matter as well as other Government objectives such as decarbonisation, noble as they may be.

I would be very grateful to the Noble Lord answering that question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, as the Noble Lord pointed out we have a large electric car market. As my Noble Friend on the front bench points out, but we have is a market for large electric
20:00
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
have is a market for large electric cars. And I would like to ask the Minister why does that continue to be the case? And there is a very obvious gap in what is available. You can get an electric car, a heavier version of what the car companies are selling at that moment. You can get an electric bicycle. What is in between? If you wonder around the streets of London you can find lots of electric transport that is in between, but it It's all one drive upfront, box on the back, doing deliveries around London, sensibly sized vehicles, low speed, relatively low range, certainly low cost.

Why is there not a passenger equivalent in that? a passenger equivalent in that? Something like the tactics -- tuk- tuk you see in India and elsewhere, but this being England, weatherproof. It's pretty useless having one of those things where the driver is open to all storms, even in Eastbourne, the sunniest town in the UK. I wouldn't care to try and drive one of those. But it's entirely possible to put doors and entirely possible to put doors and windows on a took -- tap -- tuk-tuk.

It's just government regulations that make it impossible. If we want to do something about the transport problem we have in Eastbourne, which is, like many other coastal towns, we grew a lot after that war, it was we grew a lot after that war, it was very much the roads : beautifully here and there, the houses are widely spaced, as a result is completely uneconomic to run public transport on them. People have to use their cars to get to the shops, to get to school, because they are relatively far away.

But why are we using these great heavy electric cars to do something which could be done by much lighter, cheaper, less fuel consuming vehicle, less impact on the planet, less impact on the population? The reason is that the government does not permit us to otherwise. So will the noble Lord the Minister take a look at regulations, and if he can see as I can, a space there, will he consider saying that if a company comes forward, with a safety sign, for a cheap, low range, low speed, weatherproof, electric passenger vehicle, one driver, two passengers, that sort of size, the government will support changes and regulations which will make marketing that possible? To see if someone will take advantage of that opportunity because certainly I would be a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

customer. I rise to speak to these

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to these regulations stop I will turn to the regulations first and then turn to regulations first and then turn to the fatal mission afterwards. The Liberal Democrats broadly welcomed these regulations which represent a sensible step forward, in facilitating our transition to zero emission vehicles. Zero emission emission vehicles. Zero emission vehicles, such as those that are fully electric or hydrogen powered our often heavier and petrol diesel equivalents. This additional weight
20:04
Earl Russell Portrait Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
equivalents. This additional weight is primarily due to the weight of the batteries. But since it has been mentioned in this debate I will just say that although electric vehicles are heavier than cars of the equivalent size, they are not heavier than the fans or buses or lorries or lots of other things that use our roads. Previously, this extra weight could push these vehicles into higher driving licence categories, such as category C or C1, requiring drivers to undergo additional training, testing and eventually medical examinations and professional competency certificates.

Relations introduced 2018 attempted to address this by allowing category B licence holders to fuel vehicles weighing up to 4.5 tons but only under specific conditions. Five hours of additional training, driving only transporting goods, and no towing ability. These conditions however has proven to be an unnecessary barrier to the uptake of zero emissions vehicles, with the cost and time required in training being prohibitive for businesses. These new regulations remove these previous conditions, allowing standard category B licence holders to drive ZEVs up to 4.5 tons, without the additional five hours training or restriction on goods transport only.

This will significantly reduce the regulatory or financial burden on businesses and individuals looking to switch to cleaner vehicles. And really this should be something the Conservative Party welcomes, I understand it's a party all about removing unnecessary regulations for business. These relations also allow the turning of a trailer provided the combined weight does not exceed 7 pounds, bringing ZEVs in line with petrol and diesel counterparts in this regard. Furthermore, important divisions are included to support drivers and passengers with disabilities, allowing ZEVs with specialist equipment to wait up to 5 tons on a category B licence.

This is very welcome and ensures equitable assets to the benefits of these regulations. There is more to do in this space to ensure equal access in terms of the design placement of batteries, inherently restricting disabled use. And access to future autonomous vehicles by disabled people. These benches support these decisions to narrow the scope of this flexibility from alternatively fuelled vehicles to specifically zero emission vehicles. While alternatively fuelled vehicles use less CO2 than petrol or diesel, they still produce emissions.

Focusing these licence flexibilities solely on ZEVs aligns with the cross-party consensus to the government commitment for all new cars and fast to be zero emissions by 2035. And legally binding net zero obligations. It rightly supports the cleaners vehicles. However, as we have heard, concerns have been raised about the removal of the five-hour training requirement which previously considered necessary requiring questions about potential impact on road safety. While the Department for Transport assessed the risk of removing emissions is very low based on current albeit I think the Minister mentioned some very few cases, limited data, there are concerns, that have been raised that heavier vehicles could lead to more severe damage like damaging collisions, particularly in light of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists.

And this was an issue for secondary scrutiny legislation. Against this, we do note that these modern vehicles have inherently more safety features. Including systems like collision avoidance. I do ask the Minister how the department will " regularly monitor incident data as it becomes available ". I ask what specific metrics will be tracked and what thresholds could trigger "swift action" to protect the public, if a concerning trend does emerge. What is the timeline for publishing the detailed safety guidance and what steps will be taken to actively disseminate it to drivers and to businesses, particularly those who run electric fleet vehicles? I called on the Minister to commit to publishing a full and transparent review of all of the safety data within two years, and for that review to be made public.

Finally, the target for new TVs by 2035 is UK wide. The Minister has mentioned wide. The Minister has mentioned this. But we do have concerns about the fact that this does not extend to Northern Ireland and the Minister has been clear that this is something for the Northern Ireland Assembly but I do just wish to ensure that we have uniformity of regulations between the whole of Great Britain so I do encourage the Minister to continue those conversations with colleagues to make sure that we have the same regulations across our oils.

I now turn to the fatal motion proposed by the noble Lord Lord Moynihan. Sorry, the motion. This seeks to broaden the scope of these revelations back to include alternatively fuelled vehicles that are not zero emissions. To question the, I questioned the perceived need for such a change. And I question what benefits would flow were to be passed. The government policy which we will support is rightly focused on promoting zero emission vehicles in line with our climate targets. Quite moving this focus to extend the weight, uplift flexibility to vehicles that still produce CO2 emissions would undermine the clear objectives of supporting the transition to cleaner vehicles.

Furthermore, alternative fuelled vehicles are not the main subject to the inherent disadvantages as they do not have any need for a heavier battery packs, so they are not caught out by the previous regulations, they don't have the same excess weight. Gasp out vehicles and vans are the main type of alternative fuelled vehicles which was in scope out the old relations but not in scope of the new ones but as the Minister has said, the only impact assessment found as of December last year there were only 28 of these vehicles on our roads in the whole of the UK.

And simply those drivers have already undergone full of their training needs. The government and impact assessment also highlighted that manufacturers do not have provisions going forward to go into manufacturing any great numbers of these vehicles. Therefore the Liberal Democrats will be supporting the government relations but we call for a full safety review to complete it in the next two years. If Lord Moynihan does call a division Lord Moynihan, we will not be supporting it, we will be abstaining.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for the consideration of these draft consideration of these draft deliberations. I will respond to the specific points. The noble Lord
20:12
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Moylan started with the state of the roads and potholes. I admire his brave actions and driving around the roles back roads of Oxfordshire at the weekend. He says that government are doing nothing about it, that is far from true because the government announced 1.6 billion investment in the state of the roads and remedying potholes only in April. And incidentally, the damage to the roads is an exponential function of vehicle weight so heavy lorry does far more damage to road surface than an electric car, or indeed one of these vehicles at 4.25 tons rather than 3.5 tons.

And he notes that he accepts the principle, the noble Lord accepts the principles of these regulations on safety grounds. Course the message the synthetic and alternative for malefactors is not that they don't matter, what they are doing this valuable. But he knows himself that actually, and he quoted from 5.6, it reduces carbon emissions, but in the end does not eliminate them. But I know that, I know that the noble Lord, or his party and his previous government was committed to decarbonising transport, because earlier this afternoon, the quotation that starts I believe that the struggle for decarbonised transport, clean development and clean-air is as important for the struggle for clean water in the 19th century, created by my noble friend Lord Katz, in answer to the noble Lord's question earlier, and there are of course the words of the former Conservative transport secretary which was apposite and response to the earlier question, as they are now in this debate, decarbonisation is really important and actually prioritising vehicles that don't have, that have zero emissions is really important for this government.

The noble Lord also referred to driving tests, and he is right, the inherited position of this government was dreadful. There were many people waiting for driving tests. I have already answered questions in this House about reducing waiting times. And recruiting more instructors. And it will take time to do that because remedying this position is not immediate. But the government lie aim is to reduce waiting times to 2026 by summer 2026. -- Reduce them to 7 weeks by summer 26.

Regarding kinetic energy, mass matters in road accidents, but the government has looked into this quite seriously and the data available suggests that 3.5, 4.25 ton electric vehicles are no more likely than the 3.5 ton petrol and diesel equivalents to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

involved in collisions. I wasn't making that point. I was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wasn't making that point. I was saying if they were... If the noble Lord's ministerial car breakdown at Lord's ministerial car breakdown at a roundabout and he was hit from behind by 3.5 ton vehicle, and in behind by 3.5 ton vehicle, and in the same colleague was hit by 4.2 500, the latter would involve 20% more energy transfer, therefore 20% more energy transfer, therefore 20% more potential for severity. Would he accept the simple physics of the he accept the simple physics of the argument? I'm not suggesting one is argument? I'm not suggesting one is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

argument? I'm not suggesting one is I would certainly accept the simple physics and I think that actually mostly not a ministerial car but I am mostly on public transport. But, in fact, the transport. But, in fact, the frequency of such collisions, I accept his point, but the frequency accept his point, but the frequency is so low that what the Government is proposing is to monitor what happens as a consequence of this. In the knowledge that there were, for the difference, there were nine collisions in total involved in these vehicles and three years between 2023 with six of them being slight, so I accept completely the proposition of physics, but what I am saying is not only is the real effect of this very small in terms of the total number of accidents, but the Government is committing to monitoring the acts and data as it becomes available in order to know what will happen as a consequence of the changes, and if something does happen then we will do something about it.

And in answer to the noble Earl Russell I would certainly commit to work with saying that the incident thresholds would be, and I would write to the noble Earl that and put that in the library. The Noble Lord locus raised the question about small electric cars, and I admire his keenness to travel around admire his keenness to travel around the roads into talks, I admire him being brave enough to travel around the roads of Eastbourne in any vehicle of that sort, but in answer to the question I do not think anyone has produced an electric took took, but in terms of the vehicles available as an alternative for large electric cars, there are several, the fear toppling and the BMW i3, I can vouch for that one because I have one and I use it.

It is a very small car, do not need large electric cars, small electric cars are easily purchased. I was grateful to the noble Earl Russell for his support for the statutory incident generally stop I have already said that I will commit to write to him about the thresholds we will use to decide whether or not that is our material or not. The timetable I will also write to him about that and the dissemination of safety guidance, fortunately there are still strong trade associations for small and medium-sized commercial vehicles and, of course, we would take their advice, as we always do.

I am familiar with them and we have been involved in these discussions and the last point on the applicability of this we will, of course, continue to discuss this more on Government because it is important and I believe unsatisfactory for their 2B inconsistency across without a similar measuring environment. The instrument whilst technical in nature represents a common step in supporting the industry to make the switch to decarbonise the road transport with progress towards net zero and cut transport costs for businesses, reduce greenhouse, and further accelerate our progress to becoming a green energy superpower.

I hope I have reassured noble Lords that this instrument in no way disadvantages non-zero emission fuel types and levels the playing field between technologies and on that basis I hope the Noble Lord feels able to withdraw his regret motion. The hope the novel also found this debate formative and support the legislation. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to my Noble Friend Lord Lucas for raising Noble Friend Lord Lucas for raising the interesting point about an electric took took four passenger electric took took four passenger use. And I listened with great care in response to the Noble Lord the in response to the Noble Lord the Minister. I come up myself, looked at the possibility if you years ago and I have to admit of purchasing a and I have to admit of purchasing a BMW i3.

The cost at that stage was £33,000. Do not know what the Noble Lord the Minister paid for his, but Lord the Minister paid for his, but I do not think it is a vehicle of I do not think it is a vehicle of that sort and that cost that my Noble Friend Lord Lucas is thinking about. That is one of the principles.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

principles. The information, the cost of an electric took took in China is about £1500. £1500.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful, and that is something, really, that the Noble Lord the Minister should be responding to demand I am not going responding to demand I am not going to comment further on it and say that it is a useful thing to know, that it is a useful thing to know, but the BMW i3 is not £1500, it is a great deal more, and that is beyond the scope of the majority of people. the scope of the majority of people. My Noble Friend made a point, as My Noble Friend made a point, as indeed did the Noble Lord Russell indeed did the Noble Lord Russell about road safety.

The Government has given assurances on this, and I think I am happy to accept those assurances for today, they will be assurances for today, they will be held and we will expect these changes to be monitored for the road changes to be monitored for the road safety effect and the Minister has said that and we will be holding him said that and we will be holding him to it. It is a very thoughtful consideration and concerning the state of the roads, much has been made both of the Noble Lord the Minister and the noble Earl Lord Russell about the fact that a heavy Russell about the fact that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier than a car.

I know that and everybody knows that a heavy goods vehicle is heavier about a car. It has got the word heavy in its name. The key differences that there are 33 million cars in this country. There are half a million heavy goods vehicles. The damage being done to vehicles. The damage being done to our roads is not, as I said, in my opening remarks, because of the occasional passage of a heavy goods vehicle down a lane in Oxfordshire. It is by the relentless passage of heavier and heavier cars across those roads.

Not only leading to potholes but also breaking up the base and creating a huge maintenance and restoration bill for our roads that is not, in my view, going to be properly addressed by £1.6 million. And finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Government was given the opportunity to reject the notion that they were going to manipulate driving licences and the conditions of driving licences to achieve objectives that were not related to road safety or vehicles. Rather, related to net zero policy.

And if this opens the door to further manipulation in the future that could well be used for disadvantage as the price of the BMW i3 already disadvantages people on lower incomes. The Government took no opportunity to reject that, and, indeed, the noble Earl Lord Russell on behalf of the Liberal Democrats endorsed it and thought it was a very good idea. That is a cloud perhaps no larger than a man's hand,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but that is going to come back, I think. Think there is a fundamental confusion because this regulation fundamentally is about removing fundamentally is about removing restrictions and I think the Noble restrictions and I think the Noble Lord is confused on that one. Do I have to read out paragraphs 5 and six of the Explanatory Memorandum? Again, I thought not. I think it is engraved in the minds of most noble engraved in the minds of most noble Lords that the purpose of this, of differential lifting of these restrictions is to achieve our net
20:24
20:25
20:25
20:27
20:28
20:28
20:28
None Portrait Amendment:97 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

of these clauses. And that is because the government's impact assessment is simply not fit for purpose. And so this new clause requires the Secretary of State to assess the impact on the provisions assess the impact on the provisions of clauses 19 to 22. This, in many ways, I have heard it repeating what I have said on several other I have said on several other occasions throughout the passage of this bill. That there has not enough this bill.

That there has not enough homework done on the impact of the homework done on the impact of the various clauses, and that is particularly true in relation to the clauses concerning the requirement for employers not to permit the harassment of their employees by third parties. My Noble Friend Lord Young of Acton and my Noble Friend Lady Noakes have exhibited not synthetic rage, I say to the Noble Lord Fox, but genuine concern. They have raised a number of important and serious concerns about the clauses as drafted.

Yet the noble Baroness the Minister, while I was hoping she might, she failed to commit to undertaking a comprehensive and robust impact assessment. That is just not good enough. In fact, for all three of the standard criteria used to evaluate regulatory proposals, that is rational for intervention, identification of options, and justification for the preferred way forward, of all three of these standard criteria, the regulatory policy committee has given a red rating to the Government.

And that should be deeply concerning to all of us in this House. The Government is, of course, absolutely right, that harassment in the workplace is an acceptable. That is a point on which there is strong consensus right across this House and rightly so. Many noble Lords have spoken powerfully and persuasively on this matter during our debates, including many very eloquently on the Government benches. Given that it is all the more baffling that the Government should have taken such a lacklustre and superficial approach to the impact assessment for these specific clauses.

The assessment surely needs to provide a much more rigorous analysis of the risks. There is, for example, no mention at all of the very risks and impacts that led to the worker protection amendment of the Equality Act, 2010 act 2023. The amended during its passage through Parliament. That legislation originally included provisions around third-party Which were dropped after those serious concerns were raised. Particularly in relation to the freedom of speech and burdens on employers. Surely, there is no justification offered here for ignoring those previous conclusions.

The impact assessment must also address how this proposal applies to high-risk and complex workplaces, such as GP services, dealing with mental health scenarios. On A&E departments, treating individuals under the influence of alcohol, these are not just hypothetical situations, they are real and frequent examples were interactions with third parties can be volatile or unpredictable. Equally, this impact assessment should also consider the disproportionate impact on small and medium-sized businesses. There is a real proposal that under these proposals, SMEs could find themselves drawn into the employment tribunal system for the very first time.

With all the legal and financial burden that entails. That is no small matter. Furthermore, the impact assessment has failed to explore why the word all, as in all reasonable steps, was deliberately dropped during the parliamentary passage of the 2023 act. This was done, I remember precisely, because it risks imposing own arrest and unrealistic requirements on employers. Yet, that point has been completely overlooked in this assessment, which is a significant and worrying omission. Finally, there is no detailed evidence at all from businesses all stakeholders, presented to support the government's current approach and surely without such evidence, we are being asked to legislate in the dark, on a highly sensitive and consequently she.

-- Consequential issue. My Lords, we should not undermine the seriousness of workplace harassment. But equally, we must not legislate in a way that is rushed. Or ill considered or disconnected from the realities faced by employers, particularly in high-risk public facing roles. So, my Lords, I would be grateful when the noble Baroness, the minister, the noble Baroness, the minister, responds to this debate. On mine and my colleague's amendment, would she please respond to the following specific concerns.

One, does the noble Baroness, the minister, except that these provisions could lead to small and medium-sized businesses being drawn into the Employment Tribunals Act and the very first time? And what assessment has been made of the practical and financial burdens this could place on them. Secondly, given that the Employment Secondly, given that the Employment Tribunals Act and -- Employment tribunals system is facing a backlog of 50,000 cases, does the Minister believe this legislation risks further overloading the system.

How does the government intend to mitigate that risk? Thirdly, the term 'all reasonable steps' was removed from the worker protection act 2023, following serious concerns about its implications. This received support from across this House. Why has the government reintroduced this language in the current bill. Does the noble Baroness, the minister, believe this decision is consistent with the reasoning previously accepted by Parliament. Fourthly. More broadly,
20:35
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

does the Minister believe this bill is in alignment with the conclusions reached during the passage of the worker protection amendment of the Equality Act 2010, Act 2023, or as the government now reversing course? And finally and crucially, will the And finally and crucially, will the government please commit to carrying out a comprehensive and transparent impact assessment? I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after close 22, insert the new clause, on employer duties one harassment employer duties one harassment impact assessment, the words of which are on page 6 of the which are on page 6 of the Marshalled list. Amendment 97.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. Amendment 97. My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, very ably amendment, very ably incomprehensible and moved -- And comprehensively moved by my honourable friend, Lord Hunt of Wirral, which is, as he explained, a new clause. I do think it is a sensible amendment that has been sensible amendment that has been moved. Now, the noble Lord Fox describes the arguments put by the describes the arguments put by the side in the previous debate as strawman arguments. I think he was strawman arguments.

I think he was probably like Don Quixote, tilting probably like Don Quixote, tilting windmills in that, because actually, his argument that they were, that the strawman arguments were the strawman arguments were comprehensively if the CAT by my noble friend, Lord Young, there were very substantive arguments and very substantive concerns, and the comments by both himself and noble
20:38
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
Lords in the government's side. What this close 20 is you could describe this close 20 is you could describe this close 20 is you could describe as a hologram or a chimera. Because it doesn't actually provide very much in the way of detail. As to the practical ramifications and impacts practical ramifications and impacts of this clause to businesses, particularly small businesses. And particularly small businesses. And if you actually read. If you read the amendment, it is a very sensible amendment.

Given that, if one looks amendment. Given that, if one looks at section 10, the cost benefit analysis of the employer advice bill analysis the government published last October, you are very hard last October, you are very hard pressed to see any detail empirical pressed to see any detail empirical evidence, by any reputable economist evidence, by any reputable economist or academics, which would sustain the likely costings that the government has brought forward and prayed in aid of this particular part of the bill.

And my concern is that we are told that the generic, the universal cost of the whole of the bill to business will be very speculative £5 billion. A source of that is not necessarily very clear that is not necessarily very clear and is in fact quite opaque. I don't believe that figure, I think for a number of reasons the data is suspect which is why we need a proper impact assessment, so persuasively advanced by my noble friend on the front bench.

So, we have not had a proper analysis of the detail. In a risk assessment. In section 10 of the annex on cost benefit analysis. We also in addition have not had a proper consultation process. In this bill. We haven't had the opportunity of looking at the likely impacts that flow from this particular clause of flow from this particular clause of the bill. And I think, for that reason, and I say at the outset, I am a proud member of the free-speech union, like my noble friend, Lord Young of acting, they made a similar case about consultation as well.

We also don't know anything about opportunity cost. Not everyone is an economist, but opportunity cost is an issue of what may have happened if this bill had not come along. And I would suspect that employers, including smaller employers, would have taken more staff on as a result of there not being encumbancy's in this particular clause in other words, they will be risk averse, they would not wish to run the risk of taking people on. In terms of the likely risk of litigation of claims which may well arise from this particular close of this bill.

Roma close of the bill. I do think finally, employment tribunal members, the number is the government have put forward, in terms of the pressure it will put on Employment Tribunals Act, and other courts that will be responsible for adjudicating these particular cases, this litigation, it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And indeed, as my noble friend said, it will exacerbate the already very significant problem of backlogs in the employment tribunal. And if I can just make reference to, as I finish, the final parts of the kernel of this amendment.

It is vital that if the government truly believes what they said, and I take the noble Lady, the minister, on her word and indeed, the noble Lady, who supported her from the government benches. If I take them at their word, then I do not know why they would not wish to support a free- speech caveat in this amendment. But they were going after people, although they hadn't properly of course identify what harassment is, they have defined that, they are not seeking to curtail free speech...

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the noble Lady. I'm grateful to the noble Lord forgiving way for a moment. Can I forgiving way for a moment. Can I suggest the so-called free-speech caveat is called section 6 of the Human Rights Act. Which requires all Human Rights Act. Which requires all public authorities, including courts and tribunals, to interpret all other legislation in a way that is compatible with the Convention compatible with the Convention rights, including, for the purposes of present debate, as I understand, of present debate, as I understand, the noble Lord concerns article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Convention on Human Rights. ... Noble Lady's expertise in human rights legislation but we are considering this specific bespoke considering this specific bespoke legislation, and it is very likely that there will not necessarily be a that there will not necessarily be a reader cross between that and... Well, the noble Lady is not going to Well, the noble Lady is not going to impress every employment tribunal impress every employment tribunal and adjudicate every case, and again, as my noble friend Lord Young has said, a very significant risk and threat of inadvertent issues arising, from this legislation, if it is, as my noble friend, Baroness Cash has said, very poorly drafted, as it is of course.

I think there is, in 2A, importance of looking into free-speech, in terms of all the clauses 19-22, in respect of this, and likely cost to employers, because that is an essential point in my remarks, which is that we do not know what the likely cost will be. And it is certainly appropriate that ministers are required to tell the Department what ramifications are in terms of the cost. This is a government committed to growth and supporting business in all its endeavours. Therefore, I think it would be sensible to consider a review of how these particular issues impact on businesses.

And finally, proposals for mitigations. There are no ideas, there are no protocols, there are no policies put protocols, there are no policies put in place, to give any guidance to smaller businesses. Not necessarily the smallest micro-businesses, but smaller businesses to cope with the problems arising, deliberately arising, because this Labour government has chosen to put these encumbancy's and these burdens on businesses, they are not getting any support to businesses in terms of how they can cope with this, and the cost will fall on the shareholders, on the businesses, ultimately on the workforce, and it will cost jobs.

For that reason, my lords, I support the amendment. Because I think it the amendment. Because I think it doesn't detract from the important commitment to protect ordinary working people who deserve to go to work and not be bullied or harassed or treated unfairly or egregiously. We all agree with that. There is a consensus on that. It doesn't detract from that, in seeking just to put in some extra protections to ensure that people who are vexatious or malicious or cause difficulties in the long run for no good apparent fair, and reasonable way, that those amendments are made, because in the end, that will be sensible, will protect business at the workforce, and for that reason, I'm delighted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to... I give way to the noble Lord. I am very grateful. I wonder if the noble Lord could just indicate what he thinks the value of an what he thinks the value of an impact assessment is, that doesn't weigh the benefits that issue from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

weigh the benefits that issue from A slight odd question, coming from the supporter of the government from the supporter of the government that's not come forward with either that's not come forward with either intangible or tangible benefits. The intangible or tangible benefits. The economic analysis of this bill, I would defer to the noble Lords would defer to the noble Lords argument. Neither of them are there, so it is difficult for us to make a so it is difficult for us to make a value judgement on frankly the balance between obligations and balance between obligations and responsibilities, as between the workforce and employer, when the data is provided.

Which I think the data is provided. Which I think the noble Lords probably made my case, with that I support my noble friend

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Frontbencher's amendment. I would like to support my noble
20:46
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to support my noble friend, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, in proposing this impact assessment in proposing this impact assessment and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt for making the case so persuasively. I would simply like to pick up on a few points that were made, both in the amendment and on the front bench. The amendment asks for an impact assessment, on free speech, two A asks for the impact assessment, and mentions 19 22.

One asks for that. Number two asks that the assessment reports on the impact of sections 19 to 22, on free speech. And B the likely cost to employees of these issues that it includes types of occupations at risk, proposals for mitigations. This is an amendment which I would just like to comment on, in the case of universities. In the case of university, already I have spoken earlier in this committee about other mitigations University Mike take in its rules and list that Hansard potential candidates for a place you want to come to the University to study and are asked to abide by certain arrangements, or rules.

These rules will, if the employer and the University follow what they are required as trustees of the charity to follow, protected the costs and whatever endowment of funds the university have. They will have to follow caution. And, I have no doubt that undergraduates, all graduate students coming in of a postgraduate work will be asked to promise not to complain, or be promise not to complain, or be overheard, or speak ill of lecturer A, who is a lecturer and they may not approve of, or think a no good, or whatever.

As it happens in normal intercourse, in University. This is one of the standard things you hear, as undergraduates leave the room. What a rotten lecture that was. Isn't it interesting that such a subject didn't touch on the kernel of the matter, or whatever, the undergraduates think is important. This is the sort of education we want to impart. We want students to question, to challenge. We want them to make the case, against what they have heard and to think about it. To make an employer liable for a student to doing what university education should encourage and indeed we encourage it in school to, seems to me silly.

And we should have an impact assessment of what will happen, what sort of steps will a university take to curtail the freedom, to argue, to criticise an We should ask that there is an impact assessment and it isn't a very difficult thing to do, to consult universities and to find out exactly how they would get around this potential liability, as employers. And at the same goes, I think, for the mitigations. The cost that all be incurred. Take the cost to an institution, such as the University, in an employment Tribunal.

The member of the staff concerned, who against whom the criticism has been made, will be on tenterhooks all of the time. Maybe distracted they have to continue to give evidence to the employer and so on and so forth. As for the employers, the staff, the charges, the legal charges they will incur, the administrative costs. The committee course, the time, rather than running the universities to do what they ought to do, which is to educate undergraduates, and to do their research.

This is the most moderate request for an impact assessment I have heard. And I think that noble Lords will be well
20:52
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
been proposed in relation to this bill and it has become a bit of cliche. I'm especially concerned that this one is taken seriously as that this one is taken seriously as I do think third party harassment sections of this bill are sections of this bill are potentially ill thought out in a way that would lead to unintended consequences. The noble Lord, one noble Lord, a few moments ago asked why there was a desire for an impact assessment, rather than thinking of the potential positives of this the potential positives of this bill.

I think that the response of bill. I think that the response of the Government, in relation to concerns about, for example clause 20, which is to say that there is nothing to see here. There is no nothing to see here. There is no problem at all. Would indicate that that is an insufficient way of responding to some quite detailed scrutiny that has been put forward. And I think that if it is the case that there is any exaggeration of the potential problems, then an impact assessment should be able to resolve that for us.

I have focused largely on clause 20. Firstly looking at its potential costs, especially important as the Ministers counter to my remarks earlier was that clause 20 will be good for business. The government minimal assessment advises, the government's own assessment advises the total economic impact of the total economic impact of complying with clause 20 will be under £10 million and will have negligible economic impact, on businesses. I really do think that this is irresponsible. Some may go so far as to say misinformation.

For example, in the assessment it says that the cost of familiarisation of the bill and its ramifications will be £30 per medium business and only £19, for micro business. I'm not sure where this kind of woeful underestimates, underestimates, and what they're based on. I can assure you, an employment lawyer, that is unlikely figure. We need a serious cost, benefit analysis. Because let's consider what this bill requires businesses to do. The section of the bill that we are looking at.

They have taken a more reasonable steps, which sets a high threshold for action as we heard earlier. I think that means there is a direct cost for initial implementation of anti harassment policies, including familiarising themselves with regulations, making, checking out exactly their legal liabilities and what they will mean. As we have seen this evening, it is not necessarily clear as day what this bill requires. We have been arguing here. If you are a small migrant business, tried to focus on being a micro business and may be growing into a bigger micro business.

Having to kind of study this and work out what your liability will be can be quite time consuming, nerve racking. They'll have to seek out legal advice, third-party advice, no doubt lots of consultants. They will want to safeguard themselves from the financial risks of not complying, which is responsible businesses. One of the main reasons that they are trying to ensure that they do not have to deal with is the possibility What seems like an entirely arbitrary framework, the Government predicts that only 30 Employment Tribunal's, a year, will come from these clauses.

There is no explanation as to how the Government reach that figure. It is certainly completely at odds with industry experts who expect that clause 20, just clause 20 will see an increase in Employment Tribunal is a 15%. In other words an additional 14,000 In other words an additional 14,750 cases a year. As we heard earlier in a different context. In the year 2023/2024 Roman tribunal courts have seen 97,000 cases, up from 86,000 a year before. That is already an increase of 30%.

-- 13%. More are being pushed into Employment Tribunal's variety of reasons. This bill threatens to create even more cases. An unknown figure, because we do not know. Therefore, the government is saying oh no it will only be 30 a year. That is just making up. There is at least an attempt in this amendment to try and attempt in this amendment to try and work this out. I think that, when you consider, crucially, according to the Chamber of Commerce, the cost of one Employment Tribunal is on average about £8500 and, by the way, if a claimant is successful there is no financial limits of the compensation in a harassment case so imagine you are the business and you are worried about what is going to happen.

This will lead to risk a first evil cautious behaviour which is not detailed in the bill, but in order to try and avoid being liable. order to try and avoid being liable. -- Risk averse overly cautious. This over regulatory approach. Businesses won't be able to be slipshod about their potential liability and for those smaller SMEs and micro businesses, often with no dedicated HR or EDI offices, they will need to think about employing a new staff, dedicated to protect and learn from claims, giving them advice.

The idea of a whole new generation of EDI staff roles, in every employment, business in the country is frightening enough. It has got nothing to do with their core nothing to do with their core businesses. The average is a 42,844. I would like to stress why an impact assessment must include an assessment on which occupations might be at particular risk of a third party harassment claims, through no fault of the employer and the impact, specifically, on free speech.

And the reason I thought that these parts of the amendments were important is because we were asked, earlier, in a different group, why there had been particular focus on hospitality, on a sport and on universities. Well maybe there are other sectors. In a way this is an assessment to see which sectors will be affected. Also asking for an impact on free speech. As we have heard the Government simply denies that there will be any impact, in relation to free speech. Well, I disagree, but let's scrutinise it.

The noble Baroness, Baroness Chakrabarti made the point that we shouldn't worry about free speech, because it is protected by the Convention on Human Rights. She cited that. A number of clauses. It is true that, on paper, none of us should be worried about free speech. What free speech in this country is fully protected. Yet, daily, daily, more and more instances, as the noble Baroness who is not in her place indicated, free speech is under stress, in this country.

More and more people are walking on egg shells and are in many instances getting sacked, or getting disciplined for speaking their minds, in workplaces. I am not convinced by this, nothing to see here, do not worry about it, all is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. At the end,... I'm grateful to the noble Lady. Be brief, just to respond to her Be brief, just to respond to her point, I'm not trying to suggest there aren't challenges and there is there aren't challenges and there is and on occasion, over policing our and on occasion, over policing our people's freedom of expression. I read the same papers, believe it or not, probably that the noble Lady not, probably that the noble Lady does. The point was trying to make, perhaps inadequately, to the noble perhaps inadequately, to the noble Lord earlier, is that we have this overarching legislation of the Human Rights Act.

Which guarantees free Rights Act. Which guarantees free speech. Which guarantees it in a way that is actually stronger, legally that is actually stronger, legally and constitutionally than any amendment you could pass to the current Employment Rights Bill. And current Employment Rights Bill. And so, that is not working, we need to so, that is not working, we need to enforce that better. I am suggesting, as a matter of law, that we have the protection of the free

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we have the protection of the free speech, we just need to enforce it. I'm all for enhancing the free- speech duties, required by the law, in any particular way. I'm happy to talk to the noble Lady, in a moment, about how we can do that. Earlier the noble Baroness, the Minister, said that the Government were on the side of workers, not the abusers. She got a lot of here, here is. I would like to point out the people that are worried about these clauses are not on the side of the abusers, against the workers.

That characterisation is not helpful, particularly in a committee in which we are trying to, in good faith, understand what the implications of this set of clauses are. Can you imagine if you are an employer and you hear that? You hear, O my God, if I do not completely overcome ply, I'm going to be accused, demonised as on the side of abusers, not on the side of employees. I had more to say, but real time. It is very important that this impact assessment is done, if anything, to reassure those of us who are worried and if the Government feel that we are over worrying ourselves, then maybe a detailed impact assessment, which we haven't had would help reassure us properly, with facts and reassure us properly, with facts and
21:02
21:03
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, someone who was a proprietor of a small business, anything with all reasonable in it is going to meet with some very careful consideration. And of course, I'm going to take advice and of course, I'm going to spend a good deal of time internally, looking at the consequences of this. And so for this, and I would expect for most businesses like mine, there are going to be costs. And keep in mind, I don't think it is going to cost me, and has the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, the employment lawyers do not come cheap, I expect this is going to cost a great deal more than the government says it is.

I can also see the benefits. If I read clauses 19 and 20 together, and apply them to the way you people in schools. We are going to get discipline at singing levels, because schools will have a really active duty to make sure the staff are not being harassed by pupils or indeed parents. There is going to be a lot of coming up to the standards of the best required. So, I can absolutely see the government's ambitions on this.

I do think therefore that close 97, amendment 97, are really an accurate look at what are the benefits and costs of this part of the bill, would be really helpful thing to have, so we all understand how to net the -- How to make the best of what are undoubtedly good hearts and good intentions. Of course, in case the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is reaching for his matchbox again tonight his strawmen, a couple of -- To light his strawmen, a couple of examples, one is visiting someone my age in hospital, recovering from a serious operation, and a couple of other people on the ward, had reverted 50 years, to the influence of the shock of the operation and the drugs they were on, the way they were treating the black nurses was quite extraordinarily horrible.

And the nurses were taking it on the chin and carrying on getting the best possible care. The other is a disabled woman in a wheelchair in a station who asked for help getting on the train, was refused for reasons she thought condescending, got a bit cross, and the Station Manager said, right, we are not putting you on any train today. Now, both of those were situations that would be impacted by closed 20 particular. -- Clause 20. With this bill going to work in practice? Look at those two circumstances, would it be possible for the NHS or indeed of the caring organisations to offer care? Where patients have become, for reasons that are not to do with their conscious completely -- Conscious cells, completely unreasonable.

And is it reasonable unreasonable. And is it reasonable In London just because they had a disagreement with someone, a member of staff, a number of staff got upset about it, how is this going to work? I think a really good understanding of that, rather than us all having to worry about what is the impact of this section, to know, to understand would be a really helpful thing to find in this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been a very, very thought-provoking debate, and I very thought-provoking debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I thank the noble Lord, contributed. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling amendments
21:07
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

Lord Sharpe, for tabling amendments 97. The noble Lord are seeking to add a new clause that would provide the Secretary of State to assess the impacts of free speech on employers of sections 19-22 of this bill, when it becomes an act. We have already produced and published an extensive set of impact assessment, indeed, we have published no fewer than four impact assessments, covering provisions in the scope of the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords amendment. In order to get his speech off to a really good start, could he just a really good start, could he just include his defence to the red rating that was given to those rating that was given to those impact assessments by the Regulatory Policy Committee, a completely Policy Committee, a completely independent assessment, but a red

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rating? I thank the noble Lord for reminding me of this, because I think we covered it last week. The think we covered it last week. The RPC did not question policy of the bill, just questions evidence, and I'm going to go further in this I'm going to go further in this bill. These assessments are based on the best available evidence, and the potential impact on businesses, potential impact on businesses, potential impact on businesses, workers, and the wider economy. We plan to further define this analysis plan to further define this analysis in the future.

Working with a range of stakeholders, including businesses, trade unions, academics, think tanks, the Regulatory Policy think tanks, the Regulatory Policy Committee to do so. The government is steadfast in its commitment to tackle all forms of harassment in the workplace. We know that those that impacted harassment at work that this can have a huge impact on the affected individuals, as well as the broader economic impacts. The burden of holding perpetrators to account, and of driving change is too great to be shouldered by employees alone.

These measures send a clear signal to all employers that they must take steps to check their employees from harassment, including from third parties, to encourage a cultural change. We know that the vast majority of employers agree that harassment is unacceptable and are working to ensure their employees are treated with respect. We will be working in partnership with them, towards this shared goal and supporting them with these changes. We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the better regulation framework.

This will account for amendments made in primary legislation in the bill, during this passage to Parliament, that would significantly change the impact of the policy of business. This impact assessment will be published alongside the enacted legislation. Additionally, we will publish further analysis, alongside carrying out further consultation, with stakeholders, ahead of any secondary legislation, to meet our better regulation requirement. Now, usually, my lords, using our best estimates, across all our harassment measures, the monetary costs to businesses will not be significant.

businesses will not be significant. Either there are initial costs, and repeatable costs for businesses are very low. All three measures also bring benefits to businesses in avoiding harassment of staff.
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page