Lords Chamber

Monday 16th June 2025

(began 7 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Grassroots interfaith movements in Israel Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral First Oral Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Oral Question.
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Workforce gaps in adult social care Lord Wood of Anfield (Labour)
-

Second Oral Question. Paper.
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:57
14:57
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Social energy tariffs
-

On behalf of Lord Faulks.
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Social energy tariffs Lord Watts (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

On behalf of my honourable friend, Lord Faulks, and with the permission of the house, I beg leave
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
None Portrait Oral questions: The defence industrial base Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

these factors that the noble Baroness mention. We will come back to the house when we have reached a conclusion. Fourth Oral Question, Lord Lancaster.
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:18
15:19
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendments 247, 248 and 250, standing in my name and that of several of my noble friends. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider whether sufficient measures are in place to prevent workplace intimidation, before approving any balloting method other than postal balloting method other than postal ballot. I believe the postal ballot has served as a cornerstone and guarantor of democracy for good reason. It provides privacy, anonymity, and time for reflection.

Workers receive their ballot papers at home, can consider the issues away from workplace pressure, marked their paper in privacy and return it without anybody knowing, how they had voted. This system has prevented workers from intimidation for generations. Alternative balloting methods are potentially more convenient or quicker. They create new possibilities for intimidation that simply don't exist with postal ballots. When voting moves into workplace environments and onto devices that can be observed, we fundamentally change the dynamics of how workers take part in crucial decisions about industrial action.

Consider workplace balancing stations. -- Balloting stations. Workers might find themselves voting in break rooms, meeting rooms or other workplace locations, where colleagues, supervisors and even union officials could observe who is taking part, when they are voting and potentially seek to influence their decisions through their presence alone. The Q2 vote becomes visible. The time spent considering options becomes observable. The act of voting transforms from a private decision to a semipublic one. Electronic balloting presents its own challenge.

They might use personal devices in workplace settings where screens can be observed where pressure can be applied to vote immediately instead of after proper consideration. The technology that enables quick voting can also enable quick pressure. Each of these alternative methods, while offering potential benefits in terms of speed and convenience, also create vulnerability that postal ballots do not have. The private space of the home. The sealed envelope. Anonymous returns. These features provide protections that we must be careful not to lose as we embrace new technologies and embrace new technologies and methods.

We simply want assurances that before any alternative balloting method is approved, proper safeguards exist to prevent intimidation scenarios. These might include requirements for private voting spaces, prohibitions on observing voting, secure systems that protect voter anonymity, cooling off periods which prevent immediate pressure to vote. Workers should be able to vote according to their genuine views about proposed industrial action, free from any form of pressure and intimidation, regardless of sources. The employee who has concerns about strike action and worries about lost wages, or needs time to consider the implications, should be able to take part in balloting without feeling rushed or being observed.

This protection is particularly important because industrial action ballot do directly affect worker livelihoods. These are not abstract political decisions. They are choices about whether to risk wages, potentially face disciplinary action, or take steps which could affect employment. Workers deserve the space and privacy to make these difficult decisions, according to their own circumstances and conscience. Turning to amendment 248, this takes a clear and necessary step to protect the fundamental principle of democratic voting by prohibiting balloting from taking place in the workplace.

This would prevent the Secretary of State from making any order that would allow trade union ballots and elections to be held in workplace settings. The workplace is fundamentally incompatible with free and fair democratic voting. When balloting moves into the workplace environment, you create a setting where the very people who have power over daily worker lives, career prospects and working conditions, can observe, influence and potentially intimidate voters during the democratic process. This prohibition recognises a simple truth.

The workplace is not a neutral space. It is not a safe space for democratic participation. It is an environment structured by powerful relationships, hierarchies and dependencies which can compromise the integrity of voting. When workers must cast ballots surrounded by colleagues, supervisors, union officials, managers, the essential privacy democracy requires is fundamentally undermined. Consider what workplace balloting means in practice. Workers would vote in break rooms where conversations can be overheard. Meeting rooms where attendance could be monitored. More common areas where voter behaviour becomes visible to everybody present.

The simple act of participating or not participating becomes observable workplace behaviour instead of a matter of private and democratic choice. The physical presence of authority figures during workplace balloting creates inherent pressure. Union officials can observe who has voted enthusiastically and who has hesitated. Stuart can monitor participation levels. And identify workers who appear reluctant to engage. Supervisors, even if not directly involved in the balloting process, might become aware of the industrial action vote taking place on their premises during work hours.

This pressure operates explicitly and implicitly. Workers might feel and implicitly. Workers might feel compelled to demonstrate loyalty or enthusiasm through their voter behaviour when that behaviour occurs in workplace settings. The colleague who takes time to carefully consider questions might be seen as insufficiently committed. A voter who is voting quickly might be assumed to be falling to group pressure rather than individual conscience. Workplace balloting also create logistical pressure which can compromise democratic participation.

Workers might feel rushed during a limited break times or lunch periods. They might worry about being seen as taking too long away from their duties. The natural rhythm of workplace life, shift patterns, busy periods, urgent deadlines, they can interfere with the thoughtful consideration democratic voting requires. Turning to amendment 250, this would introduce a crucial requirement for transparency and accountability in industrial action, by requiring unions to conduct and publish economic impact assessments and family tests before balloting members on strike action.

It would require unions to take three essential steps before any ballots for industrial action can take place. Publishing the economic impact assessment, a family test on the impact of industrial action, and informing members these reports are being published. This is about ensuring that workers can access comprehensive information about the broader consequences of proposed industrial action before they vote. The case for impact assessment is compelling. When we regard the real world consequences of industrial action.

For example, in 2023, a union estimated that its industrial actions had cost the UK economy £5 billion will stop the office for National statistics reported during those 16 days of NHS strikes between December 2022 and February 2023, at least 93,000 outpatient appointments, 18,000 elective procedures, 9,500 mental health appointments, and around 28,000 community service appointments had to be rescheduled because of strike action. That had a significant effect on people in urgent need of important support.

And then the ongoing Birmingham in strikes provide a stark illustration of how industrial action can affect entire communities. Birmingham City Council declared a major incident after 17,000 tons of rubbish was not collected on the streets and requiring assistance not just from other local authorities but even army specialists logistical support. It disproportionately affected lower income settings in inner-city areas such as Spark Hill, and Ladywood such as Spark Hill, and Ladywood where refuse piled up to a greater degree than in more affluent suburbs.

The health implications have been severe. Waste which remains not collected has the potential to create not just a nuisance for the community, flies and vermin, but also public health risks. Policing costs alone have been substantial. Costs have reached almost £1 million. These are tangible consequences affect real families and communities beyond the The economic impact assessment required ensures that unions must honestly evaluate and disclose the broader economic consequences proposed in industrial action. This includes effect on the wider economy, impact on public services, cost to businesses and consumers and consequences for economic growth and productivity.

Workers deserve to know whether their action might cost the economy billions of pounds or forced the cancellation of thousands of medical appointments. The family test requirements are equally important because industrial action often has profound effects on family relationships and household stability. Strike action can mean lost wages for participating workers, affecting their ability to meet mortgage payments, support their children or maintain their standard of living. It can create stress within the families as breadwinners face difficult choices between solidarity with colleagues and financial responsibility to their dependents.

But the family test goes beyond the immediate families of striking workers. Industrial action can affect the families of those who depend on the services being disrupted. Parents whose children 's schools close. They must arrange alternative childcare or take them to work. Families with honourable members who may see vital treatment is delayed or cancelled. Residents affected by been strikes may face health risks from accumulated waste. The uncollected rubbish of Birmingham should be, must be a ghastly historical aberration.

This legislation, if it is unamended, threatens to turn the bins of Birmingham into a vision of the future, a new law. I believe nation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deserves better. I beg to move. Amendment proposed. After close 70, insert the new clause is printed on the Marshalled List. I rise to support the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment
15:33
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
so eloquently moved by my noble friend. There is not much more to add but I will try. I also put my name to the amendment. I thought we had gone past the stage where we look back in history and did not learn the lessons of history in respect to protecting sensitive elections. I'd like to take Your Lordships' House back to February 1834 and colleagues on the other side of the chamber will be aware the village of Tolpuddle in Dorset.

The workers from the union to fight wage cuts. The following year, they were arrested, rain, found guilty and transported. Not because they had broken of this -- oath's but because they had assembled. They met to form a union for fighting these wage cuts and they were betrayed by two union embers. If you talk to Unite the union, it's nothing new under the sun. That being said, the point was they did not have a secret ballot.

One of the reasons unions have evolved in a positive way over the years, hitherto until we reached this bill, is because we've had that workplace democracy because you don't have a situation where people were pressured to join a union and pressured to support sometimes industrial action which was uncalled for and very damaging both to their own jobs and to the business generally. We saw this for instance in 1984 with the miners strike. I do think that the amendment put down, amendment 247 and 248 in particular put down by my noble friend Lord Hunt are very sensible.

I would say be careful what you wish for because there is another historical example. Noble Lords on the other side might be aware of it. The fact that the Jim Crow laws in the southern part of the United States existed post- Reconstruction and marginalised and undermined the rights of Black people to vote was because they didn't have a secret ballot and they had to register. Many, many legal impediments to stop them voting. The fact is we respect the integrity of the secret ballot.

We wouldn't dream of asking local councillors, parish councillors, borough councillors, county councillors, and certainly not members of Parliament to seek election on the basis that the electorate will be corralled into voting a certain way and there would not be a secret ballot. That is as it should be and it has been for modern times, and is correct. Why are we going back now to a potential area of bullying, harassment, attacking people who may not support the union question we give people a chance to think reflect, choose the right way forward not just for themselves and their families but for the union by means of a secret ballot.

For this reason, I strongly support my noble friend amendment and I hope the Minister will give it due regard.
15:38
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, apologies. Should I... I rise to support this group of amendments and I have to say it is with deep regret. My assessment with these amendment is that they are trying to stir up a spectre of trading and intimidation which reminds me very strongly of the initiative going back in history, not quite as far as the noble Lord Jackson, but she 2014 when the government commissioned Bruce Khan QC to assess intimidation in workplaces.

As it transpired, Mr Ka the client opportunities to make any recommendations whatsoever on the basis of the evidence that he received. For the -- TUCs part and I was at the helm at the time, we described this as a -- "political stunt". The Conservative party should have repaid the taxpayer for the significant cost of this investigation, which led to zero - I repeat zero - changes in the law. In fact, Mr Ka went on just a year later to oppose the then Conservative government's Trade Union Bill as a "threat to industrial relations ".

This brings industrial relations ". This brings me to safe and secure e-balloting. It seems to me that anybody who is a true democrat would look to increase opportunities for participation in safe, secure, secret and electronic balloting. Any boost to democracy should be welcome. I have to say that it is disappointing that those who oppose the right for trade unionist to cast their vote safely, securely, and secretly by electronic ballot apparently believe there is no threat of intimidation in respect of political parties, and therefore it is a fine for political parties to use modern methods of balloting, but it is not fine for trade unionists.

I would ask what view that gives us of the perception of trade unionists from the benches opposite, when on the contrary, we should be proud of trade unions. We should tackle the causes, not just the symptoms of industrial action. We should be proud of constructive industrial relations in this country that are absolutely vital for productivity and growth.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I speak briefly on amendments to 47, 248 and 250. These amendments introduce further requirements in relation to trade union ballots, particularly concerning the risk of intimidation, concerning the risk of intimidation, the use of these locations and the information unions must work to
15:41
15:42
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom for tabling these amendments and his colleague Lord amendments and his colleague Lord Hunt of Wirral. I thought we were starting history lessons a bit early to. Early in terms of being the first group of committee and early in terms of going back to the 1830s. I have enjoyed the anecdote about the Tolpuddle martyrs. I'm not entirely sure what it added to the debate, the.

On amendment 247, although it is well-intentioned, it's not necessary. We all share the concerns outlined by the noble Lord Lord Hunt of Wirral about interference in balloting around industrial action. I think, from our side, I would say we understand that no worker takes a decision about voting for industrial action, whether it is strike action or action short of strike, likely without understanding the consequences. -- Likely without understanding the consequences -- lightly. When we talk about this, we must talk about both sides of the leisure ledger.

We must be allowed to do so without union interference. Furthermore, recognition under Furthermore, recognition under schedule A1 are already prohibiting and can order that a ballot is rerun if a practice -- unfair practice claim is found. Leisure roaming specifically, the government must consider that those entitled to vote have the opportunity to do so. At the risk of any unfairness -- the risk of any unfairness must be The section covers intimidation in the workplace and elsewhere.

The amendment is therefore not required. I'd like to thank my noble friend Baroness O'Grady for reminding us of the outcome of the enquiry about the absence of intimidation in the workplace. The question was asked, it was tested by independent opinion and it was found to be underlying the -- to be wanting. Turning to amendment 248. It would prevent the amendment 248. It would prevent the secretary of state... This amendment fails to take into account that workplace ballots are already taken into consideration.

One does wonder when this is deemed as acceptable by the frontbench opposite but other sorts of workplace balloting is not. Furthermore, any new voting methods introduced under section 54 must enable ability to meet the enable ability to meet the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are committed to modern balloting and turning finally to amendment 250, Weir poses as it unnecessarily asked unions to unnecessarily asked unions to conduct an impact assessment and for members to be made aware of these assessments before unions can take assessments before unions can take industrial action. My Lords, at the end of the last day of committee, we discussed the impact of the previous government's trade union legislation, in terms of increased legislation, in terms of increased days lost to strike action between days lost to strike action between 2022 and 2024.

We were contented it 2022 and 2024. We were contented it demonstrated that it increased bureaucratic hurdles of the kind created by this amendment, making it harder for trade unions to engage in good faith in negotiations with employers, making industrial strife more likely. I hope this goes some way to addressing the question posed by the noble Baroness Kramer about our understanding of the impact of these amendments on industrial relations. The amendments as well are very woolly on how, given we have had detailed discussions in previous days of committee, about how the impact assessments would operate.

They do introduce further unfair barriers on trade unions. In terms of the economic impact assessment, how would it be evaluated? What would be an acceptable standard? Who would monitor that it was fairly carried out? Who would pay for it? It seems to put more barriers and costs on members for funding. Something which I think we have agreed on committee is a fundamental thing that people have, the right to vote democratically to take industrial action. Also the amendment does not specify how a family test would work.

It does not link into a statutory definition and makes for a very impractical test. Some might speculate it as a backdoor way of retaining specific sectors one might say are more disruptive to family life such as transport and education, initially introducing the trade Union act which I will remind noble lords opposite we have a manifesto commitment to abolish. It still requires unions to ask members which type of industrial action they want to take part in, expressing terms of strike action or action short of a strike.

Ballots will continue to be scrutinised to help union members to make informed decisions and vote on proposed actions. In the light of this I asked the noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral to withdraw amendment 247.
15:49
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, I am very grateful to Mike noble friend Lord Jackson of Peter Bor. I had not thought when preparing my address about referring to 1834. The only about referring to 1834. The only time I talk about that is in 1834 this whole place burned down and gave rise to the new mother of parliaments we know today and only Westminster Hall survived that terrible fire. All I will say about the Tolpuddle martyrs, who were sentenced to be sent to Australia, is two years later they were pardoned and all went to Canada.

I think Canada benefited greatly from that exodus. But I am not quite sure that we can read that across because much has changed as the noble Baroness reminded us, Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway. Who also referred back to the coalition. Not a Conservative government, a And cited a QC that I respected hugely as a brilliant advocate in this whole field of employment law. But I'm not sure I read across in the way that the noble Baroness did. Baroness Kramer, I agree that it is a question of balance.

Got to try to do our best to get it right. But as we draw this particular debate on these amendments to a close, I do want to say how sorry I am that the government has declined to accept these modest but essential amendments. Although I pay tribute to the noble Lord for saying they are well intentioned. Of course they are. They are not rooted in ideology but in common sense, democratic support and a genuine concern for those people who will be affected most by this legislation.

Throughout this short debate, we have just tried to put across the case that industrial action is not just a technical process, but a deeply human process. It involves individuals making weighty decisions that affect their income, job security, families and the wider community. That is why the processes that we set in place to govern these decisions must be fair, private and informed. We have argued in these amendments workers deserve to vote on industrial action in conditions that are free from coercion.

We said that the workplace, structured as it is by hierarchy and power dynamics is not and cannot be a neutral environment for democratic expression. I don't need to go back to the 1970s but of course that is when I entered parliament for the first time and we saw a lot of decisions made in the workplace which people regret it afterwards. I just ask the government to consider the real risk of intimidation. Whether explicit or subtle. To preserve the privacy that the postal ballot has long guaranteed.

We will not ask the government to turn the clock back on technological progress. We are just asking that any movement away from the postal ballot has to be accompanied by a genuine, enforceable safeguards. Yet sadly the noble Lord the Minister refused to accept even the simple premise that the method of voting matters. That how a person votes is as important as the person for whom they are voting. We also ask for transparency. In amendment 250 resort to make sure unions undertaking industrial action do so with an honest reckoning of the border consequences, economic, social and family related.

We know strikes do not happen in a vacuum. They ripple outwards. Touching the lives of patients, parents, commuters, businesses and whole communities. I do not want to prohibit strikes. But we do believe workers must be given the full picture before they make a serious decision to withdraw labour. I am particularly disappointed because I think these amendments would strengthen public confidence in this legislation. They would have shown that Parliament is serious not only about protecting worker rights, but protecting democratic process, public welfare and social responsibility.

Instead the message is now that efficiency is more important than privacy. Speed matters more than integrity. The consequences of industrial action, no matter how far-reaching, need to be honestly appraised before a strike begins. All I will say in conclusion is the debate does not end here. These concerns I do not believe will go away. The consequences of inaction and the risk of intimidation, the lack of transparency, the damage to public trust will in time make themselves known.

When they do, I hope that the House will remember the case we have made today. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? By leaf, amendment be withdrawn? By leaf, withdrawn. 248, not moved? 249, not withdrawn. 248, not moved? 249, not moved? 250, not moved? 251, not moved? 250, not moved? 251, not moved? 251 a, not moved. 250 1B, not moved. The question is called 71, stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say
15:56
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is because 72 stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Clause 73, amendment 250 1C, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the amendments in this group address gaps in current legislation by establishing clear exemptions from detriment to protection when workers engage in unacceptable conduct during an industrial dispute while creating a industrial dispute while creating a framework to restore balance to framework to restore balance to industrial relations. I'm willing to be corrected but we do not believe that these protections against certain leveraged activities certain leveraged activities currently exist in legislation. Which is why this amendment is Which is why this amendment is necessary.

But this forms part of a broader package addressing systemic failings in industrial relations failings in industrial relations frameworks. In our assessment, leveraged could manifest in different forms but at the core is a deliberate strategy to publicly intimidate and humiliate employers. Compelling them to make concessions in industrial disputes that they would not otherwise have considered. We reject this approach as unacceptable in a civilised industrial relations. When describing leveraging the context of Grangemouth, Unite explicitly stated " leveraged targets all areas of weakness in an employer.

Leverages the translation of an organising mindset into the planning and implementation of a campaign strategy, underpinned by the escalation of pressure to create uncertainty ". Even more concerning, Unite expressed the view that in a campaign, "the employer is routinely treated as a target to be defeated, not a friend to be convinced". This adversarial approach treats employers as enemies to be vanquished and not partners in resolving legitimate grievances. Amendment 252 identifies actions which constitute leveraged. Intimidation at picket lines.

Protests at company premises. The private homes of senior managers. Harassing non-striking workers. Deliberate action designed to undermine business continuity planning. Workers engaged in intimidatory tactics should face the prospect of dismissal redoubt records to employment protection. But the problems extend beyond leveraging. Amendment 250 1C response to the troubling use of wildcat strikes and unofficial action without democratic mandate. Grangemouth exemplifies this. These tactics were employed to pursue objectives which would not have come under genuine workplace support. If workers are to enjoy enhanced protections, they should be reserved for action properly sanctioned through domestic process under sections listed.

It addresses the problem of coordinated action by workers outside est collective bargaining frameworks. We have seen increased instances of social media organise workplace action, deliberately circumventing union structures and creating chaos for employers facing industrial action without recognised representatives to negotiate with. The next amendment addresses the risk that without a proper definition, every minor management decision in a dispute could become grounds for a detriment claim. We have seen in other jurisdictions how broad definition create litigation culture and employers are constantly threatened for routine operational decisions.

Preventing the trivialisation of genuine grievances, this amendment will protect employees from vexatious claims. The compensation framework amendments respond to documented failings. The next amendment establishes bounds of detriment, severity from minor, too serious and extreme. Addressing the current lack of guidance that lead to inconsistent awards. The next amendment requires proof of actual financial loss. Preventing the speculative claims proliferating without requirements. The next amendment restricts compensation to economic loss, preventing the concerning trend towards errors in The next amendments address the stark reality that industrial action has already compromised public safety.

During recent NHS strikes, emergency cover was not adequate and put patients at risk. The 2019 London Underground strikes left commuters stranded and created security vulnerability. The next amendment provides essential clarity for employers who must prioritise Without this protection, fear of litigation might affect operational decisions. Amendment 251 F... Such considerations must take precedent over detriment protections. Amendment 251H ensures that even during dispute, workers cannot ignore lawful safety instructions. Striking workers have ignored protocols, risking themselves and the public.

Workplaces must -- workplace safety must remain absolute. Without this amendment, any management response risks triggering the unnecessary. There can be no justification for bringing industrial disputes to managers family homes. Such tactics have not just targeted individuals but their families, including children are involved in workplace disputes. The harassment of nonworking -- non- striking workers represents another deeply troubling aspect. Workers who choose not to participate, whether due to financial necessity or personal conviction, deserve protection from intimidation.

No worker should face abuse for exercising their fundamental right to work during a dispute. This compressive package does not restrict legitimate industrial restrict legitimate industrial action or peaceful protest. Establish that certain egregious behaviour to fall outside acceptable conduct and should not enjoy employment protection. Workers will remain free to engage in lawful industrial action, peaceful picketing and legitimate union activities. The leveraged approach explicitly described by Unite represents a departure from good faith negotiation principles. When unions adopt strategies designed to defeat rather than convince employers, they abandon the collaborative approach that leads to sustainable workplace solutions.

Critics may argue that these amendments weaken worker protections but protection of rights must be balanced with responsibility for conduct. The right to take industrial action does not extend to the right to intimidate, harass or engage in destructive behaviour. Such conduct ultimately weakens the legitimacy of industrial action and undermines public support for legitimate grievances. These amendments respond to a genuine crisis where the balance has shifted so far towards product industrial action that legitimate business operations are under constant threat.

We created a system with -- were employers face criticism and public safety can be compromised. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 73,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 73, page 39. Insert the words printed on the Marshalled List. the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak to amendments to 51 C to 5132 to 5132252 in the name of larger. Amendments in this group introduce a wide range of limitations to the right not to suffer detriment for participating in protected industrial action. The
16:04
16:05
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
treatment during lawful industrial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

action is preserved in practice. I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. I thank Lord Chartres for tabling these amendments. -- Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I want to be clear on why this clause is required. Close 73 inserts new sections into the Trade Union The earlier article is can capital for the -- with the European Convention on Human Rights. -- Incompatible. In the case of amendment 251 C, it requires a ballot.

It makes clear that production is limited in cases where the action is compliant. Furthermore, in the case of amendment 251J secondary action is already prohibited under section 244 of the 1994 act and the new protection will not apply where industrial action was unlawful secondary action. With regards to amendments 251 F and H section 240 allows for criminal prosecution for those who intentionally and maliciously endanger life or cause serious injury to a person by going on strike.

Furthermore, if the act of employer is motivated by health and safety concerns and not the purpose of preventing the employee from taking protected industrial action or penalising them, they have a defence from detriment claims and tribunals will consider whether the employers act constitute a detriment. These amendments seek to prejudge a full and open consultation on this issue by setting out circumstances in which detriment protection will not apply. We were only prescribed detriment in secondary legislation once we have conducted a comprehensive consultation seeking views across the public, including those of workers, employers, trade unions and all other stakeholders.

I also want to make clear in reference to amendment 252 that protection from prescribed detriment only applies were the sole or main purpose of subjecting a worker to detriment is to prevent, deter or penalise worker from taking protected industrial action. So, for example, if a worker is subjected to detriment solely or mainly because of harassment or bullying of non-striking workers, this will apply. Criminal law will continue to apply to pickets. Turning to amendments 251 E and G, 251 E is a protection from detriment.

The sewer main purpose of the action must be to deter or penalise industrial action. This would not apply in the case of maintenance of critical operations. Amendment 251G is an unreasonable restriction to apply to detriment protections. Non-union members have rights to participate in official, protected industrial action and where that is the case, they must be afforded the same protections from detriment as union members. Turning detriment as union members. Turning to amendments 251 N, L, M, P, and K.

251 M and N place a burden on individuals to prove that they have suffered financial or economic loss as a result of detriment and limitless circumstances where they are eligible for compensation. These hurdles and limits will potentially deter them from engaging in industrial action, limiting compliance with Supreme Court ruling and article 11. Amendments 251 M and P seek to restrict compensation with regards to business needs. I want to be clear. And employers action or failure to act in relation to prescribed detriment will be a legal obligation that cannot be breached proportionately and there is no legitimate business interest for seeking to deter or penalising employee from taking protected industrial action.

Amendment 251K seeks to establish severity and requires the Secretary of State to specify maximum compensation limits for which -- which tribunals would have to comply with. Section D is already clear. Any loss sustained by already clear. Any loss sustained by the claimant must be applicable to failure to take action by an employer. Differ, tribunals will reward compensation based on what the tribunal considers to be equitable. And will be able to proportionately determine the amount of compensation taking into account all the relevant circumstances.

I hope I have given the noble Lord assurance and I ask him to withdraw amendment 251C.
16:11
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his very compressive answer, and also to the noble Lady Baroness Barker for her comments. I'm going to have to obviously read Hansard very carefully because there is a lot of detail in his answer. I would say this and that is four months we have listened to ministers speak at considerable length about the urgency to address bad actors. They have painted unscrupulous employers who exploit workers and flout employment law.

Having presented clear evidence of equally concerning bad actors within the trade union movement, the government's response has been to effectively stay silent. I repeat -- repeated again those Unite comments. The employer is treated as an enemy, not a friend to be convinced. This is not collaborative. It is very hostile in intent. Without going into enormous detail, I think that the noble Lord side of amendment 251L which would require proof of financial loss, this is an example of a speculative claim.

I don't see how that would deter anyone with a legitimate claim for engaging in industrial action. -- From engaging. We will have to come back to these amendments. There was a good deal of detail in their. Once again, the noble Lord is relying on the mythical consultation. I would obviously like to know when the consultation on these particular aspects of these amendments will take these, and that calls into question when he expects all of this to be implement it.

A subject to which I'm sure we will return to on many occasions this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

evening. A bid to withdraw. Is it your Lordships pleasure the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. amendment is by leave withdrawn. Lord Sharpe, not move. 251 F and G, Lord Sharpe, not move. 251 F and G, Not move. H and J, Not move. K and Not move. H and J, Not move. K and L, Not move. M and N, Not move. P, Not move. 252, Knotweed. The question is that clause 73 stand as question is that clause 73 stand as part of the bill.

All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. After close 73, amendment 253, Lord Hendy, not move. The question is that clause 74 stand as part of the bill. All of those in favour say, "Content". Those in the contrary say, "Not content". The contents have it. After close 74, amendment 253 A.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak in support of amendment 253A. This is a simple amendment to 253A. This is a simple amendment to clarify section 145 of the Trade Union And Labour Relations Union And Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. The reason for (Consolidation) Act. The reason for the amendment. In 2011, the pay of the amendment. In 2011, the pay of Live Housing workers had fallen by Live Housing workers had fallen by over 30% in real terms. Live Housing was not the failing company.

Live
16:15
Lord Prentis of Leeds Portrait Lord Prentis of Leeds (Labour)
-
-
was not the failing company. Live Housing had recorded annual services for the last five years ranging from £14 million-£25 million with reserves of over £110 million. In the autumn of last year, talks in the long overdue equal pay agreement and on the annual pay rise had broken down. Union members voted to take lawful industrial action. Live Housing did not engage. It did not look to the underlying causes of the dispute. Live Housing, instead of seeking a fair deal, decided that it had found a loophole in the 1992 had found a loophole in the 1992 had found a loophole in the 1992

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It made an offer of a 5% increase to be paid just before Christmas. But the offer had strings. To get But the offer had strings. To get the 5% increase, staff had to the 5% increase, staff had to confirm they were not members of a confirm they were not members of a trade union. The email to staff read that if you are a non-union member and would like to accept the pay and would like to accept the pay award offered, please send confirmation of your acceptance and confirm you are a non-union member.

confirm you are a non-union member. It went on to say that if you wish It went on to say that if you wish to receive the pay award, and you are not a union member, that will be are not a union member, that will be enough. For those taking the action, the union members, it was outsourcing. Bringing strikebreaking companies and some staff needing the money before Christmas had no choice but to leave their union. My Lords, I am pleased to inform all of you that after eight long months, agreement was reached a couple of weeks ago in May.

Following a new chief executive and a new chairperson of the board coming in. It was a dispute in which the local authority and council had to intervene. It was a dispute which was the subject to an adjournment debate in the other place. Assurances were given that the Minister would look at the case in more detail to understand what action if any is necessary. My amendment is intended to bring clarity. Two section 145 of the 1992 act.

It already states the worker has the right not to have an offer made to them by the employer for the sole purpose or the main purpose of inducing the worker not to be all to seek to become a member of an independent trade union. My Lords, my amendment is not seeking new rights. It simply confirms in addition to the section of the 1992 act that trade union members should not be excluded from financial offers because of their membership.

If this is not addressed, unscrupulous employers may continue to offer inducements which in effect bribe workers to leave their trade union. My Lords, bad practice spreads. It undermines good employers. It could leave workers without the protection of the trade union in workplaces where the employer is willing to exploit any loopholes in current legislation. I trust that my noble friend the Minister will take on board the need to clarify the current legislation and recognise the weight of concern so many have expressed.

A simple addition to the section of the act which my amendment proposes would close the loophole exploited in this case study. It would mean the employer could not circumvent existing protections. It would also mean the judicial system would not be clogged up with unnecessary legal cases of this nature. I ask my honourable friend the Minister to find a little time in what I know to be a very busy schedule to find a way to bring clarity to section 145 way to bring clarity to section 145 prior to report stage.

I would like to assure my noble friend that my amendment is intended to be helpful. It is not sacrosanct. I will sit down with him at any time to seek to find a way through. Thank you.
16:21
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
After clause 74, in certainly new clause printed on the Marshall list. clause printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Insert the new clause. I would like to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Lord Prentis of Leeds for describing Lord Prentis of Leeds for describing this amendment to us. Simple, easy this amendment to us. Simple, easy to understand but founded in a very difficult and testing industrial difficult and testing industrial dispute. Looking back over my time as a parliamentarian, I often find as a parliamentarian, I often find as a parliamentarian, I often find that fax get distorted. Beliefs underpinned. Positions become underpinned.

Positions become entrenched. The last thing that should ever happen is an overt change in the law. Because I do not believe it is necessary. Let me explain why. I don't believe the noble Lord the Minister should support the proposed amendment, which the noble Lord Prentis has explained, which seeks to extend section 140 5A of the Labour relations consolidation act of 1992, to cover the exclusion all the omission of a worker from an offer on grounds related to trade union membership or trade union activity.

But while the noble Lord Prentis presented this as a measure to strengthen worker rights and reinforce freedom of association, in reality I think on reflection, as he virtually admitted when he introduced the amendment, I do believe it is poorly drafted, conceptually flawed stop it is rather legally confusing. Potentially it is deeply damaging to the legitimate, practical function the legitimate, practical function of workplace relations. At the core I believe the amendment fails to understand the balance that needs to be struck between protecting the white 's -- -- protecting the rights and the function of the organisation.

It provides already robust protections against unlawful inducements. Which seek to undermine collective bargaining. I do recall because I was in government at the time that sections 140 5A and B were carefully crafted to target deliberate attempts by employers to bypass or to undermine collective agreements. This amendment would go significantly beyond that. Seeking to introduce for the first time in statute a very ambiguous and legally unstable concept. That of exclusion from an offer.

Without providing any meaningful guidance or definition as to what such exclusion means. How is it to be assessed and in what An offer by its very nature is something that is made on the basis of specific criteria. Sometimes economic. Sometimes strategic. Sometimes tied to individual performance. Or to business need. To say that a worker has a right not to be excluded from any offer and to link any such a mission to trade union membership or activity, I do believe would place an intolerable burden upon employers.

It really opens the door to speculative claims and second guessing of decisions which may be made for entirely legitimate, neutral reasons. Relying upon the influence of motive in the absence of solid evidence. Effectively it demands that employers should treat all workers identically in every instance of any offer, whether it is financial, And the reversal of the burden of proof as a consequence. Let me explain. Any case brought under the new section full to the employer to demonstrate the grounds on which the worker was excluded.

That is a fundamental reversal of the ordinary legal principle that a claimant must prove their case. It turns routine management discretion into presumed unlawful conduct, unless proved otherwise. Such a reversal might be appropriate in narrow cases where discrimination is clearly alleged and supported by a pattern of conduct. But writing it into statute broadly and in such general terms is not only disproportionate but To trust and clarity between employer and employees. No employer however well-intentioned could manage negotiations or individual agreements with confidence under such a regime.

I believe the amendment also risked creating legal confusion by overlapping with other provisions already in place to protect against victimisation and unfair treatment. Section 146 already protects against detriment related to trade union activity. Section 145 already prohibits inducements which would bypass collective bargaining. If we are to ensure fair treatment of trade union members, the proper route is through targeted enforcement of those provisions. Not through introducing vague, speculative new rights which overlap and conflict with existing law.

I believe the amendment is also unbalanced in approach. It does not consider there are many reasons why an individual might not be included in an offer. Reasons which are entirely unconnected to trade union status. It might be on account of a role, a location, the timing of their employment or performance- based factors. Yet under the proposed amendment, a worker could simply allege they were excluded because of trade union membership or activity and the burden shifts entirely onto the employer to justify actions.

That is not just an invitation to abuse but a structural distortion of fairness in employment law. It must also be acknowledged it could have chilling effects on legitimate collective bargaining. Employers may feel compelled to make a cross the board offer instead of engaging in more flexible, targeted negotiations which take into account differences in roles, responsibilities and need. That could undermine not only business could undermine not only business efficiency, but also the ability of unions themselves to secure advantageous outcomes for specific groups of members.

The very act of negotiating special terms for one group might trigger complaints from others, citing this amendment as grounds for a claim of exclusion. In conclusion, let me be absolutely clear that freedom of association is a vital right. It must be protected. I don't believe however it would be served by new laws which are unclear. Which burden employs without cause. Which generate more confusion than clarity. Despite the rhetorical appeal to equality and fairness, I believe this amendment would in practice be a blunt and imprecise instrument.

Increasing litigation. Reducing operational flexibility. Contributing little if any towards the genuine promotion of union rights. I hope the noble Lord the Minister would agree with that. the Minister would agree with that.
16:30
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
Hi thank the noble Lord for his lengthy contribution. I do not support the amendment. I appreciate my noble friend for tabling the amendment. It sets out that workers have a right not to be excluded from office by the employer because among other reasons they are trade union members. This is in response to a matter regarding a housing association. Regarding a pay offer to only members of the workforce that confirmed they were not trade union members.

I am pleased this matter has been positively resolved I'm grateful to my noble friend for I'm grateful to my noble friend for his engagement with me, and my noble friend, the minister, on this matter. Treating trade union members differently to nonunionised workers is not in the spirit of good industrial relations and on the face of it, there is certainly cause for concern here. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the workers who took action, in part, to resolve this concerning behaviour.

A range of protections do exist against conducive men Santa detriments, against trade union members under the trade union and labour relations constitution 1992, my Lords, we are keeping under review how the range of protections currently operate, and if and where the law may fall short. We will provide my noble friend, Lord Prentis, with any relevant things that come out of this. We are also conscious this particular method has not been tested in the courts, in relation to existing protections in the 1992 act.

The law on inducements and detriments is complex, and if changes necessary, any amendment would need to be carefully considered. For this reason, the government does not support this amendment at this time. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 253, A. Do I take it the noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Do I take it the noble Lord wishes to explore the amendment without further contribution? Is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The
16:33
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. In clause 75, amendment 254, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe. I rise to support the amendments tabled after clause 75 which would require the Secretary of State to assess the impact of repealing the assess the impact of repealing the strikes minimum service levels act of 2023, both in terms of emergency of 2023, both in terms of emergency service provision, and the broader resilience of our public infrastructure during industrial action. These are pragmatic and action. These are pragmatic and proportionate amendments and I regret they are even necessary, but the manner in which clause 75 the manner in which clause 75 proposes to repeal this legislation abruptly and with no review, no consultation, and no supporting evidence, leaves us no choice.

The evidence, leaves us no choice. The 2023 act was narrowly drawn. It 2023 act was narrowly drawn. It applied only to a tightly defined set of sectors. Ambience services, fire and rescue, health, transport, nuclear decommissioning, and borders. Where a complete withdrawal borders. Where a complete withdrawal of labour proposes strong risks to life, safety, national security, or national functioning. My Lords committee did not ban strikes, it did not criminalise union membership. It allowed for a minimum service level to be set by regulation, after consultation with affected sectors.

In other words, it was a public protection measure, a mechanism of last resort, and in mirrored provisions already in places across Europe and beyond. The government now seeks to repeal that law, seemingly on the basis is achieved nothing. They will no doubt point to the fact industrial action has continued to come into false. Indeed, we know from statistics, 160,000 working days were lost to strike action in the first quarter of 2035 alone. But that statistic proves nothing about the value or otherwise of the act, it only proves the writer's strike continues to be exercised, as it should.

Minimum service levels act was never intended to eliminate strike action, and its success should not be judged on whether workers stop striking, it should be judged by whether the public was kept safe whenever strikes did happen, with whenever ambulance did reach heart-attack victims, and whether border infrastructure function at a minimal level. That is a relevant test. The government produced no evidence, none, to show those minimum protections were either unnecessary or ineffective. In fact, if the act truly achieved nothing, why the rush to repeal it? Governments do not normally spend valuable legislative time repealing laws they believe have no impact.

The truth is, this law does have teeth, it provides leverage and establish a legal baseline. The government wants to remove it because, not because it is useless, but because it places limits on how interest can allow disruption to stretch. If anyone believes the act was flawed, the responsible course would be to review its effects before repealing it, particularly when the law a recent implementation across sectors are still under way. Consultations on minimum staffing levels have not been concluded in all sectors. Practical guidelines had only begun to take shape.

The real-world application of the law was still emerging. So, to repeal it now is to abandon it in the name of public symbolism, to uproot a tree before it even had time to settle, and declare it a failure for not bearing fruit. What is most striking, however, my Lords, is the government have provided no evidence that repealing the act will lead to improved industrial relations, despite making that very claim in the impact assessment for this bill. It is asserted almost in passing that the removal of the act will restore trust, or reduce tensions in negotiations.

But where is the proof of that? Where is the analysis? Where is the independent data or stakeholder feedback to support that optimism? We are told to take it on faith that repealing the legal framework designed to protect the public also help produce a more harmonious climate between unions and employers. But we are not here to govern by faith, we are here to scrutinise as card questions. And to -- Ask hard questions and to legislate with due diligence. Can the government point to any serious evidence whether union employers, leadership, international examples, the repealing of this act will improve negotiation outcomes, reduced disruptions, or lead to faster resolution of disputes.

And if not, then why are we legislating in the dark? What is the alternative? It was a way the only existing mechanism for maintaining safe service levels during strikes, then what replaces it? Nothing in this bill offers an safeguard, there is no agreements, incentives for minimum staffing, no rapid arbitration scheme, no contingency powers for life and limb services, so we must assume the government is content to simply let key public services fall to zero capacity during industrial pursuits. There will be no legal cause, recourse, no duty to plan, no obligation to protect the public.

That is not reform. Meanwhile, the public who continue to support the right to strike in principle also expect a functioning state. They expect to be able to: Ambience and get one. They expect transport to limp along during industrial disputes and not collapse entirely. -- To call an ambulance. The amendments before us are not extreme, they merely provide a clear-sighted review of the a clear-sighted review of the a clear-sighted review of the That any responsible government would do as a matter of course.

So, I would urge noble Lords to support his amendments. The government is confident repealing the act will strengthen industrial relations and carry no risk to public welfare, then they should have no objection to reviewing that impact on reporting to Parliament. If they are not confident, I submit the repeal should not proceed at all. In short, the issue here is not ideology at its competence, we are about to discover the only mechanism for ensuring minimum service level for strikes, model recognised across Europe and endorsed by ILO principles.

Without evidence, without a plan, without a single words of accountability in parliament, and as I said earlier, that is not governance, that is that is not governance, that is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

recklessness. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 75, page 101, 941, at the end, insert

**** Possible New Speaker ****

page 101, 941, at the end, insert the words as printed in the Marshalled list. After you, my lady. OK, I will go

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After you, my lady. OK, I will go forward. My Lords, I do want to speak to the three different
16:39
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
speak to the three different amendments put together in this group. Starting off with amendment 254. A significant part of the reason my honourable friend has laid out for the minimum services was to recognise, in particular, there were certain issues that were affecting daily life, I do think it is worthwhile, considering the timing, of aspects of this. Aspects of this were not long after an end to the lock downs of COVID, but also recognising the economic challenges our country faced. So, in combination of whether it was about people being able to get access to urgent medical support, bearing in mind that a number of activities have been cancelled many times already, the impact of them seeing further strikes, again, cancelling basic levels of operation for basic levels of operation for patients was starting to become potentially very difficult for the country to manage, and for patients in order to get better.

There were other sectors that were discussed and transport is a good example. I would be interested to find out from the Minister, I appreciate the Minister may not have the answer today, but I appreciate that I expect none of the train operating companies actually use this. Partly because many of them found different ways, in order to keep trains running themselves, on a basic level. The good example of that would be Greater Anglia, but now, that south-western rails company, Greater Anglia, would soon become a nationalised rail operator.

So, I would be very interested to know, as a consequence of this, because of course, at the time, the operating company were able to potentially have gone to this particular piece of legislation, in order to keep trains running. They didn't have to a time, but what is going to be the practice in the future. We'll nationalised rail companies be allowed to continue to keep services running? Even though there are other people on strike? So that basically users can use it to get to work or wherever it is they need to do.

My expectation, candidly, is that any nationalised company will in no way go against any trade union strike. I cannot see a Labour government minister using that. So, we have lost the government by repealing this legislation, we will have lost a lever on behalf of the many uses of public services, services put forward for public use, across the country. I think it is fair to say, at one point, there was a discussion about schools. Again, a similar issue that had arisen during COVID, of children not getting, through no fault of their own and no fault of the teachers, because actually, schools were kept open by and large, physically, for people with certain workers, but also online.

But undoubtedly, the challenge about education was there, but also, frankly, the inconvenience to working parents of when schools do go on strike, is particularly harmful and disruptive, to those families and the wider economy. It was decided not to do that, because we reverted back to making sure actually, in the spirit of the bill, intentions, that we would keep to what was deemed to be absolutely key in public services, that otherwise would have significant detriment to the wider public. In terms of amendments to -- 258, put forward by Lord Fox and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the impact on small businesses, I think I am right in this group.

This actually would be very helpful to do. Of course, these are huge changes being put in place. After nine years of a piece of legislation that actually, I think from the economy's perspective has worked well, I appreciate the trade unions may not have liked it. And undoubtedly, I recall being voted against, back when this was being debated in the House a decade ago. But it is vital towards the wider economy that we do get our company is growing.

We keep being told, it seems to change every time, but I think overall, the number one mission of this government's growth and the economy. And yet, it's starting to do things, through this bill, and other situations, where it seems to be driven by ideology. Rather than pragmatism and practicality. And as a consequence, I think looking into the basics and the consequences of some of this legislation or repealing of existing legislation really needs to be considered in proper economic depth.

Of course, I would love this to happen, have happened, frankly with an updated impact assessment for us to consider, before we concluded this bill. But the Secretary of State, I am grateful by the way to the Minister for future with a letter the Secretary of State sent me has been placed in the library, so every peer can see it. But that worries me, that particular issue will not be considered further. In terms of relating to amendment 256, I think this links in with the idea of certification, as I'm coming onto a series of amendments soon, so I'm not sure how much of the Certification Officer there will be left.

But indeed, considering when it applies its thoughts on how it goes about the enforcement on the laws to which it is subject, but also what it's doing on behalf of trade union members, that should be considering our role in the world, and in particular, how that's contributing to make sure we have a growing economy, because I am sure all members of their Lordships house, certainly that's one thing we house, certainly that's one thing we
16:46
16:47
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
I took part in the 2023 when it went through your Lordships House. Obviously on different benches. She is right, no employer sought to use the powers in the 2023 act, but the act only had a relatively short existence in terms of being available to you employers before in effect we went into an election period. I accept that at the time the employers did not wish to take advantage of the provisions of the act, but I believe, and over time the main purpose of the act which was to protect individual citizens to ensure they had the levels of service they needed.

This goes beyond safety issues, the minimum levels to which unions tend to sign levels to which unions tend to sign up for. So that ordinary citizens have minimum service levels to get themselves to work, to hospital appointments and so on. We did not give that act enough time to see whether it would work in practice, which I believe it would and whether it would be popular with the British public, which I am absolutely certain it would if it had had the proper amount of time to come into effect.

But I accept the party opposite as they did throughout the passage of the bill registered their strong opposition to what became an act. So I understand that they would in their power seek to expunge it from the statute book. I think it is a grave mistake and it ignores the needs of ordinary citizens and places unions above the needs of ordinary citizens. Whilst I am on my feet I'd like to say I particularly support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lord Vaux seeking an impact assessment on any -- on SMEs.

We haven't had a proper impact assessment on SMEs. Other parts of the bill will decimate SMEs, but I will support any opportunity to get full market exposure of the impact of the provisions through out this bill on the health of our really important SMEs sector. important SMEs sector.
16:50
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to support my noble friends's assessment to require an impact assessment of the effect on the emergency services, as is proposed in the amendment 254, to insert a new subsection in four and 255 on the ability of the services listed in the 1992 act to provide minimum service levels within new clause 75 requiring an impact assessment. As your Lordships will remember the strikes minimum act 2023 enabled the Secretary of State to set minimum levels for services in essential services and so that employers could give notices to trade unions that its employees must trade unions that its employees must comply with section 234B.

These could specify for services such as health, firing, decommissioning of nuclear installations, the management of radioactive waste, bodice. These are vital areas of the public services and indeed often incorporate private sector services, too. Baroness O'Grady and Baroness Coffey have both pointed out that the act was not in fact drawn on, but it is my view that it acted as a leveraged, as has already been pointed out. But I support also what Baroness Noakes has said that given time, this act would have come into its own.

It was not given time, partly because the opposition, which was then in pole position to take over from the Conservatives at the next general election made clear that they would repeal it and fought tooth and nail throughout the debate against the act. Clause 75 to repeal the 2023 act for minimum service Has been set as an irresponsible act of government. They see that every time the Labour opposition is about to come to power, has the chance of coming to power, that the trade unions ramp up their campaign, often calling strikes and often causing chaos in the public services.

Some emergency services included. Thus providing the Labour government with the springboard to measures like the present one. However the chaos that was mitigated I believe as a result of the 2023 act with schools, even if it served as leveraged, with schools kept open, rail services running reliably, if not quite as frequently, and hospital treatments taking place. Given the militancy of the unionised workforce, mainly in the public sector, employers there may not particularly relish serving workplace notices, but there may be an incentive, it may be necessary to give employers in the public sector and incentive to do so, or indeed an instruction to do so.

The issue right now which we and the public face is will we have our emergency service and our essential public services for which the public pays and for which the country as a whole pays handsomely to its taxes for such services, will people have a right to the benefit of the service they pay for? My Lords, being an employer is not an easy job, it is a hard one. One of constant interaction and agreement with the employees on whom the success of any enterprise depends..

It may be necessary to have such a requirement, as was stipulated under the 2023 Act in order to give employers who are not minded to go that extra mile to find an agreement to some dispute. It might be necessary to have that if there is no other incentive in place, and very often in publicly paid services there is no incentive for an employer to go that extra mile. Moreover the prevalence of industrial action with the disproportionate impact on the public sector and emergency services must do something and does to the prevalence of a proportionately large group of the public sector being unionised.

Almost 4 million, 3.9 million in 2025 and 3.8 in 2024 of the 6.4 million trade unionists. This figure indicates just that we are dealing with quite a potentially militant public sector union of around 50% in the public sector, who can hold our country to ransom if there is not a requirement for minimum service levels. This is not a very fair deal for those employers who may want extra muscle which the law has given to reach some agreement and for the employees to reach agreement also.

So by inserting a requirement for an impact assessment we should be at least be encouraging information to be supplied to the taxpayers and the public so they too can lend their voice to the need to mitigate the damage. To the damage done by the lack of availability of treatment in hospitals, to children's education, to border controls, to fire services, not to mention the basic rail travel to go to work and earn a living being perpetuated by clause 75.

I therefore support my noble friends's amendments and I would urge the government, even if it is determined to bring forward this unnecessary clause, to allow the public to judge the impact by bringing forward an impact I will speak briefly to this group of amendments, which introduce various review provisions linked to the operation and impact of measures in the bill. Amendments to 54 and 255 in the names of Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt seek to ensure that the consequences of key provisions particularly around the repeal of the strikes minimum level service act and the contents in clause 75 are properly assessed after implementation.

Whilst Post- legislative scrutiny can be helpful there is a balance to be struck between evaluation and reopening the substance of the reforms. I also wish to speak in particular to amendment 258, tabled by my noble friend Lord Vaux, who is unfortunately unable to be here
16:58
16:59
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank Baroness Coffey for her contribution and I will endeavour to respond to the amendments. However I will not be responding to amendment 256 because if it -- because it is not covered in this group, it is covered in group 6. I respectfully disagree. Trade unions do not cause chaos. This will will date the UK's outdated union rules. It will deliver a stronger, fairer and stronger future for the world to work in the UK.

I agree with Baroness Noakes that we must be conscious of SMEs and how the reforms will impact SMEs. I will come back to that in my speech later. I thank Lord Sharpe for tabling amendments to fight for and 255 and the noble Lord for amendment 258, read by the noble Baroness. Amendments to 54 and 255, our assessment of the impact of Strikes Act is available for all to read. I want to remind all noble Lord this is a manifesto commitment to repeal the minimum service levels act, which received Royal Assent in July 2023.

Since then there were 2.7 million days off work last two strikes in 2023, up from 2.5 million in 2022. The act has not proved to be effective, even though it has had a short span since it Royal assent until now. It hasn't prevented a single day of industrial action and has contributed to industrial unrest. I just want to remind noble Lord that before the is level at came in most industrial -- before the minimum level service at came into place, there was a workable system and I don't see why this action be in place.

There is nothing new to add to that to collect assessment. I refer to amendment This aims to propose a procedure that effectively is what the government intends to do, outlines a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the bill and subsequent secondary. My commitment to noble Lords to meet to discuss all the respective impact assessments still hold and I welcome any other noble Lords who would like to meet to go through the various impact assessments.

And in line with the patent application framework in respect of the post implementation review, we will review how the reforms impact SMEs, and who the government recognises has been vital to the economy. If I have not responded to Baroness Coffey, I will write to her and placed a copy in the library, I therefore ask Lord Sharpe to withdraw the amendment.
17:02
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and also to my noble friends, Baroness Coffey, Baroness Noakes, and Baroness Lawlor, in particular for their comments. I would also like to thank the noble Lady, the noble Baroness, for introducing the noble Lord, Lord Fox's amendment, which I neglected to speak to, but I will in a second. I apologise. I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, perhaps somebody should alert the RMT. By their own estimation, they cost the economy £5 billion in 2023.

I call that fairly chaotic. My Lords, as we conclude this debate, to express some disappointment that the government's response to what I think are modest and reasonable amendments we put forward. We have simply asked for evidence and the number of assertions the noble Lord made based on none whatsoever. We ask for an impact assessment, we continually and repeatedly asked for impact assessments in all aspects and manner of this bill, I will take him upon that. Can I also say, coming back to the implementation plan, it would be a much better meeting if we did have an implementation plan and timeline, and we will not drop this until the noble Lord is able to provide one.

I'm sure he will be working at pace. I believe is his noble friend's phraseology. What we have done is ask for the government to quite simply pause and consider the real-world consequences of appealing a law designed to protect public safety during a time of industrial action. And the government claims with some optimism I feel, that removing the minimum service levels that will somehow improve industrial relations. But when asked to produce any evidence, from employers, unions, public or independent experts, none was forthcoming.

There is no analysis of outcomes, no tracking of its safety impacts, no consultation findings are no plans what replaces protections that they are so eager to tear down. In short, there is no case, just conviction without content. My Lords, we could go on and talk about how this is not theoretical, and I would get noble Lords to look at burning. But if the government truly believes the 2023 act was flawed, then prove the case. And do it with data. Do it with stakeholder consultation.

Do it with sober assessment, with what will follow in its place. Do not simply repeal it brightly -- Blindly, prematurely, and with no alternative offered. We are not asking for the impossible, we are asking for a review, and an assessment of impact. In keeping with the house's role in ensuring good governance. Two more things I should have spoken to, to things I should have spoken to, to acknowledge and express support in amendment 258, from Lord Fox, rightly cause a review into the impact of this bill, one small and medium-size enterprises.

And I look forward to picking that subject up with him again, when he is back. My Lords, I know that my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, asked a very specific question about the nationalised rail industry. I am sure we would all like an answer. Perhaps the noble Lord will write with the government's intentions when it comes to governing that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

particular sector, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Is it your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? It is by amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 75 stand as part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 75, amendment 255, Lord Sharpe. Not amendment 255, Lord Sharpe. Not amendment 255, Lord Sharpe. Not move? -- Not moved? Sorry, but I move? -- Not moved? Sorry, but I need to be absolutely clear, when we need to be absolutely clear, when we are dealing with it.

Clause 76, the question is that clause 76 stand as question is that clause 76 stand as part of the bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

part of the bill. My Lords, I am rising to talk about this whole group of basically removals of powers from the Certification Officer, and we have already debated clause 77 of the other day. I was thinking this What is going on here, is there going to be anything of the Certification Officer left? Because it does feel that a lot of the stripping out, on certain aspects of, for example, particularly 79, clause 79, and clause 80, and indeed 81, 82 and 83.

And what is left to be done. Since the Trade Union Act 2016 came into effect, the world has somewhat moved on in terms of transparency. And wanting to know what is going on in an organisation.
17:07
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I appreciate this is not a state body, but trade unions playing body, but trade unions playing important role in our country. And important role in our country. And it is important that, while recognising there is a declining membership, not in the public membership, not in the public sector, but the private sector. For those people who contributed money every week, month, year, whatever it is. That having a good amount of is. That having a good amount of information done in a consistent way is a good thing, thinking about how we promote aspects of transparency.

We have had considerable bait, as I say, about 77, but I'm struggling to understand what the issue really is about why this is so difficult for about why this is so difficult for these things to be produced. In terms of thinking about investigative powers, this put a bit of -- Let's put a bit of reality or life into this. There has been investigation, over the last six months, the trade union debate, election happened, for the general secretary. This happens to be the Fire Brigade Union.

On a 29% turnout, one particular person was elected. That, I think, turnout of votes actually equated to something like fewer than 10,000 people like fewer than 10,000 people casting their vote in favour of the candidate. However, it was subsequently discovered that 3,000 ballot papers were not issued. I think I'm right in saying, I'm happy to be corrected if I am wrong, that the difference between winning and losing was less than 3,000. Understandably, the person who lost, who has actually been in the post, for at least 20 years, was somewhat aggrieved.

However, when the Certification Officer went through the proper process, when it was decided, obviously there had been a breach and something had gone wrong, I'm sure the government may well argue it would be safer having emailed out ballots or doing an online ballot, rather than relying on the post, I'm sure they were the only people at that time, struggling. Actually, the losing candidate chose not to require the election to be rerun, which would have been within the gift of the Certification Officer, to allow for that to happen.

I think in terms of general justice, without having to go to the expense, without having to go to the High Court, the Certification Officer was a simple way to try and remediate something that was clearly a clearly unfair. However, the said person who then lost, I'm not going to name the person, the person who then lost very quickly, through a process, was appointed the general secretary of another trade union. This time, this was challenged directly by members. I don't think they went to the Certification Officer in this instance, but went immediately to the High Court.

So, one person having lost an election, another trade union decided to incorrectly use their procedures to put this person into place as the new general secretary. That is the teaching union. Thanks to the legal challenge, the executive committee of the teaching union recognised they had not acted properly, but the same person by the way is still no acting -- Is still acting general secretary of the trade union. It is up to the members to decide who they vote for of course.

So, having looked at the variety of decisions the Certification Officer has made a time, in terms of fairness, and it's the same teaching union that a few years ago was, again, in breach, because the general secretary outstayed the elected term they were supposed to be, then they were made general secretary and about a year later, there was another election. These are the sorts of things where members of trade unions, 2:30, if they have to go to the courts, it is very expensive for them to do so.

And as I was researching these clauses, what happened in real life, it did remind be somewhat of animal farm, how things evolve over time. What was it? Two legs bad, four legs good. Things evolve to suit the needs of the people who decided they would be in charge. And the role of the Certification Officer, I appreciate trade unions may feel we shouldn't have to have somebody doing this. But these are good doing this. But these are good examples of where it will have a course to go to an independent person, who by law is not subject to ministerial direction, so people have complete confidence that the integrity of going to the Certification Officer, will lead a -- Will lead to somebody having to go to the High Court.

My question to the government, I understand there is this mantra that has been said, about we're just going to repeal anything to do with the 2016 act. But I really want them to consider really why. Seeing some of the changes that happened, and by the way, at the same time bringing in different rules for employers and dealing with their employees. Perfectly valid for them to do so. But just imagine how these sorts of stories have come it so happens, both public sector unions and we have seen their overall membership increase.

But do not be surprised if lack of confidence has started to drift people's concerns away on why they feel the need to pay, to be a member of a trade union. My laws, I really wish the government would consider carefully whether any of these clauses, removal of any of these powers, what will it do to help the average worker. The average trade unionists, the average trade unionist who may not be highly connected, may not have chosen to join a political party, may not have chosen to dedicate their lives from quite an early age, in being part of the trade union leadership.

But also, to think about the people, and that is one of the reasons the trigger, what happens when somebody completely left field, right feel, whatever, -- Whitefield, whatever, comes in and the body has decided, yes, we like the look of that person, not sure why, they may feel sorry he lost an election elsewhere. So, let's think carefully about whether this is the right approach to be removing all these powers from the Certification Officer, I think from every level that people can judge independently Cassie are used rarely, not extensively, but used to rarely, not extensively, but used to
17:15
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to speak and I do thank her for bringing forward these crucial amendments for closes 76-83, standing as part of this bill. -- Clauses. I believe in doing so she not only holds up the integrity of the trade union regulation, but wings of the deeply troubling double standard in the government's approach to industrial relations. And it does give the noble Baroness, the Minister the chance to put the record straight.

Because, as my noble friend explained, these clauses allow for a systematic gutting of the powers, responsibilities, and independence responsibilities, and independence of acidification officer, who is the -- Of the Certification Officer who is the only regulator tasked with ensuring trade unions uphold transparency for conduct. That fact alone should give this House calls for serious concern. So, I echo my noble friend's words, what is going I am not sure I would have Evo Animal Farm, although I can see why Eric Arthur Blair, the pen-name of George Orwell, would have been thinking about the big other angle.

I think Big Brother was coined by George Orwell. It just gives us an opportunity of just questioning the government about what is happening here because what is even more striking, my Lords, is the contrast between how this government treats trade unions and how it treats employers. In other parts of this bill, in particular in part five, which we will debate in due course, the Secretary of State is given sweeping new powers to intervene on behalf of individual workers.

The justification the government offers is that workers may be intimidated by their employers, that they may be reluctant or unable to enforce their rights and therefore the state must step in. Now, my Lords, we on these benches do not support that approach. We believe that empowering the state to insert itself so directly into workplace disputes under the banner of protecting workers from employers risks serious overreach, and unintended consequences. What is therefore truly calling is the government's refusal to apply that same logic to trade unions.

-- Calling. Even if one accepts the reasoning of ministers in part five, even if one ministers in part five, even if one believes that existing powers in balances justifies proactive state intervention, how can they argue that similar protections are not needed when it comes to the internal conduct of unions themselves, particularly in the instances quoted by my noble friend. What happens when people are being intimidated, when whistleblowers are being silenced, when internal culture becomes toxic or hostile, particularly for women, where then is the concern for the vulnerable? Where is the proactive intervention.

Let me add to the examples. Last year, Unite, one of the largest unions in Britain was embroiled in a damaging internal dispute. Is of Unite alleged bullying, victimisation of dissenters and culture that was hostile to women. Some staff were unrolling fixed term contracts, denied job security and when they spoke out they were ignored. Eventually they voted to go on strike. Not against an external employer, but against their own trade union. My Lords, this is not hypothetical, it is not ancient history, it is what happens when those with power inside unions go unchecked.

Yet this moment now proposes that the Certification Officer should have no power to act unless someone first lodges a formal complaint, even in the face of serious systemic concerns. That the officer should not be able to impose penalties for wrongdoing. They should be like entirely on government funding, vulnerable to ministerial discretion and political pressure and that when even when enforcement action does occur, appeals should be limited solely to points of law. Regardless of whether the facts have been properly established.

My Lords, I believe this is not regulatory, it is a retreat from scrutiny and it is designed to protect the public or uphold standards, but to shield powerful figures from accountability. My Lords, no serious government can argue in one breath that workers need the state to protect them from employers and then in the next breath claim the union leaders should be left to police themselves. That is not consistency, it is partisanship. It is ordinary union members and staff who will pay the price.

I do not believe it is fairness, it is regulatory abdication. It would be laughable if it were not so dangerous to claim on one hand that workers need state intervention because employers might intimidate them, but then to claim on the other hand that union leadership can regulate itself without any real oversight. My Lords, what makes this contradiction so egregious is that it fails the people the government claims to care about. It fills the members, the workers, the staff, the women in hostile offices and the whistleblowers.

So how right my noble friend is to call into question these very clauses and I look forward to hearing the government's response.
17:22
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank those who have contributed to this debate and I thank Baroness Coffey for giving me the opportunity to speak to these clauses and hopefully to reassure her. I therefore wish to briefly respond to them and point out why these clauses should stand part of the bill. The clauses remove some of the bureaucratic burdens placed on trade unions. This includes removing powers placed on the Certification Officer, which have never been used since their introduction.

Your logic sounds will be aware that the government's manifesto committed to repealing the 2016 act and these clauses deliver on that. This will enable trade unionists to focus more of their time and efforts in delivering the interests of their members. Clause 76 62 reverse the effect of section 7 of the trade union act 2016. This will remove the additional reporting requirements imposed on trade unions for their annual returns to the Certification Officer concerning details of industrial action taken during the reporting period.

However, I can assure noble laws that trade unions will still be required to submit an annual return to the Certification Officer, but the amount of information they will have to include will be reduced. In addition unions will continue to be required to provide information in those annual returns relating to their governance and finances, including the management of their political funds, as they have done for many years. Clause 78 six to remove the power of the Certification Officer to enforce certain requirements relating to trade unions annual returns.

However the Certification Officer will still hold enforcement powers for the other remaining annual return requirements, i.e., those not remove by causes 76 and 77. For example in relation to a union's financial affairs and governance. Clause 79 will repeal enhanced investigatory powers which will compel trade unions to produce documents and for inspectors to launch investigations and the related power of enforcement. The reason that clause 79 is introduced is the enhanced powers created by the 2016 act simply is not necessary.

No evidence of regulatory failure existed at the time of the 2016 act. The statutory obligations that existed prior to the 2016 act regarding trade union finances, governance and reporting requirements were found to be sufficient. In addition the Certification Officer has never used these additional powers since their introduction. Removing the Certification Officer's enhanced investigating powers is part of the government's commitment to reset relations. I have to say to the noble Lady the example, in the examples that she gave, the Certification Officer as she think admitted acted with complete propriety and authority.

I can assure her that unions continue to be hugely respectful of the power and authority of the Certification Officer. I can also assure her that the Certification Officer's role is partly to ensure that the rights of workers are properly protected. I really do not recognise her analogy with Animal Farm. Doesn't affect the ability of the trade union member to complain to a Certification Officer about an election and have it investigated. Clause 80 would remove certain powers from the Certification Officer to investigate trade unions without having initially received a complaint.

We are returning the Certification Officer's role to one where the Certification Officer adjudicates where it receives members complaint in relation to a union. I can assure Lord Hunt members will not be shy of complaining if they feel an injustice has taken place within the conduct of the union. The Certification Officer however will retain the power to investigate a unions financial affairs and powers that have been in place for many years which were brought in prior to the Trade Union Act 2016.

Clause 81 will be first section 19 of the Trade Union Act 2016 to remove the Certification Officer's ability to impose financial penalties on trade unions. I can tell noble Lords that the Certification Officer has not imposed a single financial penalty to date, however the Certification Officer will retain the power to issue enforcement orders. If the orders are not complied with, the union could found in contempt of court. Clause 82 will remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations that require the Certification Officer to impose a levy on trade unions and associations.

It was resisted by employment associations and unions when it was introduced. The levy impedes on the rights of the Association and has attracted criticism from the International Labour Organisation. The ILO was concerned that the levy could negatively impact on the rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively and produce the financial capacity of trade union to carry out such collective bargaining on behalf of their members. The government believes that we should interfere as little as possible in the activities of the social partners who are as I say voluntary associations.

Clause 83 reverse changes made by section 21 of the Trade Union Act 2016 so that the right of appeal against decisions of the Certification Officer to the Employment Appeal Tribunal is only on the question of law as opposed to being on the question of fact as well as law. This returns the appeal process back to the position before the Trade Union Act 2016 where appeals against the Certification Officer's decisions were on points of law only. This also aligns with many other enforcement bodies on employment law, for example, appeals against the decision of Employment Tribunals Act only considered on Tribunals Act only considered on points of law, a point of fact.

I hope that explanation has been hopeful and I therefore hope that the noble Lady, I therefore beg that the noble Lady, I therefore beg that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

clauses 76, 78, 79, 80, 81 and 82 all stand part of the bill. The question is that clause 76

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that clause 76 part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is contents have it. The question is that clause 77 stands part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I think it may be for the convenience of your for the convenience of your Lordships if I take clauses 78-83 en Lordships if I take clauses 78-83 en bloc.

The question is that these clauses stand part of the bill en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We then come after clause 83 to MM meant 256, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
17:31
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
We have been told by this government and numerous occasions that growth is another one priority. Baroness Coffey made that point a short while ago. It has become something of a mantra for ministers. Growth, growth and more growth, but the harsh reality is that their actions are undermining this stated objective and their latest economic objective and their latest economic objective demonstrates the urgent need for the amendment before us today. The UK economy shrank more than expected in April.

The standard measure of economic output, GDP, contracted as sharp 0.3%. Additional costs on businesses were also levy during that month as employer National Insurance contributions took effect which businesses told took effect which businesses told The government is manifestly failing to reach their stated growth target. It is not enough for the government to tell workers, businesses and the British public what they want to hear about growth while simultaneously implement policies that actively undermine economic competitiveness. The trade union provisions in this bill represent a perfect example of this contribution, expanding on the protections and rights that will inevitably increase costs, reduce flexibility, and diminish our international competitiveness, or all while claiming to help with growth.

Under this framework, to advance objectives to international competitiveness, and medium to long-term economic growth. It represents a vital safeguard against the economic damage that unconstrained implementation of these provisions can inflict. Acidification -- The Certification Officer that oversees the registration to financial transparency, to complaint procedures. Under this bill, these functions will expand significantly as you rights and protections are introduced. Without a growth duty, there is no mechanism to ensure the Certification Officer considers the broad implications of how these powers are exercised.

We operate in an intensely competitive global economy. Our European neighbours and international competitors are not standing still while we load additional cost restrictions under British businesses. When the Certification Officer makes decisions around trade union regulation registration and oversight, those decisions must be made with full awareness of their impact on our ability to compete internationally. Countries like Germany, despite having strong trade union positions, maintain regulatory frameworks, that prioritise economic competitiveness. Singapore, Ireland, and other successful economies, have demonstrated that worker protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive.

But only when regulators are addressing this balance As we expand trade union protections, we do so in a way that enhances, rather than undermines our economic position. It requires the Certification Officers to ask not just whether a position serves trade union interests but whether it serves the broader national interest in maintaining competitive, competitive and growing economy. The concept of growth duty is well established across government, precisely because regulators have learned that narrow focus on single objectives can create unintended economic consequences.

Financial regulations have competitiveness objectives, because financial regulation that ignores competitiveness can drive business overseas. Planning authorities must consider economic impact because planning decisions that ignore economic consequences can destroy local economies. Environmental regulators who operate within frameworks finance protection for the economic considerations because of environmental recollection that ignores economic reality, becomes counter productive. The offshore employment trends demonstrates exact why such balance approaches are essential. When regulators focus solely on enhancing protections without considering economic consequences, the risk creating conditions where the protectors become meaningless because the activities aiming to regulate simply moves beyond their jurisdiction.

It would be extraordinary if this was exempt from such considerations. The amendment brings the Certification Officer in line with best practice across government while requiring explicit implementation of impact. The government may argue trade union relationship focus on work are glacial without economic considerations, but this position is fundamental flaw. A number of reasons, and reasonable evidence makes this argument untenable. For example, when creating artificial separation between industrial relations and economic policy that exists nowhere else in government and is proving counter-productive in practice.

Every other area of regulation requires production of economic impact precisely because my greatest of learned that ignoring economic consequences undermines policy objectives. My Lords, it would also contradict the government's own state of priority over growth, while demonstrating the practical possibility of this over performance. So while companies can build multi-million pound businesses, by helping UK employers

**** Possible New Speaker ****

avoid UK employment law, the government's approach has clearly failed on its own terms. I beg to move. Movement proposed, after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Movement proposed, after clause 83, insert the following new clause, in the words as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. ... A fan of international competitiveness and growth objectives for regulators, when the first one was introduced for the financial services regulators in the 2023 Financial Services Act, I 2023 Financial Services Act, I thought that was an incredibly thought that was an incredibly important addition to the way in which regulatory Financial Services Act are taken. And your Lordships Act are taken. And your Lordships committee, just last week, issued committee, just last week, issued its report on how that international competitiveness and growth objectives working, and I commend that report to your noble Lords.

I support what my noble friend, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, has said about applying the duty to the Certification Officer. But I want to invite my noble friend to consider whether or not there is a much more important area, where such a duty should be applied in this bill. That is to enter the Secretary of State
17:38
17:38
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
country. So, I commend my noble friend, if he is considering bringing something back report, he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

might consider something a little broader. My Lords, this nation must earn

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this nation must earn its place in the world. And regrettably, we are losing some of our industrial competitiveness. Particularly in the energy intensive Particularly in the energy intensive industries like steel, aluminium, and so forth. So, we must live by and so forth. So, we must live by our wits and that means increasing leading our highly skilled leading our highly skilled knowledge-based employment, in an economy that values strong economy that values strong intellectual property rights, the rule of contract, and property rule of contract, and property rights themselves.

So, that requires rights themselves. So, that requires an economy with flexibility and agility. Earlier today, along with agility. Earlier today, along with other noble Lords, I sat on the Working from Home Committee, and we are seeing first hand, how the world of work is changing. Not just in the way that we go to work, but away we sometimes work from home, and the entire technological underpinning of our economy is changing as well. We haven't yet seen the end of artificial intelligence and what it might do to low skilled somewhat transactional type arrangements.

So, it doesn't help the economy, and by extension those who work in it, if all participating employers and unions do not recognise that we have a duty to move with the times, we cannot put a wall around our garden, as the rest of the world trade its way to prosperity, leaving us behind. So, I strongly support the amendment 256, and wants to give more power to that officer, who, more than anyone, can encourage workers representatives to recognise the world as it is.

Rather than the world they might wish to be.
17:40
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling the amendment 256. We fully recognise the importance of supporting growth and international competitiveness across our economy, and we will of course continue to pursue policies which deliver on our economic ambition. However, we do not consider this UTG be appropriate for the Certification Officer. -- This duty to be appropriate for the Certification Officer, they are not a regulator, they are an independent quasi judicial officeholder. Their core functions are to oversee regulatory compliance fairly, and To ensure they are dear to statutory requirements, in relation to finances and governance.

This includes investigating complaints, maintaining accurate registers, and ensuring that democratic processes are upheld. Imposing a duty to promote growth and competitiveness would cut across this role. It risks introducing competing priorities, and ultimately undermining confidence in neutrality. We cannot require the Certification Officer to be both conduct to the regulatory decisions, it has no role in the relation to international competitiveness in the United Kingdom, or its growth in the medium to long term. As noble Lords will know, this government has been active in requiring a number of regulators to apply growth duty, the number of those in which the growth duty applies are regulators, that make strategies and decisions that significantly affect the types, scale and position of economic activity in important sectors.

The decisions regulators make and set the parameters for economic activity across the economy. And of course, we recognise that. But the Certification Officer does not have this responsibility or power. So, we share the noble Lord's commitment to economic growth, but it must be pursued in the right way. Furthermore, requiring the Certification Officer to follow both he would not be -- To follow the growth duty would not be practical, and there is no evidence it will have any meaningful impact on the UK's growth or international competitiveness.

It would be like asking a court to consider cases based on their impact to economic growth, rather than the evidence of the case. For those reasons, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw amendment 256.
17:43
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Lady, the minister, for her answer, I have to say, I am persuaded about that. If they just if it was about the Certification Officer doesn't have either responsibly or power, but by definition, this amendment would deliver both of those things. My Lords, I completely agree with my noble friend, Baroness Noakes, and shall take suggestions on board and have a careful look at this. I would say of course I do not believe this amendment and the suggestions she made are mutually exclusive, in fact, if anything, they are very complement tree.

And I thank my noble friend, Lord Fuller, for his comments, which frankly, were just an explanation of complete common sense. I do express my disappointment in the government's rejection of this amendment, and I think it reveals more about the government's true priorities, frankly, rather than the rhetoric of growth we have heard, the government is absolutely right to identify growth as a priority. But, my Lords, they will not find it in this bill, there is in fact nothing in this bill that will bring any growth.

I challenge them in a city identify single provision in these hundreds of pages that will increase productivity, and it has competitiveness, or create jobs, the government's own impact assessments suggest the same. The document notably silent on growth benefits while cataloguing on increasing costs and regulatory burdens. If the Minister was generally confident the bill supports growth, and if she truly believes the expanded trade union protections and enhance worker rights will somehow boost economic performance, then I am surprised and in fact somewhat mystified that she should just accept this amendment.

This certification is not a traditional brigade, but they still have a regulatory function, so I do not see what difference that makes, frankly. What could be the objection to requiring the Certification Officer to consider growth when discharging functions and rebuild a government claims supports growth? If these provisions truly advanced economic competitiveness, then the growth duty should be welcomed as a validation of the government's approach. My Lords, I could go on, but I do not see the point, really. I think the government has represented, rejected a genuine opportunity for the government to demonstrate their gross rhetoric as substance.

It would have required no fundamental changes to their approach, simply consideration of economic impact, when implemented trade union provisions. It would have aligned trade union regulation with best practice across government, while preserving all the worker protections the government claims to champion. In fact they cannot even accept a modest requirement, demonstrates the commitment to growth is hollow rhetoric, designed to disguise an agenda focused more on trade union empowerment regardless of economic consequences. How very disappointing from a great nation, I beg leave to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure the amendment be withdrawn? It is by amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 257 in leave withdrawn. Amendment 257 in leave withdrawn. Amendment 257 in In that case we move to amendment 257A, Baroness Coffey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

257A, Baroness Coffey. Is the and the to be a right to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is the and the to be a right to consider and in prior offer? It comes to something that happened in comes to something that happened in the port of Felixstowe in the last few years. I know at some point there was a huge frustration, not there was a huge frustration, not only by the employer, but by several people working there that the union
17:47
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
people working there that the union and the employer negotiating in good faith, not criticising the union at all, but a huge frustration that an offer that was made was not needed to be put to the members. I am not suggesting it's a loophole, I appreciate there is back-and-forth and the current requirement to do lots of notices, everything by post and all the rest of it, I can understand it may not have seemed reasonable that every time perhaps an employer moved by a penny or something would have to spell that out.

That would be ridiculous. There's something to be said about what is going on, where is the leveraged being done? After this strike, I'm not saying the two issues are causal, there is definitely a correlation, that unfortunately after considerable strikes in the port of Felixstowe, within 18 months it was announced that a significant shipping line no longer use Felixstowe as their principal destination point in the United Kingdom. Instead they would go to the new London port at Tilbury.

I'm not saying directly causal, but I have my concerns that not having a reliable element, and this by the way have been the first dispute in 30 years at the port of Felixstowe. It went on in quite a fractious manner. The reason it got more fractures is because people started to break the strike and I can understand that is not the ideal place for people to be. But nevertheless, people felt, not everybody, some people felt that the union was not looking after their interests, but perhaps looking after the national interests.

That then led to quite a lot of aggro, not just face-to-face, but also on Facebook, also about families falling out and in quite a small community impact can be quite substantial. So when I was speaking to people who worked at the port, but also the employer, that stayed with me for some time, that they would have liked the chance to have voted, even if they're local or indeed they believe the national you organisers decided that they wouldn't.

So it is to that end recognising the transition that is coming as a consequence of this bill, moving to digital ballots and all the other ways, I think there is something to be said about allowing workers do not go through something pretty awful of breaking a strike. I can understand why trade union members do not want to do that, but to just feel things need to be done in their interests locally and the employer should be able to make the offer.

The reason I put it in this way, and unconscious of what Lord Prentis said, he is not in his place. Employers should not be trying to get round the rules to stop people being members of trade unions. That is already protected in law and the noble Lord referred to a particular situation that has only particular situation that has only been recently resolved. This is on behalf of, in effect, one of the trade union dispute that has had key economic impact on parts of the East Coast.

And I should say I intend to respond to the comments made to this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. At the end one has to ask to have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At the end one has to ask to have it considered or leave to withdraw. Amendment proposed after clause 83 insert the following new clause in the words as printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. I rise to support the noble Baroness's amendment, but not for the reasons she gives. Some many
17:51
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
the reasons she gives. Some many years ago, and members on the government benches might recognise long ago when I give the names of the unions concerned, long since consigned to history, I was the director of a small haulage firm that doesn't exist, but I cut my teeth on labour relations behind the wheel. We employed about 50 people. There were three types of worker. Those people who were not in the union at all, a small number of people who were with the TGWU and also a new union, the United Road transport Union.

The shop steward came to see me and said I think you should recognise our union, and so I did. It was personally convenient dealing with one person rather than having a massive meeting with 30, 40 people with different views. Like some of the members you may think on the Conservative benches, there was a huge amount of value in me being able to negotiate with that union that had the majority of the members in our company, but not the exclusive, it wasn't pervasive entirely.

Arthur Harris was a long- standing member of our business. I do recall he was employee number one on our payroll system. The point of this story is that I negotiated in good faith with EU are to you. They were recognised, they had the most members, but when it came to taking an agreement we were somewhat apart but not completely apart. We asked Peter to put the offer to them. He didn't really want to. The point is I needed to make the offer to the other member and those members who were not in the union at all.

So the noble Baroness makes the point about the Porter Felixstowe and I inferred from her remarks there was a single union to deal with, but that is not the landscape many organisations. Later I will talk about my experiences of local government when there are three different unions. There is a complicated negotiating environment and local government which I will talk about later, but I support the noble Baroness's amendment. It provides equality to the smaller unions that exist, not just the big unions, some of which have their own personal agendas.

I do feel it is incumbent upon all unionised labour to at least see what is on the table. Whether or not there particular union negotiated it. That is why I think 257A in the name of my noble friend Baroness Coffey very important amendment that should be even proper consideration because it recognises the complex labour landscape, particularly in private business, not just the monolithic larger organisations.
17:55
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to speak in strong support of my noble friend's amendment, which as she explained, addresses a fundamental democratic deficit in our current industrial relations framework. My noble friend Lord Fuller for giving his own personal experience of how important this deficit can be if it is not addressed. This amendment would require trade unions to present any employer offer to their membership for a vote, regardless of whether the union leadership supports that offer.

My noble friend gave the example of Felixstowe. Others could give similar examples full I think give similar examples full I think give similar examples full I think what has been -- give similar examples. I think about what is happening in Birmingham. This is a pro-democracy measure that seeks to strengthen the voice of individual workers within the collective bargaining process. It could masses that in a democratic society should the workers themselves, not union officials, who decide whether an employers offer meets their needs and aspirations.

Therefore the principal it is simple and would be seen as uncontroversial in any other democratic context. I.e., those affected by a decision should have the right to make that decision for themselves. When union leaders can simply reject employer offers without consulting their membership, they effectively deny workers the fundamental right to democratic participation in decisions that fundamentally affect their livelihoods. Surely we would not accept a system where Parliamentary is could reject proposals without allowing MPs to vote? We would not tolerate local councils where executives would dismiss motions without having to present them to councillors, and the same should surely apply to trade unions.

So this amendment recognises that the priorities, circumstances and risk tolerances of individual workers may differ from those of their union leadership. A young worker saving for a House deposit may take a very different view of sustained strike action as compared with an established work at nearing retirement. A work in precarious retirement. A work in precarious financial circumstances may accept settlement so that loss of income is not prolonged. Surely we all want not to have a situation where workers do not have a voice when it comes to situations that affect their lives.

By increasing member engagement, unions can truly reflect membership priorities. When workers know that they will have the final say on offers, they are more likely to engage with the bargaining process and provide clear guidance about their priorities. The enhanced member involvement can improve union negotiating positions by ensuring that they are based on genuine membership references rather than leadership assumptions. It can also increase employer confidence in the bargaining process by ensuring that negotiated agreements will not be undermined by membership rejection.

Although many trade unions do always act in good faith when considering employer offers, this amendment puts into legislation protections to into legislation protections to prevent bad actors from denying workers participation.. Leadership opposed to an offer could emphasise negatives whilst downplaying positives, focus on what is not included, while minimising what is offered, or frame proposals in ways that are designed to predetermine member responses. This potential for informational control threatens genuine democratic choice.

Members cannot make informed decisions about offers they are never given a fair and informed opportunity to consider. They cannot weigh the benefits of accepting and against the costs of a continued dispute if that choice is made for them by officials. For these reasons I would urge the noble Baroness the Minister to accept the amendment tabled by my to accept the amendment tabled by my
18:01
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I thank noble Baroness for tabling amendment 257, A, I am happy to explain to the noble Lady this amendment is not appropriate. As the noble Lady notes, trade unions are already required by existing legislation the Baclofen members before commencing any industrial action. Union executives are therefore required to obtain a mandate from their members to negotiate with their employer on their behalf, before industrial We believe that union executives, as representatives of their members, are best placed to judge whether an offer is acceptable, and in the best interest of the union members, before deciding whether to ban a members.

-- Ballot their members. This is a considerable administrative challenge, in balloting their members, repeated ballots could cause a necessary burden -- Unnecessary burden, as well as confusing members on what could be the likelihood of a higher offer. It would also remove the power of union executives to negotiate on behalf of their members, for a deal that they consider will deliver, before balloting members on an offer. I have to say, this is one of the main reasons they join a union, they delegate to get the best deal for them, and those negotiators would have done a great deal of detailed research on the economic indicators, on what is happening in their market, on the knowledge of the financial stability of the business concerned, and so on.

They will take a very wide range of factors into account, in that bargaining process. This is why quite often negotiations take time because all of those factors have to be discussed in some detail. In a way that an individual member wouldn't be able to do, and as I say, that is why they delegated to their negotiators. Furthermore, this amendment has no safeguards to prevent gaming, were we to accept this amendment, there are risks employers could submit multiple derisory offers to unions in order to interfere with the industrial action ballot mandate by forcing the union to constantly re-ballot members on a derisory office on the cost of the union.

As the noble Lady said, balloting on small increases would be ridiculous, but this is exactly what her amendment would require. We consider therefore existing legislation is effective, as union representatives are elected by their members, to represent them. Union executives should have the discretion as to whether they put an offer by an employer to their membership was to be a union executive believes an offer is acceptable, they should be free to put that offered their membership, and to make that judgement at that and to make that judgement at that time.

We think the noble Lady's amendment is unnecessary, the current system works well, and it brings great benefits to individual members, IFRS the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey, to withdraw the amendment.
18:04
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Minister for her reply, she will be aware I am a backbencher and do not have hundreds of civil servants crafting the perfect amendment. And when to discuss the sorts of issues. I'm also conscious in terms of the mandate, it is through this bill, that is now going to be extended to 12 months. So, it is therefore handing a considerable power, delegated to negotiators. And I do fear there are going to be situations developing that can have economic consequences on workers when it starts to become a back that not everybody wants to be involved in, that is why I thought it was worth discussing at this point, recognising all the other changes the government is doing, digitising the operations of the trade union.

I thought it was worth exploring. But I am conscious that this has been a very useful debate, I want to thank my noble friend, Lord Fuller, and also, Lord Hunt, for their support on the consideration and the extra experiences, in particular, that my noble friend, Lord Fuller. But having considered that, this moment in time, I beg to withdraw the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 84 stand as part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In clause 85,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 257, B, Baroness Coffey. I rise to speak to this, this is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this, this is simply because, my Lords, I didn't see the answer in the explanatory notes to the bill, so this is quite notes to the bill, so this is quite a straightforward one for the Minister, I am very conscious in section 293, the regulations are normally done by negative normally done by negative resolution. Or the enrolment, as it is set out in a subsection 6. But I wanted to understand in particular why the government felt these particular regulations needed to be done through the affirmative.

These are not the only changes that I am aware of in this bill. To that section of the act, or indeed wider sections. I just wanted to understand from the Minister why these have been singled out, and given the trend of your Lordships over many years, while we do not move to having affirmative resolutions, instead of annulments for this particular one is in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

future. Amendment proposed, page 16, line 11, leave out subsection 5, and
18:07
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert this section. My Lords, I thank my noble friend, Baroness Coffey, for her friend, Baroness Coffey, for her amendment. They are measured, necessary, and they are principled amendments to clause 85, which restores, rightly, a degree of parliamentary scrutiny that had been quietly eroded in the original draft of the bill. As we stated, second reading, there are 173 delegated in this bill. Which is unacceptable, not just to those the legislation will impact, but also to the House. My Lords, the noble Baroness, the Minister, whose similar legislation in the past, expressed her strong legislations about the use of these powers.

I recall her interventions made with clarity and conviction. Tabling amendments recommended by the regulatory reform committee. We now find ourselves considering a clause that does precisely what she warned against, because it carves out certain areas, sensitive and constitutionally insignificant areas, I would add, and exposes them only to selective scrutiny. Clause 85 created a two-tiered system, some regulations would require affirmative approval from this House, while others, no less consequential, would not. This is a piecemeal approach to oversight, not only undesirable, but unnecessary.

Relations made under section 293 of the trade union labour relations Consolidation act really technical. -- Are not really technical, they pertain to matters such as the rights of trade unions and power between employers and employees, and protections afforded to those taking unlawful industrial action. It is therefore only right and proper all regulations made under this should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is that they should be laid before, and proven by both Houses of Parliament. My Lords, my noble friend's amendment before us today achieves this, it does so with the quality of language, but judicial consequence, remove the artificial distinction introduced by subsection 5, and instead, applies the uniform standard of scrutiny on the entirety of section 293.

My Lords, since the government took office, many of us across these benches have expressed concern about the growing use of skeleton bills, Henry VIII clauses, and broad enabling powers that allow ministers to legislate without adequate consultation or scrutiny. This amendment is required but a step in another direction, towards the proper functioning of Parliament. Again, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward her amendment and I hope the government will not merely accept it, but embrace it, to show their commitment to transparency and study constitutional propriety of this House.
18:10
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution, and I remember, standing before him and I remember, standing before him in the bill that we discussed in this very nature, and sometimes these negative resolutions are required, not only does it save parliamentary time but is also technical. Anyway, I thank Baroness Coffey for tabling amendments to hundred 57, B and C, -- 257. They would make all powers under affirmative procedure, as well as the existing regulation making powers, that are currently covered by the negative procedure, by virtue of courage section 293 of the trade union and labour relations Consolidation act 1992.

It is worth noting that most of the excess relations are already subject to the affirmative procedure, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe has mentioned, only four of the 12 powers are subject to procedure. Given the technical nature of those delicate powers, it would also save parliamentary time, the government is of the position of making them subject, to affirmative procedure, would not be appropriate. Further to this, as mentioned in previous debates, all regular is under clause 57 will be consulted via public consultation, the outcome of which consultation, the outcome of which will be published for all to see.

This is an important process, which will help ensure our process policy development is an informed experience, and leads to both trade union businesses and stakeholders. The noble Lord, the noble Lady, Baroness Coffey and Lord Sharpe will have noted in previous debates in this place, the delegated is committee said that it is heartening that in a build with so many delicate powers, that the Lord Sharpe mentioned, 173, it had only found four of which would raise concerns. At clause 56 was not one of those.

Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Baroness Coffey, to withdraw amendment to hundred 57, B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the comments from my noble friend. Undoubtedly,
18:12
18:13
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
employment Bill, addresses the arts and cultural sector, in speaking to these amendments I declare my interest as an artist member. I thank the noble Earl, the other claim Carty, and the other noble Lords for the amendments in this group, I also thank the Minister for meeting with me at the officials for discussing these amendments earlier discussing these amendments earlier this month. The arts and cultural sector is of national importance. Creative industries generated about 126 billion in gross value-added, representing almost 6% of the economy.

And supported roughly 2.4 million jobs as of 2022. But its workforce is highly atypical. A recent study found that 32% of creative and cultural jobs are freelance. More than double the 14% freelance. More than double the 14% of the wider UK workforce. Creative organisations tend to be small, low margin, and reliant on regular income, such as ticket sales, grants, and philanthropy. In short, a one size fits all employment regime risks harming both workers and institutions.

Our amendments in this group aimed to strengthen protections for arts workers, especially freelancers, without inadvertently pushing theatres, galleries, and charities over the edge. And I would also remind the House of the earlier amendment, amendment 16, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, regarding theatres and casual workers is another worry. The creative workforce is famously project-based and freelance heavy. For example, it is reported many film, TV and theatre freelancers were initially excluded from covert support schemes. -- COVID-19 support schemes.

-- COVID-19 support schemes. We promote effective bargaining, and targeted support, balance my accountability measures, like impact reviews. These proposals reflect best practice abroad, for instance, new EU guidelines explicitly enable self-employed workers to engage in collective bargaining, and many countries even use cultural levies to fund arts employment. Our aim is therefore practical. To adapt to the bills intention, to the realities of the arts. It is a vital opportunity for the sectors needs to be heard. Addressing each amendment individually.

Amendment 259 inserts a new clause after 86 to create a bespoke unionisation framework to the arts and cultural sector, the rationale is clear. Freelancers and small arts companies consistently fall outside of traditional trade union models. Recent submission notes the sector is highly project and performance-based, and one third of the workforce are freelancers. In practice, standard union structures have demonstrated -- Have demonstrably struggled to organise designers and others on short-term contracts. Our amendment would allow tentative collective bargaining models, tailored to this sector.

Explicitly including freelancer Explicitly including freelancer It creates a dedicated arts sector dispute resolution mechanism, recognising that touring in seasonal work differ from those in say manufacturing. EU rules now permit solo entrepreneurs to take part in solo entrepreneurs to take part in collective bargaining to address these atypical employment arrangements. Our amendments that approach, adapting the law to sector, rather than forcing the sector to adapt to fitting legal frameworks. The amendment closes existing legislation.

Extends rights to those previously missed. By acknowledging the unique structure of the arts Labour, seasonal projects, small ensembles, we ensure everyone can effect from collective bargaining. This is about pragmatic inclusion, not special pleading. Amendment to wait for what establish permanent arts and culture employment for to monitor this act. The idea is simple. What gets measured, gets mannish. The sector is fragile. A creative UK survey of freelancers found that two thirds experienced a steep loss of work during the pandemic and nearly 2/3 had at some point and low or unfair pay.

These shops have had ongoing consequences. Meanwhile the Arts Council England observes that the sector is still grapples with COVID fallout and cost of living pressures. Impact reports typically or industries together and will not flag these are specific trends. Our review board would feel the gap with the power to gather detailed data, they can commission surveys, convene stakeholders and track metrics and organisation closures. Advice Parliament with representatives of workgroups, union and freelancer networks and art institutions. It will publish a report to the House.

This ensures real-time feedback on the new laws impact. -- New law's impact. If educators are axed from a museum, the government will be alerted and adjustments can be made. If there is a spike in insolvencies, ministers could be instructed to revise legislation and mitigate funds. This is essential, given the evidence of strain in the sector. The arts are intertwined with tourism and the local community. I building in a structured review process the bill's ambitions remain accountable and adaptable.

Much like we did when introducing the quality duty reforms. We should tie legislative change to monitoring and support ensuring culture thrives under the new regime rather than suffering unknowingly. Amendment 288 directs the government to report on how new employment locations on arts organisations can be funded or mitigated. It asks ministers to think again about financial support. It does not demand a specific subsidy, but it does say that legislation imposes duties that should be matched by a clear understanding of how those obligations can be met.

This is a principle that Parliament already follows. For example, when expanding special educational needs duties the law was accompanied by extra funding. In short amendment to it simply forces a cabinet level conversation about budget, tax and sector health in the context of this bill. It keeps discussions grounded in international best practice and will give Parliament confidence that reforms are affordable. It is a common step. We've signed off on millions for the arts over the decades. We must ensure new rules do not break already strained companies.

Amendment 285 provides that very small or vulnerable arts organisations can get short-term relief from immediate enforcement of certain new duties. Subject to strict conditions. Again, let me emphasise, no one is permanently exempted. Instead if an organisation can demonstrate the compliance by day one would closure or mass layoffs, it may apply for a temporary phase implementation. HMRC, the environment agency and others routinely use graduated enforcement, warnings, reasonable compliance periods, etc, for small entities.

We propose the same approach in the arts sector, which is highly delicate right now. If we apply rules intelligently, we uphold rights and protect the sector. By contrast inflexible enforcement would. Organisations to choose between illegal operation and bankrupting themselves. Our amendment simply allows the law to be applied in good faith with official oversight to secure maximum compliance over time. Is a measured short-term intervention, not a permanent carveout and it keeps the goals of the bill intact whilst avoiding collateral damage.

Amendment 286 the Prime Minister Trudeau is in a specific minister responsible for the impact of this act and creative industry and freelancers. It creates an employment portfolio cutting across departments. It is needed because no single Minister champions the unique intersection of culture and labour. DCMS care about cultural policy and funding. Other ministers handle funding. Other ministers handle employment rights. Arts workers have fallen through the cracks. During the pandemic creative freelancers were initially left out of the coronavirus-2 retention scheme.

In fact that Bectu said was lamentable. It happened because no one minister was listening to them. This amendment does not create a new department or bureaucracy, it simply says there will be a list, likely a junior minister, who is accountable for creative Labour issues. This is a modest step with potentially large benefits. We see how critical it is when such leadership is absent. It would avoid repeating the mistakes of the last crisis, ensuring creative people get a seat at the table when laws affecting them are drafted and applied.

Whilst I will not reopen the copyright debates from the Data Bill, it is evident that AI is reshaping the creative landscape. 21% of freelancers report a decline in demand for their services due to generative AI, further evidence for the need of dedicated ministerial oversight. Amendment 287 would require the Secretary of State to produce a formal impact statement within 12 months of the act. Essentially to evaluate how the new rights affect the sector. Given all that we have discussed, this seems a commonsense check.

For example creative UK Finance that 66% of creative freelancers lost work in the pandemic. Those sobering numbers underlined the creative workers are vulnerable to shocks and an explicit impact assessment will assure we do not inadvertently repeat such crises by rolling out reforms too rigidly. In practice these could link up with amendment 288. The impact assessment would examine whether additional funding, tax levies, etc, is needed to meet the new duties. It is prudent risk management, the kind we expect for major new legislation.

Amendment 331 like 285 introduces flexibility in the timing of the new rights. It requires legislation to set timelines based on organised nation -- based on organisational size. Smaller organisations will be given longer to comply with some obligations and offered transitional support packages. Again, this does not work as entitlement, it merely staggers them responsibly. This phased approach is pragmatic and time-limited. It is rooted in a realistic picture of the sector's finances. 70% of creative dismisses site inadequate funding.

We are not imposing these obligations in a vacuum. Rather we create a mechanism for intelligent rollout. Like amendment 285, the goal is to uphold the law in the long-term without triggering immediate closures. This means we end up achieving the same rights for workers but in a workable sustainable way for employers. Turning to amendment 287 and 301, I support the excellent amendments by support the excellent amendments by the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and the Earl of Clancarty, establishing a permanent freelance voice in Whitehall.

Lord Clement- Jones would require government departments to consider freelance needs in policy making whilst the Earl of Clancarty proposes a freelance Commissioner. Both are sensible overdue steps that complement our sectorial protections with dedicated institutional advocacy. In summary, these amendments aimed to promote fairness and sustainability and by extending employment protections, holds on torn in the art sector. We want to improve the bill and make it fit for every part of the economy. The arts in which our society immeasurably.

We should give artists and cultural workers the employment rights they deserve, whilst preserving the institutions and projects through which our nation's creativity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

thrives. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 86 insert the new clause is printed on the Marshalled List.
18:28
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshalled List. I will talk to my own amendment to it seven in this group which seeks to establish a freelance Commissioner. I thank my noble friends and the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones who have supported this amendment. I support all the other amendments in this group, including amendment 286, which seeks to improve the situation freelancers in the creative in and also amendment 301 and 302 in the name of Lord Clement-Jones, which usefully seeks to define what a freelancer is.

The only thing I would add to amendment 301 is the category of sole trader, which would highlight the point that an artist is always working, whether they have a client or not. Whether we are talking about a visual artist, photographer, user should, composer, novelist. The buyer, venue or gallery may materialise at some stage. Worker and client aren't always walking hand-in-hand at any one time in the creative into. I very much support this bill as far as it goes, but a truly modern Employment Bill, and it is an employment bill, not an employee bill, would have included consideration of the self-employed freelancers, a group which includes the creative into.

On June 5 and in the previous debate, it was said that we cannot claim to be modernising employment law if we ignore how it interacts with one of the fastest growing sectors of our economy. In trying to deal with the problem of zero hours contracts in the wider economy, the government is already encroaching on this territory but without properly assessing the wider effects of doing so. One good reason why the whole landscape of employment needs to be looked at through the lens of employment law in the round.

There is the danger of unintended consequences affecting workers in the creative industry. Freelancers constitute around 15% of the total workforce of the country, but as the workforce of the country, but as the noble Lord says, it runs at twice the national average in the creative into, rising to 70% of the visual arts and 80% for musicians. Freelancers are often described as being the backbone of the art landscape and for a number of reasons this is a growing workforce, despite increasing difficulties for workers.

The appointment of a freelance Commissioner supported by freelancers as -- is supported by And relevant societies. It should be set up with appropriate powers of cross departmental oversight to advocate in the interests of freelancers. As Beck to say, such a role with unions, industry and other stakeholders to champion the needs of the freelance workforce and develop a strategy to coordinate government activity on self-employed rights and entitlements across government. There should be a deep connection with the DCMS, the Department which should be strengthened, not slimmed down, but at the same time the role should reach across to other departments.

A dedicated Commissioner would ensure that coming employment reforms are fit for more traditional forms of employment, but for the self- employed and freelance workforce you are critical to our economy and the interdependent ecosystem of the interdependent ecosystem of the In terms of parental rights, sick pay, health and, pensions and equalities, the rights of self- employed workers like far behind those of standard employees. The abolition of the income for universal credit, and all of this, despite the growth in the background of low income for many workers, for example LCS reported in 2022 that the median income for writers was £7000, a significant fall from previous surveys.

Last year's report at the University of Glasgow found it was just 7/2 thousand pounds. These are just an appointment with the standard employment, it has to be said, of course, that this is a situation that has been greatly exacerbated by the withdrawal investment in the arts industry by previous comment, particularly at grassroots and the industry traditional by a combination of local authority and DCMS funding. In that regard, I cannot say how disappointed I am when it comes to the Spending Review.

It becomes evermore critical that income and wages are something that they ought to be looking at, as well as the name. I believe it would be fair and certainly more efficient if the freelance Commissioner were to consider the whole freelance and self-employed worker although the creative industries are a significant part of that. In that respect, when we look at the two ends of the telescope, at one end both are self-employed and indeed those people should not be employed against their will, and that, it entity, include some working in the industries that were previously in salary positions, but particularly large institutions and organisations, but seen through the other end of the telescope there are many being self-employed with that flexibility is the right fit and I think between many artists and creatives, so tabling this amendment not across unionised in the southern point but asking the Government to consider the reality of the existence of this workforce, and as they both point out there is data in the area and working with the OMF to collect data to inform Government policy to be part of the remit of the Commissioner first of the security of the workforce is another area the Commissioner should look at, during COVID many freelancers fell through the gaps in support in Employees did not and something we would not want to see repeated in another pandemic, and even today as an example of further film and TV workers there planning to leave the sector in the next five years with the current threats to that industry.

These arguments from the last debate we had in this area, June from the last debate we had in this area, June 15, 2023, exactly 2 years ago. The arguments put forward next still hold, and indeed feel today even more relevant and the one major difference between that and now is there was only a single reference for the concerns of AI and copyright raised by the Noble Lord copyright raised by the Noble Lord Foster of Bath. Such has been the rapidity with which the self- employed have come upon us.

And there is a strong argument for copyright as a self-employment right. If that is the case, then surely it is also the employment belief for the purposes of this bill if amendments on the self-employed are admissible, which they have been, they need to have had an amendment in this bill in extending that option right for the self- employed and the only such amendment thus far that in the Commons when the Lords came to the stage was the self-employed do not possess the copyright, a writer self-employed you possess, the threat to which needs to be considerably better affected and I simply float that idea out there, and finally as I said there is no then and there is not now any clear channel between freelancers and Government, and the creative industries which are concerned primarily with the health of the sector rather than the industries workforce that contains no representation for individual artists or creators and the creator of enumeration working group is concerned with the simple reported issue of streaming and this would absolutely help to bridge the gap that so clearly exists.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare an interest
18:37
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I declare an interest as Chair of licensing society and I rise to speak to amendments 301 and 302 which aim to provide vital protections for freelance workers in the UK and I just wanted to say that it was a pleasure to hear the introductions from the Noble Lord Freyberg and the Noble Lord party who set the scene I think extremely effectively. And the common theme is effectively. And the common theme is that this bill take steps to modernise employment but it risks leaving a significant segment of our workforce behind, and as we have heard from both about initial speakers, the U.K.'s freelance workforce is a powerful engine of our economy and culture, particularly in the industries and, particularly in the industries and, as illustrated, the number of self- employed, not only are rising rapidly to reach one million now in the creative industries but also the actual proportion of those engaged in the creative industries representing 32% of sector jobs within the creative sector is an extraordinary figure.

Despite their immense contribution, however, freelancers currently lack a clear voice representing their interests to Government. This absence has led to a decline in pay and conditions with nearly 2/3 of freelancers reporting low or unfair pay in their careers and an overwhelming majority impacted by late payments and as the noble Earl mentioned, the COVID pandemic starkly exposed their vulnerabilities, highlighting the lack of security, unequal access to opportunities and safety nets. I think these three amendments specifically address these critical issues.

A fundamental problem is the lack of a consistent legal definition for freelancers. Freelancing is not the same as self-employment, and freelancing often operates in a mixture of engagement, blurring the lines of employment status and this ambiguity creates uncertainty and can inadvertently, exclude them from right and amendment through a one proposes a new section into the employment rockets act 1996 providing a clear definition of freelancer as an individual to work with a company directly on flexible contracts through their own company or through other companies on a short-term basis and who is typically responsible for their own tax and national insurance can and is not entitled to the same employment rights as employees.

This clarity, and I do take the noble Earl Glen Carty's point about this, but this clarity is essential for policy-making, for freelancers themselves to understand their status and rights and the amendment also empowers the Secretary of State to issue further guidance to create an online tool to help in determining freelancer status adapting as time goes on. Once we have a clear definition, we need a dedicated champion and the noble Earls amendment proposes the establishment of a free lance Commissioner to be led by an independent freelance commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State.

And this as he mentioned, has been overwhelmingly heard by voices across the sector, including my only offers licensing creative society, creation UK, the Federation of Small Businesses, prospects, and a host of other organisations which he also referred to, the freelance commissioner would serve as a critical conduit between industry and Government, providing expert knowledge and genuine oversight and the responsibilities as set out in the amendment, but, effectively, what he would be doing is advocating for the needs of freelancers across all Government departments, bridging the existing gap in representation, especially where councils like the creative industries Council lack advocacy for individual artists or creative, driving change in business, aiming to eradicate freelancers, gathering and analysing crucial data on the freelance workforce and focusing on the creative industries and improving Government understanding of employment issues facing freelancers.

Finally, to ensure the Commissioner the role is embedded in Government policy considerations, Government policy considerations, amendment 302 introduces duty on relevant Government departments to consider the specific needs of the freelancer workforce when formulating new policies or regulations. Currently, freelancers are often left behind in Government policy due to gaps in data and their irregular employment patterns and their more susceptible to economic fluctuations and lack fundamental protections like sick pay, flexible working hours, parental rights, which employees enjoy. This amendment would mandate the Department for business and to the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, have due regard to freelancer circumstances and crucially it would also require these departments to consult the freelance commissioner during the development of any such policies.

This duty is vital to ensure that upcoming reforms are not only fit for all forms implemented for the self-employed workforce, safeguarding the long-term success of industries like the creative sector. These three amendments are clear definition of freelancer, the established dedicated freelance commissioner, statutory duty, for the Government to consider freelancers in policy making are interconnected and, I believe, essential. They represent a fundamental recognition of the workforce and a commitment to adopting a fairer, more secure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

environment for those that drive innovation, creativity, and economic growth. I would like to apologise for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to apologise for having put my name down on 287 and having been unable to be at the having been unable to be at the beginning of this debate for the last three hours but I do want to say that I absolutely support to 87. say that I absolutely support to 87. Think it is incredible and I hope the Minister will listen. I would think kindly to my Noble Friends

**** Possible New Speaker ****

think kindly to my Noble Friends amendment and speech. I rise to speak in support of the
18:44
18:44
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town Portrait Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
-
one area of specific concern and that health and. At least 70% of the workforce operates on nonpermanent contracts. Technically classified as contracts. Technically classified as self-employed, they do not meet the standard definition of autonomous self employment. Current laws self employment. Current laws surrounding health and are often open to interpretation by those on open to interpretation by those on productions who hire them and, in some productions, come to a minimum compliance which becomes compounded by an industry that tends to self- regulation.

Freelancers often do not regulation. Freelancers often do not raise safety concerns, or request reasonable to the work they are doing, as they are fearful of gaining a reputation for being difficult. In highly networked difficult. In highly networked industries, word-of-mouth is a powerful tool. To illuminate, let me turn to a tragedy that was raised in this place last February. While in opposition by my Noble Friend that now Leader of the House, Baroness Smith of Basildon, during a very well received debate led by Lord Browne on the contribution of the arts to the UK economy and society.

She referenced the work of the Mark Wilson foundation. A campaign established following the tragic workplace deaths of this highly respected and experienced camera At the inquest, the coroner concluded on that set the risk of someone being harmed or fatally injured was not effectively recognised, assessed, communicated or managed. Despite these findings, no one has ever been held accountable. This suggests a gap or floor in the law that needs to be filled or wrecked divide, affording freelance employees the same safety rights, benefits and policies as others in employment.

It is a fact that the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act states that there must be Work Act states that there must be adequate training of staff to ensure that safety procedures are understood and adhered to. It could be argued that legislation is in place. The act, however, does not define staff, leaving some companies believing they have little duty in this regards -- in this regard to freelance cruise. -- crews. This can lead on some productions to dangerously long hours.

The legislation before us will have a wide and positive impact on both the rights of employees and work these relations. But I also hope the government can find ways in which to better protect freelancers, including the many in the creative industries. Despite brief time I've spent in Your Lordships' House, I understand there is always caution about turning flagship piece of legislation into what I believe is termed a Christmas tree bill. In replying, could my noble friend the Minister say a little about the potential for the concerns that have been raised in this debate? If not on the face of this bill, then either by secondary legislation or indeed in relation to my specific example, through amending health and safety legislation.

I thank the noble Earl for proposing his amendment and look forward to playing a continued role in supporting freelance workers, specifically those in the creative industries, to secure their safety and indeed their dignity at work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a great pleasure to follow the noble Lady. She made some
18:48
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
the noble Lady. She made some terribly important points, literally matters of life and death. I rise having attached my name to amendment 259. I also have to apologise to the 259. I also have to apologise to the Earl of Clancarty. I should declare my position, given I am a my position, given I am a beneficiary of the noble Lord's licensing and collecting societies, having published one book last year and having another one coming out The sector needs alternative models.

It seems to me this is something we would hope to see during the Labour government. They do, I hope, believe in the values of collective bargaining, the values of workers and the right to fight for security. I declare a position here. 20 years ago, I used to review a lot of London fringe theatre on my website. Speaking to some of the actors and some of the other creatives involved in those performances, the conditions under which they were employed or hoped to get paid were often very, very precarious indeed and I very much hope the situation has improved.

I think it was the noble Lord Freyberg who spoke about the insecurity of Covid-19 and what followed after. The Republic of Ireland so that situation and took a step to deal with it, which is that they introduced the Universal Basic Income trial which ran from 2022 to 2024 which paid creative workers a weekly stipend of 325 a week for three years. We still haven't got the formal assessment of the impact of that but I've heard anecdotal reports of reduced anxiety for workers.

They had time and headspace to open up new possibilities and trajectories. They spent time researching and experimenting and taking risks and release all the benefits and their creative practice. Now, what we are proposing here is not going as far as Universal Is the Income, but a collective bargaining approach that strengthens the positions of creative workers within their sectors, within their organisations, which would be a positive step heading in that direction. Finally, it might feel that in Your Lordships' House we are addressing something that's been an issue for a very long time.

There is a very famous point -- painting by Karl Spitsburg. There is a room with an empty bed without a cover. That's been a long-term stereotype. It doesn't mean we have to continue that. More practically, in the reality of written in 2025, many people can't even manage to access conditions like that. We know there is a real issue, and no one else has brought this up, about access to the creative sector being open to a wide variety of people from a wide variety of groups in our society, not just open to people who can access the bank of mum and dad when things go a bit wrong, and who can afford to work as an underpaid intern for years and years.

If we're going to have a creative sector that truly harnesses the talents of all of our society and that opens up opportunities, and if you really have to put it this way, it's great for the economy, then surely all of the amendments in this group are particularly important for collective bargaining and would take us some steps down that road.
18:53
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to address amendment 287, the creation of an office for freelance Commissioner and have put down the names of my -- put down by my noble friends. I'm somewhat conflicted over this thought-provoking amendment and that I have been arguing several times during second reading and Committee against the overreach of this bill and its sheer complexity and burden on employers, especially for smaller micro businesses. To take the noble Baroness's and, I don't want to be seen to be adding bubbles to the Christmas tree, but I do have to agree that year by year, the arguments grow for the establishment of a freelance Commissioner.

This is partly because the numbers of freelancers are growing and will continue to do so. The current 2 million+ will easily rise to 3 million within the next 10 years in the UK alone. As employers shed staff from payroll weight down by the combination of increased national insurance contributions, national minimum wage is increasing much faster than the rate of inflation -- wages, and all the new rules and regulations coming in with this very deployment rates bill. Now, just look at the recent, alarming drop reported last week by the ONS of 274,000 workers coming off payroll over the last 12 months.

Now, we don't yet have the data to track how many of these are transitioning to freelance or self- employment. Indeed, as my noble friend pointed out, the data on this area, freelancing and self-employed, is really poor and is not actually up to standard by international standards. That's a real problem when we are trying to assess exactly what their contribution is to the economy. You could, and I'm going to slightly muddy the waters, argue that there is a need for an independent commissioner for the self-employed.

We have been talking freelancers. There is actually 4.2 million self-employed, including the freelancers in the UK. Those numbers are going to increase, given the impact of technology, digital communications, AI and particularly the practice of working from home. I accept there are key differences between freelancers and many self- employed, where we have sole traders or those running their own businesses or partnerships where it is just one or two contractors. Of course, freelancers, though independent, they are also self- employed and they are treated just the same way for tax purposes by HMRC.

And I do accept that both freelancers and self-employed are not as valued or appreciated by governments of all parties, by the way, as they should be. This was brutally exposed during the pandemic with the furlough and other schemes. And if we want to develop a proper, entrepreneurial spirit in this country, we should do more to look after those who create their own jobs and face up to the jeopardy that involves, and yes, that very much includes freelancers. Not just in creative industries, but there are other sectors where they are very prevalent.

Construction, professional services and agriculture. I believe the government needs to give this amendment, amendment 287, serious consideration, and think through how the interest should be representative of the self employed, not just freelancers.
18:57
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to thank the noble Lord Lord Freyberg, Earl of Clancarty and Lord Clement-Jones for their valuable contributions and amendments in this group and indeed for the thoughtful way that they have introduced them. I'm very grateful for their tireless advocacy on behalf of those who so often find themselves on the margins of employment policy. The freelance workforce. I will speak in particular to amendment 201 and 302, both tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.

-- 301 and 302. Amendment 301 provides a clear and much-needed definition of a freelancer. This definition acknowledges the reality of modern working life where individuals are often engaged on short-term contracts operating through their own companies or via intermediaries and managing their own tax and National Insurance affairs. These individuals were distinct from employees or workers as defined by current legislation and nonetheless a vital and growing component of our labour market. The amendment does not seek to blur the lines between employment statuses but rather to draw unnecessary and terrifying distinction, one that enables policy and legislation to recognise freelancers in their own right.

The inclusion of the provision for the Secretary of State to issue guidance ensures that the definition can evolve with working practices. That is both sensible and future proof. Amendment 302 builds on this by creating a duty come a statutory obligation, for relevant government departments to have due regard for freelance workforce when shaping policy. Too often, freelancers are just an afterthought. This amendment seeks to correct that omission. Ensures that the realities of freelance working are considered proactively and policy design, not reactively after the damage has been done.

Furthermore, the amendment ensures that the freelance Commissioner, all establish advocate for and advise on matters relating to freelance matters, is probably consulted in the policy-making process. As a central -- that is a These are thoughtful and proportionate amendments. They do not create undue bureaucracy come under do they entrench rigid definitions. They offer clarity, fairness and recognition to a workforce that contributes enormously to our economy. And cultural life, and is often unprotected in terms of legislative terms.

These provisions are about ensuring that our legal and regulatory frameworks reflect the diversity of modern work. I commend the noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones and his co-signatories for bringing these matters for the house. I urge the government to give serious consideration to these amendments as both practical and principled improvements to this bill. I would also like to take this opportunity to speak more broadly regarding the wider group of amendments, concerning the impact of this legislation on freelancers and the cultural and creative sectors.

Amendment to it five proposes a temporary waiver for small and independent cultural organisations independent cultural organisations independent cultural organisations , Layoffs, or the collapse of smaller institutions which are already on the verge of break, the grace period and progressive enforcement is balancing work and protections with organisations. Amendment 286 which calls for ministerial responsibility for managing the impact on freelancers and creative professionals is likewise, a necessary step. That cultural economy is complex and distinction without a dedicated ministerial phase of the bill's provisions we risk were coordination in inadequate consultation and lost policy for those that they engage and employers.

Amendment 287 to establish an independent freelance commission is an especially welcome proposal. Freelancers face challenges, lack of representation, consistent income, and the precarious nature of their profession, and this office would provide a focused authority and authoritative voice to represent and advocate for those in Government and, importantly, this goal is not merely reactive but also data driven and forward-looking with the ability to anticipate issues and solutions and the Noble Lady Baroness Caine of Kentish Town referred back to the debates which was then led by the leader, now the leader of the command very effectively, if I may say, she made her arguments very well.

Of course, the Noble Lady, the leader of the, my Noble Friend Lord Parkinson, I would Government to carry on with my Noble Friend started. To finish the election. I know that he met with the Mark Milson campaign and also just spoke to me very warmly about the work they have done and I hope that the Government is listening because this clearly has very significant cross- party support. Amendment 288 calls for an impact assessment within 12 months of the act's passage and that is not just sensible, it is essential and if we are serious about this policy then we must have mechanisms to measure what actually happens on the ground.

And I think that Lord Londesborough made the point that we do not understand the statistics that are currently being brought. We cannot afford to legislate by the sectors as economically in the culturally significant as these, so I very much looking forward to what the Minister has to say in response to these imminent and I would attempt to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

knock the cross-party deal. My Lords, I am grateful to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am grateful to the Noble Lord and the Viscount and Lord Noble Lord and the Viscount and Lord Clement-Jones for attending their imminent concern in the creative and cultural sectors and pleased to be cultural sectors and pleased to be having this debate on how the sector is been supported by the Government and how workers think the sector will benefit from this bill and I will benefit from this bill and I would like particularly to pay tribute to the Noble Lord is excellent and long-standing work in this area.

He is a kind of creative this area. He is a kind of creative inspiration to us all in his endeavours in this very important sector. The Government, I should say, shares this passion. And, certainly understands the importance of the sector and I would like to of the sector and I would like to draw attention to the significant work we have already done to supported aunties sectors are a vital source of growth, creative industries are estimated to have £2.4 billion into 2023 and 2.5% of UK growth factors and the culture sector expected to have contributed £35 million in the same year, accounting for 1 1/2% of UK GPA.

The creative industries and cultural sectors are a distinct part of the wider UK workforce, as the Noble
19:05
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord explained, they have a significantly higher proportion of individuals reflecting entrepreneurial and freelance entrepreneurial and freelance spaces. In the latest published data as of 2023 2.4 In the latest as of 2023 2.4 In the latest published data as of 2023 2.4 million in the creative industries and 666,000 film jobs in that and 666,000 film jobs in that and 666,000 film jobs in that sector, of these jobs, nearly half, 14.6% in the cultural sector itself and 25.9% in the creative industries compared to 14 1/2 % overall.

This compared to 14 1/2 % overall. This looks ability not only drives innovation but more creative industries, therefore we also know industries, therefore we also know the freelancers creative areas despite having more flexible ways of despite having more flexible ways of working are often in areas that do come with lower job security and of course many have spoken in this course many have spoken in this debate to this fact and I would just highlight the contribution from the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett in setting out the precarious nature of work in this sector.

Now, turning specifically to amendment 259 and Lord Freyberg, proof that we are introducing support staff negotiating body, introducing a framework for negotiating bodies in the care sector to help tackle recruitment issues there. The Government does recognise that other sectors such as the arts and culture sector may well benefit from more formal frameworks for this. We do intend to consider other sectors in due course but in the meantime want to encourage local centres. The government's intention that we should learn the lessons from this process in the care sector first before considering whether it may be appropriate to introduce similar frameworks in other sectors and I struck at this point on the contribution from Lord Londesborough, as he said, the focus of these amendments is to discuss the nature of freelancing in the creative and cultural sectors.

Certainly freelancers are self- employed, of course, self employed workers and many other sectors are beyond, so it is not a simple thing to analyse that is for sure. Now, regarding commitments to 84 and 288, also in the name of the number Lord Freyberg counting these assessments yours lordships house will be a well be already published the state of these assessments and this analysis both addresses available evidence on the sectors likely to be affected by this, including the arts, education and entertainment industries and we recognise these policies, businesses and the economy and that analysis is published in section 17 that summer impact assessment which assesses the impact on all the different sectors, including the creative industries.

We already intend to publish further analysis, both in the form of enactment impact assessments with the bill and further assessments when we consult on proposed regulations to beat our regulation requirements. We are also committed to consulting the businesses and businesses ahead of works ahead of the legislation including sectors listed in the amendment. On amendment 285 and 331 we recognise the importance of preserving financial sustainability of cultural organisations, including those who are small, independent, cultural organisations.

However, to avoid in certainty or unintended negative consequences for cultural workers. We welcome views on the ways cultural organisations expose the financial hardship to be supported, given the types that they may require an implemented practices and, more generally, the Government will continue to work with the sector to understand how they can work with it in this context while strengthening legal protections for employers and, again, this must not lead to uncertainty or negativity for their workforce which we believe stage imitation, for example, we create and then Nova Lord Freyberg will know that DPT and DCMS have been engaging in sector organisations, including UK theatre, with the intention of having productive conversations in understanding and adapting to the new legislation whilst considering the additional support sector in particular.

Finally, I will address imminent 286 into its table by the Noble Lord Freyberg and 301, 302, in the name of the Noble Lord Clement- Jones on freelancers. Freelancers may benefit from the reforms to the system, including the regulation of umbrella companies. We have also committed to additional measures the strength or pretension's report and they rightly raised issues for those that are self-employed, including action to take payments and we have already announced the plan to tackle late payments and the self-employed, upcoming legislation requiring them for a report and the upcoming potential measures to go further.

Other measures that strengthen protection for the self-employed through the right to contract and the extension of health and United States protections. Now, unhealthy, my Noble Friend of Kentish Town raised the honourable campaigning work of the foundation in a speech that should both passion and insights in this area to use or rather abuse those working in the sector, to evade their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to health and, as the Noble Lady Baroness Bennett has said, it can be a matter of life and death.

I am pleased that my Noble Friend acknowledges that this bill may not be the most appropriate vehicle for the changes that my Noble Friend the changes that my Noble Friend wishes to secure, and perhaps if legislation in the Health and Safety at Work Act would be more appropriate, but I can certainly say to her that I am happy to take this back to the colleagues in DCMS. As has been noted, the creative industries have high proportions of freelance workers and their crucial to their success.

To respond to the Noble Lord Clement Jones the sector is currently working to address the recommendations on the good work review and deep dive into the working practices in the creative industries which highlight the freelancers job qualities particular concern and my colleagues in the Department for support are working with industry to understand the government's role in the solutions developed. DCMS colleagues and I would be happy to continue discussing how best to support freelancers as well as the creative industries. It is with this in mind and the Government unwavering support for these industries and sectors that I ask the Noble Lord Freyberg to withdraw amendment to 59.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been considered by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It has been considered by the good work review and of course he has noticed a strength of feeling across the House in terms of some of the freelance amendments and I the freelance amendments and I personally very much appreciate what the Noble Lord shop of Epsom said the Noble Lord shop of Epsom said earlier, but it is clear that across earlier, but it is clear that across the benches there is very strong support for further protection of freelancers. It is one of the options the good work review that is referred to going to be appointment referred to going to be appointment of a freelance Commissioner, with all the other aspects I have mentioned in terms of definition and duties.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

duties. I was certainly to reflect this, I am afraid I do not, I am unable to recall the exact terms here, so I very happy to undertake this in more

**** Possible New Speaker ****

detail on that. Also to add another bell or

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Also to add another bell or whistle to what he has just said, will he undertake to meet those that will he undertake to meet those that have a strong interest in the protection of freelancers on across market basis to have discussions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

market basis to have discussions before report stage? I am always happy to hear from noble Lords on this matter.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords on this matter. I thank the Minister for his helpful answer and to all noble helpful answer and to all noble Lords that have taken part in today's debate. It has been very
19:13
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
interesting and an in-depth discussion that we valued and got a benefit from. A couple of observations, a very powerful point about the lack of Government representation from freelancers when he said there is not then and there is not now any clear channel between freelancers and Government and I do wish to agree with the points made by many noble Lords about this, the by many noble Lords about this, the noble Clement Jones talked about improving, having a freelance Commissioner for advocacy, driving change, and I do think that we need more work on this because it is not clear that freelancers are getting clear that freelancers are getting the type of direction that the Government need to go on this.

I was particularly struck by the very powerful speech by Baroness Caine on the concerns to do with health and in the film industry. Again, air freelance Commissioner would be able to look at this more in detail and drive that through, which I do not think there seems to be the same powerful advocates without that, so I hope that the Minister would consider how to strengthen that. The Noble Lord Landsborough made, again, another powerful speech about how the number of freelancers are going to come into this area, and therefore not to have them represented in this bill is, I think, and oversight.

When I was anticipating what was going to be, what the Minister was going to say today, I had various things done, asking for a carve out, especially for special treatment for one sector and phased implementation is a slippery slope. Oversight already exists through the arts Council of England and DCMS and there is not enough evidence to justify these changes and we already have a This is not about a carveout or exemption, it is about adaptation. Our amendments aim to ensure that employment rights can be fairly applied and effectively in this context.

We've heard it suggested that current oversight mechanisms are sufficient but none of these bodies has the power to shape employment law. Nor are they required to report to Parliament on how these laws are impacting creative freelancers. During the last crisis, these workers were consistently over -- overlooked. Point made by Baroness Bennett and she alluded to the cases in Ireland, which I think were very instructive. The idea that organisations can Is not true.

The sector is struggling as it is. It is at a tipping point and in many cases, it has already tipped. Abrupt and unfunded mandates would not only risk hardship about lead to widespread closures. Some may ask whether there is a need for ministerial leadership or are Commissioner. I would suggest the answer is emphatically yes. Employment rights full across multiple departments, yet freelancers find themselves asking, who speaks for us? These amendments would give them accountability in government. I wish to emphasise again were not calling for new bureaucracy but joined up, proportional governance, and while these amendments may not find favour today, we hope to shape the ongoing dialogue on how we better serve the creative workforce, and indispensable part of our nationally.

With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendments in my name.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure, -- is it your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? We come to amendment be withdrawn? We come to the next group, group 10. After clause 86, amendment 262, Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
19:18
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe of Epsom. I rise to speak to amendment 262 standing in my name. It concerns an issue of considerable importance, issue of considerable importance, and not merely for those involved directly in industrial relations but also for our broader economy. Disability of public services and legitimacy of legislation as a whole. An independent assessment of the impact of this act on the number of working days lost to strike action, specifically compared -- specifically comparing the 12 months following to the 12 months preceding.

This amendment is modest in scope. Does not seek to obstruct the bill or alter its provisions. It merely six transparency come accountability and vital evidence- based analysis in due course. There is a striking absence of hard data or persuasive analysis in support of the central justification for these changes. Namely, they are appealing certain -- appealing to certain parts of the old act will lead to better industrial relationships. I emphasise the word if. Hope is not a good substitute for policy.

Nor should legislation of this consequence be built upon assumptions, rather than analysis. I wish to structure my remarks around three core questions which I believe the government has failed to answer convincingly up until now. If we are to repeal elements of the 2016 act, we must first understand what standards the government is using to declare that failure or assert it is no longer fit for purpose. The trading inactive 2016 introduced significant changes. Minimum turnout for strike balance. Limits on picketing and restrictions on facility time in the public sector.

It was controversial, certainly, but it was also justified by the government of the time is necessary to ensure that industrial action had a strong democratic legitimacy and that the wider public was protected from excessive destruction. Now, we are told that these measures must be rolled back but we have not been told what objective or subjective measure of success or failure has been applied. The 2016 act failed because it doesn't eliminate all industrial action. It was unpopular with some stakeholders. Or because it placed an administrative burden on unions.

Or more worryingly, is it being repealed as a matter of political preference? To look at some figures come according to the owners, the number of working days lost to strike action was at the sharp rise in 2022, 2023 driven by the erosion of real terms pay and discontent in the public sector. Are we being told legislation was ineffective because it strikes still happened in 2022? If so, that ignores the very economic context we now face. Or as the claim is simply that the industrial relations were somehow improved if these legal constraints are lifted? What are we comparing this to? The 2016 environment? Our European neighbours? Are compared to a consensus that may not in fact exist in reality.

Without a baseline for comparison, the government argument is not viable and unjustifiable. Let us assume for the sake of argument that the government believes these changes will lead to more equitable bargaining, greater union engagement and improved relations between employers and workers. Even if that were true, we must still ask at what cost. If these reforms relate to a rise in industrial action, that will affect the public at large. Trains will be cancelled, schools will be closed in hospital appointments will be postponed.

And collections will be missed and caught dates will be adjourned. -- Bin collections. -- There is a risk of increased disruption without explaining how those risks will be mitigated. The impact assessment leans heavily on the idea that increasing involvement could lead to improved munication and better outcomes. Perhaps it could, but the fact remains that the cost of getting this wrong will be borne not by policymakers but the public. That's why this amendment is so crucial. It asks for the government to return to Parliament within a year and tell us has this worked, has industrial action increase or decrease? Are we seeing the promised harmony or the fear escalation? If it is the latter, then we as legislator have the right to know that and to act accordingly.

Perhaps the most fundamental question. What evidence does the government have to support its central claim? We've not been given a retrospective analysis of the trade Union act of 2016 and its impact. We've not been provided with consultation dates. We've not seen sector by sector breakdowns of how these measures will improve the industrial landscape. We've not even seen clear articulation of the problem this bill is trying to sell. Indeed, the rationale appears to be more ideological than evidential. It seems to be based on the belief that loosening legal constraints will somehow foster goodwill and reduce conflict.

All the academic research and literature on industrial relations reminds us that legal frameworks do matter. That institutions shape behaviour and Prevent conflict and not exasperated. Of the government is so confident in its position, why not test it? We are committed to measuring its effect? When it labour for this house and the other place an honest assessment of your own of whether the theory of changes delivered the desired result? Parliament should be empowered to revisit the legislation if it has not brought the desired result.

I look forward to the Minister's reply and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 86, insert the following new clause and insert the words as printed in and insert the words as printed in the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshalled List. My Lords, I raised to support the amendment 262 because I want to talk
19:25
Lord Fuller Portrait Lord Fuller (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 262 because I want to talk about a simple economic truth. One of the provisions in this bill is to reduce the thresholds through which industrial action may be called or authorised. The truth is when you reduce threshold, the likelihood of industrial action just doesn't role in linear way, it grows exponentially. This amendment is needed because it has provided a real life experiment. I think it could be worse than that as my experience comes from local government and I will tell you that my relationship with the joint committee.

The government employs union workers within the cohort of local government workers. There is a green book, red book, blue book, there is even a good book. -- Gold book. There is 136 different activities that local authorities do and 3350 principal councils. I've engaged with all of this complexity for about 10 years sitting on the National Joint Committee. The device through which employers engage with through which employers engage with unions. I sat with Baroness Taylor on that body and now we both find ourselves here.

As part of the gang of four, the top for local government councillors engaged in these important negotiations, I've learnt a lot of things. There is less beer and fewer sandwiches. It has not been easy work, but we've had a series of national agreements, engaging on a respectful basis. It's been valuable work. The important point is there have been powerful incentives to avoid industrial action. The bar has not been impossible, but it's been a high bar against which local government -- against which strike action must be called.

And it sort of worked because there has been an equilibrium between the employer and the employees. Of course, 1.8 million, nearly 1/3 of all unionised workers in this country. That equilibrium has meant that when there is a strike, it is serious. The Birmingham bin strike is a case in point. Where there is a strike, it is serious. My anxiety about so many of the provisions in this bill is that it is going to dissolve the powerful incentives to avoid industrial action and instead arithmetically and structurally put in the provisions were it is encouraged.

This bill sets the wrong balance. We are not talking about simple organisations with single unions and small workforces in local government. We are talking about a very complex landscape. The point is that if you reduce the thresholds and people are more likely to strike. What it means is a minority, as little as 10%, could call a strike. And went 10% hold 90% over a barrel, that's clearly not in the interest of the public, it's not in the interests of the workers, and I don't believe in the long-term it is in the interests of the unions.

My point is that amendment 262 calls for a robust assessment of the effect of these on days lost to industrial action. Because not only is that the right thing. But it will demonstrate once and for all that simple efficiency of labour relations. If you reduce the threshold to call industrial action, the amount of days lost to strikes will go up geometrically. I regret we are going to have to do a service to political and economic science, but that is the way it is.

Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

262 is the way to clean it. My Lords, I'd like to support my
19:30
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I'd like to support my noble friend Lord Shah's amendment to ask for an impact assessment which details the number of strike which details the number of strike days lost in the 12 months since the act was passed and in the previous 12 months. He spoke about the repeal of elements of the 2016 act and he spoke also about the ONS statistics. Part of the reason why we need an impact assessment are not the number of strike days and days lost.

It is because, as Lord Sharpe said, we have no evidence, and this bill, particularly aspects of this part for -- four are likely to increase the number of strike days. The reason is that they undermine the balance between the employer and the employee, which my noble friend Lord They remove the arrangements on a number of accounts which allow for a balance to be struck between the balance of interests of an employer and an employee and agreement reached and they also promote inducements and the encouragement to avoid downstream action.

Earlier today, we spoke about clause 73 and the protection against detriment for taking industrial action by giving workers the right not to be subject to detriment as a result of official protected industrial action in 3.6 A. And stipulate in that an employer may not take action and may not refrain from action to prevent the employee needing industry or protected action, yet excluding the employers ability to give inducements to workers from not taking protected industrial action where others do is, in fact, prohibiting actions by the employer to pull back or to encourage the workers not to take such action.

One example might be to offer up or withhold some extra benefit. There are very good reasons to avoid strikes. Not least for the good of the whole economy and the good of this country. An employee if they were given a level playing field and the measures taken by the previous Government and before then) the 1992 act, and allow for that level of balance to be struck between parties, but many of these measures will indeed encourage industrial action and to is not good for either workers or employers, nor for the country at large because of the impact assessment will at least provide that evidence which the country so badly needs if we are going to have to start putting pressure to restore the balance

**** Possible New Speaker ****

between both parties. My Lords, I thank Lord Fuller for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank Lord Fuller for their contributions and I will be their contributions and I will be brief. In the noble Lords and their dinner break. I think the Noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom for his response and Sharpe of Epsom for his response and I will respond to amendment 262. An the impact assessment at great length and I will not set here but
19:34
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
length and I will not set here but any industrial action is imperative and all parties have a duty to ensure to seek a resolution to such dispute and failure to do so is basically a backup management, leadership, for all. And we have also regarded the 2016 we mentioned as well and, furthermore, it is also a manifesto commitment. With good intentions this amendment has the procedure already tends to do and recognise the importance of ensuring the impact of these policies on workers, business, and the economy, and analysing or assessing the impacts of this.

Our impact assessment also outlines the plans for monitoring and evaluating the impacts of the bill and subsequent secondary legislation. As the Noble Lord will see from the impact assessment on the bill, it could have a positive direct impact in helping support the government's mission for growth and will ensure to raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. The bill is expected to benefit people in some of the most deprived areas of the country by saving them up to £600 with income from the hidden cost.

To conclude, I can reassure your Lordships house that we already have robust plans to assess the impact of the bill including on industrial action and if I committed in the earlier debate my commitment to meet with noble Lords to discuss further the impact assessment that still stand, so, my Lord, therefore ask for amendment 262 to be withdrawn by the Noble Lord shop.
19:36
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Noble Lord for his answer and I would have to say to him if he could repeat the arguments about the impact assessments it was inadequate. Overreliant on the word good which the Noble Lord has just used again, so it is with a sense of frustration that I close this debate on amendment 262 because, let's be blunt, the regulatory policy committee has already deemed the government's own analysis adequate and found that the assessment underpinning this bill failed to consider any important variables, lacked robust modelling of stroke - related costs, and omitted any real evaluation of how the reveal of the 2016 act provisions might drive up the number of working days lost to industrial action.

That is criticism that not a political bias but of technical judgement and the Government insists in inserting the independent stop take of independent/days would be superfluous. During the bill's passage no fewer than 160 Government amendments were tabled over a course stage and some of the most consequential of which would fundamentally alter the trade union landscape, changes to thresholds, as my Noble Friend Lord Fuller had explained, adjustments to picketing rules and alterations to facility time arrangements.

Many came late for meaningful consultation and no accompanying update impact assessment, in effect we are being asked to sign off on a statute whose final ship was only revealed in piecemeal fashion, and for which no comprehensive evaluation has ever been produced. There is more flesh on the skeleton now. My Lords, the consequences of this are already evident, Business Standard in Limbo, there unsure how to prepare, again, the lack of an implementation plan. HR directors, legal advisers, finance teams are all left guessing which rules would apply and if the Government could point to a single one who is not, could they please say so, because we have spoken to very many and cannot find a single one who is not left guessing.

They require clarity, not uncertainty. They need to know when a union, whether a union ballot will incur instead require 50% or whether the content will be covered by new or old restrictions and in their absence investment decisions deferred retention and especially recruitment strategies are on hold and the workforce is unsure of their rights and faces unnecessary rights and faces unnecessary anxiety. To deny that modest requirement to accept this amendment is to deny the very notion that policy should be testing its outcomes, it is to treat legislation as unchallengeable, and rather than a living instrument whose impacts must be monitored, so tells employers working workers and the public alike that we legislate in the dark, so I regret deeply that the covenant has chosen to reject this, and in doing so it seems reluctant to subject itself to the discipline and shows that responsibility to measure the real locals with its own handiwork and, in terms of the businesses and the public now languish.

That is not acceptable or stop if the Government reforms will truly deliver better, we should welcome the chance to prove it. If Ministers are as confident as they claim to be, let them fast-track the assessment. them fast-track the assessment. Fooling the demonstrations and public services are protected. For

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is ideologically that the seminary be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. My Lords, a big tip move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, a big tip move that the House resumes. We will then move on to consider to statements taken in The Other Place and in recognition The Other Place and in recognition the usual channels have agreed that the usual time for consideration be extended by 20 minutes with 40 minutes for Backbench questions in total and we will therefore not return to the Employment Rights Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

before 2030 8pm. The question is that the House be resumed. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content" of that opinion, say, "Content" of that opinion will say content, Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. My Lords, we will allow time for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, we will allow time for the House to rearrange itself or the To To statements To statements made To statements made in To statements made in the To statements made in the House To statements made in the House of Commons on Iran and Israel conflict Commons on Iran and Israel conflict today and Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories on Tuesday, 10 June, Lord Collins of Highbury. 10 June, Lord Collins of Highbury.
19:41
19:42
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
facility. And key commanders of nuclear scientists. The last 72 nuclear scientists. The last 72 hours have seen Iranians ballistic missiles and drawn strikes across missiles and drawn strikes across Israel, killing at least 21 Israelis and injuring hundreds more. And the Israeli strikes have continued including on targets with Iranians including on targets with Iranians authorities reporting scores of civilian casualties. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said his operations Netanyahu has said his operations will continue for as many days as it takes to remove the threat.

Supreme leader Khamenei has said that Israel must expect severe punishment. Mr must expect severe punishment. Mr Speaker, in such a crisis, our first priority is the welfare, of course, of the British nationals. On Friday, we swiftly stood up crisis teams in London and the region. And yesterday I announced that we now advise against all travel to Israel as well as long-standing travel advice to Iran. Today, I can update the House that we are asking all British persons in Israel to register their presence with the FCD so that we can share important information on the situation and leave the country.

And I can announce today that we are further updating our travel advice to signpost colleagues and sent in rapid deployment teams to Egypt and Jordan to bolster our presence near the border with Israel which has already been supporting British nationals on the grant. Israel and Iran have closed their until further notice and our ability, therefore, to provide support in Iran is extremely limited. British nationals in the region should closely monitor our travel advice for further updates.

Mr Speaker, the situation remains far smoother, we expect more strikes as the days to come. This is a moment of grave danger for the region, and I want to be clear the United Kingdom was not involved in the strikes against Iran. This is a military action conducted by Israel. It should come as no surprise that Israel considers the Iranians nuclear program as an existent existential threat. Khamenei said in 2018 that Israel was a cancerous tumour that should be removed and eradicated.

And we have always supported is really security. That is why Britain has sought to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear- weapons through extensive difference. We agree with President Trump when he says that negotiations are necessary and must lead to a deal. This has long been the view of the so-called E3, Britain, France, and Germany. With whom we have worked so closely on this issue. The view of all of the G7 who have backed the efforts of President Trump's invoice team, and for more than two decades the cross party view in this House, Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, and Lord Haig of Richmond, met diplomatic issues, their efforts on this issue, Baroness May of Maidenhead and the former right honourable member for Oxbridge did also.

This Government has continued to pursue negotiations, joining France and in negotiations, joining France and in negotiations, joining France and in Hours is our -- hours is -- ours Hours is our -- hours is -- ours is a hardheaded approach. Just last week, the international atomic agency past non-compliance agency past non-compliance resolution against Iran, the first of such in 14 years. The director general's combines of report details Iran's failure to declare nuclear materials.

Iran remains the only state without nuclear weapons accumulating uranium at such dangerously high levels. As total -- its total stockpile is now 40 times the limit and their nuclear programme is part of a wider pattern of destabilising activity. The government has taken firm action in response. When they transferred elastic materials for use in Russia's illegal war in Ukraine, we imposed extensive sanctions, including against Iran and cancelled our bilateral air services agreement. In the face of unacceptable IRGC threats here in the United Kingdom with some 20 plots since 2022, the Crown Prosecution Service has for the first time charged Iranian nationals under the National Security Act.

And we have placed the Iranian state, including the IRGC, on the enhanced tear of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. I widening war would have grave and unpredictable consequences, including for our partners in Jordan and the Gulf. The horrors of Gaza worsening, tensions in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq rising. The Houthi threat continuing. That's why the government's firm view is that further escalation in the middle east is not in Britain's interest, nor the interest of Israel, Iran or the region.

There are hundreds of thousands of petition nationals living in the region. And with Iran a major oil producer with one fifth of the total producer with one fifth of the total oil flowing through, this will be bad for global economy. As missiles rained down, Israel has the right to defend itself and its citizens, but our priority now is deescalation. A message -- our message to both Israel and Iran is clear. Stepper, show restraint, don't get caught ever deeper into a catastrophic conflict.

Its consequences nobody conflict. Its consequences nobody can control. The PM spoke to President Netanyahu, president Trump and Saudi Crown Prince last week. He is now of course at the G7 summit discussing with our closest allies how to ease tensions. The government has deployed additional assets to the region, including contingency support to UK forces and potentially our regional allies concerned about the escalating conflict. In the last 72 hours, my honourable friend the Minister for the Middle East and I have been flat out trying to carve out a space for diplomacy.

I have spoken to both is really Foreign Minister and the Iranian Foreign Minister -- is really Foreign Minister and reigning -- Iranian Foreign Minister. I've had calls with the Saudi ministers and the US. We have spoken to France, Germany, the UAE, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. These conversations have been a part of a collective drive to prevent a spiralling conflict. This new crisis has arisen as the appalling situation in Gaza continues. This week and, hospitals in Gaza reported over 50 people were killed and more than 500 injured while trying to access food.

This government will not take our eye off the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. We will not stop calling for all age restrictions to be lifted and an immediate ceasefire. We will not immediate ceasefire. We will not forget the hostages. This morning, I met with an Israeli citizen whose Was a reminder of the plight of those still held in Gaza. We will not stop striving to free the hostages and and that were. Our vision remains unchanged. An end to Iran's nuclear program and destabilising regional activity.

Israel secure in its border and at peace with its neighbours. A sovereign Palestinian state as part of the two-state solution. Diplomacy is indispensable to each of these goals. Britain will keep pressing all sides to choose the diplomatic path out of this crisis. I commend this statement to the house.
19:52
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I start by thanking the noble Lord for the government statement. We have seen Israel and Iran launch fresh attacks against each other yesterday and sadly again today. Although I think it is worth noting that Israel is predominantly targeting nuclear and military sites, well Iran seems to be just lunching missiles indiscriminately into civilian areas. This is a grave situation and we face the very real possibility that it could get a lot worse.

I agree with the Foreign Secretary that our first priority must be to ensure that British citizens in Israel are supported to get out of the region as quickly as possible. It is reported that approximately 40,000 tourists are Flight routes and land borders have been closed. I appreciate this is a highly changeable situation but I hope the noble Lord the Minister can set out in his response the government's plans for making sure that British citizens are brought out of harms way as quickly as possible.

We must remember that whilst I totally understand that the Foreign Office is faced with a serious challenge, for British citizens on the ground, this is both terrifying and desperately stressful. James Eaton is hoping to take a four hour bus through the desert and across to Egypt before flying home. Despite being a British citizen in a country that the FCDO have now put on the red list, Mr Eaton has said all they do is send others. On the support that the Foreign Office are providing to help them escape, Mr Eaton said, not going to stop me but they're not going to help me get out of Egypt either.

It is deeply concerning that British citizens are being left in a lurch from what the FCDO has recognised as a high risk area. I absolutely understand the limitations that the Foreign Office have with regard to closure of airspace but we need to remember that normal people are now in a war zone and need all the support, reassurance and help they can get from the foreign office in getting out of harm's way and getting home to their families in the UK. Further to this point, I want to take the opportunity to ask the noble Lord the Minister what steps are the government going to take to prevent -- protect civilians in Israel to -- from falling victim to rocket attacks.

As I said, Iran is deliberately targeting civilian communities. The UK has a capacity to support Israel and anti-air operations will help protect civilians from further harm. I hope the noble Lord can update the house on what plans the government has used UK assets to defend against Iranian attacks on civilian targets. If this is no longer the ambition of the government, may I ask him what has changed since the last time with the UK military helped to bring down missiles and drones? Throughout this time of crisis, we need to be absolutely clear in our resolve that Iran should never have nuclear weapons.

Iran is a state that has repeatedly defied international conventions, undermined regional peace and supported extremist groups across the Medal Is. Government continues to arm and finance proxies responsible for violence in Lebanon, serial, Iraq, Yemen and, of course, serial, Iraq, Yemen and, of course, against Israel. They have a desire to completely eradicate the state of Israel. We should listen to what Israel. We should listen to what We must never allow the bank rollers of Hezbollah, the Houthis, Hamas to get their hands on this type of weaponry.

The international nuclear agency has said that Iran has amassed 400 kg of uranium. That material is a short technical step away from weapons grade levels of 90%. The agency has said that Iran is now the only non-nuclear weapon state to produce such material. It said this is of serious concern. It is enough for Iran to make several nuclear bombs. The Aryan government has always claimed it wants to master nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. -- The Iranian government.

This is nonsense. We should be working with and fully supporting our allies, including Israel, to ensure that Iran never has access to this sort of weaponry. The warning signs are flashing and I hope the Minister can set out his response what steps the government is taking. Israel is engaged in what for them is an existential fight as a nation. They also fighting dangerous religious extremism on behalf of the rest of the world and they should have our full support.

With regard to the sanctions announcement last week, it is now more important than ever that we maintain a constructive, effective and open dialogue with Israel. It must be clear that we support them and their civilians when they are targeted by Iran who have killed civilians in their attacks over the weekend. I therefore want to ask the noble are the Minister if he can assure the house that this relationship and leveraged the government have so often referred to as not be negatively affected by the decision to sanction at the Israeli Finance international security ministers.

I also appreciate some further clarification from the Minister about why this decision was reached. Sanctions imposed on the ministers who have said many outrageous things about and bans them from entering the UK and would freeze any assets they have in the United Kingdom. Could the noble Lord explain to the House why these sanctions were chosen? Was there indeed a high chance that the ministers would travel to the UK to incite violence against the Palestinian people? Do these men have substantial assets in the UK which would enable them to do this? We must ensure that we approach matters of this importance and delicacy with a clear strategy and an eye to the future.

We cannot make decisions which seriously change our international relations merely to appease certain political support from sections of society, some of them in this country. In the face of this deeply volatile and dangerous moment in the Middle East, the government must demonstrate clarity, consistency and compassion. British citizens stranded in a conflict zone must be our immediate priority. At the same time, must stand firm with our allies against attacks on civilians and ensure the UK does all it can to uphold international security.

That means using a diplomatic leveraged wisely, not undermining it through ill considered sanctions, the risk damaging -- and risk damaging vital relationships. We must retain our unwavering resolve to prevent Iran from threatening regional peace and ever acquiring nuclear weapons. The challenge is immense. So is our responsibility. I urge the Minister to set out today how the government will meet this moment with the seriousness and the strategic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

foresight that it demands. I thank the Minister for repeating the statement today. I repeating the statement today. I wish to start with regards to the previous statement on the previous statement on the Community education room in that village which was co-funded by the village which was co-funded by the UK tax pair and the community remains uninhabitable. This is just remains uninhabitable. This is just one example of too many of illegal one example of too many of illegal actions by settlers in Palestine.

actions by settlers in Palestine. This was an egregious example, not just because of the fact that we pay for part of the facilities, but it was done in direct line of sight was done in direct line of sight with the local authority just at the centre of the court and the Audi have found informal which is there
20:01
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to prevent a Palestinian returning. Outposts, illegal even under Israeli law have been expanding and the law have been expanding and the violence against the Palestinian communities which is also illegal under international law has been conducted, not only with impunity, but has been promoted, facilitated, and excited. Therefore, these and excited. Therefore, these ventures welcome the measures that ventures welcome the measures that the Government has introduced. Indeed, the Minister knows that we have called for them for over 18 months, but as the situation has months, but as the situation has deteriorated over that period, the Palestinians have come under further unjustified violence.

We do need to expand these measures to include expand these measures to include those that are financing and facilitating because if I understand these measures being introduced under the human rights regime, then under the human rights regime, then those that are supporting those can those that are supporting those can be covered within the expanded remit. I wonder if the Minister could confirm that is the case. My Lords, these ventures believe that this is now the time to recognise the state of Palestine as not only imperative but to prevent further abuses of international humanitarian law.

We are sanctioning those who say there should be no process at all. But the government's position is that we should recognise Palestine as part of the process, it is now becoming apparent there are very many people who do not believe in the process whatsoever. And, lastly, on Gaza, we have seen just lastly, on Gaza, we have seen just today more civilians, Palestinians, killed, while simply pleading for food in Gaza. The UK must act urgently to work with others to close the GHS and to prevent the use of profiteering mercenaries and immediately restore safe routes of supply for food and medicine.

Over the weekend, as the Minister referred to, people across the UK have watched with horror as war has broken out between Israel and Iran. This is as noble Lords have set a very serious moment for peace and security in the world, and here at home. We have seen the start of yet another conflict where civilians are casualties, both, indeed, both Israeli and Iranian targets have been within densely populated areas, and as we have heard often offering little discrimination with regards to these responses, but it is worth stating to important principles.

The first is that the state of Israel has the right to exist and to defend itself. And the stated goal of the state of Iran to wipe out the state of Israel is contrary to international law and is unacceptable. The Iranians revolutionary God continues to seek to suppress its opponents in the UK and we have called for that organisation to pre- prescribed. The Foreign Secretary has said to the House of Commons we are awaiting promised reforms to close gaps where that state threat of Iran has been exploiting, and I wonder if the Minister could tell as what the timetable of that is going to be.

Secondly, the ambition to create a nuclear-weapons to minister region is also a threat to UK interest, and successor Government have been right to seek to detain that risk. They have also been right working with allies through the E3 process to pursue that on diplomatic means. That is why the actions of the Netanyahu administration a huge gamble. It is, perhaps, an ambition of the United States to carry on diplomatic means, and whilst it was the first ramp administration that was wrong to withdraw from the JC POA, the second has been right to seek that diplomatic track.

I wonder if the Minister could update us on our latest contacts with the United States administration on their works, on their efforts on diplomacy, because the danger now is that any ambition for the diplomatic could be derailed, and the Iranians regime may end up in less transparent, even more or less transparent reduced even further to do primitive roots and the degraded capacity of the Iranian regime could be even harder to contain if it is seeking to expand and attack UK and our allies interests.

Because whether it is Netanyahu who seeks to invoke the USA into the regime change inter and AutoRun itself to seek to expand or threaten trade in the energy supply and routes, then this is an extremely difficult moment. The danger is real and the threat to the UK as the Minister said is apparent. Not only to the United Kingdom but also to our key allies in Jordan and Iraq in particular. We should heed the advice and the warnings of the IAEA director-general who said in that statement today, and I quote, military escalation threatens lives, increases the chances of radiological release with serious consequences for people and the environment and delays indispensable work towards a diplomatic solution for the long-term assurance that Iran does not require a nuclear- weapons.

We agree with him on these benches. And we welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that we will be working with E3 allies and in contact with Tehran this evening and I wonder if the Minister could align the context of what we are seeking, whether we are seeking to place to put the contract the E3 process or any other allies we can work with on that route. And, finally, regrettably, we do need to plan for the worst, even though we may hope for the best in diplomacy, and those British citizens living in the Middle East will be extremely anxious this evening.

Can the Minister confirm adequate additional resources have been deployed to provide consular support to them working with allies, including the EU, contingency plans are being developed to support their evacuation, should it become necessary.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I first start by welcoming the cross-party support for this statement. It is much
20:08
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
for this statement. It is much appreciated. And I think this is an extra milk concerning an dangerous moment, events are moving as we speak. It is a very dangerous moment for the entire region and further escalation is in no one's interest. We certainly want to see both sides step back and show restraint because no one benefits from the widening conflict. As I said in the previous statement, we did not participate in Israeli strikes and our focus is on engaging our partners to de-escalate and find a diplomatic solution through dialogue.

As I said, the Prime Minister, Netanyahu and Trump, and leaders of France, Germany, and the United Arab Emirates, the Foreign Secretary has also spoken to his Iranians counterpart to urge restraint. And, of course, as we have said, Israel has the right to self defence and the UK has grave concerns about Iran is nuclear program. Stability in the Middle East is in everyone's interest and further discussion is to help find diplomatic resolution that will take place in the G-7 earlier, in the summit, in autumn.

Can I come and I fully understand that noble Lords concerns for British nationals in the region and we shall, of course, those concerns. The safety and security of British nationals is our top priority. Our advice to British nationals in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories is to keep up-to-date with those develop movement and follow instructions of the local authorities, particularly the Israeli home front command. That is the best way of staying safe. We are launching, as I said in the statement on the register, presents part of British nationals in Israel in order to build a clearer picture of who is in Israel and who may need assistance and we urge British nationals in Israel to complete this when it becomes available.

Embassy in Tel Aviv and the consulate in Jerusalem are working around-the- clock and can be contacted 24 seven by any British national in need of consular assistance. And we have sent weapons deployment teams to either side of the Israeli to hand order to assist those that choose to travel out of the country via land. This is a fast-moving situation. British nationals should read the FCD owes advice if you are affected by crisis support on what to do. They are monitoring the situation carefully and keeping all plans under constant review.

And, of course, turning to the Noble Lord Callaghan is point, we are, I said in the statement, we did not participate in any element of the Israeli or Iranians military strikes, and, sadly, it would not be appropriate for me to speculate on future operations, decisions, and benefits, but can I just say that we must consider the long-term context here. Iran has, for decades, pursue destabilising activity in the Middle East, human rights violations, and, increasingly, threats against individuals in the United Kingdom.

We have the long-standing grave concerns around this program and Iran has escalated and all credible civilian levels, but I think as the Israelis and the US president have made clear, a military solution cannot resolve Iran is nuclear escalation for the long-term. The consequences of continued conflict would bring serious damage, not only to the region but globally as well, and only a diplomatic solution can resolve the nuclear issue for the long-term, which is essential for the international peace and security and preventing nuclear proliferation around diplomacy which is in the interests of all concerned and that has actually been the focal point of president Trump and we certainly support his efforts in reaching that diplomatic solution.

The UK has bilateral defence relationships and a broad range of Middle Eastern partners, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt. And, certainly, our operation to pureness the maritime in the Indian Ocean where we have frigates and mine countermeasures. As the PM announced, the UK has deployed further aircraft solutions, but it would not be appropriate for me to discuss further operational defence and intelligence matters further. Can I just say that I think that we are absolutely focused on all of those diplomatic efforts, and, certainly, I think one of the things that the Noble Lord Callaghan focused on is, of course, what the Iranians have been up to in terms of in relation to the stockpile, managing more than 40 times the limit.

Total high enriched uranium stock on 17 May was 480 kg. That is now more than nine significant quantities of highly enriched uranium, the approximate amount, the possibility of manufacturing nuclear explosive devices, cannot be excluded because of no credible civilian justification for highly enriched uranium. And I think the IAEA declared on Thursday Iran have not been complaining with its nuclear non-proliferation operations, for the first time in 20 years, the director-general confirmed on 13 June he had been in contact with inspectors in Iran and also confirmed the level of radioactivity outside of Iran site has remained unchanged and we are gravely concerned by the course in Iran is Parliament preparing the legislation to withdraw from a Treaty on the non-proliferation, Winstrol would be a serious breach of Iran's long-standing international commitments and would isolate Iran further.

And, certainly, we are absolutely looking, following the conclusion of the Iran nuclear bill in 2015, the Security Council resolution 22 2231 and 22 includes a mechanism known as the UN snapped, and if the snap process is fully implemented, it will result in the reposition of the seven UNC resolutions and in embargo on transfer of Iran testing nuclear-weapons and a ban on all heavy water related activities, assets and travel, unlimited financial trade restrictions.

Snapback would likely have a significant short-term impact on the value of Iran is currency compounding already high inflation. But these are the consequences of their actions, if they do not listen to the diplomatic court particularly made by President Trump, the economic consequences would be disastrous. Can I also say think it is a fast-moving situation and we have seen, we are urging Israel to comply within international human at area law. And we certainly urge all sides to extend that and think of sides to extend that and think of That they would attack their headquarters which they subsequently did.

Can I also say in relation to the sanctions, of course the Noble Lord asked me questions. Of course, these sanctions are taken against individuals. Because of their incitement and support for violence in their personal capacities. They have a long history of dangerous, extremist and inflammatory views predating their official rules and this language is absolutely to be condemned, even the Israeli ambassador to the United Kingdom said in recent interviews that their statements do not represent Government policies.

The sanctions apply to individuals in their personal capacities, not to their ministries or to their departments. I have seen, personally, in the Occupied Palestinian Territories the actions, the consequences of these statements, particularly in terms of some of the isolated outposts as they are called of settlers which have launched indirect attacks on Palestinian villages and they are going about particularly ensuring that schoolchildren could get to their schools, so their actions have incited violence and it really is important that we do respond.

And I think it is important that we do not take our eye off the ball in And as the Noble Lord Purvis said, even in recent days, we have seen further injury and deaths for people seeking food and other sustenance I will no doubt answer many more questions and I can cover some of the other points.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you to the Minister for repeating a very sensitive statement. I was in Jerusalem last week speaking at a legal seminar at the Hebrew University. I was
20:20
20:22
20:23
20:25
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Can I say that I think the noble Lord knows well the position of myself and this government. Israel has the right to defend itself. There has been no hesitation or delay in relation to that. Can I also say that we have fully understood the threat that Iran poses, not just in terms of the state of Israel and its intent to destroy it, which we fully understand. But I think we have also been very clear about malign influences elsewhere, including on United Kingdom so.

That's why we've been absolutely focused on dealing with Iranian nationals. We have arrested Iranian nationals. Crown prosecution announce, as I said, the National Security Act charges against three Iranian nationals. This is the first time Iranian nationals have been charged under the act. I should highlight the CPS considers the evidence gathered sufficient to link the accused with the Iranian state. We know what they are about. We know what they are trying to do. I would also say that trying to do.

I would also say that the mechanism... Nobody except the long-term solution to the nuclear threat that Iran poses can be simply responded to by military action. President from has made it clear that he sees dialogue and diplomacy being a long-term solution. So I remain, our position in terms of the current military situation is that deescalation, to withdraw, step back, think about the wider consequences, think about the implications of how escalation can be taken out of our control.

That's what the Prime Minister is absolutely focused on doing at the G7. He is absolutely engaged with all allies. We are absolutely working towards a situation where we can then focus on all the actions we can take to ensure compliance with those international agreements. So I would absolutely stand with the right of Israel to exist, the right of Israel to defend itself, but the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

situation at the moment requires us to focus on deescalation. Can I just respectfully say to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just respectfully say to the noble Lord that we just want questions, not statements, because there is a lot of people that want

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to get in. Whatever we think of Israel's actions against Hamas, there is at
20:28
20:30
20:31
20:32
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
I apologise to the noble Lady, I am not sure I understand the last bit of her question, could you repeat that? legal advice it has received on its likely complicity on committing war crimes with the Israeli governments in Gaza and the occupied territories.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I just be clear, no government publishes its legal advice and I'm certainly not going to go down there, but I can to go down there, but I can certainly agree with her that Israeli settlements are illegal Israeli settlements are illegal under international law and do harm prospects to a two state solution and settlements do not offer and settlements do not offer security to Israel from Palestinians, and settler violence Palestinians, and settler violence has reached record levels, and we are...

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, ask me about the recognition of the Palestinian state. Sadly, as a consequence of the current consequence of the current situation, the conference on the two state solution that should have been state solution that should have been held this week has been postponed held this week has been postponed for understandable reasons. We are very keen to work with France and the Saudis to ensure that conferences reconvene, we remain committed to recognising a Palestinian state but the moment where it will actually achieve the most impact and ensure we can get to the situation where that sort of confidence and focus on the two state solution can be a real achievable vision in the very near future.
20:33
20:35
20:36
20:37
20:39
20:39
20:40
20:41
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (Crossbench)
-
-
monitoring the situation closely. In keeping all plans under constant

**** Possible New Speaker ****

review. Were the noble Lord the Minister accept my thanks for the government accept my thanks for the government statement, which I think /exactly statement, which I think /exactly the right note. I have two questions I would like to put to him. The first relates to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, in the United Nations Charter, in relation to the use of force. Does he agree that the only possible he agree that the only possible cover under the UN Charter, for what action was taken, the unilateral military taken last Friday by Israel, is indeed article 51 of the Israel, is indeed article 51 of the charter? And for that to be operated, there has to be imminent, operated, there has to be imminent, I say the word imminent, which has been used in courts very frequently, been used in courts very frequently, and imminent threat of an Iranian attack on Israel.

Does the government have any information that indicated such an attack was imminent at the time Israel took its action? The second question I would like to ask the noble Lord, was does he not think that the E3 possibly could have a role to play, and supporting the efforts of President Trump, to get back to the negotiating diplomatic discussion of Iran's nuclear program. And if that is so, are we going to cooperate actively as a member of the E3, in canvassing back with all those concerned?
20:43
20:45
20:45
20:46
20:47
20:48
20:49
20:50
20:52
20:53
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
My noble friend the Minister is absolutely right when he says this is an incredibly dangerous moment and I declare an interest. I have very close family members who in North Tel Aviv and who has spent the last two nights in a bomb shelter. I ask my noble friend to talk about the conference by Saudi Arabia and France regarding a two state solution. What part or the government be taking in this?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I indicated on Friday President Macron announced the postponement of the conference and for obvious reasons. Not least for obvious reasons. Not least because many of the participants who because many of the participants who would make that conference a success could not get there. Can I reassure my noble friend, which I have said on previous occasions, we are absolutely committed to ensuring absolutely committed to ensuring that conference is a success, that that conference is a success, that we do focus on the importance of the two-state solution and we look at the means to help deliver that.

That the means to help deliver that. That is why we will be working closely with resident Macron and the Saudis with resident Macron and the Saudis to ensure that the conference is reconvened when it is safe to do so. But again, it gives me the But again, it gives me the opportunity to say it will be safe to do so when we ensure that the situation we face at the moment is the escalated and that people step

**** Possible New Speaker ****

back. Particularly in relation to the
20:55
20:55
20:55
20:56
20:57
20:58
20:59
20:59
21:00
21:01
21:02
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hunt, right. Lord Hunt. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 263, so you are right. And amendment 263, so you are right. And 330, standing in my name. My Lords, these amendments require the Secretary of State to conduct a consultation on the effects of the provisions in part four of this bill. On the operation of the Trade Union Consolidation Act 1992. And to report the outcome in any proposed changes. It is a modest proposal, even a restrained one, but make no mistake, it is a necessary amendment, it's a crucial one.

Because what we had before us in Because what we had before us in part four of this bill is not the result of careful planning, of measured engagement, or of evidence-based policy. No, what we have instead is a, so far, and consulted set of sweeping reforms to trade union law, inserted at report stage in the other place, with little scrutiny and even less transparency. I believe it is extraordinary, my Lords, that provisions with such weight, provisions that put dramatically under the balance of industrial relations right across the country, should arrive in this House having not been thought through a proper public consultation.

Provisions that will allow the Secretary of State to rewrite fundamental aspects of how trade unions operate, how they are recognised, how they interact with businesses, and how ballots are conducted. This is not a footnote to the bill. This, I believe, is a redrawing of the boundaries of employment law and industrial relations. And it has been done without engaging the employers, without informing the HR community. Without giving those who will be most directly affected any chance to prepare.

And we must ask ourselves who precisely was consulted? It certainly wasn't business. It wasn't those employers large and small that would be forced to navigate the implications of this legislation. We are left only to pursue that the trade unions were consulted, or at least advised. Because the trade unions serve their interests almost exclusively. Access to workplaces in ever broadening circumstances. The weakening of independent oversight, restricting powers of the Certification Officer. The dilation, or in some cases, outright removal, of long-standing butter thresholds that were introduced to protect the legitimacy of industrial action, and the potential for significant changes to trade union recognition processes, that could alter the employee union relationship fundamentally.

And all to be done by secondary legislation. At point, my Lords, cannot be emphasised enough. These changes are not on the face of the bill, they are hidden in the detail, to be brought forward later through regulations. Through statutory and. -- Statutory Instruments Act. Through mechanisms that allow for limited debate. I believe that is no way to legislate on matters as fundamental as a recognition of trade unions all the conditions for lawful industrial action. These are not administrative details, these are foundational questions of how workers and employers interact under the law.

They deserve full, open transparent scrutiny. They deserve proper consultation. Perhaps what is most galling of all is that, even when the government speaks of consultation, it does so with inconsistency and confusion. I would draw your Lordships' attention to statements by the Minister for employment rights, in the other place, on 7 May, he stated, unequivocally, and I quote, " No decision has yet been made by the government as to whether or when to exercise this power. Therefore, there is no planned timetable for there is no planned timetable for consulting on it at present." So, no decision, no timetable, no consultation.

And yet, less than a month later, on 3 June, the same minister declared, " The government will consider what criteria to assess whether to lower the recognition threshold, in due course, including through the public consultation process." So, we go from no consultation to upland consultation, in the space of four weeks. My Lords, this is not just a contradiction, it is sadly becoming a symptom of a government that is making policy on the hoof. Unable or unwilling to provide clarity on matters of neo- and constitutional significance.

It is talk plainly about what power that is. It is the power to reduce the threshold for trade union recognition to just 2%. My Lords, there is no justification offered for that number. None. There is no white paper, no consultation document, no cost benefit analysis, no report from ACAS, no statement from employer organisations, or trade bodies, not a single name the government can point to that supports the reduction of that recognition threshold, to just 2%.

And yet, here we are. With ministers potentially claiming this power to change that threshold by statutory instrument. Out of reach of substantive parliamentary control. substantive parliamentary control. Why 2%? Why not 20%? 50%? If the government believes a change is needed, surely a change should be on the face of the bill. And the the face of the bill. And the rationale should be available to all stakeholders, including this House. And if they are not prepared to provide that rationale, they surely we are entitled to the respect that it is just not been thought through.

I must ask how will employers respond to these changes. What of the small businesses, charities, the start-ups, the growing firms, that have never had to deal with trade union recognition processes before, they are not anti-trade union, they are simply unprepared. And yet, under these proposals, they may soon be required to accommodate access, to facilitate recognition, to engage in statutory processes for which they had no guidance, no support, no prior warning. These employers are being thrown into an environment of legal uncertainty.

An environment not shaped by consultation or consensus, but by expediency. It is also abundantly clear that the government has shown little interest in listening when it has come in the past, consulted. On those parts of the bill were consultation has occurred, however limited, the views of employers and professionals have largely been ignored. We are hearing consistently that business voices are being drowned out and that legitimate concerns about workability, proportionality, and unintended consequences, being brushed aside.

What then is the purpose of consultation? If it is treated as a procedural formality, rather than a genuine dialogue. Let me repeat again for emphasis. One trade union recognition itself, there has been no consultation. It was confirmed in the other place. And to move forward with such a major change, industrial relations law, without even the courtesy of asking stakeholders their view, is frankly an abdication of responsible governance. My Lords, I do not stand here someone hostile to trade unions, far from it.

I recognise the historic role, and their ongoing contribution to workplace fairness, and safety. But fairness has to go both ways. Changes of this scale must be fair, transparent, and built on consensus. Not stealthily inserted into a bill and then pushed forward by ministerial decree. That is why this amendment matters. It seeks only to do what the government should have done in the first place. It seeks to restore process and balance, where now there is currently present.

-- Where neither is currently present. I urge also supported, not out of ideology or political interest, but out of principle, out of a shared commitment, to deliberative democracy and out of basic respect. For all those who will live and work under the laws we make in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 86, insert the new clause, consultation on trade union legislation, as printed in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. The reason I support this amendment is because it links the amendment is because it links the two of making sure we get the consultations done and then, not proceeding with the legislation proceeding with the legislation
21:13
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
proceeding with the legislation until but -- That is printed. It goes back to understanding, in effect, the detail of this bill and how it really will impact jobs. Because that is what this is about. How is it we are going to not only have workers, but also make sure they have jobs to still be in. And I think that continues to be the underlying concern, and that is why this amendment, group amendments, perfectly formed, makes sure that at least this House knows full well what the expectation is, that employers have, and the risks, the opportunities highlighted, before

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they make that final decision, and when this becomes legislation. I just wanted to intervene very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to intervene very briefly as well. I think I have briefly as well. I think I have raised it numerous times, I do worry that small and medium-size businesses have been completely left businesses have been completely left out of the debate. Particularly, I spend all my time speaking to small and medium-sized businesses, and most of them are very unaware, and most of them are very unaware, and quite nervous, when they get to hear that a lot of legislation is coming their way and they certainly are not their way and they certainly are not prepared for it.

My Lords, my grandfather was one of the founders grandfather was one of the founders of the Indian Workers Association. He created that with others, to ensure that Indian workers had rights, in the 1930s. So, I understand where I am standing up for workers rights, because at that time, many Indian workers were not even protected by the unions that we here at the time. So, I am always conflicted because I always want to make sure that we have the right laws in place for the workforce.

At the same time, as people who are in business, and I have been in business for over four decades, and I talk to small businesses all the time, the one thing that makes me incredibly worried and nervous is the absolute lack of consultation that has gone on with this enormous bill that is actually going to destroy jobs, because those small businesses will just close up and shut shop.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, likewise, I have spent the last 40 years advising SME the last 40 years advising SME businesses. Not always with success, but not a bad track record. Therefore, want to support local's
21:15
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
Therefore, want to support local's very appropriate amendment, a very wise amendment -- Support Lord Hunt. I know Lord Hunt has also had many years of advising. So he, like me, has a relationship and dialogue. I can tell you every SME company I can tell you every SME company I have spoken to has no idea what is in part four, they just haven't tuned into it, haven't focused on it, they have their own worries, business rates, NIC, trade, oil, energy, you name it.

So, this is not something on their radar. And we have received representations from a galaxy of their representatives, such as British retail Consortium Institute of directors, the CBI even, the Federal Family Businesses Association, the List Goes on of organisations, all of whom are saying there is no dialogue, there -- Representatives. In their interest, the press are coming out with articles now, shock horror what is coming ahead, and it is in the government's interest to soften and that by saying, don't worry, we will have consultation before we press the button and we will allow people to understand it.

I know the Labour Party had a dinner of business leaders last month, postponed, because people didn't want to come. And the relationship between SME business and government is not good at the moment. This, part four, will not enhance it. So, why not pause for a short period for consultation, to give the noble Lord, the Minister, due notice. I have put an amendment into the commencement of laws, such that commencement is delayed, specifically in respect to SMEs defined by the small business enterprise and employment Bill.

To allow for them to understand what is allow for them to understand what is I very much hope the government is in listening mode.
21:17
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank all noble Lord who have contributed. I want to pick up the points made on SMEs. I gave a speech to an event last Wednesday, here in the Commons terrace, to a group of SMEs. I spoke to them about what we are doing with this bill. I must say, the atmosphere in the room was very supportive. Everyone of them have said they welcomed the bill. Some of them said they do more than what the bill is doing.

It's not true, we are in constant regular conversations, whether it is myself, Minister Jones of the Secretary of State. We are having meetings with all sizes of businesses, including officials, on a daily basis. I the noble Lord for his amendments, moved by Lord Hunt. The bill provides a number of clauses relating to the repeal of the act following Royal Assent. It relates to political funds, trade unions and simplification of industrial action notices, which the government notices, which the government consulted publicly on from October to December of last year.

We have been clear about our intention to repeal the great majority of the Trade Union Act 2006. This was part of our manifesto commitment. This act places a narrative on trade act places a narrative on trade union activity that works against dispute reconciliation. Other provisions can commence fire regulations. These amendments would frustrate these intentions by allowing no part of part four of the bill covering all of the provisions regarding trade unions and industrial action to commence until the report following consultation of the effects of the provisions of part four has been published.

The further consultation suggested it is not required, given that the government regularly engages with businesses, employers, members of the public in advance of introducing the bill. The plan to make work day was in consultation and this government continues to take on comprehensive consultation. We have been providing opportunities for everybody to input into the development of this bill. For example, we ran a public consultation with all stakeholders and the union only represented 16% and the union only represented 16% of the respondents, 60%.

-- 16%. It of the respondents, 60%. -- 16%. It was open to all. The bill will continue to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way and we also will be conducting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

further public consultation... Cannot ask if the noble Lord the Minister can tell me how much percentage of the consultation was percentage of the consultation was amongst BME businesses.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amongst BME businesses. I do not have the figure, but I will find out the figure and write to the noble Lady. The bill will to the noble Lady. The bill will continue to be subject apology scrutiny in the usual way and we will also conduct further consultation on certain parts of consultation on certain parts of part four of the bill when there is detail to be set up in secondary legislation or code of practice. legislation or code of practice.

These amendments run counter to the government's manifesto commitments government's manifesto commitments as I said earlier. It seeks to delay as I said earlier. It seeks to delay the commencement of the central part of the bill with no valid justification and would hinder the delivery of improved workers rights. I therefore ask Lord Sharpe to withdraw his amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I ask him to clarify, did he say the jolly reception he went to on the terrace with the delegates on the terrace with the delegates were rapturously applauding the were rapturously applauding the introduction of the bill, did he say they were all the core companies with all the ramifications.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Most of them are members. Can he clarify if he is talking

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can he clarify if he is talking about medium-sized companies that can just about cope with the can just about cope with the bureaucracy of been the Corp, and which percentage are smaller which percentage are smaller Issues are different for different sized companies.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am clear about micro- sized businesses and medium-sized businesses and medium-sized businesses and small businesses. The event I attended, we had all sorts event I attended, we had all sorts
21:23
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of businesses, some with one or two employees to medium-sized businesses as well. My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord the Minister does not wish to engage in responding positively to this amendment. My noble friend Baroness Coffey put it noble friend Baroness Coffey put it very much in context and Baroness Verma stress the complexity of what we are talking about as far as small and medium enterprises are and medium enterprises are concerned. And then Lord Leigh of Hurley and indeed might noble friend Hurley and indeed might noble friend Baroness Noakes further put Baroness Noakes further put questions to the Minister, which I do not think he has responded to do not think he has responded to positively.

Niger State once again, I cannot see why the government cannot except this amendment. For instance, on trade union recognition, there has been no consultation at all and yet this is a very major change. Part four I a very major change. Part four I think describes itself as... It is the etc that I get worried about. Part four is described as trade unions and industrial action, etc. I think there is so much here that has not been consulted on.

I agree with the noble Lord the Minister that there has been some consultation, but has the government really listened to the results of that consultation? Why has it consulted more widely, particularly on trade union recognition. I do think this is an aspect we will have to return to at report stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We now come to clause 87 and
21:25
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 263 ZA. Lord Sharpe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 263

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 263 ZA, 263ZB, C, and 271 said a standing in my name. I will also briefly refer to the amendments briefly refer to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord tabled by my noble friend Lord Holmes Richmond. Amendments to 68 and 271. He sends apologies that he and 271. He sends apologies that he cannot be here this evening. The first two amendments go to the very first two amendments go to the very heart of what it means to enforce employment and labour rights in a manner that is consistent with the manner that is consistent with the values of competence, fairness and democratic accountability.

In doing so they of the workers it is meant so they of the workers it is meant to protect. As well as the legal and moral standards of the state that commissions that protection. The role of an enforcement officer is not mainly administrative, it is a position of public authority and carries the power to enter workplaces, examine records and to question individuals, and in some circumstances to impose sanctions or refer matters to prosecution. These are not trivial tasks, they are functions that if carried out poorly, inconsistently or abusively, can cause serious harm.

Not only to employers but to vulnerable workers. Yet under the clause as currently drafted there is no explicit requirement for the enforcement officers wielding these powers to possess any formal qualifications or specific training. That silence is troubling and perplexing. We would not allow an environmental health expected to carry out inspections without the relevant training. We would not allow a planning officer to issue legal notices without understanding the framework within which they operate, but we are now giving powers to individuals without even requiring a meet the basic threshold of professional competence.

This amendment seeks to competence. This amendment seeks to Is. It is not enough to presume that competence will arise through experience alone. Expense in other areas have shown that when qualification and training requirements are not embedded in statute, they become vulnerable to erosion, particularly when budgets are tight or political pressures arise. The second amendment is of equal importance. It would require the Secretary of to ensure that enforcement officers maintain records of all enforcement actions, they provide written notices to the persons affected by the notices and they submit activity reports to an independent oversight body.

Again I submit to your Lordships that this is not the matter of administrative detail, but fundamental principle. Enforcement that is opaque is liable It's liable to inconsistency and in the worst cases abuse. The powers under this part of the bill are expensive and potentially disruptive. They can lead to business interruptions, reputational damage and personal distress. For these reasons it's only right that enforcement activity be recorded, explained and subject to independent scrutiny. The requirement to maintain accurate records is essential for the protection of those being investigated and for the proper functioning of the enforcement system itself.

Without such records there can be no effective auditing of performance, there can be no analysis of systemic trends and no evidentiary basis for defending an action should it be challenged in the Employment Tribunal, or in the courts. Similarly the obligation to use provide written notice to those affected by enforcement notice is procedural fairness. It ensures that individuals and businesses understand why an action was taken and it gives them an opportunity to challenge it if they believe it to be unjustified.

It's a protection against eight overage and the perception of arbitrary or unfair behaviour by agents of the state and perhaps most importantly, reporting to an independent oversight body . The oversight body will not be tasked with micromanaging individual cases. It's function will be to ensure that the enforcement regime as a whole operates in a manner consistent with the rule of law with proportionality and the respect of state power. It will put this is from Paetongtarn executed interventions and it will protect the regime itself.

On amendment 263 a, designed to insert a new subsection 6 a which will have an oversight body monitoring officers and publishing annual reports on the use of enforcement powers. It's a vital mechanism. Powers given to enforcement officers under clause 87 are significant. They include rights of entry, inspection and seizure. Whilst these powers are necessary, they must be exercised with care, This amendment does not constrain the powers, but rather that they can be monitored transparently.

It gives clear roots to raise concerns and ensures that Parliament and the public can see how these powers are being used year after year. Independent oversight is standard in many regulatory regimes and this amendment brings labour market enforcement in line with best practice. It helps protect against misuse of power, safeguard the public trust, and ultimately strengthens the legitimacy of enforcement itself. My Lords, amendment 263, B, places a duty on enforcement officers to exercise their functions in a way that minimises disruption and harm to individuals and businesses.

We accept that effective enforcement may, at times, be inconvenient but it must never be unnecessarily harmful. Enforcing the actions, with employers and third-party witnesses, already invulnerable in uncertain They are encouraged to act with care, proportionality and respect for lawful activity, this amendment does not weaken enforcement on the contrary, it encourages professionalism. It reminds us the purpose of these powers is to uphold the law, not to punish or intimidate those who are already compliant. My Lords, amendment 217 ZA, Thames to move to actual effectiveness, it asks not just what was done, but did it work.

And that lies the real test of any enforcement regime. Currently, clause 92, 2A, requires the Secretary of State to report on the enforcement of functions exercise during the year in accordance with applicable strategy. However, without this amendment, there is no statutory obligation to assess whether those functions actually improve compliance. We may well end up with a system that measures success based on the number of measures carried out, or volumes of penalties issued without ever pausing to ask whether those efforts have made the labour market fairer, safer, or more lawful and this is particularly important when we consider the realities faced by businesses on the ground.

Especially the vast majority that fall into the category of small or micro enterprises. These businesses do not typically have in-house legal departments. Many do not even have a dedicated HR personnel. They are already grappling with a maze of regulatory obligations, often updated without adequate support or communication from the centre. Now, under this bill, we are layering on a new extensive enforcement regime, without any corresponding effort to explain what compliance looks like order to help smaller employers reach their practice.

We have heard from owners but fear, administer the slipups or misinterpreted rules. Such issues are dealt with by compliance teams. For a family run cafe, tradesperson or local care provider, they may amount to Living Planet Index essential threat. There is genuine anxiety that this bill in is genuine anxiety that this bill in its current form is placing an unprecedented pressure, without clarity, without support, or proportionate enforcement. My Lords, the riskier is twofold, first risk over enforcement, where state authority is emboldened by new powers, and feel propelled to ask powers, and feel propelled to ask act and with enforcement activity targets, the low hanging fruit, rather than the worst offenders, simply because small businesses are easy to reach are less able to defend themselves, this is not justice, but it is convenience disguised as policy.

This amendment provides an important safeguard, by requiring an assessment of the effect of enforcement, not just its frequency, compulsory government to look at the bigger picture for away reaching the worst offenders or overwhelmingly smaller law-abiding firms with bureaucracy. Are we seeing improvements in compliance or simply increasing penalties issued? Are the enforcement functions helping to change behaviour in an important way? Or simply creating fear and confusion among those who want to comply, but do not know how? This is not a call to weaken enforcement.

It is a call to make it smarter, fairer and more targeted. We want to see bad employers held to account. We want to protect workers from exploitation and unsafe conditions, but we must ensure that enforcement functions are being exercised in a manner that is proportionate, strategic and evidence-based. We must make sure that we do not come in the pursuit of justice, interpreting the businesses doing their best to comply, simply because they lack the resources or guidance to get it right every time.

My Lords, very briefly, on Lord Holmes of Richmond's amendments, amendment 268, it seeks simply to issue organisations involved in developing and upholding labour market standards have a seat at the table. These groups play a crucial role in improving workplace conditions, and promoting fair practices. So, may I ask the Minister, on behalf of my noble friend, whether the government actively considering including such organisations in the composition of the advisory board? An amendment 271, the seeks to enhance transparency and effectiveness in enforcement.

It would require enforcement officers to report annually on how existing schemes and accepted standards are being used to support their work. Again, could I ask the Minister whether the government are considering a mechanism like this, to ensure enforcement standards and efforts are aligned with existing frameworks and standards? My Lords, I look forward to the Minister's response and I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 87, page 107, line 12, at end, insert the words as printed on the Marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled list. I am going to speak to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am going to speak to amendment 263, A, and 279, ZZA, in this group, which are, in content, quite closely which are, in content, quite closely connected with the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has been discussing. Before I start, I should say it was gracious of the should say it was gracious of the noble Baroness, the Minister, to meet me to discuss my amendments to this bill. This is how a legislative
21:38
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
this bill. This is how a legislative process should ideally work. Give and take on both sides, and I'm looking forward to the give from the looking forward to the give from the government. My amendment, 263, A, six to ensure the Secretary of State cannot direct enforcement officers in how and when they exercise their powers. This would otherwise be the case, as the bill stands. Because enforcement officers will have no separate legal identity from that of the Secretary of State.

They will simply be part of a so-called Fair Work Agency, which will have no independent legal status. This is why the Fair Work Agency is not mentioned in the bill. Which refers only to the Secretary of State, and his or her enforcement officers. Legally, the so-called Fair Work Agency is the Secretary of State. Because enforcement officers will, for legal purposes, be the Secretary of State, ministers and their advisers were, but for my amendment, be able to direct the way in which they exercise their enforcement powers.

As belt and braces clause 86 confirms it, when it provides an enforcement officer can only exercise his or her powers to the extent specified in their appointment by the Secretary of State. So, what are those enforcement powers? Under clause 93, enforcement officers will come at the bidding of ministers, be able to require a person attend at a specified time and place to provide information, by answering questions or providing documents. Under clause 94, they will also be able, at the bidding of ministers, to enter any premises and inspect, examine and seize documents, retain them as long as necessary, as well as examine computers.

No warrant of the court generally seems to be necessary to enter business premises, warrant will only be required to enter a dwelling, a place where people live. Let's be clear, ministers will authority that will be demolished. Possible labour market abuse and breaches of legislation, HMRC's powers to investigate compliance with the national minimum wage are the powers of direct labour enforcement. The full list of legislative powers transferring to the Secretary of State is set out in schedule seven.

Paragraph 35 of that schedule confirms an extraordinarily wide Henry VIII power on the Secretary of State, to add, by regulations, any enactment which affects the rights of employees, trade unions, and duties of employers. This is not all, clause 98 allows enforcement officers, let's remember that is the Secretary of State, to be granted certain police powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, including to search, to arrest, and to interview suspects in relation to labour market offences. The bill before us would transfer all of this to the Secretary of State.

It is a startling acquisition, intrusive new powers, by the executive. Effectively, the secretary of state will, through the enforcement officers, have his or her own employment rights police. Direct operationally, in any way, he or she chooses. This is in contrast, for example, to our regular police forces and the National Crime Agency, which are both operationally dependent on the Home Secretary. It is unlike HMRC, which is a non- ministerial department, precisely so as to ensure it operates at arms length, with complete operational independence from ministers to ensure the system is fair and impartial.

It is also unlike the soon to be abolished Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, whose day- to-day activities are, as a non- departmental governing body, are not part of the Crown, currently independent of the government. In their report on the bill on 4 April, 2025, the Constitution Committee said, and I quote, " Powers to enter certain premises and to seize property represent a significant interference with the individual liberty. They ordinarily are vested only in recognised legal officials who typically operate independently of, or at least at arms length from, the government.

Given the range of enforcement powers potentially exerciseable under the bill on behalf of the Secretary of State, we are concerned, that is the Constitution Committee speaking, we are concerned the government has not provided sufficient reassurances about the safeguards for this regime." My Lords, this is the point of my amendment, 263, A, it is imperative the bill makes it crystal clear that enforcement officers, appointed by the Secretary of State, enjoy complete operational independence from ministers, their advisers, in the way they carry out their wide-ranging and Draconian powers.

Otherwise, it's not impossible to imagine an scrupulous Secretary of State requiring them to operate in the way that is not in the public interest, and might even constitute an abuse of power. Who knows? To target an unfriendly media organisation for political purposes, or for some wholly inappropriate purpose. To quote the constitutional case of commissioners metropolis, establishing the operational independence of the police, " The Commissioner of police is not the servant of anyone, save for the law itself, no minister of the Crown can tell he must or must not keep observation on this place or that or he must not prosecute this man with that one.

Responsibly flow enforcement lies on him, he is answerable to the law and the law alone." The principle is the same, it is operational independence from ministers, for those exercising enforcement powers. My second amendment, 279 My second amendment, 270 9ZZA6 to ensure executive same inspection, completes, misconduct, accountability arrangements, as currently applies to gain muscle labour abuse authorities apply to enforcement officers, when they are exercising their extensive powers. And some of the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has spoken out getting the same thing by different routes, oversight, inspection, training, accountability, complex procedures.

This is all the more necessary, given the powers of the independent Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which is a non- departmental government body, and therefore a non-Crown body, are passing to the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness, the minister, may say that the Secretary of State is sufficiently accountable for enforcement officers, because of the requirement for a report to be laid before Parliament, detailing the extent to which the enforcement functions have been exercising courts with the labour market enforcement strategy.

But that is akin to marking your own homework. It is not an independent scrutiny of the sort currently applied to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary of fire and rescue services, that inspectorate, carried out a detailed inspection of the Gangmasters Act authority, in March 2023, in the areas to which my amendment refers. This inspection was a voluntary one. But it was accepted by the Home Office, in their April 2025 framework agreement. An agreement reached under this government.

That reached under this government. That such inspections, by inspection Constabulary, would be put on a statutory footing for subsoil, presumably the government are taking the opportunity to do just that by accepting my amendment. Turning to complaints and misconduct arrangement, as my amendment provides, these are currently detailed regulations, covering the handling of complaints made about conduct, labour abuse prevention officers, exercising case powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, and how they must be investigated by the Independent Police Completes Authority, struggle to see where the same complaints and conduct arrangements should not apply, to enforcement officers, when they are deploying exactly the same powers.

I can't see anything in the bill to that effect. So I show my amendment will be welcomed by the amendment will be welcomed by the My agreement sets out a framework for enforcement officers and should mirror the April officers and should mirror the April 2025 framework agreement which the government recently agreed the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority's. Again, why should there be any difference? should there be any difference?
21:48
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
The amendments just spoken to are important and I hope the government is taking them seriously. I have three amendments in this rather strange group of amendments which seems to be the dustbin of amendments that have not found themselves into a separate group through the D grouping process. My first amendment is 269. It's regarding the advisory board setup regarding enforcement functions. There are no provisions about what happens to the advice provided. The Secretary of State can ignore the advice and no one, importantly Parliament will be none the wiser.

My amendment is a modest one, requiring a report setting out the advice the Secretary of State has been given at least once a year. Importantly that report would be laid before Parliament which would be an additional tool along Parliament to hold the Secretary of State accountable for the discharge of the huge powers under this bill. of the huge powers under this bill. That the Minister supports effective parliamentary and accountability. So if this amendment does not find favour, I invite the noble Lord the Minister to set out how the Secretary of State will be held accountable by Parliament in relation to the enforcement functions.

My two other amendments in this group, which is 270 and 279 return to one of our recurring themes on this bill, namely the effect of the bill on small businesses. I grateful to the noble Lord for adding his name to these amendments. Amendment 270 is directed at the labour market enforcement strategy to Secretary of State is required to produce under clause 91. My amendment merely requires a separate analysis of the strategy for enforcement of this small and micro businesses.

That is those with fewer than 50 employees. Enforcement really should not be one size. It's reasonable to expect that a large corporation is not the same as can be reasonably expected from a business with 10 employees. I am not seeking to say that small businesses should not comply with employment legislation, I'm trying to ensure that the circumstances and needs of smaller enterprises will be taken into account in the enforcement strategy. For example, the impact of heavy-handed use of the entry and seizure powers would be drastically different for a well resourced organisation compared to that of a small organisation.

In a small business the burden of dealing with enforcement activity will almost certainly end up at the door of the business owner, who will inevitably then be distracted from running the business. We have to remember that small and micro businesses account for the vast majority of businesses in the UK and are the backbone of the UK economy. We all in your Lordships House want to see growth in the economy, but as the Minister will be aware, growth does not come from what governments do, it comes from businesses, what businesses do, of all shapes and sizes.

Imposing onerous enforcement mechanisms and powers threatened small businesses in terms of operating and played their part in the success of our economy. We need small businesses to thrive because they employ nearly 1/2 of the private sector workforce in our country and because small businesses are where large successful businesses start. Without the success of small businesses, we will not have businesses that grow to be large ones in due course. My to be large ones in due course.

My point is enforcement needs to be sensitive and that is on my amendment is seeking to achieve. I hope the Minister can support that. My final amendment, 279, is inspired by the same concerns about the impact of the new powers on small and micro businesses. Clause 141 creates a new set of offences for officers of corporate bodies and makes those officers personally liable for prosecution if they have consented to whatever action that falls foul of the law or being negligent.

We have to look at how this will impact small businesses. They are often family affairs. The directors are often the main entrepreneur, together with the entrepreneur's spouse and maybe some representatives of the adjacent generations and outside directors are not common at the small end of the spectrum. Under this bill is a small company would already be liable to be prosecuted for the full range of offences set out in the bill. So my question to the Minister is what is there to be gained in public policy terms to allow the enforcement authorities to pursue individuals as well in such cases? The directors let's say includes the business leaders spouse and father.

Small businesses operate in this manner informally, unlike larger companies. It would just be too easy for enforcement to be aimed at individuals just because they were directors of very small companies, who did not themselves see the need for highly formalised decision- making processes. That is not how small businesses actually operate in practice. They will probably be very soft targets for enforcement teams, especially those trying to earn their spurs to establish some convictions. So my contention is that we should not let that happen.

My amendment takes small and micro businesses out of the scope of clause 141 entirely. If the government does not like that, and I suspect they will not like it, can the Minister explain what protections will be built into enforcement to ensure that prosecutions are aimed at the most egregious behaviour rather than the most convenient targets?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rice to speak to two amendments
21:55
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rice to speak to two amendments in this group, 270 and 279, both under the name of the noble Lady Baroness Noakes, which I support and Baroness Noakes, which I support and I have added my name to. Starting with amendment to 70 which addresses clause 91 in this bill and calls quite reasonably in my view for separate analysis and proposals for labour market enforcement strategies for small and micro businesses. As a noble Baroness pointed out here we have another section of the bill where this one-size-fits-all approach will be very difficult to enforce without running the risks and costs of applying the proverbial sledgehammer to crack nuts.

The nuts in this case being the small and micro businesses with less then for staff. Even the huge scope of this bill with approaching 200 clauses, small businesses are very likely to have much higher levels of non- compliance, much of it inadvertent, compared to their medium and larger counterparts. This is for two principal reasons. First, they simply do not have the in-house HR, compliance or legal resource to cover all this legislation and very often it will fall in the business often it will fall in the business owner or manager to keep up as he or she struggles with all the other challenges of trying to run a business profitably and sustainably in the face of all sorts of macro and micro economic headwinds.

Secondly, the disproportionate costs associated with being fully compliant that for on small and micro-enterprises. They simply do not have the budget or the cash flow to spend on external advisers and employment lawyers to advise them on how to navigate all the new clauses and conditions running across hundreds of pages of this bill. And as we have heard, a visit from an enforcement officer, however well- trained they are or are not too small or micro business will have a far greater and more unsettling impact on the owner and the owner's staff than for a medium or large sized business.

I note that as the noble Lord Lord Sharpe has just pointed out the government appears not to be planning to provide any material assistance to SMEs to help them understand and comply. Or are they? I throw that question to the noble Lord the Minister. As we know the impact assessment for this bill rather shrug its shoulders by admitting that SMEs will be disproportionately hit in terms of costs and their time and apparently just expected to suck it up.

As the noble Baroness has said, this is not to argue against an enforcement strategy per se, but that it needs to be tailored and proportionate to the size of the business, specifically for micro and small companies. Turning more briefly to amendment 279, it is for very similar reasons that I support this exemption for officers of micro and small businesses from the liability in clause 141 of this bill. I support an exemption because these businesses typically do not have boards of directors or adviser groups or non-executive chairs, but tend to be managed by one or two principles, who hold responsibility for pretty much everything to keep the business going, including finance, sales, marketing, customer engagement, product and service development, not to mention general HR, which we know is going to get far more complicated.

Finally, speaking from my own lived experience as an adviser for several small companies and having run an SME myself and any 30 years, we really must guard against deterring business owners and entrepreneurs from starting up and scaling businesses and specifically from creating new jobs often at high risk without threatening them or indeed their offices with excessive and menacing levels of extended liability. I say this mindful of the fact that the ONS reported last week that we have lost 109,000 payroll jobs in the space of one single month.

It is not a great time to be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

spreading fear and uncertainty. I rise to speak to this group of amendments. I will start by amendments. I will start by addressing the amendment in my name.
22:00
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
addressing the amendment in my name. Jumping to clause 92, referring to the annual report the Secretary of State will be expected to make in regards to the extent of which they have a sickly undertaken the enforcement functions. I have a particular problem with the suggestion in primary legislation that it is acceptable to have as soon as is reasonably practical after the end of the financial year. They have been plenty of other reports that will, how can I put it, it will not fit the grid slot or anything that gets in the way.

We get promises and then the reports are delivered seven months after originally planned. That's the reason why I put in it should be done within three months. I have seen that happen in other things, I can see it in the environment act, where a specific timing is put on reports and for me this is no different in that regard. It is not something as sloppy as this that should be left on the face of the should be left on the face of the This is a chunky part of the bill.

Minnesota started this of bringing together the different -- The previous administration started this idea of bringing together the enforcement bodies. The Labour government come in a variety of papers they put out, so we are going far further than any of that, that's why this lease that careful consideration. Not only in this bill are we seeing significant changes in employment rights, not only are we seeing significant changes in the scope of what is here, as has already been pointed out.

This is also radical change, in terms of who gets to do it. And it's the noble Lord, Lord Carter, pointed out, I would be interested to find anywhere else within government, I think civil nuclear police perhaps and the Armed Forces, would have this kind of level of direct control, by the Secretary of State. That said, I will explain why, I have some sympathy with the government and the way they are going about this. Also very struck by my noble friend, Baroness Noakes' amendment, Surrey, 269 in particular.

The reason I say that is setting out the advice it is giving the Secretary of State. This would not be unprecedented, because this is exactly what the Office for Environmental Protection does when matters involving environmental legislation for example. By the way, ministers are not expected, they don't have to ask the OEP for advice, but they can. However, the OEP can and does publish advice it gives, solicited or not. I think it's that open transparency to which my noble friend Baroness Noakes was referring, in how these powers are being used.

I think it would be welcome to give confidence in this new body and we will be debating, perhaps on Wednesday, rather than today, why I think some of this is so novel. It certainly needs all the scrutiny it merits. A bit more broadly, turning to the noble Lord, Lord Carter Haslemere, I completely understand what he is saying about the extent of the powers being given. I have some sympathy, and actually, in another group, I will be talking about why I believe these enforcement officers used to be known as labour market offence officers.

But combining these different agencies, how that comes together. For example, the environment agency is a regulator which has powers for investigating criminal offences. The environment agency started an investigation on 18 November, 2021, no point would be a brief ministers on the progress or details, the intimate details on that investigation. And to this day, they still have not brought any charges. So, recognising the public expects more of ministers nowadays, to have set out powers, and it is possible for all these things to happen.

To then be effectively locked out, from what's going on in locked out, from what's going on in terms of this independent, operational independence, I can understand why ministers are keen to have a closer relationship with what is going on. Also, and I will explain this in more detail in the other group, but I think having it as an executive agency with the advisory board does provide an element of scrutiny, but doesn't provide the independent oversight, which is why the framework to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, refers, I think is an important one in trying to get this balance in how our people...

Are they behaving themselves in applying the law they are doing? I am not suggesting any civil servant or any enforcement officer would necessarily be wanting to go rogue, but having that extra oversight, with such a significant power, let's be candid, a Secretary of State does not have the time to go through every single assessment of every operation that would be expected under this widened scope of legislation. That this new agency will be enforcing. While I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I certainly have sympathy that in order to have a pretty tight grip on what is going on, then I do understand why the government is set out the way it is.

Nevertheless, and as my noble friend is on the front bench have pointed out, that aspect of oversight is important. And as has already been explained, considering how small businesses will handle that. This is already getting into pretty tricky stuff. By the way, fully support the development of the Gangmasters Authority, that is where a lot of the powers that may seem tough in this bill have originated. And, how can I put it? Some of the people, whether it is aspects of modern slavery or otherwise, can be pretty tough employers.

So, I understand why some of the come in effect, emergency access to offices and documents is needed, in order to try and make sure we tackle abuse of and make sure we tackle abuse of employees and workers, but overall, I think this is going to be really sensitive area and I would encourage the government to be as open and transparent as possible to consider the level of scrutiny but also the transparency in terms of reports, which would be, I'm sure, will commit by government.

But also, candidly, by people relying on these agencies, in order to do this work for them in the future.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was appointed to speak on this group this evening, speak on this group this evening, and given the group of amendments,
22:07
Lord Stoneham of Droxford Portrait Lord Stoneham of Droxford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and given the group of amendments, considering the Fair Work Agency, we will restrict our comments in this particular group. The Department For Business And Trade set out the rationale for the Fair Work Agency, suggesting the current system of employment rights enforcement is fragmented and inefficient. We agree. This fragmentation causes confusion both for workers and employers, and leaves many breaches such as underpayments and challenge. The bill aims to establish the Fair Work Agency and will consolidate existing bodies responsible, abolishing those bodies and transferring their functions.

However, there remains some uncertainty in the agency's precise scope and responsibilities. How it will relate to existing organisations, the level of funding it will receive, how they will access and use data and the mechanisms for compliance and oversight. While the bill includes datasharing provisions and the Minister has highlighted further detail, these issues will be key in determining the agency's effectiveness. On powers and oversight, many enforcement powers currently held by other bodies will be transferred to the Fair Work Agency, including powers of entry.

You powers, particularly in relation to HMRC, will also be introduced. Oversight of these powers is planned to be provided through independent policing standard authorities, but is important that the limits to these powers are clear, and they are exercised proportionately. Regarding resource and, it is understood that around 6 million is currently allocated across the authorities, been restructured into the new agency. I should be discussions with the Treasury on appropriate levels of funding are ongoing, but is the Minister confident that this figure will provide the resources needed to meet the scale of the agency's mission? Bringing enforcement functions together in the Fair Work Agency should improve the government's ability to tackle labour market abuses, including serious issues, such as modern slavery.

It's also acknowledged that previously, fragmented responsibility caused confusion, duplication, and ineffective enforcement. This consolidation aims to provide a clearer, stronger enforcement framework. I will not speak at length on the amendments put forward by Lord Carter, but I thought they were very wise in what he said. You raised important questions about the advisory boards composition and enforcement powers. And they deserve further consideration by the Minister and the government. Given the wide- ranging powers the agency will have, from workplace inspections, to civil penalties and criminal enforcement orders, it's only right Parliament has a clear opportunity to know is how these powers will be used in practice.

Before the agency becomes operational, leisurely clarity around its remit, its resources, its relationship with other enforcement bodies, the structures of accountability, that will apply. This is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which often lack the internal capacity, to navigate complex literary frameworks. -- Regulatory frameworks. Vast scrutiny on a published framework would help the workers employers, that the agencies approach will be well targeted. We would welcome the Minister's further explanation on how the government intends to maintain transparency and accountability.

Ensure balanced representation on the advisory board, and keep Parliament informed through the phased implementation of the Fair Work Agency. Finally, seek clarity on the government's timeline for the agencies full implementation, in how it plans to keep Parliament updated on progress. These are significant institutional changes and deserve close attention. I look forward to the Minister's response.
22:12
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords that have tabled amendments in this group, all of which pertain to the governments of the Fair Work Agency, and its relationship with government. My Lords, while I appreciate and respect the spirit in which these amendments have been made, I must set out by the government does not believe they are necessary or appropriate. First, speaking to amendment 263 ZA, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, this amendment has good intentions, however, in practice, it introduces unnecessary rigidity into a system that already works effectively.

Currently, enforcement officers undergo extensive training, for example, HMRC officers completed an 18 month program that equips them with the skills and knowledge they need. This is a robust and proven process. There is no evidence that adding a legislative requirement for qualifications would improve the outcomes. Moreover, this amendment would reduce flexibility, it would impose a legal burden that could hinder recruitment, especially where enforcement leads are evolving Finally, it's important to note that, in clause 87, six, it already gives the Secretary of State the power to specify which powers an officer may exercise in their appointment.

This ensures appropriate oversight and safeguards, without the need for additional legislation. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe's amendment 263 ZB is, in practice, unnecessary and great duplication. The powers granted under this bill already require enforcement officers to provide written notices, such as the notice of underpayment. These are not optional, they are embedded in the operational framework. Moreover, the current enforcement bodies, like the employment agency standards Inspectorate, already maintain detailed records of inspections. Officers also operate with a strong emphasis on consent and cooperation.

Often arranging visits in advance, and documenting their findings thoroughly. Introducing the statutory requirement for additional reporting, and oversight, risk creating initiative burdens, without adding meaningful value. It could divert resources away from enforcement and into bureaucracy. This amendment seeks to legislate what is already standing practice. It is not needed in the bill, a date which the noble Lords -- And I urge the noble Lords to reject it. Now turning to amendment 263, C, the bill already provides for us to limit what powers the officers can exercise through letters of appointment.

I appreciate noble Lords desires to ensure that enforcement officers exercise powers in a way that minimise disruption and harm to individuals and businesses. Particularly as there will be extensive powers. This includes their powers to enter premises, to determine whether there Whether these powers are by nature disruptive, they will need to be exercised proportionately and reasonably. And, where possible, officers will carry out their duties on a consensual basis. In practice, this means officers will correspond with the business in advance, to arrange a reasonable time and date before they visit.

And they will also generally enter during business hours. It is also worth noting we are setting up the Fair Work Agency as an executive agency, of the Department of business and trade. Enforcement officers will therefore be civil servants who are subject to the usual standards of public life and will be required to operate in line with the Civil Service code. My Lords, the Fair Work Agency will take a balanced approach to carrying out its role. This is in everyone's out its role.

This is in everyone's interest. If I now speak to amendment 263, A, in the name of Lord Carter of Haslemere, and amendment 263, B, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, this relates to oversight independence of enforcement officers. Through the bill, we are creating the foundations on which we will establish the Fair Work Agency, as an executive agency DBT. Drafting enforcement functions in the name of the Secretary of State, with the ability to delegate them, it's standard practice when setting up an executive agency.

That is exactly what this bill does. I will draw noble Lords attention to the employment agency standards Inspectorate. This team is responsible for enforcing agency protections and is one of the three bodies being brought under the Fair Work Agency umbrella. They are part of the department, and yet they operate free of political I can assure noble Lord is that whilst the Secretary of State will set the overarching priorities through the fair work enforcement strategies, they will not direct the day-to-day operation of staff.

Enforcement officers will be operationally independent of the Secretary of State and we will set this out in the framework document that governs the relationship between the Fair Work Agency and the Department of business and. This is how other DBT agencies operate such as the insolvency service in Companies House. Turning to amendment 263B, I support the principle of accountability in the use of enforcement powers. However what this amendment proposes is unnecessary and duplicative.

We have With established bodies and this will continue. Creating a new oversight body would not only be costly, but would also risk overlapping responsibilities and confusion. It would divert resources away from frontline enforcement and into administrative structures that replicate existing functions. And what is more, clause 91 of the bill requires the Secretary to publish a strategy outlining how enforcement functions will be used to address non-compliance. Clause 92 goes further, mandating and any report to assess how these powers have been exercised.

These provisions ensure transparency and accountability without the need for additional bureaucracy. I Lords, we must be careful not to undermine the efficiency of enforcement by layering on unnecessary institutions. The current framework is sufficient and the bill already strengthens oversight through clear reporting obligations. This brings me to amendment 279 279ZZA, tabled by Lord Carter of Haslemere. I'd like to assure the noble Lord we intend to maintain or oversight arrangements in place for existing arrangements in place for existing bodies, including oversight for grandmasters and abuse authorities.

They are provided for in schedule 10, paragraph 4 and will set out further in secondary legislation and in the Fair Work Agency's framework document. I can confirm also that the Fair Work Agency will have a clear and transparent complaints procedure, modelled on the procedures of the current bodies including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. I hope noble Lord recognises that these amendments are unnecessary. Turning to amendment 2771 2771B, the current drafting as soon as practicable is mirrored in soon as practicable is mirrored in the Immigration Act and aligns with legislative norms.

In practice complex reports often rely on external data, stakeholder engagement and cross government coordination. The rigid deadline can lead to the publication of incomplete or misleading information, which would serve no one well. The government is committed to prompt publication and transparency, but good policy relies on accuracy not just speed and we believe that the current drafting ensures both. If I turn to amendment 271 in the name of the noble Lord Lord Holmes Richmond and 271Z a in the name of Lord Sharpe.

This would introduce additional reporting requirements. Existing transparency measures established by the bill are sufficiently broad to allow for rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of the Fair Work Agency. Causes 91 and 92 mandate that the Secretary of State must publish an enforcement strategy setting out how enforcement strategies will be exercised and in any report requiring an annual assessment of the exercise of these functions. These will be laid before Parliament in the Northern Ireland. This is an upgrade on current transparency arrangements.

There is no current legislative requirement for the employment agency standards Inspectorate or HMRC's minimum wage unit to produce any reports or strategies. Turning to amendment 270 and 279, I am grateful to Baroness Noakes for tabling these amendments. We can all agree that the UK labour market enforcement system is fragmented and as a result ineffective. That is why we are creating the Fair Work Agency and this bill is the vehicle to deliver this. The Fair Work Agency will enforce employment right across all business sizes to ensure fairness and prevent non-compliant employers from undercutting those who follow the law.

The body will also provide training and guidance to help businesses understand and comply with labour market regulations and will work closely with ACAS to do that. Amendment 270 is unnecessary because assessing a how to best support small businesses will be at the core of the Fair Work Agency's work and clause 91 to see already provides flexibility for the enforcement strategy to cover matters which the Secretary of State considers appropriate, such as the impact on small businesses specifically. Amendment 279 would introduce unfairness in the system.

Whilst the vast majority of small business officers want to do right by their staff, there are sadly as we have been discussing some bad actors exploit their workers. It is unfair to let that minority undercut

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the compliant majority. Maybe I have missed it, although

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Maybe I have missed it, although I have tried very hard to listen to I have tried very hard to listen to every word she has said, if the every word she has said, if the business wants to appeal against the decision by an enforcement officer, where do they seek that appeal? where do they seek that appeal?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

where do they seek that appeal? Well, I did cover that and now I have forgotten what my answer was. I have forgotten what my answer was. I will write to the noble Lady, but I think it was in the earlier contribution that I made. And I just wanted to reiterate on the small wanted to reiterate on the small business question that businesses that comply with their obligations that comply with their obligations should not see any increased burden from the enforcement activity.

The Fair Work Agency will only target the minority of employers engaged in illegal practices, including loopholes that bad actors might loopholes that bad actors might exploit. Businesses of all sizes stand to benefit from a fairer labour market where exploitative practices are actively addressed as this will create a level playing field for all. Let's not forget that we are creating the Fair Work Agency to deliver an upgrade of enforcement of workers rights. If we created a carveout for businesses based purely on size we will be creating a two- tier system which would be unfair to workers and businesses, too.

Finally, amendment 268. This amendment risks compromising the balance representation of the advisory board. The wording has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model that has served ACAS very well for many years. Lord Sharpe asked on behalf of Lord Hope whether representatives of labour market standards would be on the advisory board. Just to say that the Secretary of State will appoint individuals if they consider appoint individuals if they consider them to be an independent expert and that recruitment and selection process will include a thorough assessment of the applicant's qualifications, experience and potential conflict-of-interest.

Vulnerable workers have been waiting for the Fair Work Agency for years. The Fair Work Agency delivers the work of protection enforcement authority and delivers a single enforcement policy that was the policy of successive Conservative led administrations. It now forms a key part of the plant paint, a key manifesto pledge on which this government was elected. Bringing together the fragmented labour market enforcement landscape has been a policy for successive governments. We cannot debate any more. I therefore asked Noble lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw that amendment. I am grateful for what she has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful for what she has said in response. I think I heard her say that the framework document will stay the terms that enforcement will stay the terms that enforcement officers will have independent operation from Ministers which is reassuring to know, but presumably reassuring to know, but presumably therefore it will be possible for the terms of appointment of the terms of appointment of enforcement officers under clause 87 enforcement officers under clause 87 's -- under clause 87, six.

That is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a perfect place to state they are independent of the Secretary of State. I think I said earlier that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I said earlier that the letters of appointment made to these people will spell out their duties. people will spell out their duties. Obviously their relationship to the Secretary of State will be spelt out in their letters of appointment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to the noble Lady Ministers extensive answer and to Baroness Noakes, Baroness Coffey, Baroness Noakes, Baroness Coffey, Lord Carter of Haslemere, Lord Londesborough and Lord Stoneham for their contributions to this short, their contributions to this short, but very interesting debate. As we come to the end of our discussion on these amendments to the Employment these amendments to the Employment Rights Bill I have to express my thanks to the contribution from noble Lords and my disappointment in the government.

The Secretary of State has a duty to consult with the advisory board, so S&P can understand why the government would reject the idea of combining the two and getting on with it. I don't understand why they would not want to take Baroness Coffey's suggestion to tighten up their requirements. Nothing under those terms require great deal of external information. We have brought forward amendments that are measured and rooted in principle. We have not sought to gut the bill or frustrate its aim of enforcing fair and lawful treatment in the labour market.

On the contrary we have sought to strengthen it. Also ordinary businesses, especially small and micro- businesses are not crushed under the weight of uncertainty. Will Carter made an excellent point when talking about accountability. Enforcement is not just about falls, it is about legitimacy and trust and trust is any sustained when those who willpower are transparent. It is not red tape, it's a democratic principle, which is why we asked for qualifications and training to be made are prerequisite for enforcement officers.

That seems an obvious step considering the serious powers they will be entrusted with. The noble Lady the Minister rejected my amendment. 87 three says in this part enforcement officer means a person appointed by the Secretary of State. Note that a person, not necessarily a qualified person. A person appointed under this section may enforce any powers of an enforcement officer as specified in the appointment, as Lord Carter also informed us. Is no notion of independence or skills or anything else.

I think that argument as to why our amendment is not necessary for based on what is on the face of the bill. We asked for clear duty to minimise disruption to lawful businesses because we know enforcement and carefully can damage livelihoods. We asked for an independent oversight body for when things go wrong because when there is no recourse, there is no justice then we asked that the government reports not just on what enforcement actions were taken, but whether they have the intended impact on non- compliance.

None of these proposals are -- are radical or Buddhism. -- Are radical or burdensome. We know there are businesses up and down the country, a point made by Baroness Noakes and Lord Landsborough and others and Lord Stoneham, particularly SME and sole traders desperate for clarity. They want to comply but they're struggling to keep up with the complex obligation and shifting rules. This bill without our amendment leaves them in the dark and opens the door to enforcement that is heavy-handed and And if I may ask what protections are built into this to those that will struggle under the administrative burden? We find , we regret even more that those that were by the brunt of this will not be the employers that the Government claims to target the honest, hard-working and often overstretched small businesses that from the backbone of our economy and certainly no adventures we intend to continue to make the case for a fairer, smarter enforcement regime, but tonight I express my sincere disappointment that the Government has not chosen to help us along with that ambition and they have rejected a very sensible and pragmatic

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendments, but for now I beg leave to withdraw my amendments. Just before we move on I just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just before we move on I just wanted to clarify from my speaking notes, just to confirm that I did notes, just to confirm that I did say the fair work agency will have a clear and transparent complaints procedure modelled on the procedures procedure modelled on the procedures of the current bodies, including the Labour abuse authority.
22:33
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Labour abuse authority. Is ideologically pleasure this be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is ideologically pleasure this be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Min min 263 said be, Lord Sharpe, not moved. 263 acre, Lord Carter, not moved. 263B, Lord Sharpe, not moved. 263 263C, Lord Sharpe, not moved. The question is that clause 87 stand part of the bill, as many as that opinion will say content, Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. In schedule seven amendment 264, Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Davies of Brixton. It is a real pleasure to come

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a real pleasure to come onto the subject of pensions at 10:30 at night, however I know not to try the patience of my Noble to try the patience of my Noble Friends, or even the noble opposition. In truth, this amendment opposition. In truth, this amendment comes up here and refers to comes up here and refers to enforcement of the Fair Work Agency and it is really about the place of and it is really about the place of pensions within this bill, my contention is that it is not given contention is that it is not given adequate consideration and I use this as a mechanism to press my this as a mechanism to press my Noble Friend the Minister to expand Noble Friend the Minister to expand on how this legislation will reflect on pensions.

Of course we get the bill and one wonders how legislators coped before the introduction of word search because you have 300 pages, 157 clauses 412 schedules and the use of the word search tells us that pension appears 19 times in such a massive piece of legislation and quite a few of those were part of the word suspension. The bill fails to give any serious consideration, as far as I can see, to the place of pensions as an important element in the terms and conditions of employment.

That is where I started from and I looked at particular ways in which I think pensions should be addressed in this bill and the ones that we are considering now, and min min 264, 265, and three to four, I really just there as a sample in order to press my Noble Friend to explain. 264 and 265 related to schedule seven and enforcement of labour legislation and there is labour legislation on pensions as the issue of obligations as it applies to consult with trade unions in certain circumstances, that is 264, and 265 relates, effectively, to automatic enrolment where it is an inherent part of the labour contract that people have this pension.

We have the enforcement agents going in to companies. It seems redundant, it seems a wasted opportunity to me if they are going and they do not check for compliance with these particular issues as well as the other issues issues as well as the other issues specified in the bill. So, my amendments are a request for my Noble Friend to explain should these issues not be included in the pensions more generally throughout the bill be included in what is being dealt with? And my third amendment, 324, appears very late on and has been promoted from the miscellaneous and general part of the bill.

And it seeks a definition of the word renumeration, which appears 75 times in the bill, but is not actually defined anywhere. It could well be defined by other pieces of legislation and judgements in the courts, but there seems to me to be a total lack of consistency. I could point to particular judgements and international standards where renumeration is defined in one way or another, but there is no overall consistency, and yet, clearly, renumeration is a crucial part of this bill and there is a lack of clarity on what actually means and I really hope it is obvious that I am only raising the issue because I wanted to include pensions in my amendment.

I think you cannot understand someone's renumeration if you do not know what pension they are being offered. It is part and parcel of the package and to look at some elements but not pensions just seems to be wrong, so I urge my Noble Friend to make a positive response that the bill will be looked at in detail again for places where pensions should have its

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proper role. I beg to move. Proposed schedule seven page 2629

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Proposed schedule seven page 2629 27 at end insert words on the
22:39
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
27 at end insert words on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Will, I always have tremendous respect for Lord Davies of Brixton, particularly in his knowledge of particularly in his knowledge of pensions, because he, like me, is an actuary, whereas he is a true actuary, I am just an honorary actuary, I am just an honorary fellow in the faculty of actuaries, fellow in the faculty of actuaries, so I do always respect his views. I am not sure there is very much I can say in intervening between him and say in intervening between him and his Secretary of State and the noble Baroness the Minister.

All I will Baroness the Minister. All I will say is that his amendments represent a shift from the consultative culture to a more legalistic and culture to a more legalistic and punitive model, and that would be a shift at great cost because I, like he, believes that people are entitled to proper pensions and proper security and, like him, I have fought on many occasions to ensure that is a right which is enforceable, but I do not want to anticipate what the noble Baroness the Minister will say, but we have to consider the employers perspective.

We all want to see businesses offer generous flexible benefits scheme, things like pension contributions, healthcare, travel allowances. But if those are brought in to tight regulatory definitions and packages, and enforcement frameworks, I just worry that some employers might feel discouraged from offering them at all, but I await the response of the Noble Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Minister. I thank the Noble Lord for his contribution and I thank my Noble
22:41
22:42
22:43
22:45
22:46
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
seven page 262, line 29, leave out paragraph 27. I should advise the committee that if this amendment were agree to it will not be possible for me to call amendment 264 a for reason of pre-emption.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank my noble friend Baroness Coffey for her amendment to this group and for her amendment to this group and for her introduction. I rise to speak to amendment 266 and 267 standing in my name on the marshalled List. Let me name on the marshalled List. Let me say on the outset that these amendments are not presented in opposition to the spirit or general opposition to the spirit or general objectives of the bill. Indeed we fully support the aims of enforcing employment rights and ensuring that bad employers do not undercut their bad employers do not undercut their ones.

These amendments respond to a real and serious concern about the breadth of the power that the bill breadth of the power that the bill currently gives to ministers, a power that if left unchecked would allow a future government to expand the remit of the fair work authority the remit of the fair work authority with reaching authorities with only the most minimal Parliamentary oversight. Paragraph 35 a schedule seven allows the Secretary of State to add to a list of enactments that fall under enforcement remit of the Fair Work Agency by way of regulations.

That list set out in part one of schedule seven includes a range of statutory rights covering pay, working time, sick pay and protections against exploitation. The current drafting allows the addition of any accident relates to employees, workers, employers or trade unions. That's an extraordinarily broad formulation. It would allow the Secretary of State to bring into the Fair Work Agency scope virtually any area of employment or labour law. Potentially even those governing union recognition, industrial action or collective bargaining by secondary the and with no meaningful boundary in statute.

Amendment 2666 to address this by narrowing the scope of this delegated powers. It would limit the types of enactment that can be added to those that relate to ours, pay or holidays. These are after all the core minimum terms and conditions of the implement relationship, they are well understood, there are capable of objective enforcement and they are already subject to statutory minimum in other parts of the bill. They also reflect the matters over which the recognised trade unions typically have statutory bargaining rights.

There is therefore a clear and principled rationale for limiting the Fair Work Agency's enforcement jurisdiction to these domains. We put for this amendment in the ground it is both reasonable and proportionate, it would still allow ministers to respond to emerging issues in labour markets such as new forms of pay abuse or evasion of working time rules. It would however prevent this power from being used to draw the FWA into controversial or contested areas of employment law or into territory where individual endorsement through tribunal is more appropriate than systemic enforcement by regulator.

It will preserve the coherence of the agencies function and prevent against mission creep over time. We recognise and anticipate that ministers will argue that Samantha to see prescriptive, that it doesn't allow sufficient electability to bring in related rights that may not neatly fall into the categories of pay, hours or holidays. But which are nonetheless important for power work. For example information rights, certain protection from detriment or emerging contractual abuse not yet about address by current law. The government may say that drawing such lines in primary legislation is undesirable and a degree of discretion is necessary for effective future breathing.

If that's the case and if the government does not accept amendment 266 on the grounds it is too narrow, then it follows that the strength of the Second Amendment, amendment 267, becomes even more essential. This would require that any regulations made under paragraph 35 be subject not merely to the affirmative resolution procedure, but to the super affirmative resolution procedure which I know Baroness Jones is fond of. As defined in section 18 of the legislative and The super affirmative procedure is not some theoretical or obscure mechanism.

It exists precisely for circumstances such as this web grant the Executive a broad power to amend the application primary legislation by secondary means. The procedure ensures that Parliament is properly consulted, that draft regulations are subject to scrutiny before they are made and there is an opportunity for a presentation is to be made considered and reflected in the final Statutory Instruments. With what these two amendments offer is a choice, if the government agrees with us that the power to amend schedule seven should be tightly confined it can accept amendment 266.

If it prefers to retain taxability then it must accept that this comes with the responsibility of subjecting that power to a higher standard of parliamentary scrutiny in which case amendment 267 is the minimum safeguard necessary. What would be constitutionally unacceptable as for the government to reject both amendments leaving in place a broad and undefined power exercising ordinary affirmative resolution. That would be to hand the Executive a blank cheque over the shape and scope of labour market enforcement in this country. Without adequate safeguards in place to conclude I urge the government to consider carefully the applications of paragraph 35 as currently drafted.

It's not enough to say that ministers do not intend to use this power in a wide-ranging or potentially contentious way. And we are legislating not just for the current Secretary of State but future wants to. If the government wants discretion then Parliament must have oversight and if it wants latitude we must have safeguards. These amendments give the government the opportunity to make a choice and that is to define the limits of this power clearly or to accept the heightened scrutiny of that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

powers properly demand. I thank Baroness Coffey for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Coffey for tabling amendment 264 ZA which concerns the Fair Work Agency's
22:52
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

concerns the Fair Work Agency's remit. I also thank Lord Sharpe for amendment 266 and 267 which seek to alter the delegate powers part two of schedule seven. I will first speak to amendment 264 ZA tabled by the noble Baroness. This amendment would seriously restrict the Fair Work Agency's ability to tackle labour exploitation of the more serious nature whether threshold does not meet the required under the Modern Slavery Act. There is no other enforcement provisions in the bill that would cover the scenario.

Currently a number of gang and labour abuse authority investigations have to be abandoned when modern slavery threshold was not met. Since 2023 104 cases were dropped. This is bad for labour abuse victims and bad for taxpayer. We are adding elements of the fraud act and the Fair Work Agency's remit precisely to address this issue. It will allow the Fair Work Agency to investigate cases of financial fraud by abuse of this position. These have specifically been included in this bill following extensive discussion with stakeholders including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and the Home Office.

Removing the defences from the Fair Work Agency scope would limit the effectiveness of the Fair Work Agency. And therefore I must respectfully resist this amendment. Amendment 266 tabled by Lord Sharpe would drastically narrow the scope of the power full stop this would undermine the very purpose of the Fair Work Agency to simplify and consolidate enforcement of labour market legislation. The Fair Work Agency will be greater than the sum of its parts. As its remit is further expanded these would relieve pressure on a struggling Employment pressure on a struggling Employment Tribunal system many noble Lords across the aisle.

The Fair Work Agency's remit has appropriate safeguards and limitations. An expansion of the scope would be informed by the advice from the Fair Work Agency's tripartite advisory board and with consideration of the overall enforcement strategy. Furthermore any changes to the remit would be through affirmative regulations which would be laid before Parliament and relevant require the consent of the Department. This power is crucial to the long-term flexibility of the Fair Work Agency. By enabling the remit to spanned over time it can respond to developments in the labour market.

If we were to restrict this power to such a narrow range of issues we would be tying our own hands. I turn now to amendment 267 also in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom. It would require a super affirmative resolution procedure to be used when the Secretary of State exercises the delegate powers in part two of schedule seven. I must say in my almost 3 years and this House when the party opposite was in government I've never heard them bringing any super affirmative resolution to any of the bills they bought before this House so I don't know why suddenly the change of heart.

This amendment is unnecessary, the bill provides the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny as use of this power is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I would also like to highlight that a recent report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concern with this power as currently drafted. The additional scrutiny this month that Mike amendment calls forward place unneeded burdens on Parliamentary time which is currently stretched. With this point in mind I asked the noble Baroness to withdraw amendment 264ZA.
22:56
22:57
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

Amendment 264 ZA withdrawn, amendment is by leave withdrawn.
22:57
None Portrait Amendment:g264A Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whitchurch. I rise to move government

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move government A, 265A, 271 a, 272A, 27 3M, 273p, 273S, 279A, 279B, 279C, 279D, G7 90, 273S, 279A, 279B, 279C, 279D, G7 90, 279F, 279G. Can I thank all noble 279F, 279G. Can I thank all noble Lords who attended the all piers briefing I gave on 8 May on these briefing I gave on 8 May on these amendments. As was explained at that amendments. As was explained at that time these amendments aimed to make the creation of a Fair Work Agency effective, including by ensuring a smooth transition from the current smooth transition from the current arrangements and they are not new policies.

Without the correct information sharing gateways the Fair Work Agency will not be able to do its job. Clause 132 is vital to make sure that this is the case. Government amendment to seven 3M makes a minor drafted change to clause 132 subsection 3. Specifically it clarifies the information obtained by the Fair Work Agency in connection with an enforcement or civil proceedings function under paragraph 5 of the bill can be used for other functions under part five the change ensures that the benefits of bringing together responsibility for enforced, enforcing a range rights are fully realised.

Turning to government amendment 273p which adds a security industry authority to the list of persons in schedule nine. This will enable the Fair Work Agency enforcement officers to disclose information obtained under the enforcement functions in part five of the bill with the security industry authority, whether information relates to its statutory functions. Any disclosure will be the subject of other restrictions on the bill and existing safeguards for example disclosure will not be authorised under clause 132 if it would constitute a breach of data protection legislation.

Or otherwise is prohibited by certain provisions of the investigative powers that 2016. Turning to government amendment 279 a this clarifies that the information is captured by the definition HMRC information in clause 134 would be subject to appropriate safeguards regarding disclosure were specify conditions are met. This will ensure there will be continuity as we set up Fair Work Agency and that all information is handled with the appropriate sensitivities. Speaking to government amendment 271 270 1A, this is a minor technical amendment to clause 111 which sets out where a liable party has failed to comply with the requirement in a notice underpayment to repay arrears to an individual the Fair Work Agency can make an application to court Mr Courts for an order.

Subsection 60 defines courts for the purpose of this section. This adds a reference to summary sheriffs and clarifies the summary sheriffs of those who have jurisdiction to hear these applications in Scotland. Government amendment 273S is a technical amendment clause 140 of the bill which gives the Secretary of State a power to require the payment of charges to recover the costs of enforcement activity. Subsection 7 currently provides sums payable to the Secretary of State under this section are not required to be paid into the Consolidated fund.

This amendment removes subsection 7 and so ensures that the default legal position that funds recovered by the Secretary of State should be paid into the Consolidated fund is in line with legislative arrangements When the power enclose 140 is exercised it will be the Secretary of State to agree with his majesties Treasury how any funds recovered can relate to the FWA's costs. Government amendment to 79B is a minor and technical amendment, but necessary. It corrects an incorrect cross reference in paragraph 19 of schedule 11 to the provisions in schedule 10.

Specifically it ensures changes made to the national minimum wage do not have the effect of purposes of devolved agricultural regions legislation. Government amendment to 79G clarifies a definition of worker for the purpose of part five of the bill and particularly ensures that this definition will keep people in the scope of protections of clauses 1 to eight in relation to zero hours contracts. In The Other Place the government's intention is for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement of zero hours contract provisions, subject to consultation on the detail and outcome of the Spending Review.

This amendment is about ensuring the bill functions as intended and to ensure that the Fair Work Agency can take effect in enforcement action as a way to expand its remit in schedule seven part two exercise. The Government amendments to seven to eight, 272 90, 27 to seven to eight, 272 90, 276 to seven to eight, 272 90, 27648 and 27658 are all consequential being amended at 279G. They are necessary to ensure the drafting of the relevant bills provision functions as intended.

Government amendment to 79F similarly clarifies the definition of employer for the purposes of part five of the bill to ensure this would include people that have clauses placed on them in relation to zero hours contracts. The Government amendments to 79C and 279D include people that have clauses placed on them in relation to zero hours contracts. The Government amendments to 79C and 279DR consequential on this amendment. They will ensure that the drafting functions as amended. As I say, these amendments do not introduce any policy and I hope the noble Lords will see it's necessary to deliver what is an important
23:03
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-

policy and I therefore beg to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In schedule seven page 2629 32, leave out for persons seeking work, number 264 air.
23:04
23:05
23:06
23:07
None Portrait Amendment:266A Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-

amendments. So, what is going on here, schedule seven brings together a whole bunch of legislation to try a whole bunch of legislation to try to put it in a meaningful, sensible way to be used in the future. And it way to be used in the future. And it was, I could have extended some of the amendments in this particular the amendments in this particular group, but I decided to focus into 6682 look at 5pm that is the delegation of functions section 89. delegation of functions section 89.

Going back in the bill to looking at the delegation functions, as I said, I could have considered a number of these because this is a classic Henry VIII clauses, put something in primary, shop and amendment through something in regulations and hey presto, a whole can change before our very eyes. And it is in particular looking at 89 subsection AB which stood out to me. So, one of my concerns here is we start with this agency, we start with all these different things, however, the Secretary of State says the Secretary of State may make arrangements to public authority.

Now, it is actually very difficult in legislation to find anywhere that actually I think it is not defined at all in what a public authority is and this is the first time I have seen in more recent times how it is defined. The functions of a public nature. That could be a whole bunch of people, it could be what does that really mean? Is it that their seeking public interest or seeking to act differently? Now, this notes, it does say, I am sure the Minister and the House will know, it is not part of the legislation, so one of the reasons we bring this up is to understand that Minister precisely what it means.

And the consequences of these it's of the legislation is that the Statutory Instrument, this whole area we are getting into their will be change very quickly away from what might have seemed a sensible agency, I appreciate that Noble Lord would rather have operation independence, but it is why through the different amendments in this group we have seen the very specific public authority that is basically civil servants and also very specifically non-ministerial department. I think there are about 24 non-ministerial departments and perhaps the only two, the Supreme Court and the Crown Prosecution Service, in many ways, really should be non-ministerial, recognising the accountability and understandably Parliament and the public expectation and the difference between that is that it is accountable to Parliament, but the devices of doing that there actually true the Select Committee in the House of Commons, perhaps the Public Accounts Committee, not so much in the House of lords, so significant parts of work being done are left to perhaps an accountable meeting that is there.

Whereas in terms of having civil servants who are not involved the Secretary of State is directly responsible and can not only be held to account by Parliament but also all those Pacific civil servants to account, so I am very nervous about how easy it will be to change 89 section 6 on what that then means. And I think it would be better for the Government to have more on the face of the bill in what this is, and if I could give you an area, for example, as we're starting to get in to other parts of this part five, could it be that the public authority starts to become perhaps not-for-profit as solicitors start to have these enforcement functions but could it start to become arms of trade unions? Who all of a sudden start to the able to do all of these different elements and to take employers to court, and so this starts to spread and spread and the reason for my amendments today is to open up to try to get the candidly better legislation here about what this is supposed to be, but to try desperately to make sure I would rather get rid of that to make sure we are very clear the only people these things can be dedicated to would-be civil servants honouring the way the Governments are set out in part five, that the variety of enforcement officers and the Fair Work Agency will be directly accountable and have the executive powers of the Secretary of State that can only be done if people are civil servants and if they are not in a ministerial department, so I in a ministerial department, so I beg to move.
23:13
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that amendment on schedule 86 on schedule 862 line 21 Lee Barron paragraph B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey for her amendments that comprise this group and I speak in support of them because they bring much-needed because they bring much-needed clarity and constitution to the question of to whom the Secretary of State may dedicate these functions. Clause 89 as drafted from the Secretary of State as my Noble Secretary of State as my Noble Friend explained brought discretion to delegate enforcement and other key responsibilities to public key responsibilities to public authority, but the current definition of that term is overly expensive and it could include not only departments under direct only departments under direct ministerial control but also ministerial control but also departments and other bodies with a degree of independence from the Government, which, of course, raises Government, which, of course, raises fundamental issues of accountability.

If enforcement powers which could be potentially intrusive and far-reaching are to be delegated they should be exercised by those within the direction of ministerial response. These are civil servants who operate under the authority of Ministers who are accountable to Parliament, so amendment to 67ZA, therefore, rightly confines the scope of clause 8090 public authorities comprised of civil servants and our non- ministerial departments. That would ensure they are not handed to bodies that lack clear ministerial oversight or accountability. The amendment in line 22 which is 267 a serves as a necessary consequential safeguard because it ensures an illegal substitution of the Secretary of State with another authority in the eyes of the statute is similarly limited to such core public bodies.

Without this clarification we risk a situation where statutory references to ministerial powers are extended potentially beyond scrutiny to entities with the more ambiguous constitutional status. This is not about casting aspersions on integrity or non-ministerial departments. They do good work, but they're deliberately designed to operate at arms and from Ministers and should not be recipients of the public right to be exercised under ministerial responses.
23:15
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

My Lords, may I thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness coffee for amendment 266 a, 267 ZA, 267 ZA, 267 AB. I will speak 267 ZA, 267 ZA, 267 AB. I will speak first to amendment to 668. The labour market is constantly evolving labour market is constantly evolving and new challenges are always implemented. 's ability will implemented. 's ability will therefore be key to the success on Fair Work Agency's. The power to extend the remit of the Fair Work extend the remit of the Fair Work Agency and the ability to delegate functions to other public functions to other public authorities are both vital today, and I will give an example.

The government's intention that a Fair government's intention that a Fair Work Agency will have a responsibility to enforce the minimum wage. Currently, the bill minimum wage. Currently, the bill will allow certain functions to be dedicated to other bodies, similar to how current HMRC imposes the minimum wage on behalf of the However the noble Lords amendment would completely undermine this, it would restrict our ability to make consequential amendments that might be necessary to ensure effective delegation will be have brought additional rights and the scope of Fair Work Agency's enforcement remit.

An effective Fair Work Agency will benefit businesses and workers. I'm sure this is something we all want to see up and running without any further delay. Regarding amendments to 67 ZA, 267 AA and 267 AB, we have been very deliberate in drafting of the bill. Only those functions which are appropriate for delegation can be delegated. Moreover, clauses 87 and 89 provide a solid legal basis for actions taken by staff in public authorities when carrying out a delegated function.

This is clear lines of accountability for any actions taken. -- Ensures. I therefore question why the noble Baroness thinks is necessary to prevent us from potentially delegating the Secretary of State delegate above functions to a non-ministerial department or other non- departmental public body whose staff are classified as public servants. We must remember of course that the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act gene and enforcement of certain labour abuse and modern slavery protections are currently carried out by staff of the gang and labour abuse authority who are also public servants.

They are not civil servants in their actual form and yet they do an excellent job carrying out vital work to protect some of the most vulnerable in our labour market. I hope you can see it is unnecessary to limit our ability to delegate functions in this way. I therefore urge the Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I would also like to highlight that a recent report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns with this power as currently drafted.

The additional scrutiny this amendment calls for would place unnecessary burden on Parliamentary time. With this in mind I ask Baroness Coffey to withdraw amendment 266A.
23:18
23:20
23:20
None Portrait Amendment:267A Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sharpe. I rise to speak to amendments 267

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 267

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendments 267 a, 271B, 271C and 270 ZA standing in a, 271B, 271C and 270 ZA standing in my name. These amendments address important gaps in the bill, ensuring important gaps in the bill, ensuring fairness, clarity and accountability in the enforcement of employment in the enforcement of employment rights. Amendment 267 a relates to rights. Amendment 267 a relates to clause 89 concerning the delegation of the Secretary of State's of the Secretary of State's functions.

Currently the bill allows delegation of functions including enforcement, but does not explicitly enforcement, but does not explicitly restrict the delegation of the decision to bring proceedings to Employment Tribunal's. This amendment ensures that one of the Secretary of State is delegating the conduct of proceedings, the crucial decision to initiate legal action remains with the Secretary of State. Without the safeguard, delegated bodies could independently decide whether to bring legal claims, potentially leading to an inconsistent decision, lack of ministerial accountability and confusion about who holds ultimate responsibility.

Maintaining ministerial control over such decisions is essential to preserve political accountability and to ensure decisions are made with proper oversight. Amendment 271B focuses on clause 113 and seeks to clarify the scope of claims that the Secretary of State may bring. The Secretary of State may bring. The bill currently refers broadly to any enactment which risks allowing the Secretary of State to bring claims on the wide range of employment issues including individual employment rights traditionally pursued by workers themselves.

This amendment narrows that scope to relevant labour market legislation. And parts one And parts 134 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Ensuring the government enforcement targets systemic labour market regulation issues such as pay and working conditions rather than individual employment rights. All disputes without this restriction there is a risk of governmental overreach into private employment matters, dilating resources and causing confusion about the limits of state intervention. Then amendment 271C addresses the practical and vital issue regarding claims that workers have already lawfully settled.

Under current law individuals can settle employment claims following independent legal advice providing certainty to both employers and employees. This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from bringing claims that have been settled in accordance with section 203 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Without this amendment there is a danger that settled claims could be reopened by the government, undermining the finality of agreements and subjecting employers to repeated litigation even after forfeiting their obligations. Such uncertainty would damage trust in settlement processes and could discourage both workers and employers from entering into settlements.

Amendment 270 ZA concerns the financial protection of workers in tribunal proceedings brought or conducted by the Secretary of State. It ensures that Secretary of State. It ensures that where and Employment Tribunal orders costs against the worker such as legal costs or wasting costs, these costs must be met by the Secretary of State rather than the individual worker. This protection is critical because workers who have not themselves initiated proceedings should not bear the financial burden of litigation costs. Without the safeguard workers could face significant personal financial risk, deterring them from seeking support from the Secretary of State and ultimately restricting access to justice.

Employers might then attempt to recover costs from these workers, imposing unfair hardship
23:25
None Portrait Deputy Chair of Committees. Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-

and undermining the purpose of public enforcement. I beg to move.
23:25
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
Amendment proposed clause 89 page 108 line 17 leave out paragraph B

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and insert the words on the marshalled List. I have amendment 272 in this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have amendment 272 in this group. It is usually the case that when Act of Parliament acts of when Act of Parliament acts of Parliament create rights and duties the act then allows those who benefit from the rights and duties to enforce the mat law, which in the case of employment matters is via case of employment matters is via the Employment Tribunal. This bill fundamentally changes that, and insert the Secretary of State whenever he or she wants to whenever he or she wants to intervene to take up cases that employees do not themselves want to employees do not themselves want to pursue.

It also interferes in that order of things by providing a back order of things by providing a back door route to legal aid for employees which is not covered by employees which is not covered by the normal legal aid system. The effect of this part of the bill is simply going to increase the number of cases that are heading towards the Employment Tribunal. We debated on several occasions, that system is already under massive stress doesn't make any sense to stress that system any further.

I therefore support all of the amendments in this group, my own amendment 272 nearly -- merely states that the Secretary of State has to meet the public interest test if he or she wants to use the clause 91 power to take over a case. Where an employee does not wish to pursue that case themselves. As currently drafted there is no constraint whatsoever on the Secretary of State's use of the power. The Secretary of State can Sibley find out one morning that an employee has got a potential case but he's not going to do anything about it and decide to take it over.

The public interest test would at least make sure the Secretary of State intervened in matters where there is a genuine national interest in the case being pursued. I suspect Secretary of State is going to be pursued and lobbied by various organisations quite possibly trade unions who will see this provision as another weapon in their armoury as another weapon in their armoury to have a go at certain large employers, particularly where those large employers have not been particularly interested in playing along with whatever trade unions want to do with them.

The power is a really important departure from the normal way of enforcing rights and duties, so I believe that it's essential that should be in the legislation guardrails surrounding the use of the power and there is absolutely nothing in the current bill. My first instinct was to delete clause 91 entirely and as far as I can tell no case has been made for its existence. But I can just about construct a scenario where the Secretary of State includes there is a genuine public interest in overriding the wishes of employees and pursuing the case in the kind of circumstances that I have described.

I would expect such a case to be very unusual and I hope the Minister agrees with that. Because of that I think we should be looking to constrain power in some way on the face of the bill, the words I have used may not be the right words but the essence of what I'm trying to achieve is to reduce an unconstrained power to completely subvert the normal way in which rights and duties specified by Parliament and open to enforcement into something more reasonable.
23:29
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to move the amendment 272B and 272C in this group in the main -- name of Lord Jackson of Peterborough and also to speak to other amendment particularly amendment 272 that has just been moved by Baroness Noakes. I think Baroness Noakes, my noble friend has hit the nail on the head here about how often is this going to be used. To specifically go beyond what has been requested or a worker not intending to take this forward, it is such that it will still end up potentially in a tribunal.

One of the things that I'm conscious that we will return to 113, 114 on Wednesday, so I will keep this brief in terms of 272B and 270 C. I think even if the Minister can't answer today in particular to 70 C, what is any other form of assistance? Legal advice is pretty well understood, legal representation, what else? A genuine concern about this starting to become a blank cheque for almost anything in regards to employment law and I think it's important one of course the Lords do not have Financial Privilege, to still be mindful of where this could go.

270 be my noble friend moves that the Secretary of State may assist the person in essence in 114 subsection 1 is to also add employers to this I have not fully discussed with him entirely what is behind the bill, but I think there is an element of fairness here and I think he is talking in particular about small businesses. To that end, I think it would be useful if not tonight but at some point to look at what that is and some guardrails that my Noble Friend put forward as well as the Frontbencher for the shadow front bench my Noble Friend articulating about the costs attributed to the worker and the risk borne by the Secretary of State.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord shop, Lord Jackson and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lord shop, Lord Jackson and to bring their amendments and this is committed to ensuring a fair is committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and this is why the Secretary of State this is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring the proceedings in place of the worker. It will mean all employers are held It will mean all employers are held to the same standards, so if we turn first to amendments to 67A, 2671B, first to amendments to 67A, 2671B, 271C and 270 was it a, tabled by the 271C and 270 was it a, tabled by the Noble Lord shop.

While I appreciate the noble Lords attention behind these amendments, seeking fairness, these amendments, seeking fairness, clarity, and accountability, I believe that these amendments believe that these amendments actually undermine those objectives. Turning first to amendment 267 that I have major concerns about this but fundamental principle of the agency
23:33
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
have operational independence will be at a strategic level only. This amendment would undo all of that, it amendment would undo all of that, it would explicitly make them dependent on a political decision. This goes on a political decision. This goes against what we have been debating up until now, and we therefore cannot support this amendment. Amendment 271B would exclude legislation such as on family leave, unfair dismissals, or redundancies, from the scope of this power. These from the scope of this power.

These issues, which can have a substantial issue on people's working lives are part of the employment package. It is right that the Fair Work Agency has the discretion to support has the discretion to support enforcement in these areas, and to ensure employees get what they are entitled to. Amendment 271C is unnecessary. The bill already built inappropriate safeguards to prevent cases from being re-mitigated. In considering the work is going to bring proceedings, the Secretary of State will have to consider whether a worker has already contacted ACAS Mac.

If they have, that would serve as a strong indicator that a worker is contemplating proceedings, therefore, where resettlement is being discussed or has already been reached through ACAS, it is highly unlikely the Secretary of State would pursue it. This amendment would create a rigid prohibited Asian that may have, it is very late, that may have unintended consequences. The Government would be restricted from acting were new evidence shows settlement was reached under duress. For amendment 272ZA tabled by the Noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the bill already makes it clear that any reference to workers in broad by the sec.

State should be read as including the Secretary of State. In practice, this means that whilst it is for the tribunal to decide whether to award costs, a cost order could only be made in respect of a party to the case. This would be the Secretary of State where they are the ones that have the case, therefore this makes this amendment unnecessary. If I now turn to amendment 272 tabled by the noble Baroness, in the worst cases in intimidation, a worker may want to bring proceedings, but fear the repercussions from the employer should they be the anonymized.

By allowing the Secretary of State to take the case forward without this, it would be harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees and also ensure that action can be taken about exploitation. Ultimately, I agree with the Noble Lady that this will only take place in exceptional circumstances, not least because it is more difficult to argue a case without the assistance of the worker. Nevertheless, where there is a breach of employment rights, they should be consequences. The Fair Work Agency will decide the most appropriate route of enforcement and it is important that in the most serious cases we allow this power as an option.

Finally, turning to the Noble Lord Jackson amendments to clause 140, the existing drafting of clause 114 states that the Secretary of State may assist a person. This drafting was carefully thought through and is deliberately broad and inclusive. It includes both natural and legal persons, so already covers both employers and their legal advisers. This amendment does not alter the clause, it merely restates what is already covered, and therefore risks introducing confusion. Addressing the noble Lords amendment 272C, clause 114 has been carefully monitored on the provisions found in section 28 of the Equality Act 2006.

Which also provides for any other form of assistance. This land which has been used to ensure flexibility and inclusivity in the types of support that may be provided. This is neither novel nor excessive and is limited assistance in the context of civil proceedings. To narrow the clause in the way this amendment seeks, it would compromise its effectiveness, and it would undermine its accessibility. So, I hope that on that basis that noble Lords will not pursue their amendments and ask the Noble Lord shove to withdraw his amendment to 67A.
23:38
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank my Noble Friend for providing an important Friend for providing an important line. The idea that the Secretary of State has to pass a public interest test and I do not think that will burn as the Minister gave us a direct answer to that suggestion. So far as my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey is concerned and my Noble Friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough, there are huge concerns about the way this will affect small businesses in particular, and, again, I do not think that the Minister addressed that particular Minister addressed that particular point.

I do regret the fact that the Minister has not acknowledged the importance of the significant gaps in the bill. It is concerning that the challenges inherited delegating the Secretary of State's enforcement functions to others who may lack the necessary competence or accountability just not been fully recognised. How does such a delegation genuinely serve the interests of workers? If it risks inconsistent decision making and that lack of clear responsibility. Moreover, the bill fails to address the very real issue of claims that have already been settled.

Employment Tribunals Act already struggling with an overwhelming backlog, and reopening settled cases would only exacerbate this problem. Surely we have got to avoid a situation where the Secretary of State is empowered to reopen for workers and employers believe are finally resolved. This not only causes unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for all parties involved, but it also threatens to damage the fragile trust and relations between employers and employees. If this bill is to be truly effective and fair, it has got to acknowledge these realities.

Ignoring them will only undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. withdraw the amendment.
23:40
23:41
None Portrait Amendment:267AC Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-

have tabled is 267D. And it removes the words trade unions. But it does the words trade unions. But it does insert employees. So, I am conscious that, of course, trade unions represent employees. But I was surprised by this particular position of the board that the equal position of the board that the equal number had to be, in fact, the word number had to be, in fact, the word employee did not turn up on who the members of the board or that are supposed to represent.

So, to that end one of the reasons, in particular, why I have put that, you should remember that of UK workers, only 22% belong to a trade union. That leaves 78%, at the moment, who may not necessarily be represented in consideration in the advisory. So, I think it is important that we rectify that and it is possible that independent experts and others may be involved. But I think, of course, by the way this happens on a variety of other bodies.

I think it is the Health and Safety Executive. And, usually, the organisations representing employees are trade unions, but the point is made that it does not have to necessarily be, it has to be trade unions. It could be professional associations. That has happened in the past as well from my recollection. So, in terms of looking at the composition I know that my Noble Friend on the Frontbench have come up with a slightly different approach. Mine tried to be pretty straightforward, but actually to insert and implement an effective Chair who should be put forward to the relevant committee in the House of Commons for the consideration for their importance and deliberately I have put some specifications into who should Chair this board.

And I think that recognising that this is all going to be about the legislation, considering a wide-ranging, including taking legal action when it has not been requested by people, by workers, that I specified we This board that is going to be very important to the Secretary of State because there are a number of situations in the legislation by the Secretary of State must consult the advisory, so, to that end, I think it would be worthwhile to have somebody who is a qualified barrister who shows a particular level of accomplishment without needing to look to tribunal judges or similar in order to Chair that
23:44
None Portrait House Adjourned During Pleasure Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

board. My Lords, I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 90,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 90, page 1, 138, nine 138, 938, insert
23:44
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the words on the Marshall list. My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 267B, 267C, and 268A standing in my name. I would also like to thank my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey for introducing Baroness Coffey for introducing amendment, and, of course, 267B and amendment, and, of course, 267B and 267C, the amendments here are not just technicalities, there a matter of principle and representation and of principle and representation and ensuring the Fair Work Agency board truly reflects the diversity and truly reflects the diversity and reflect city of the market.

As reflect city of the market. As drafted in clause 94 proposals of drafted in clause 94 proposals of the tripartite bill composed equally of individuals are presenting trade unions, employers, and so-called unions, employers, and so-called independent experts. And this is it stance is both overly simplistic and representative of the temporary about-face. As my Noble Friend has highlighted, trade unions former historic importance not only represent 22.4% of employees across the United Kingdom. 12.3% of the private sector. The bulk of those are in the public sector.

That leaves, as my Noble Friend also pointed out, is staggering 77.6% of working people whose voices, interests, and concerns, are not captured through union representation. So, to restrict employee representation on this advisory boards only to trade union nominees is to exclude the overwhelming majority of the workforce. That is neither democratic, no representative. This amendment, therefore, seeks to rectify that imbalance by introducing more nuanced and inclusive structure. It proposes that the board includes two representatives from the trade unions, rightly acknowledging their important role.

Three representatives of employees beyond the trade union route, an expansion that ensures that voices of nonunionised workers and participants, freelancers, and Five employer representatives only after bison recommendations have from businesses that process that Appointments are rooted in sectoral legitimacy rather than particle expediency. And three independent experts to provide critical objective insights grounded in academic legal practical labour market expertise. That structure would do three things, a would broaden representation, professionalise appointments and futureproof the board against the ever evolving nature of work.

The employment landscape in 2025 is partially different from that of the 1970s and 80s. Today's workers include not only factory employees and office staff but outpace couriers, home-based freelancers, Zero Hour contract carers and part- time retail assistants. If this board is to advise the Secretary of State credibly on labour market enforcement it ought to reflect those realities. The consequences of failing to adopt this amendment are therefore significant because the board dominated by voices from only a fraction of the workforce risks formulating narrow unbalanced or even ineffective advice.

It would lack legitimacy in the eyes of the public and credibility amongst stakeholders. Importantly it would miss historic opportunity to craft labour market policies that work not labour market policies that work not just for some but for all. This amendment also introduces a valuable process improvement, that is that the Secretary of State should Organisations when appointing employer representatives. This is not a formality it's a vital safeguarding against cronyism, ensuring those selected to represent employers do so with the endorsement and trust of their sector.

It should encourage diversity among employer voices across small businesses and large corporations and sector specific industries rather than allowing a narrow few to dominate the conversation. Amendment 268 a is a stand subsection 5 a defines an independent expert simply as someone who is not a person falling within paragraph a B or subsection 4. That is not someone representing the interests of trade union or employers. At first glance that seems a clear and logical way to distinguish independence from affiliation.

However on closer inspection the provision introduces a serious risk, it's a loophole that could allow for discretionary exclusion of qualified neutral individuals based on subjective interpretation. The Secretary of State could intentionally or otherwise qualify someone as an independent expert merely by asserting that they appear to align with the interests of one group or another. This creates a de facto veto that could be used however subtly to influence the ideological composition of the board. The proposed amendment seeks to address this risk the carefully worded clarification, it replaces the current phase with the following.

It's not a person who could reasonably be said to represent the interests of trade unions, employees An individual could reasonably be said to represent one of the interest groups, the amendment provides a safeguard against arbitrary decision-making. It ensures the independent test is principled and consistent rather than manipulative. Independence must not be treated as the label of convenience applied or withheld at will by the Secretary of State to shape the boards voice. Let's be clear, the role of independent exports on this board is to bring independent practical knowledge and analytical rigour to complex questions of labour market enforcement.

They could be legal scholars, economists, public policy professionals, former regulators or data scientists with expertise in employment trends and rights. Disqualifying such individuals on the basis of perceived alignment, however tenuous, with either employers or unions will only undermine the quality and could ability of the board's advice.
23:50
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I begin by addressing amendment 267 AC and 267 BB which relate to the chair of the advisory board. The bill already provides for a strong and credible chair and we are confident that appropriate appointments can be made under the current drafting. These amendments would significantly narrow the pool of qualified candidates and would exclude highly capable candidates. There is no precedent for such restrictions among similar bodies.

For example the current chair of the Equality & Human Rights Commission is Baroness Falkner. Baroness Falkner brings deep expertise in public policy, regulation and public service to the role, but she is not a practising barrister. The focus should be on appointing the best candidate through rigorous merit-based process, not restricting eligibility by profession. Moreover there is no precedent for these amendments, similar bodies such as Low Pay Commission and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service do not impose this level of restriction or require parliamentary approval.

These models work precisely because they allow the Secretary of State to appoint individuals with diverse and complementary expertise. We fully support a strong credible chair, that is best achieved through a robust and flexible appointments process, not through rigid statutory constraints or exclusions. On amendment 267B and 267 BA table by Lord Sharpe and Baroness Coffey, we have no objection in principle to a large advisory board, this should be balanced against an increase cost to the taxpayer. In practice we anticipate there will be nine members of the board lowering the make-up of the Low Pay Commission which is has operated successfully for 25 years.

The current drafting provides flexibility so the Secretary of State may appoint more than nine members but it's unwise to lock a specific number in primary legislation without operational justification. This amendment would create a fixed number of advisory board members, clause 19 already provides for what this amendment six to achieve. Turning to amendment 267C and 267D, these amendments risk compromising the balanced representation of the advisory board. The current drafting has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model which has served the Low Pay Commission and ACAS well for so many years with a mixture of employer, union and independent representation.

Amendment 267C and 267D also seek to broaden employee representation on the advisory board by reducing the emphasis on trade unions. Let me be clear, trade unions serve to protect and advance the interests of all workers and they are best placed to represent workers interests on the advisory board. Moreover the Secretary of State has brought discretion to point members with relevant expertise as independent members at -- experts will stop the government is also committed to ongoing engagement with relevant relevant stakeholders through informal and formal means.

So the advisory board is only one part of the landscape. This leads me onto amendment 2688 also in the name of amendment 2688 also in the name of Lord Sharpe. The independent experts are intended to bring deep subject matter expertise and the perspective not already captured by the other members of the advisory board. The existing drafting already detects against impartiality as an independent is a person who does not fall within the groups mentioning clause 94. The bill already provides a sound and balance framework for the boards composition, one that is adaptable, proportionate and futureproof I must therefore resist these amendments.

I must also respectfully resist amendment 269 tabled by Baroness Noakes which risks undermining the very purpose of the advisory board. Transparency in government is vital and the government shares a commitment to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Placing a statutory duty on the advisory board to publish its advice could compromise that level of confidentiality and flexibility which we believe are essential to carry out its role effectively. Mandating a separate annual report risks also formalising or should remain a responsive advisory relationship, particularly limiting the board's ability to offer genuine timely and informal guidance on emerging issues.

Introducing even more reporting requirements would place confusing and unnecessary reporting burden on enforcement teams potentially diverting staff and resources away from frontline enforcement work where they are most needed. With this in mind I therefore ask the noble Lord to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw amendment 267 AC. Both my noble friend Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Both my noble friend Baroness Coffey and I raised the increasing statistical irrelevance of the trade statistical irrelevance of the trade unions, I don't think the Baroness the Minister addressed that particular point. Also she seemed to particular point. Also she seemed to write off the idea of the advisory board amendments that we proposed on the basis that it would be expensive the basis that it would be expensive to the taxpayer, but clause 90Six to the taxpayer, but clause 90Six Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the board as the Secretary of State may determine Secretary of State may determine they could determine to pay nothing presumably so why would that be an expense to the taxpayer?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

expense to the taxpayer? I thought I covered those points. As I have said, our aim is to anticipate that the advisory board will have nine members but we are building in some flexibility. What we are trying to avoid was locking in a specific number into the primary legislation without any operational justification. That I think answers that point. The point about the unions is of course if we stick with the social partnership model then they will be in a minority anyway and they will have the expertise and the knowledge to represent all employment issues on behalf of the workers.

behalf of the workers.
23:57
23:57
00:04
None Portrait Oral questions: Grassroots interfaith movements in Israel Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour)
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 16 House of Lords - 16 June House of Lords - 16 June 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page