Lords Chamber

Tuesday 24th June 2025

(began 3 weeks, 3 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:38
14:39
None Portrait Oral questions: Dance careers for young people from deprived backgrounds
-

came into effect in April. I might or noble Lords of the importance of these new rules. -- I remind all
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:23
15:24
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
-
Events in the Middle East, over the past week have brought into sharp focus a truth that we ignore at our peril. That the Islamic Republic of Iran remains one of the most dangerous and destabilising forces in the world, today. The US targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, where necessary and vital act. In the face of a regime who continues to enrich uranium beyond civilian thresholds, armed Oxleas across the region in which openly call for the destruction of its neighbour, our ally Israel.

Amid this defining moment the response from his Majesty's government has been almost non-existent. Over the weekend, in the media and the Foreign Secretary in his statement made in the other place yesterday, not once has the government even had the courage to come out in support of this vital action. It seems bizarre to us, on these benches that decisive action to neutralise the nuclear threat posed by one of the world's most dangerous and volatile states is not openly welcomed, by the government.

I want to ask the noble Lord for some clarity, will he now take this opportunity to come out in support of the strikes undertaken by the US, on Iran nuclear facilities. If not, can he explain why. Could it possibly be a result of the legal advice reportedly issued by the noble Lord Attorney-General, then it could be illegal for Britain to play any role in the Iran campaign, except for defending our allies. Does the level of the Minister no longer consider Israel an ally? My noble friend, Lord Wharton has made clear, the UK has a strong legal ground for supporting this action.

There is at least, I'm sure, the Minister will concede a legal debate to be had on this question. Why did the government refused to come down on the side that went against our allies, the US and Israel. I wondered what quite was going through the noble Lords mind, when he issued this supposed advice. I cannot imagine why anyone witnessing at the showdown between democracy and tyranny, between our ally Israel and the unhinged murderous caliphate will conclude that we better not get involved, because we might break the rules.

One shudders to think what might have happened some advice had been followed in 1939 and 1950 or 1990 or indeed in 2022 when our friends in Ukraine were barred directly attacked. Fortunately in those instances are willingness to support our allies was not governed by academic hesitation. We must be clear that history will not smile on us for this. No matter how much the government's models itself on grand talk about international law. For the noble Lord to encourage the UK to stand idly by whilst Israel faces of the real risk of genocidal nuclear attack, seems to me to be a serious misjudgment.

It is indeed deeply regrettable that Ministers have failed to issue clear and immediate statement and support for our closest ally. The US acted to uphold international security and defend the global non-proliferation regime. They didn't continue to have done so, without our support is something we should be ashamed of. Let us be clear, Iran is not just a regional threat, it is a global threat. It bankrolls terrorism from Gaza to Beirut, from Baghdad to Sadam stop it plots assassinations on European soil, disrupt shipping lanes in international waters and is actively pursuing technological means to blackmail the world with nuclear force.

For the government to equivocate in the face of such aggressive and dangerous action, from Arana, is morally questionable and in my view strategically shortsighted. We should have stood shoulder to shoulder with our allies and the government failed to do so. Let me also address at this morning's announcement of a temporary ceasefire. If it holds, it will be welcomed, because any cessation of violence offers a chance to de-escalate and protect civilian lives. Let us not be naive. Already this morning Israeli officials have reported that Arana violated the ceasefire stop that in itself is a reminder of the challenges that we face, when dealing with bad actors who have no interest in peace.

It further underscores the threat Iran poses to peace and to lives, in the region and in the wider world. We must also support our allies in ensuring that deescalation does not mean appeasement. I therefore want to ask the level of the Minister if he can explain to the House what steps the Government will take from today to ensure that any remaining UK ability that -- solution, how can they make sure that any solution holds firms. Let us not forget diplomacy failed to prevent enrichment to 60%.

It appears that the Iran has violated the terms of the diplomatic settlement, to broker the ceasefire with Israel. The approach of the government has adopted has not been a very successful one. I hope the Minister can take this opportunity now to set out what the government would do differently in the future. It is not enough to say that we are pursuing a diplomatic solution, because that has been unsuccessful. Finally I have some questions about our country's relationship with the US and our allies.

As a noble Lords will be aware the Prime Minister is in The Hague today, at the NATO summit. I'm sure, the light of this, the libel or the Minister, his colleagues will have asked themselves this question and how did they get it so wrong in the US and Iran. The fundamental assumption that there was time for negotiation It is the fact that the government was blindsided on a matter of huge geopolitical importance and completely fail to understand what the Americans were thinking.

Indeed the Prime Minister had been adamant that the President would not intervene in Iran. He went so far as to say he was, "In no doubt about the matter. " Despite a very public indications to the contrary. We are supposed to have a special relationship with the US. This seems to have been in doubt, since the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have acted in this case. I want to ask the novel of the Minister, in the light of this, he still believes that the US and UK have a special relationship, does he think that failing to come out in support of the US has damaged this relationship? The events of recent days have exposed, not only the growing threat of Iran, but also shortcomings in the government's response.

At a time when clarity and strategic resolver required, Ministers have offered neither. They have failed to support our closest ally, misjudged the geopolitical landscape, an approach that has proved ineffective. The regime in Tehran drives and hesitation and weakness, distrust peace and seeks power through terror and provocation to stop if we are serious about national security and our relationships with our allies, then our response must be firm, United incredible. The US and Israel acted decisively and in my view justifiably. The question now is whether this government will finally whether this government will finally
15:31
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Just as many people have been shot in Gaza simply queueing for food. The crisis continued. On Iran the US clearly decided to escalate to de-escalate. They may yet de- re-escalate because the whiplash is hard to follow with the degree of reassurance but do think a ceasefire can be operational even though the latest require us to be somewhere between somewhere between optimistic and pessimistic. This is real violence and real deaths, and the real-life consequences, not so much for egotistical men and their ATMs but the victims are primarily civilians, women and children in particular.

The Tehran regime is clearly homicidal. We may find out that it is probably not suicide. The US and Netanyahu government are clearly tactical but we will find out that they are probably not strategic. The Minister told the House last Thursday the US was seeking to de-escalate the very time it was deciding to escalate. The immediate repercussions are being seen and we cannot now know for certainty what will follow. Trump and XF said the Iranians nuclear programme was obliterated and ended.

Now US officials are giving a more sober view of damaged and delayed. The IAEA information is probably more reliable, it is likely there has been very significant damage but this is difficult to verify and even more difficult to verify is the impact the strikes will actually do to prevent weaponisation in the medium-term. The IEA was warning against military strikes for the very reason it would likely be even harder to verify and I suspect that maybe the reality now.

Unquestionably arranging options over the next period are more limited than they would have been 10 days ago but it is rushed to think we know when they will continue to act immediately or play a game of time on a calendar they have operated under four many years. I was in Iraq the last time they claimed the US would play an irreparable damage for the killing of Soleimani outside Baghdad airport but they had signalled and performed a largely performative... Tip for tat is a delicate but when this calculation is deadly but it may well be being played out.

We therefore cannot predict the next 48-hour score not to mention the 48-hour score not to mention the next 48 days to. For that matter, and with deep regret, we cannot necessarily predict that from the Trump administration either. What we can predict this heightened rhetoric can predict this heightened rhetoric taking on increasingly macho terms. From loose talk of regime change for the Tehran regime now likely to be even more aggressive, more secretive, but more patient to rebuild its proxy relationships and other interests.

Last week in the chamber, and just a few moments ago, we heard noble Lord drumming a jingoistic beat. We also heard in my view more rightly cautioned. I would advise the House to Lord Callaghan's noble friend Lord Lamont with regard to the wise words he had and I on these benches agree with the position of the government in not participating. As much as I agree Iran should not have nuclear-weapons capability, and very strongly agreed that Israel has the ability to defend itself against unacceptable calls for its destruction, we continue to see too many tacticians and to few strategists.

As an Iraqi friend who incidentally detests the theocratic dictatorship and to round told me recently, Netanyahu was a cheerleader for regime change in Baghdad 20 years ago and helped persuade Bush and Blair. He handed it to Iran. He wanted Gaza to be in violent competition with the West Bank to prevent two-state solution and roasted Hamas. He lobbied trunk for the you... Which we started the weapon can ability part of nuclear Iran and now he has positioned Trump into looking weak if he did not his tactics on bombing and regime change rhetoric.

At each step of the way, quick tactical winds led to strategic errors. And we have course all hope for a ceasefire with Iran. But fervently hope for respite for the civilians in Gaza and West Bank. So was to close with regard to the situation there. It is alarming that after all of the suffering of the civilians within Gaza, to seek the recent report of Hamas now recruiting. The very circumstances exist now for Hamas to regain strength. This is what we were told would be inconceivable with the war aims of the idea.

And to -- reconstruction preparedness is now even harder given the policy changes for the girls humanitarian fund is a mercenary and profiteering option to supply food and medicine. I wish to ask the government what work it is doing with our allies to ensure that there is food being supplied and the restrictions of the border not assisted by the canesset law preventing UNRWA from working with third parties for cornering the delivery of food and medicine to ensure the people of Gaza do not need longer have to have the indignity of having to queue in danger areas for food.

And will the government provide clarity on the future funding with regard to both programme and humanitarian assistance for the people of Gaza, delivered through UNRWA, after July. My Lords, the mediaeval scenes that we see people having to queue to receive food and medicine across an apocalyptic backdrop means the current situation must. The GHS approach has been a deadly failure and the acute shortage of food deliberately being withheld at the Gaza border must end. I hope that at least if there is a breathing space with Iran and Israel can focus on getting the aid in which is desperately needed.
15:38
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
And I thank both noble Lords for their contributions back can I thank. -- And I thank them. Can I say to that noble Lord opposite that I'm rather disappointed with his tone because I thought in the other place the shadow Secretaries of State made it clear that she was with the government in terms of putting forward peas and, the security of this nation is vital and I thought his tone rather underplayed those comments. Let me make it clear.

We have long had concerns about Iranians nuclear concerns about Iranians nuclear programme and we have been very clear that Iran cannot have nuclear-weapons. The US has now taken action to alleviate that thread. It is important that we now de-escalate the situation, stabilise the region, and parties around the negotiating table. And can I say that events this morning clearly show that whilst ceasefire between Iran and Israel is an opportunity to secure much-needed stability, the events show how fragile and volatile the situation is.

And we strongly urge both sides to do their utmost to hold the terms of the ceasefire. And can I also say in terms of the action, noble Lord Lord Purvis alluded to it, is the assessment, but one thing President Trump has been absolutely clear about is that this action isn't the end of the story in terms of dealing with the nuclear threat in Iran. He has made it absolutely clear that he wants to negotiate a deal. And that is fundamental for the long-term security of the Middle East.

And as I say, we have been very clear about their nuclear programme. It's important we get all parties back around the negotiating table. And we have strongly supported diplomatic efforts to reach a lasting settlement as President Trump as indicated. And this is now the moment of opportunity. We can have a diplomatic outcome because it is only a diplomatic outcome that will provide a lasting solution to Iran 's nuclear programme. We have made it clear to Iran, negotiate with the US.

That is backed up by the E3. But as what we as a country should do to make our position more secure. And can I say in terms of the efforts of the Prime Minister, and I want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for what they are trying to do over the last three days. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to the US Secretary of State, the Israeli Foreign Minister and the Iranians Foreign Minister to add deescalation. He's also spoken to other regional counterparts including the Egyptian, Lebanese, the Saudis, the artiste, the Bahrainian's and the secret foreign ministers.

All strong allies of the United Kingdom. We are absolutely committed to that diplomatic effort. The Prime Minister has spoken. The President Trump, Prime Minister Carmi, the King of Jordan, the Sultan of I'm on, German president, to support the escalation. All vital allies of this country to provide security to it. The Minister for the House also met with the Iranians yesterday to stress that need for a return to diplomatic efforts. Can I also say that he made clear our condemnation of the attacks on Qatar and Iraq yesterday.

Our focus again has been on deescalation and diplomacy to end this crisis. And the Foreign Secretary made clear that we stand without allies in solidarity with the US and Qatar and we have let Qatar know that we will always give, they will always have our steadfast support. And we are aware that Qatar has communicated sent a letter to the UN Secretary- General. It is of course up to the UN to respond to that letter. The United Kingdom did not participate and is not participating in the Israeli and US strikes.

We continue to urge restraint. Our priority is stability in the Middle East. The situation remains volatile and we remain clear that Iran must never be allowed to develop a nuclear- weapons. More broadly, we have always supported Israel) right to self defence and its right to protect its citizens. The UK has that consistently pushed for a ceasefire since discretion has begun. We work with international partners. I would also say that the Minister's efforts over the last two days has also been about protecting our citizens and trying to get UK citizens out of harms way which is why we have organised a flight from Tel Aviv and we have organised hopefully another one that took off today.

The interests of our country are of course a priority at our UK citizens are also priority. Can I just say that in relation to noble Lord 's comments, that I'm not going to provide the legal commentary right now, all actors, have said last week, all actors must abide by international law. The noble Lord is fully aware of the long-standing convention reflected in the ministerial code. It is not for me to disclose whether the officers have been asked to provide legal advice or the content of that advice.

The convention provides the fullest guarantee the government business will be conducted at all times in the light of thorough and candid legal advice. But I repeat, full of our effort, all of our effort, about ensuring the security of this country and peace in the Middle East. Can I also be very clear and I have said before in this chamber, I am a friend of Israel. Have always recognised the first Israel? Security and the tough neighbourhood lives in. The government cannot accept what is happening in Gaza.

We cannot accept what is happening in the West Bank. But this must never undermine our support for Israel? Security. We have to be very candid with our allies in relation to the situation Gaza. We all understand what is a frightening time it must be for Israeli citizens, running into bomb shelters, and diagnosed that the Foreign Secretary has also expressed his personal concern. That is why we are absolutely focused on ensuring that we contain this conflict, avoid escalation.

I'm clear about the threat from Iran. But we are not going to give up on diplomacy. We are not going to give up on the interests of the people of Gaza. We plead with the Israeli government to open those borders so that we can get the necessary aid in. We have absolutely made it clear that the hostages or sadly the bodies of hostages must be returned immediately and we must have a ceasefire. I just want to conclude on one point.

We are a very strong ally of the United States. We are working together with the United States. President Trump has made clear that he wants to see a deal, a long-term deal, and that possession of nuclear-weapons in Iran. He and the United Kingdom and its E3 allies are going to support him in that effort. I hope the noble Lord effort. I hope the noble Lord
15:47
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:53
15:53
15:54
15:55
15:56
15:57
15:58
15:59
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:04
16:05
16:06
16:07
16:08
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
the problems beset the UK economy, is the low rate of capital investment in both the public and private sector. It must be a good thing if the government assesses what will be needed in the way of capital investment and attracts resources accordingly. I accept that for many years policies on all sides have been less than satisfactory. I'm not in a party political today. I'm in favour of having a plan program over a planned period such as Dave five year timeframe for capital spending.

I welcome the new maintenance fund, Mike sprints in business is that it is essential to provide for maintenance in respect of all capital investments. Having said all of that, we are some way from having a coherent and detailed programme for infrastructure with the incentives we need for success. Against that background, which is broadly supportive, I have a number of questions for the noble Lord the Minister. There remain areas of uncertainty around governance, delivery capacity and funding. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain how and when these vital details will be revealed in future.

It is really important to be clear during a time when we are often provided by the government of the fiscal challenges they face where the money is coming from. It appears from the strategy that the government hopes that a substantial proportion of this investment will come from off-balance sheet partnerships. Does the noble Lord the Minister had nice that this is an assumption from the Treasury rather than a hard pledge of cash? And if sufficient private investment is not secured, does the noble Lord plan to use the public money to fill the gap? Or will the Treasury consider legislation which will compel private funds to invest in government programs and approach which will deter investors in the UK? Incorporating private finance into the new strategy is a welcome ambition and I'm glad to see the redness to learn from the past.

However, we must ask what changes the Treasury will make to how it engages in PPPs given the failings around HS2, Metronet, and Norfolk and Norwich Hospital, to make sure you don't encounter these problems again. Furthermore, the question might honourable friend Richard Fuller raised in the other place was not properly answered. What proportion of the 725 billion is newly committed as against previously announced money? As noble Lords will be aware, investment on this scale and across these timeframes must come with assurances of continuity and origin.

I hope the Minister can address these questions in his response. Milos, the focus in the strategy is rightly centred on delivery. One important area -- one important area is housing. The government has signalled its ambitious intervention over the next five years to contribute 1.5 degrees and homes to the national stock. The strategy actually funds 580,000 homes over 10 years, through Homes England, an average of some 50,000 homes a year. Even on the lowest net migration forecast, 350,000 a year, this is far below what is required each year, just for migration driven growth in housing demand.

This is not the whole housing picture. However, our concern is that this offer so little left again for current households waiting for a home. We will explore this further during the passage of the Planning Bill but I would welcome any clarification that the Minister can offer today. Another area is aviation. The strategy and recent government announcements around aviation are welcome. Both on infrastructure and things like aerospace redesign. However as a recent debate in this place highlighted, limitations around the government's order strategy around things like the European year stationary navigation overlay system, means that these changes will only have a limited impact on airports such as Exeter and Inverness previously were relied on to avoid costly upgrades.

They will incur greater costs because they're no longer party to this service. Does the Minister agree we need to make sure that alongside the new spending we are pursuing and fiscal policies which enable it to be effective? The key area is skills. Which barely get a mention in the 10 year strategy and yet I know from my time as chair and as a developer at Tesco, that skills in planning and environmental amenity engagement matter a great deal.

We have become increasingly short of the skills we need to build the hospitals, roads, railways, nuclear facilities, housing, and water and flood defences that we need for a successful country. And a successful strategy. I know from the Cabinet strategy. I know from the Cabinet Office despite the advance in 80, IT AI, there's not enough capacity in terms of skills all supply chains to build what we need. Is this something that concerns the noble minister and what plans does he have to solve the problem? Milos, all of this speaks to the wider question of how we make sure that this money is spent intelligently to deliver value for money.

Underway which grows our economy and promotes productivity. The fundamental question is what are projected return on investment for the strategy actually is. £725 billion will be at over a long billion will be at over a long period is a great deal of money. Arnette benefit must also be substantial in order to justify it. I hope the noble Lord can clear that point up for us. A related question is what sort of assessments went into choosing the areas to spend on? Transport spending is welcome but is the Minister directing investment into the forms of transport which local communities benefit from? local communities benefit from? Benefit from the most.

Or does he risk further word elephants? How have the choices been made? Ensuring that we spend and structure money wisely, strategically and with night the future is essential if we are to see the sorts of improvements in growth that the Chancellor and indeed the whole country once. Doing so we must target spending combine it with wide enabling policy changes and ensure we do not allow reforms to green brick and local investment litre funding for white elephants. We support the ambition behind the strategy, and long-term investment in infrastructure is vital if we are to address the real challenges facing our economy, as services.

But this cannot be an exercise in headline figures or lofty announcements. If the plan is to succeed the government must show how the money will be secured, how it will be spent wisely and how it will deliver for each project tangible long-term benefits across the whole country. Not just for now but for a changing economy and for future generations. How this policy fits in with yesterday's Industrial Strategy will also be a vital consideration which we will examine carefully.

which we will examine carefully.
16:16
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I welcome this strategy, which if well managed can significantly improve the UK's potential for growth. My colleague the MP Sarah Olding, who spoke largely to the statement in the other place, focused very much on the absence of a discussion of skills within labour. Didn't get a very satisfactory answer and I hope we will hear something more from the Minister today because that clearly is the Achilles heel of a great deal is the Achilles heel of a great deal I look at the cover on the issues covered in the other place more on critical aspects of the financing.

The strategy proposes that as a Baroness Neville-Rolfe integrated, and an updated version of public private partnerships. I was recently privileged to chair a roundtable, under Chatham House rules. With leading developers, contractors and basically the money. To my amazement and in contrast to those public statements, everyone started out by arguing against such a flawed model. Through discussion or an hour we identified some conditions under which people could work. I will have to share that reform when it is prepared for the Minister.

To me the most significant condition was that the public sector has to field educated, world-class engineering skills, financial and support. According to the people we talk to, such teams have not been. The second and most significant condition was that the projects must be specified in very fine detail. So much more than the conventional financing and especially outcome-based. Allowing for any minimal variances. This condition which I think many people will agree is essential for successful people does seriously limit the eligible projects.

And so I would like to hear from the Minister how much of a gap this might mean, if these issues are pursued in a way that I hope they will be. My second is specific to London, which is not going to receive government funding for very much infastructure, even though it drives the national economy. If that is to be the case, then London needs to be able to go directly to the financial markets, at scale, to raise money against future value added, to build projects and without the constraints associated with the current tax increment financing schemes, which if we are honest about them are heavily laden with Treasury controls.

And once refined, this could extend to other parts of the country and I stressed the urgency of dealing with this issue. London is the U.K.'s golden goose. My last issue is to warn the government, again, against abusing the Regulated Asset Base as a mechanism to finance small modular nuclear reactors. In the conservative era, the instrument given on the economic affairs committee, for the then government plans was that £80 increase to annual energy bills, £10 for each of eight SMRs.

It was clearly an under estimate then and would be even more estimate then and would be even more so now. Would the Minster agree that the ordinary bill payer must not be treated and that is the common parlance term. You must carry the risks and the cost, while others take both the immediate and future profits. profits.
16:20
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
I'm very grateful to both noble Baroneseses, Lady Neville-Rolfe's and Lady Kramer for their comments and their questions and for their support and outcome for this strategy. The noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe began in her nonpartisan mode, which I will try to replicate, if we can. She taught first about the rate of investment, we did, I think when we came into power receive at the lowest rate of private sector investment and share of GDP in the G7.

We did see public sector investment cart, which is one of the reasons why we changed the fiscal rules in the way that we did to incentivise capital investment to incentivise capital investment and to try and tackle that, to subsidise the data. I'm grateful for her support for that investment and the plan we have got in front of us. I'm grateful to her for welcoming the maintenance fund. There is £46 billion backlog, as we speak, in terms of public sector maintenance in our schools, hospitals, prisons.

As part of this we are putting I think £5 billion into the maintenance backlog of the NHS. 2030, into our schools, £600 million into prisons. I think that is really important. The responsibility and the support for that. The noble Lady spoke about governance and delivery, capacity. Completely agree with her on that point and delivering value for money. I think that is at the heart of, obviously the strategy is not just about giving the long-term certainty of investment. In terms of the numbers she talked about was not quite right to say about what's it's been close.

It is about trying to do things differently, trying to make sure that we do get the strategic planning, behind the investment we are doing. That is the insight that sits behind the national infrastructure transformational authority. Bringing together in structural capabilities and national structure commission and the delivery specialism of the infrastructure projects. Trying to bring those two things under one roof. I think they will do, every two years and they would do a report into the delivery of this strategy. They will also give real-time advice on specific projects and expertise.

I think that, I think that will go a long way, hope that will go a long way to solving some of the issues that the noble Lady is talking about. She talked about where the money is coming from. Obviously the announcements were, as part of the spending review were fully funded and fully costed, as part of the spending review process and within the current fiscal output. Beyond that, we have said that for 10 years beyond the spending review, a total of 10 years.

We will guarantee that investment spending by at least inflation, going forward to give people certainty about the global infrastructure we are doing. She talked about PPPs and Baroness Kramer also spoke extensively about PPPs. I agree with a lot of what she said, with respect to her great deal of expertise in this matter. She talked about criteria for success and clearly lessons need to be learnt from previous experience of PFI and I think the government is absolutely committed to doing that. Several options are now available to us.

Lessons Learned report. It is vital information on what we can do differently and what we can do better. She also said, I think that the kind of when she applied that, it doesn't really limit, you can use PPPs four. To answer the noble Lady Baroness Neville-Rolfe question. Clearly we want a wide spread degree of private sector capital, coming in and financing infrastructure. We want to continue to impress alongside the infrastructure, to set up in the fund.

In terms of PPPs in particular, I think we do see a role for, in a very limited, very limited way. That is clearly going to be a problem. Specifically we will explore the feasibility of learning lessons and applying the criteria. Very limited circumstances where they could represent value for money, we have given to specific examples where we think they could do that. One is used and where we believe they were going to investigate use of funded infrastructure and used and was a good example of that.

HST. The lower Thames crossing as the other. The criteria, in terms of what the noble Lord is saying. -- HS2. Those examples but where there is clear a case to be made. In terms of housing, and I completely agree this is stretching target. 1.5 million homes, we are on course to that commitment. We did put in a record amount of funding for several generations from the housing. She is right that the potential occupiers want the housing now and that is whether funding is gone in.

I think that we believe we are on course to that housing target. Both noble ladies talked about skills and I completely agree, good that we are in the spirit of consensus, cross- party thinking and I completely agree, we need people to build things we want built. It is absolutely right. I do think that we absolutely right. I do think that we have a strong start. £1.2 billion by 28, 29. I know that we are in the cross-party mood, but have to reflect the fact that a degree of underfunding we inherited was substantial.

A significant amount of money, just to stand still, just to plug the gap is existing, the gap between provision. We have had to plug that gap. That is limit the amount to which we can move forward. We did fund unsupportable 1,000,090 to 16-year-olds access to training. Additional learners by 28, 29. £625 million are delivered to train open to 60 £625 million are delivered to train open to 60,000 structural workers, in the Industrial Strategy, yesterday. We introduced new short courses for priority skills as part of the skill is lovely and we continue to roll out foundation apprenticeships and engineering skills.

We have specific packages, both engineering and construction. Both of those are really key priority occupations, in terms of both the infrastructure strategy and the Industrial Strategy. How do we choose the investment. We always talk about growth. You will see much of this investment is targeted towards the sectors that will really drive our growth agenda. Transport energy, to enable three of those. And just anyone, Lady Cramer's questions about London, in terms of the future financing model, just to say I do completely share her as reflection of it as the golden goose.

And it is essential to driving the economy. driving the economy.
16:28
16:29
16:30
16:31
16:33
16:33
16:34
16:35
Lord Livermore Portrait Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
-
mechanism can be used for an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

independent way to monitor this? I am grateful to the Noble Lord for the positive things that he says for the positive things that he says and to pay tribute to him and to educate for the work that they do, clearly this work is absolutely clearly this work is absolutely vital in that sector and I hope the engineering skills for example point engineering skills for example point out to me the vital nature of engineering skills, so I hope that engineering skills, so I hope that is welcome.

He did indeed look at that investment and I hope does nothing just for the last investment that we still talk about it in this that we still talk about it in this Government now and I think a lot of the recommendations that he made a point we have been trying to take forward now, so I think that is a forward now, so I think that is a good example of the work we have been discussing today. He is absolutely right the Industrial absolutely right the Industrial Strategy will be taken by the council on a permanent footing and I council on a permanent footing and I think that is important and this, what is the equivalent for the strategy? I think that it is the national structure authority that I national structure authority that I was talking about, so this they have been monitoring the strategy they been monitoring the strategy they will be doing two-year refreshes to ensure this is up-to-date and doing ensure this is up-to-date and doing what it needs to do and I think that crucially they provide real-time advice when it comes to individual advice when it comes to individual projects and to ensure they have the expertise to be able to work on that.
16:37
16:38
16:39
16:40
16:41
16:43
16:43
16:44
16:45
16:46
16:46
16:48
16:48
16:49
16:50
16:50
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Sharpe of Epsom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 310, 311, 312 and 319. If I may start with amendment 311, by stressing the productivity is vital in terms of productivity is vital in terms of growth, and despite the fact that the governments own impact the governments own impact assessment of this bill is lacking in many areas, it does correctly in many areas, it does correctly identify productivity as a problem in the UK workforce. The governments in the UK workforce.

The governments own impact assessment reveals the fundamental weakness of their fundamental weakness of their approach. They state quite explicitly, and I quote, " There is little quantitative evidence about little quantitative evidence about the knock on impacts on product the knock on impacts on product cavity." And conclude that, " On balance we believe the impact on growth could be positive, but the growth could be positive, but the direct impact would be small in magnitude." Most tellingly, they admit that the impact on average admit that the impact on average productivity will be small.

So if I may paraphrase, the government seemingly admits that productivity will not be significantly improved if at all by this legislation. This raises the fundamental question that goes to the heart of economic policy. How does one achieve high levels of productivity? High productivity emerges through competition, genuine unfettered competition where businesses face lower regulatory burdens and can compete effectively for the best workers where they possessed the freedom and flexibility to innovate, to adapt and to respond to market signals.

Productivity growth stems from technological innovation, capital accumulation. And as we have just been hearing in the questions on the statement we just heard, productivity emerges from technological innovation and investment in skills and productivity. Skills above all. These improvements occur naturally when markets are allowed to function. When competitive pressures incentivize businesses to innovate or perish when the price mechanism can operate without distortion. Competition drives productivity by creating what economists call creative destruction.

The process by which inefficient firms are displaced by more productive ones. When businesses have to compete for workers, they invest in training, technology and better working conditions. When they have to compete for customers, the innovate and improve efficiency. When they must compete for capital, they demonstrate their productivity gains to investors and offer competitive returns. So what will this legislation achieve in practise? I regret it's going further to impose additional regulation, create additional burdens and constrain the very competitive forces that drive productivity improvements.

This comes on top of the tax rises announced by the chancellor, measures that undoubtedly constrain business investment and growth. Particularly the increase in National Insurance contributions is damaging in this context. How employer NICs directly squeeze the predictability of investment which would otherwise create jobs and productive areas of the economy will now not take place. Capital that could've been deployed to improve productivity, whether through new technology, training programs or research and development will instead have to be diverted to meet higher tax obligations and burdens.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how product video improvements occur -- rot activity. Productivity does not occur through government mandate. It increases when businesses have the freedom, the incentive and the resources to invest in productivity enhancing activities, which is what brings me to amendment 319, and what I can only describe as a profound contradiction in government policy. The government committee just months ago, to a 25% cut in the regulatory burden. They reaffirmed this as we heard in the published industrial strategy.

Yet here we have legislation that introduces what can only be described as a raft of new regulatory burdens. The product -- question that demands an answer is this. How is the government going to achieve this 25 % reduction in regulatory burden? How is it going to be measured? How does this bill which manifestly increases regulatory compliance costs, how will it align with that stated target? Turning to amendment 310, a truly competitive market must make it simpler, not harder, for new businesses to enter.

Yet there is no consideration in the governments impact assessment for how this legislation affects barriers to entry. I believe this represents a profound oversight because when businesses cannot enter a market because of costs imposed by government regulation, that fundamentally alters the competitive dynamics driving productivity improvements. The economic logic here is straightforward, but crucial. When entry barriers are low, existing businesses face constant competitive pressure from potential new entrants. This pressure has to keep them on their pressure has to keep them on their toes.

If, innovative and responsive to consumer needs. They can't afford to become complacent because they know more efficient competitors could emerge at any time, hot on their heels and full of competitive energy. But when government policy raises the cost of market entry through complex regulations, compliance burdens or increased operational cost, it can effectively insulate existing businesses from this competitive pressure. The result is predictable. Established firms have left this -- less incentive to innovate and less need to compete aggressively for the best workers.

Turning to amendment 312, this brings me to a particularly important point about wage competition. In a competitive market, businesses compete not only for customers, but also for workers. When entry barriers are low and competition is fierce, employers must offer competitive wages and working conditions to attract and retain talent. This competitive pressure naturally drives wages upward as businesses bid for the best employees. When regulatory burdens prevent new businesses from entering the market, however, this wage competition diminishes significantly.

Existing employers faceless pressure to offer competitive wages because workers have fewer alternative employment opportunities. The reduced threat of Labour mobility gives established businesses greater power in wage negotiations. I believe the costs imposed by this bill will exacerbate this problem in two distinct ways. First, the direct compliance cost an increase in employer National Insurance contributions will pressure businesses to control their wage costs more tightly. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, these costs will deter new business formation, reducing competitive pressure that would otherwise drive wages upward.

Of course, the government may well want to point to the increase in the minimum wage as evidence of their commitment to higher wages, but this misses the fundamental point about how competitive markets operate in practise. The minimum wage affects only a small proportion of the workforce, those at the very bottom of the wage distribution. For the vast majority of workers, wages are determined by market forces, by the competition between employers for Costs imposed by this bill will far outweigh any benefit brought about by the minimum wage increase.

While a small number of workers may see modest increases thanks to the minimum wage, many more will miss out on wage increases as businesses have too managed their increased costs. Moreover, the jobs that might have been created by new businesses entering the market often higher productivity, higher wage positions, will simply not exist. I urge the Noble Lord the Minister to undertake and to commit, to conduct if the right impact assessment with this legislation on the issues that I had legislation on the issues that I had

**** Possible New Speaker ****

sought to highlight in this group of amendments. I beg to move. Member proposed after close 150 insert new clause as printed on the
17:02
17:04
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
new start-ups, since 2016/17 to new start-ups, since 2016/17 to 800,000 in 2022/23. And we know from other data that the last calendar other data that the last calendar year it was data from an analysis in the bank. We know from the calendar the bank. We know from the calendar year data that it hundred and 46,000 new businesses were registered, new businesses were registered, bringing the total to a record high bringing the total to a record high of 6.63 million last.

Just under one third of which, 248,000, in the third of which, 248,000, in the first quarter, it was, sadly, if figure not sustained by the end of figure not sustained by the end of the year with a 25% drop in business the year with a 25% drop in business formation as the year progressed. Of course, headline figures should be course, headline figures should be read with caveats. Here are just three. Quite a few new companies do not survive the first or indeed not survive the first or indeed not survive the first or indeed their second yeah.

Indeed, the can computer entrepreneur told me once computer entrepreneur told me once that you would expect in his sector for at least one to failures before you get to a success. It was almost a necessity to fail before success. Also, difficult circumstances, such as an economic scale down to exceptional causes or external shocks. They have an impact on the start-ups taking off. And, indeed, some companies will simply be reform is of existing organisations and businesses. These may be the ordinary reasons why we see start- ups not doing so well.

But one common obstacle to getting a new business off the ground or making a success of it is the value of two much of that wrong and unnecessary regulation. And the Government and the public will need to know the impact of this measure after one year or at a period that can be agreed between Government and opposition parties were that the decline in new applicants that we saw at the end of 2024 will continue in the first year of operation and what steps may be needed and, if so, what steps we may need to take to mitigate it.

New businesses are the lifeline, they help replace the stock of zombie businesses which go out of business and rightfully play in the competitive economy to which my Noble Friend mentioned. This will, as others under the Labour Government has proposed, which the Labour Government has proposed or enacted since 2024 penalises employers and businesses and introduces a damaging politicisation of ideologically grown changes to favour certain vested interest groups over the interest of business and the whole UK economy and the people of this country who depend on a strong and prosperous economy to find a job, to pay and who pay their tax revenue on which they have public services to pay and this builds values impose a multitude of additional costs through employee rights without corresponding obligations or duties, with additional duties and costs on employers, with uncertainty with as many of the proposals in the bill being decided by regulation.

The uncertainty which that brings and the cost to businesses trying to plan. They weigh the law against the cost of compliance burdens as my Noble Friend explained for an employer not only in respect of the rights of employees but for procedures which vary from keeping and handling equality from record- keeping, handling equality action plans, that is in part two, the law on industrialisation in favour of trade unions by repealing measures which have been around since 1992, and have, by and large, brought peace and harmony to the labour market on this country and the prosperity we need.

They will make for great uncertainty, given the range of powers that would be exercised as I have just mentioned by the Minister who may recollect the ideological apparent Government to direct its powers against employers and the UK economy in favour of those who pay for the Labour Party for political funding, for which we have many debates in this chamber. They ought to be finalised through consultations and announced later. Surely it is not too much to temper this by giving the public and the Government of the day and analysis of what the costs of that regulatory burdens will be.

So that any adverse impact can be measured and mitigated. And, finally, to amendment 311 of an impact assessment rating on the impact of the productivity. My Noble Friend has referred the Government recognises its own impact assessment in productivity is the productivity gain will be small. UK productivity is already significantly lower than that of our competitors in the G7. The US, Germany, and France. But to be discussing this letter on I will speak on that now, but here just to say that we expect as a result of this bill for productivity to decline further by sector and, indeed, by employee.

In respect of whom we know already that around 17.9% of workers in the UK were confirmed with labour productivity and it is very difficult to envisage the productivity will increase as a result of the regulatory burdens in this bill. Growth is the aim of the Government and we need to increase productivity. I agree. This will not be achieved through an ever shrinking workforce and the contraction of business activity. At the last count I did, rally about market had lost 115,000 workers since this Government came to power.

Nor will it be achieved by burdening business and its capacity to invest as my Noble Friend Lord Hunt mentioned to invest in new people, new plants, and new technology. By increasing the money needed to pay for the extra compliance of regulatory costs rather than investing in production of goods and services. And the training of the people they produce. I support this amendment as I do the others so that we should have a real measure based on independent and partial data that would shed daylight on the impact of the bill on these three accounts and help the of this country and the Government to press for change should we need it.

And therefore I support the amendment.
17:11
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-
I would remind the House of my interest in both the consultancy and the hospitality industry. And to help the Government on this bill because the problem the Government has is that very few of those who are working on the bill, I have run businesses all my life except for the time when I was a minister and I and very concerned and as I have looked at the bill I am reminded of people that have not run businesses and do not understand that they do not actually want to do.

They do not understand the damage that they do to employment. And to new business. And if we are going to admit that, and I hope every minister will admit it, they run businesses and met these problems themselves, and the civil servants that advise them, all the political advisers that they have, have they run businesses? And if the answer is not much, not many, not overall, then surely what they ought to do is to see whether they have got it right or not.

Frankly I do not think they have got it right, but I am very happy to be proven wrong. I do not think they have got it right because I know what has happened to the businesses with which I am associated. We are employing less because that is the only we can bring down increased employers demands. I know that the balances we have to make now are not in the advantage of staff but above all I know that the temptation if I am starting a new business not to do it is very much greater because of the complications which this bill and previous actions of the Government are based on.

That puts me into a position where the bill is, in large measure, a good one, but I am prepared to be proved wrong. If my clear investigation is we look at the results of what happens and take accountability and this is a problem I really have for this Government, if this Government is going to carry out many of the things with which I agree agree more clearly than I do with some of the policies on this side of the House, but if it is going to carry out those policies it really must prove to the public that it listens and is prepared to look at the facts.

And so I came for this particular debate in order to plead with the Government not to say this is where we find people and the other and this we think it is a good idea, but instead to say we will do this in the House of Lords and the House of Commons and we will come to the end and at the end of it we will see whether we were right, we will see without the opposition was right or whether we were, and if we show that we are right we have got a really good position to say we said we were right and we have been proved right, but if we say now we are not even going to find out whether we are right, we are not even going to measure it, we are actually not going to accept this amendment.

The Baroness Lawlor and I disagree on many things, I have to say, with both of us do think that it would be a good idea to check and see where we are. And I do not understand why representatives of the trade unions are not getting up and saying to the Government we think we are right, we think you are right, so check it. Show independently that it is right. Instead of which which the Government admits, frankly, is either that they do not know, or that they fear they have been proved wrong.

I have got a Government that is brave enough to say we are going to put it to the test and we actually accept the eminence and we will find out what is right and if we are wrong, we will change it. And if we are right, we will crawl like mad over those people who told us we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just following on from my noble friend and I agree with almost
17:16
17:17
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Unusually, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Deben in the remarks he made Mike Lord even. Not because a business owner, but because I am worried about the unintended consequences of the bill and I also simply want an opportunity to check. If I am wrong that is fine, but these particular group of amendments are very important because it will give the government a chance to think again, to assess, to reflect. It does not have to be a U-turn, it can be something that is accepted at this point in the bill that would then mean those of us who are nervous about the consequences of this bill can be proved to be right or wrong.

I particularly concerned with the impact the bill will have on productivity, so amendment 311 is very key. I concern this bill is not doing what it says on the tin and will have a negative impact on workers rights, workers jobs and workers wages. So I was interested in amendment 312, which simply asks for real wage impact reporting. The big amendment that would cover all of the things that argued so far is amendment 319, which calls for the impact assessment of the regulatory burden of the act on businesses.

I think that if you consider it, the regulatory burden has been in the past people who complain about overregulation have been considered to be on the right of politics. People who are so irresponsible they don't want any regulations and they are prepared to take risks. I have never understood it to be in that way at all, but I was therefore delighted to find that I was in agreement with the government and the Prime Minister when he made some tub thumping speeches about the progress of regulators, blockers and bureaucrats stopping investment and growth.

He called it an alliance of naysayers. I thought that's good because I've always been worried about this, I am not from the Tory fold, but that's a long what I thought. I genuinely was excited that the Labour government was embracing this way of understanding what can get in the way of us having economic development and growth which is necessary for workers to have jobs, wages, right, for an industrial policy we are hearing about today, all of the infrastructure things.

Last December the Prime Minister infamously blamed Britain's sluggish growth on people in Whitehall who were comfortable in the tepid bath of managed decline. I have felt when we were going through this bill that I was in the tepid bath of managed decline at the heart of white-collar Westminster -- Whitehall or Westminster. I want to urge people here to remember their own Prime Minister's words when deciding how they should approach this bill. Not to be partisan, between 2015 and 2023, the conservative government set itself the target of a 19 billion pound reduction in business costs through deregulation.

Instead, the Regulatory Policy Committee watchdog calculated that even exempting most COVID regulation, the regulatory burden actually increased by 18.4 billion in that time. The reason I'm saying that is because people keep declaring they are going to deal with regulations and they're going to tear up the regulations getting in the way of growth and industrial capacity. And then the next minute, unintentionally regulations grow. This bill is so jampacked with regulations that workers rights don't stand a chance of breathing.

One of the fears I have in relation to the bill, which I've raised in a number of amendments which I hope the latter amendment 319 will look at, is that I think this bill is a recipe for law fair. Day one rights, the protection from unfair dismissal which both sound progressive and admirable. The government's own analysis predicts a 15% rise in employment tribunal claims. As there is already huge backlogs between 18 months to two years already before this bill, I actually think there is a real threat of a litigious clogging up of the system.

It's important that employees are treated fairly and as I've argued throughout the bill, I am not frightened of trade union rights or workers rights at all, but I am concerned about this growth and incentive visitation of the use of law fair. I have just read a fascinating report entitled the Equality Act is working, equality infiltration the breakdown of civility in the workplace, by the antiracist colourblind organisation don't blind us. Which is assessing the unintended consequence of the Equality Act.

It has led to a fractious notice in the workplace. People suing each other and all sorts of things going wrong and has clogged up in many ways the system. The last thing we need is this bill adding to that burden and for a sense in which people are suing each other to go even further. All I would suggest is an impact assessment is going to either show that some of the concerns that have been raised are overhyped or in some instances ideological or naysayers or that the government could take the opportunity to say we never intended the act to do this, but we have seen that in some area needs to be tweaked to make sure it's not over regulatory, that is not damaging workers rights and wages, in which case we are prepared to be honest and hold our hands up because that is the very least legislator should do when they bring in a law that is hugely going to change the whole arena of the place.

As somebody who does do business from
17:25
Lord Swire Portrait Lord Swire (Conservative)
-
-
time to time and tries to encourage business, not least through my business, not least through my deputy chairmanship of the Commonwealth enterprise and investment council where we are trying to grow business right across trying to grow business right across the Commonwealth, it does strike me that this bill is coming at an that this bill is coming at an unfortunate time because surely we should be looking at regulations, of should be looking at regulations, of course we always should and always be in argument about what is overregulation and under regulation.

But surely we should be looking at a low regulation framework at a time low regulation framework at a time when so many jobs are threatened by AI. I urge the government to take this into consideration during any this into consideration during any impact assessment. The Minister on the Frontbench knows about business, the Frontbench knows about business, he is a businessman, he is a he is a businessman, he is a successful business. I suspect he is identifying with many of the points identifying with many of the points where raising.

-- We are raising. It strikes me at a time when people are very fearful about their future and very fearful about their future and the uncertainty of having a job at the uncertainty of having a job at all, let alone when they get older so they can raise a family, have a mortgage and so forth, we should be looking at ways to encourage businesses to employ more people. Lord Deben said he saw every good reason not to employ more people. That is really bad news.

If businesses are now saying it's not worth it, that's going to contribute to the unemployment that is going to follow for many of these jobs being replaced by AI anyway. I urge the government to look at that and equally, also at a time when many countries around the world, not least in Asia, are spending much more money, time and effort on advanced mathematics and all the kinds of things you need for coding and so forth, so we in this country seem to be lowering the standards, particularly in mathematics, dumbing down at a time when we should be raising up.

By all means, let's properly protect our workers, but let's not over regulate to the extent that we don't have any workers to look after and any workers to regulate.
17:27
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Arise to address amendments 310, 311, 312 and 319, which collectively seek greater transparency around the economic consequences of the legislation. Whilst I take no firm view on the amendment themselves, but putting great detail by the noble Lord and contributed by other noble lords who have expressed reservations. There obviously are reservations. But I welcome the principal that these reflect. We must remain vigilant to how new laws affect businesses, wages and productivity.

I appreciate, no one else has said this, that the government is already undertaking much of this work and I would welcome an update from the noble Lord the Minister on how that work is progressing and how it is informing policy development. In particular, amendment 310 raises a valuable and timely question about how new and small businesses might fare under this act. These enterprises, as the noble Lord will no and I have known from a lifetime of working on the Council, these often lack resources, legal support, regulatory expertise of larger firms.

It is only right that we ask whether framework we are putting in place enables them to enter the market, grow and succeed on fair terms. Broadly, if the government is serious about delivering long-term economic growth, it must pay close attention to the conditions facing new business entrance and small startups. These businesses, I hope the noble Lord will agree, are not only a vital source of innovation and competition, but also key to job creation. Skills development. The barriers they face, and there are increasing barriers, whether through opaque processes or disproportionate compliant costs, by reducing unnecessary administrative burdens and ensuring a fair and accessible regulatory environment, we can help unlock the potential.

Growth will not come from productivity targets or ministerial ambition alone, it will depend on everyday decisions made by entrepreneurs and small business owners around the country. We should support them accordingly as mentioned previously. I do not readily back these amendments themselves, I don't think I agree with them, but I hope the government will take careful note of the arguments they raise, particularly the point made in amendment 310, which is about new and small businesses affected, which deserves further attention and consideration.

There are going to be economic consequences of this bill and that the government should tell us how they view the impact of those economic consequences. Noble lords have spoken about increased cost and we all know for anyone who has been involved in business, that there is obviously increased cost. Laws we have put in over the years have added to those costs. Most businesses have managed with increased efficiency to try to mitigate those costs and make more profits. You have to adjust to the As amendments in this part of the bill is about impact assessments, regulatory burdens, and we putting too many burdens on them? Or are the burdens helpful to the country? We must do things that increase productivity and that is part of what these amendments are about.

And Lord Evans said on businesses and many others in this chamber have businesses or advised businesses. I hope he is going to be proved wrong. He asked if he wanted to be proved wrong and I wait to see what the government's answer to this is in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this debate. I am grateful to every noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to every noble Lords contribution there. I have Lords contribution there. I have listened intently to each and every one of your contributions. I thank the noble Lords for the kind words the noble Lords for the kind words about my previous business career. We return to the important impact We return to the important impact assessments and I appreciate the
17:32
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
assessments and I appreciate the noble Lords shop and Lord Hunt of the world's continued efforts here. It will be no surprise to your Lordships house given in a separate debates, I think it is about eight now, that have handled this topic whether the Government views these amendments as unnecessary. Let me recap, we have already published 27 impact assessments published on guv.uk that have been updated where needed as policy has been embedded to the bill passage. Academic support at Oxford University MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research.

For example, Professor of Law at the University of Cambridge says, and I quote, the consensus on the impact of labour laws is that far from being comfortable they contribute positively to productivity. Labour laws also help ensure that growth is more inclusive and that there distributed more widely across the society. All the evidence is laid out in the impact assessment with external experts. This ensures this will be good for our productivity in a survey undertaken by public policy, seven in 10 employers say they strengthen employer rights with post productivity compared to just 70% for disagreeing.

And six in 10 employers thought stronger employment rights will have a positive impact in profitability where fewer than two in 10 disagree. We have worked hand-in-hand with Mrs and civil society to understand the impacts of this bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Just on the particular point and those that are likely to contribute those that are likely to contribute positively to the workers, nobody, I think, is arguing against that. Miserable workers with no rights. Miserable workers with no rights. And what we are trying to explore whether it is about job satisfaction whether it is about job satisfaction or whether they will have jobs and the unintended consequences of the bill and it might mean that people bill and it might mean that people are not employed or that new jobs are not created because productivity will not go well or that in fact it becomes too risky to employ, for becomes too risky to employ, for example, young workers, so with all due respect to Warwick University's academics and the people that wrote academics and the people that wrote that research and I am sure they are happy in their whereabouts, the happy in their whereabouts, the truth of the matter is that if some truth of the matter is that if some piece of legislation ended up unintentionally closing down Warwick University they would not be happy and productivity would not go up, so I am just pointing out that is what I am just pointing out that is what we are concerned about.

It is not a theoretical academic argument about working harder. I know that. But if there is no work then you are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

going to be happy and you are not going to do any work at all and productivity will go down. Thank you for that contribution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for that contribution. If she could be patient I have got some positive news for her. We have worked with businesses and trade unions, like we said earlier, to understand the impacts of the bill on industry and we will produce on industry and we will produce further analysis under the regulations framework. I think it is regulations framework. I think it is worth noting more doors are opening worth noting more doors are opening than closing. In the first quarter than closing.

In the first quarter of 2025 the UK saw 19,000 businesses of 2025 the UK saw 19,000 businesses up to .8% in the last year. While up to .8% in the last year. While this clause is filled by 4.4%. This Government is backing British businesses and British workers and the Industrial Strategy published yesterday is making that real. One yesterday is making that real. One example, we have boosted the British business capacity to £25.6 billion. And unlocking billions for innovative firms, including SMEs.

innovative firms, including SMEs. And for the first time the British business bank will be able to take the equity in fast-growing tech companies. This has never happened. This is helping tens of billions more in private capital, fuelling growth, creating jobs, and driving long-term prosperity, and I hope that is a comfort. And.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very pleased with all the research that has been done before the bill, all the research being done with the bill. The only done with the bill. The only question is when the bill goes through, why don't we do the research to make sure that we were right? I can't understand why we right? I can't understand why we right? I can't understand why we draw the line the moment the bill is actually published, except in the generalities of better regulation. generalities of better regulation.

Will the Minister whose business knowledge is considerable please accept that as this people normally measured by results? Why can't we measure the results?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

measure the results? I think patients here, we have already seen the results. Just already seen the results. Just yesterday, this morning, they announced a £40 billion investment, announced a £40 billion investment, and basically what this means, they're having a resounding conference in the UK Government.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

conference in the UK Government. We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses, and they are not going to be tech companies are not going to be tech companies or Amazon, there are small, medium size companies that keep most cities

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and towns going. , Together with my ministerial

**** Possible New Speaker ****

, Together with my ministerial colleagues speak every day whether they are tech companies or other businesses, yesterday I had a businesses, yesterday I had a conversation with small to Britain and we talked about the members and and we talked about the members and most of their members have confidence in this, so we do talk. Coming back to Amazon, basically, Coming back to Amazon, basically, what it means a £40 million is 4,000 new jobs across the UK which is a major boost to our tech and major boost to our tech and logistics sector and this comes as the latest Lloyds business barometer survey that shows business survey that shows business confidence is at a nine-month high with the rise in hiring expectations among business.

This is the Lloyds business barometer survey. This is business barometer survey. This is proof that our plans are changing and working. Britain is open for and working. Britain is open for business and the world is taking business and the world is taking notice. There is simply nothing more I can add to the noble Lords argument. This analysis will continue to do the impact assessment continue to do the impact assessment and will be done and I therefore ask the Noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sit down. Now just clarify did the Noble Lord the Minister said that 90,000 jobs were created in the that 90,000 jobs were created in the first quarter of 25, or was it to 90,000? I am sorry, I missed the 90,000? I am sorry, I missed the exact figure. Because, if I may just finish, because it is my understanding that in the first understanding that in the first quarter of last year with which the comparison is being made by the comparison is being made by the Noble Lord 248,000 new entrants, the Minister spoke of new jobs, but I am talking when our impact assessment is on new entrants to the market and there were 248,000 in the first there were 248,000 in the first quarter of last year and if the 90,000 refers to new jobs as opposed to new entrants into the workforce, that is a different comparison.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

that is a different comparison. I thank the Noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to say this again, in the first quarter of 2025, the UK sold 90,000 business the UK sold 90,000 business creatives up to .8% over last year, while business closures fell by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

4.4%. This has been such an important
17:41
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been such an important debate, we have been throwing statistics around the chamber, but statistics around the chamber, but the very latest statistic I have in front of me is this, published in business matters, and I quote, Britain has recorded its highest number of company enclosure for 20 years with the final quarter of 2024 seeing 119,000 119,046 businesses struck off the official register. Now, what we have really been

**** Possible New Speaker ****

debating, yes, of course. I mean there are many reasons for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I mean there are many reasons for business closure and I think it has struck for all sorts of reasons struck for all sorts of reasons unless we drill deep down into what unless we drill deep down into what the figures comprised of, whether it is dormant, I feel we are going to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is dormant, I feel we are going to get the result it is going to be difficult and we just draw the figures around. That is exactly why we need to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

That is exactly why we need to measure the impact. And I just think that is what the debate has all been about the mass of the Noble Lord the Minister has done my job for me, but he has not accepted any of the he has not accepted any of the amendments and I do thank my Noble Friend Baroness Lawlor very much Friend Baroness Lawlor very much indeed not only for the facts and figures she gave us, but the way she figures she gave us, but the way she stressed that there has been and there is persistently and there is there is persistently and there is actually taking place an increase in the regulatory burden and looking ahead there are more compliance ahead there are more compliance costs as to come.

So, why does the Noble Lord the Minister not accept that there is a need for an independent, impartial measure. And that is what these amendments seek and my Noble Friend with all of his unrivalled experience in building businesses why he is arguing that we need to check, we need to look ahead and make sure we are able to measure the impact of this legislation. Who is going to be right? The Government is saying trust us, we are right, we know what is best, this is actually going to increase growth, their own impact assessment says it will not, so therefore when you analyse all the facts and statistics that are coming forward, surely there is a very strong argument that we need to have an independent impact assessment.

I do agree with my Noble Friend that if our roles were reversed and the Minister with all his experience was sitting on this site, these are the amendments. Let me predict that because he knows how important it is to measure the impact of legislation and regulation. And as Baroness Fox of Buckley said, when you measure what is happening now against what the Prime Minister promised, in cutting the amount of the regulatory burden, and, in his words, to reverse the decline, it was good that she reminded us of those keywords, and yet, as I quote her, this legislation is jampacked with regulation.

And her warning about this legislation is a recipe for low fare is a warning to us all. And I agree with my Noble Friend that there is a need for a no regulatory framework at a time when they are embracing Artificial Intelligence. They are embracing all the new techniques and we are increasing the So I think is the noble Lord said, and I don't think he quite got the answer he was looking for from the Minister, that although he may not agree specifically with each individual amendment, he does believe there is a clear message here that we have to take on board.

It is worrying that the government does not seem to understand the implications of their own legislation. And they did quote their own impact assessment, and assessment that explicitly acknowledges the minimal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

productivity benefits. I'm grateful for him giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful for him giving way. I am just sitting here looking at a I am just sitting here looking at a member of Mrs. Thatcher's cabinet, another one over here. Whether or not you pass a major piece of not you pass a major piece of legislation, whether there were any cases when you went to Mrs. Thatcher and said can we have an independent assessment, have we done the right thing? I can't remember anybody doing that, I can't remember anybody ever doing that, but maybe the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord can tell me otherwise. I wonder whether he could mention

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I wonder whether he could mention any occasion in which the official opposition during that time demanded

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. Of course my noble friend is quite right, but I was going to quite right, but I was going to rejoinder by demonstrating that with Margaret Thatcher assessing, when Margaret Thatcher assessing, when you proposed a piece of legislation, you had to make sure you had done you had to make sure you had done your homework and that you carried out every possible impact assessment out every possible impact assessment because you would be closely cross- examined on each and every piece of legislation.

And I worry that such has been this bill which has been rushed through in the first hundred days, that no one has actually carried out the test that Margaret Thatcher would have imposed. Therefore I am so grateful to the noble Lord for just reminding us of that criterion which we ought to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bear in mind. ... For luring me and to ask a question about impact assessments question about impact assessments and historical impact of the... And and historical impact of the... And he tell me which assessment said there was a legislative decision

**** Possible New Speaker ****

made correctly during that period? I think we were subject to parliamentary scrutiny each and parliamentary scrutiny each and every day of the 18 years we were in every day of the 18 years we were in power. And it was good that that accountability to parliament was treasured by those in parliament. But I just worry, certainly so far But I just worry, certainly so far as secondary legislation, the noble Lord served with me on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and Legislation Scrutiny Committee and joined with me in saying, please let joined with me in saying, please let us make sure that every piece of legislation we pass has a proper legislation we pass has a proper impact assessment.

Perhaps we learn impact assessment. Perhaps we learn from history that it is vitally important to have that impact assessment, always ready there to assessment, always ready there to prove, as Lord Deben put it, whether we got it right or wrong. I worry this government has not really done its homework. The fact that they resist these amendments suggests that the cutting regulatory burdens is not going to be pursued with any real determination. That 25% target is destined to remain a headline grabbing announcement that quietly disappears when submerged on the reality of real-life policy choices.

I do hope the government will think again, reconsider, because I'm sure these issues are going to come up over the next few years of these -- this government, but for now I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw the amendment. The amendment is by withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by withdrawn. Amendment 311 not moved. The minute Amendment 311 not moved. The minute 312 not moved. After class 150, a
17:50
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

minute 313. I suppose in some ways we are continuing with a theme because I rise to speak to amendment 313 in my rise to speak to amendment 313 in my name. The government has talked about supporting those on the fringes of the Labour market and this is a goal I hope we would all share. We know different individuals face different challenges regarding work. Whether that is due to educational background, to employment history, to help circumstances or to socioeconomic factors.

The question before us today is whether this legislation actually achieves that objective or whether it inadvertently makes it harder for those individuals to government claims it wants to help. To start with the day one write to unfair dismissal. I pose a fundamental question on this and that is why would any employer take a risk on what might be considered a high risk higher? Why would they take a chance on a young person seeking their first opportunity? Why would they hire a student who did not attend a top-tier university? Why would they consider a person from a lower socioeconomic crown who may lack credentials, but possesses untapped potential.

When employers face liability for employment decisions, they become more risk- averse in their hiring practises. They gravitate towards candidates with proven track records, establish credentials a minimal perceived risk. This is not callousness, it's rational economic behaviour in response to the regulatory environment. The government's refusal to include a meaningful probationary period at this stage can enhance the problem significantly. I have little doubt that fairly soon the government will be arguing they are intending to consult, that they intend to continue with a low touch probationary regime and it suggested that could last up to nine months.

That is all well and good, but what does that mean in practise? What does the phrase low touch mean? How is that going to be defined, what are they going to be consulting on? What is the government thinking about this? This needs to be in primary legislation and make no mistake the uncertainty is affecting business decision-making now. What it looks like is that the government fundamentally fails to understand that employment relationships involve mutual discovery. In the short term, virtually all jobs short term, virtually all jobs represent a cost to build.

It's not because they are immediately profitable, but because they are confident that over time these workers to develop the skills, reach their peak performance and productivity and ultimately become a net and if it to the company or employment organisation. This requires flexibility, it requires flexibility for both parties to recognise when a match is not working and to part ways without excessive legal complexity. By removing this from day one, it creates a powerful incentive to hire only the safest and predictable candidates.

Precisely those supporting the fringe of the Labour market. The same logic applies to the day one write to sick pay. Consider someone who has been accident -- absent from the workforce for next in a period of time. They recognise their potential and willing to provide them with opportunities. But now the cost calculation is fundamentally changed. An employer considering such hire must factor in the immediate liability for sick pay from day one combined with the inability to part ways of the employment relationship proves unsuccessful.

The rational response is fairly obvious, avoid the risk entirely. This is not theoretical speculation, this is how Labour markets function when faced with regulatory constraints. There is no amount of academic opinion that can state otherwise. I would urge the government to review the impact on social mobility so they can adapt the legislation to avoid the unintended consequences I've highlighted. Like my noble friend in the last group, I would like to be proved wrong on this and if I am I would invite the government to gloat it to their hearts content, but I do think we need the evidence, so I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move. Amendment proposed, after class 150 insert the following new clause, social mobility impact reporting within 12 months of the day on which within 12 months of the day on which this act has passed, the secretary of state must publish an independent assessment of its impact on social mobility.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

mobility. I rise to speak in support of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak in support of my noble friends amendment as we reach the end of the Committee stage. the end of the Committee stage. Before I get into the substance of that, I would like to offer some praise. Noble lords will no that praise. Noble lords will no that last week I took issue with the last week I took issue with the government Frontbench about the lack of response on letters, potential of response on letters, potential lack of response on letters to individual Noble lords who had
17:55
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
individual Noble lords who had raised specific points during the Committee stage in your Lordships House. The noble Lady, Baroness Jones did take some issue with that and said that was not the case. But over the last few days I've received a plethora of messages in my email from the government. As I may have said in the past in private eye, are they by any chance related? Those two occasions. Anyway, that is praise and I think -- thank the government for coming forward with those letters and we would hold them to account when we reach report stage but I'm grateful for small mercies nevertheless.

Can I come into the government the excellent report of the Social Mobility Commission, state-of-the-nation address report 2024, local to national mapping opportunities for all. I probably say this at every juncture, but this is a helpful amendment by my noble friend because I do think there's a cross party consensus that we should all be working to help particularly young people and to work, into innovative employment, into skills and training. Because we all know and it is been found by a political third parties such as the charity the Sutton Trust which focuses on improving social mobility, that there are disparities across the country.

There are sectoral disparities, geographic disparities, disparities of people with different backgrounds, race, ethnicity, age, etc. What we should be doing is designing legislation as far as is practicable, to tackle the issues around improving life chances, training and skills and innovation. And more fundamentally we need to be designing legislation to tackle endemic and entrenched inequalities. That is what this amendment is about because my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom is absolutely right that this is about opportunity cost, that many employers have given the chance will try to help young people, try to give them a chance, try and improve their life chances, their skills and pay for their exams and their training via apprenticeships, but if the legislative regime is such that you are encouraged not to employ that person because they may have a disability or be late to the market, because they may not be socialised or understand the protocols of going to work each day, being on time, being dressed smartly, very basic things we take for granted, then I think that risk diversity of employers not wanting to employ those people is going to have a negative effect and that this will be the case.

I would say to ministers that they have a chance and at least engaging with this amendment and hopefully seeking to accepting the amendment when it comes to report stage to actually make a real difference to the lives of people who might find it tough to enter and stay in the employment market. I would encourage ministers to look at that report to see how some of the very laudable objectives they have in the bill, and the work that's been done in supporting the legislative work because my noble friend offers this amendment in good faith to generally improve the bill.

I hope on that basis the Minister will look favourably on and come back at a future juncture and incorporate the ideas in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment in the bill when it's finished. I could not support this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I could not support this amendment more than saying that I heartily support it. I think social mobility impact assessment is vital. I just want to illustrate with a few brief words on the retail sector.
18:00
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
brief words on the retail sector. Many people who are excluded for one reason or another, my noble friends have referred to different reasons with a lack of social mobility are employed in the retail sector. But last year when this bill was coming forward, the British Retail Consortium expressed great concern and doubt about their ability to offer jobs. The BRC indicated that 61% of those consulted said the bill would reduce flexibility in job offerings.

10% were unsure. 23% offerings. 10% were unsure. 23% BRC is an important news channel really for social. It offers true retail and we see many part-time jobs being offered which help people to make a steppingstone, take a steppingstone into the workplace and around half of the 3 million people in retail currently work part-time. The Chief Executive of the BRC said almost 250,000 jobs have been lost in retail over the last five years and many major retailers have already announced further cuts on the back of increased costs which they kicked in April.

And this is quite a serious matter if you are somebody outside the job market wanting to get a job in a local store near home for a huge travel cost you can go and pick up part- time work as a way of being inducted to the skills using various social skills and disciplines you need to get to work on time and keep a job and rise up the ladder. And one of my great pleasures in life actually is going shopping in the late-night shopping market near us and seeing the youngsters who have come in from every sort of background rising to the rank of store manager and I have seen that over the years.

They came in part-time and part-time jobs will be the first to go both under the NIC hike from April but also as the retailers say under the guaranteed hours. Around that they say their greatest concern is for proposals to establish rights to guaranteed hours which risks making it harder to offer part-time jobs. And I therefore support this amendment and hope wholeheartedly that we have a social impact assessment, social team impact assessment. And I am concerned about all sectors, but I wanted to bring the retail sector into the job market for many who have no social mobility opportunity at the moment.
18:03
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Very briefly I used to work in previous life in further education and I worked with many young people who were non-traditionally successful and also in more current times I have worked in relation to present reform and am very interested in former prisoners gaining employment. In all the instances of working with those young people who do not have the traditional qualifications or are trying to get into work you are always in a situation where you are talking to local employers and asking them to take a punt on people, to take a risk.

And all the time the worst that can happen is you try to help this person out and it does not work out. And I have got every faith they will be brilliant and so on and so forth. What you did have to say take a risk and I afraid that if all of the responses from employers, whether we like it or not, they are saying that this bill, if it is enacted as is presently consulted will mean that they become risk averse and will not take risks on that former prisoner, that young person that does not admit, they will just not do it, and so I think social mobility is the key to be assessed.

The only other thing in addition to that group of people is that one of the key ways that this contributes to social is actually often through young entrepreneurs or young people who, again, may not be conventionally passed the civil service exam or were not fitting the employers are slightly eccentric and in fact they may be risktakers and they will set up their own micro business and we know that actually there are the kind of people who might well be successful sometime but they are not accessible now.

But if you actually talk to young entrepreneurs and there have been a lot of amendments throughout the bill about micro businesses, not just SMEs, they are still quite large businesses, but 20 staff, never mind two or three or four staff but those organisations, the young men who drop out of college and set up semiconductor manufacturing, people I know, it might be that young men who set up a builders business or small headdresses. They also realise that many parts of this bill which I have noted throughout will affect them and they have not got huge H our departments, they are not lawyers, they do not know what they're going to be doing.

They are reliable first with some regulatory rules that are mandated from this bill about the way that the run there micro businesses and they are actually businesses and they are actually part of the great success of social mobility. They start, they make a success of it, and now it may not be worth it, so I would just urge it is not like that, it can be young people making good through small businesses, so, again, if it is the case that these are scaremongering or worst fears or just being paranoid, I do think that this Government of all Governments, a Labour Government, should want to assess whether the bill, inadvertently, not intentionally, inadvertently, damages social via employment, and therefore I would urge the Minister again to accept this harmless but important amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in support of this amendment by the Noble Lord shop and
18:07
Baroness Cash Portrait Baroness Cash (Conservative)
-
-
amendment by the Noble Lord shop and in addition to supporting comments made by the noble Baroness Lady Fox just now she covered quite a few points and I just want to speak specifically to young people. These are the words of Alison McGovern, employment Minister, one of the committees very recently, the situation for young people, it is a worry for me that moment, nearly one million people effectively on the scrapheap, those are her words, not for myself but they are her words to the Government committee.

There have been a lot of statistics about these debates today. We will just add a few more. One million in education employment and training, that is a lot of young people, in addition to that we have massive numbers of people receiving sickness. All of these young people are going to be at risk and the law of unintended consequences being what it is means that the reason why the noble minister is quite right there has been an uptake in new businesses being started, but there is a serious downturn in the number of serious downturn in the number of jobs created.

And unemployment is rising year-on-year, month on month, since this Government took power. And the tax rises of the budget in the autumn are beginning to really kick in. And we have seen that in the submissions made by numerous organisations written to the Government and to other groups and peers in this chamber. Pleading with all of us to make their case about the significant costs they are already facing due to the national insurance rises. We can see it in real time.

Now, this is a request to monitor the situation and come back with an impact assessment on perhaps the most vulnerable people in our society. And to show that these young people really want to succeed, we will just radio a couple more numbers. The Minister is probably well aware of these already, but 60% of young people under the age of 30 would love to start a business. 9% of them have done so. And 18% more of them would like to do so this of them would like to do so this year.

These are the most vulnerable and youngest people in our society. They are our future as our demographics and we are going to become more and more reliant on the economy that they generate and I have said it before and I will set again and again in this chamber, Governments do not create growth. Businesses create growth. And we are now representing the young people to start businesses and take risks in employing others and I urge the Government at the very least to come back with no impact on them and no further impact on the loss of further impact on the loss of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

employment that could ensue. So I am grateful to all noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I refer to Lord Jackson's point and I can assure them that it is no coincidence that them that it is no coincidence that may be they do take a commitment to everyone that we have promised a
18:11
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
everyone that we have promised a letter within 10 working days and if the Noble Lord has not received any letters for us I book on the challenge to see why either let us not there? A couple of points, I firm believer in social, when I started my business 20 years ago I was very much looking at the social enterprise, then to ensure that the states are able to get out of their shell to make something out of their life and things like that because I am a firm believer in social and the Government taking social seriously.

And we do not just talk about it, I mean to support our commitment to ensuring everyone no matter their background can commence section 1 is a source of economic duty of the Equalities Act 2010 in England, but as an example the social economic duty requires specific public bodies to actively consider how strategic decisions might help to reduce the inequalities of the socio-economic disadvantaged. We are also now taking forward work to make sure that commencement of the duty in England is as effective as possible.

Driving efforts across the country to breakdown barriers to opportunity and making sure there is no glass ceiling on people's ambition. I refer to Lord Sharpe's point, we have debated the unfairness of the probation periods of this on day five of the committee, the 21st of, 21 May featuring sick pay on page 2 and three of the committee. And so we have debated some of these points at length. I referred to Baroness Cash's point about some of the one million young people in employment training or education.

We recognise that since the general election more people are in work and also at the same time we are improving the access for NHS appointments and we now have 3 million where people have been seen by medics.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just would like some clarity

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just would like some clarity regarding employment numbers because unemployment has been rising and it unemployment has been rising and it is higher and we know that graduates is higher and we know that graduates are struggling to get jobs even in are struggling to get jobs even in supermarkets with 33% fewer jobs, so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supermarkets with 33% fewer jobs, so I just wanted to clarify the increase and where that is coming from. I thank the noble Baroness for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness for that. What I would do, setting out that. What I would do, setting out the detailed analysis and where these new jobs have been created so these new jobs have been created so we can be absolutely sure that we get this right. Like I said earlier, get this right. Like I said earlier, we have already improved the NHS waiting list and £3 million they waiting list and £3 million they have already accessed for full this point about impact assessment again point about impact assessment again I will not leave at this point.

This analysis is set up in many preceding analysis is set up in many preceding rules, Bobby done this include social and there is no point in me giving a repeat of what I have just said, so all of this will be done and I therefore ask that amendment 313 to be withdrawn by Noble Lord shop.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am also grateful to my Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am also grateful to my Noble Friends, Baroness Cash, for the very supportive comments. And also to the Noble Lady Baroness Fox who raised Noble Lady Baroness Fox who raised some interesting points. I would gently suggest that the Noble Lord
18:15
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
gently suggest that the Noble Lord young we are not just talking about it either, we want to do something about it, we want to protect social which is why we have taken this amendment. In the Noble Lord sounded disappointed that we have to keep returning to this debate. So are we, but we do not feel that we are getting meaningful answers on the subject of consultation which we have brought up on numerous occasions and until we get those meaningful answers we will continue meaningful answers we will continue The government have not given a satisfactory response to the serious concerns raised by social mobility.

This represents a failure in our opinion to engage with economic realities about the employment market functions. The noble lordosis as well as I do. We must judge policies by the results and not by their intentions. Results are not dependent on the nobility of our intentions, but on the incentives policies create in the real world. This bill creates the wrong kinds of incentives. They incentivize employers to become more risk- averse, not more inclusive. The hiring of safe conventional candidates over those who might bring fresh perspectives but lack traditional credentials.

They incentivize the protection of those already in employment as a -- at the expense of those seeking to enter it. They diss incentivize taking a punt. Don't just take my words, take the chartered accountants of England and Wales. Their most recent survey stated, members say that at a time when the government needs business to drive growth by taking risks, the bill, along with other pressures make businesses more risk-averse. They worry businesses will start playing it to save, choosing a safe pair of hands over bold innovative challenge -- talent that could drive real change.

Those are not my words,. These are not the incentives of a modern dynamic economy that seeks to maximise opportunity and social mobility. They are entrenches sick... Fundamentally will make it harder for those without them to break through. We think that is a tragedy in this legislation will be judged a failure because of the standard is proponents of step four. When employment opportunities for young people to climb, when social mobility stagnates and when those on the fringes of the Labour market find doors closing rather than opening, we will see the true measure of these policies and that will be regrettable.

But for now I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to withdraw. Is a lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 314, 315 and 316? Not Amendment 314, 315 and 316? Not moved. After class 150, amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

317? -- Clause 150. I rise to speak to this group of
18:18
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this group of amendments and in doing so note the sorry absence of my noble friend sorry absence of my noble friend Lord Fox 's contributions on these matters have always been thoughtful and constructive. Unfortunately he's not here. I will focus in particular on amendments 317 and 319 which aim to provide a much-needed clarity and certainty to small businesses as they seek to understand and comply with the provisions of the bill. Amendment 317 would require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance to support small businesses in meeting the employment and legal obligations introduced by this legislation.

This is a modest and reasonable ask and it really is very modest. One that would have significant practical benefit. For many small businesses, compliance is not just a question of goodwill, but of capacity. Unlike larger firms they do not have in-house legal departments or external consultants on retainer. They need clear, accessible and authoritative guidance that they can rely on from day one. This amendment is not about watering down the law, no is it about shielding from responsibility, it is about enabling small businesses to do the right thing without having to second-guess the detail or disproportionate cost in trying to interpret it.

Amendment 329 builds on that principle by making the commencement of the act contingent on the publication and parliamentary approval of such guidance. It is important to say that we on these benches understand the mandate that the government wanted the last election -- one at the last election. We have no intention to delay the bill beyond the ability to scrutinise it. However this amendment raises a deep concern about the real-world impact the legislation may have on small businesses of clarity is not in place from the outset.

It is not necessarily about the measures in the bill itself, but about how they are communicated and implemented. Without clear guidance there is a risk that well-intentioned businesses will fall foul of the law through no fault of their own. These amendments offer the government a constructive route around that outcome. I hope ministers will engage with them in that spirit. We're just trying to make it so businesses would know what they've got to do and they needed set out and I hope the government will think that it's a possibility that they might consider it full report stage.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

new clause on the Marshalled List. I'm going to speak to amendment 326 in this same group. I should 326 in this same group. I should begin by saying again how gracious it was of the noble Baroness, the
18:22
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
it was of the noble Baroness, the Minister to meet me to discuss my amendments in advance a couple of weeks or so ago. My amendment 326 is on the same theme of the need for impact assessments. Before provisions are brought into force. My amendments provide that regulations which amend primary legislation may not be laid unless an assessment of the impact has been made -- an assessment to the impact has been laid before Parliament and three months have elapsed from that date.

Delegated powers which can amend primary legislation are known as Henry VIII powers. This derives from the statute of proclamations in 1539 when Henry VIII persuaded the Commons to include a provision in the bill which would permit him to issue decrees having the same effect as an act of Parliament and therefore bypass the normal parliamentary process. Henry VIII powers can be draconian and raise real questions as regards compliance with the rule of law. This isn't just my view. In his much lauded lecture on 14 October lecture on 14 October 2024 entitled the rule of law in an age of populism, the noble Lord the Attorney-General was obviously right when he said, excessive reliance on delegated powers, including Henry VIII clauses upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive.

This not only strikes at the rule of law, but also with the Cardinal and Sybil's of accessibility -- cardinal principles of accessibility. Wise words indeed and very welcome, but I find it difficult to reconcile this with our bill. As the noble Lord pointed out at second reading, there are around 163 delegated powers in our bill and 12 Henry VIII powers. As he powerfully put it, ministers are in effect asking Parliament to empower them to do whatever they decide to do whenever they decide to do it.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in their report on 24 April described various Henry VIII powers in the bill is overly broad, inadequately justified and an inappropriate use of the affirmative process. As they say, Henry VIII powers are subject to far less scrutiny than primary legislation. This is the heart of the problem. Much of the legislation needed is yet to come, but it will not be capable of being scrutinised as it should be because of the reliance on Henry VIII clauses.

It's a symptom of a rushed agenda, but also, more worryingly, a growing acceptance that Henry VIII powers are OK. They are becoming the default option. The Select Committee on the Constitution and their report pointed out that clauses 24 and 25, dismissal following a period of statutory family leave, both contain and extend Henry VIII powers and act as placeholders while the government consults further on the specifics of the measures to be implemented. This can only mean that substantive policy decisions have not yet been taken on those issues.

But it also means a lack of certainty about how the provisions will operate in practise, which the Select Committee considered to be particularly concerning given that the provisions in a primary legislation to be modified. In addition, schedule seven contains a list of extensive legislative powers in connection with Labour market enforcement under part five, which are passing to the Secretary of State. Paragraph 35 of which confers a Henry VIII power on the Secretary of State to add by regulations and Janek went which affects the rights of employees, trade unions and duties of employers.

These extensive enforcement powers in part five also need to be considered, alongside clauses 151 and 153. These clauses contain a power, " To make any consequential provision which may amend, repeal, revoke or otherwise modify any provision made by or under primary legislation passed before or in the same session as this act and may make different provision for different purposes or areas and contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision." The government may respond that the power to make consequential provision is confined to what is purely consequential.

That's true, but what is purely consequential turns on the scope of the provisions they are said to be in consequence. Combining these consequential powers with the wide powers in part five for example would seem to give the Secretary of State the power to confer on his enforcement officers even wider powers when entering offices to search and seize documents if they are in some way connected with the operation. I think even Henry VIII would've been impressed. His 1539 statute of proclamations allowed him to amend legislation by decree, but even he was not permitted, " To prejudice any persons offices, liberties, goods or channels." Then there is the power to make provision for different purposes and different areas.

What is the need for that power? When I was in government, as a lawyer, Parliamentary Counsel would probe closely as to why we needed this power and we would have to justify it. My amendment is therefore designed to bring some transparency and due diligence to the use of these Henry VIII powers before they are laid and debated. It simply provides that before such regulations could be laid, there would need to be an impact assessment laid before Parliament for three months to enable a bit more parliamentary scrutiny.

This would give time for reflection as has been said in other groups and if the government decided to proceed with the legislation with the regulations and lay them, it would serve to enhance the level of parliamentary debates on the regulations which subsequently takes place in the affirmative procedure. I give the last word to the great Lord Judge who spoke strongly against such clauses when he was Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. " You can be sure" He said, " That when these Henry VIII would be introduced, they will always be necessary.

They warned us how to treat such a plea with disdain. Necessity is the justification for any infringement of human liberty." any infringement of human liberty."
18:29
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I think -- thank the noble lords for their amendments in this group for their amendments in this group and as Lord Palmer comment did -- commented, further remarks to Lord Fox for a speedy recovery. We look forward to seeing him back in the chamber to discuss this vitally important bill. Dealing with amendment 317 first of all, the of which we must be mindful, because as Lord Palmer pointed out, there as Lord Palmer pointed out, there These include the need to hire legal professionals, expand human resource capacity and navigate increasingly complex compliance requirements which many smaller firms simply cannot afford.

That is why statutory guidance specifically tailored for small businesses, those with fewer than 50 employees, is not just helpful but I agree with Lord Palmer is absolutely essential. These businesses are the backbone of our economy. They don't have in-house council nor do they have the luxury of large HR departments, yet they are bound by the same obligations under this bill as any large corporation. What I like about the amendment is it does three vital things.

First of all, it provides a clear overview of the legal duties, these businesses, must meet. Secondly, it offers a practical framework, not just legalese, but real-world steps for how these businesses can comply. Thirdly, it shares best practice, tailored in the scale and capacity of smaller employees. A further question I would ask is how this guidance would be kept up to date. Much of this would be implemented as we have just heard from Lord Carter of Haslemere through secondary legislation.

It is subject to scrutiny and can be changed far more rapidly. Businesses need certainty, not a moving target, which brings me to the second part of the group tabled by Lord Carter of Haslemere as he pointed out. This amendment rightly requires that any regulations which amend a primary legislation must be accompanied by a full impact assessment laid before Parliament within three months before such regulations can come into force. As he explained, it is a matter of accountability, transparency and good governance.

I probably don't have time to go back to 1539, so I will rely on his reminder of how he reminded all of us of the statute of proclamations. But he also mentioned the Attorney- General and the much praised lecture last November. In many ways it is sad that the Attorney-General was here in the chamber but is not here to give his view of whether this conforms with the very high standard he set in the Bingham lecture.

But this amendment will do exactly what I would have thought the Attorney- General would like to see. It will give Parliament time to scrutinise changes against businesses, time to prepare, and bleak most important of all for us as legislators it gives us the opportunity to understand fully the real world consequences, intended or otherwise, of these regulatory shifts. I do strongly regulatory shifts. I do strongly support these three amendments.
18:34
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Fox for amendment 317, three to six and 329 and Lord Palmer for moving this group of amendments. -- 326. Amendment 317 on guidance, it is important to implement these reforms and is fundamental to the successful delivery of the plan to make work pay. We are committed to providing guidance to ensure all stakeholders have the information required to make necessary adjustments.

We are engaging closely with employers of all types from a range of sectors to understand how government can best support them in their preparations. It is important we look at different sectors, sizes of company, region sectors, sizes of company, region and so on. We want to make sure we properly consider the needs of different employers and respond in the most effective way including tailored guidance and support. The amendment preventing the government from taking the approach that will be most effective, the forthcoming roadmap was to set up our plans for consultation and implementation of the bill measure.

Employment Rights Bill delivers the most significant upgrade in employment rights in a generation, creating a modern, fair labour market, to make sure we get delivery right we will continue to consult and engage, producing guidance, providing support, and allow time to prepare and we will ensure the enforcement works. I would like to make clear I agree with the noble Lord that it is in everyone's interest that small businesses are properly supported to implement the bill and the government is committed in doing so.

Amendment 329 would make commencement of all bill measures contingent on approval and publication of safe guidance. This delays the commencement that can be delivered more quickly. We are committed to supporting small businesses and ensuring targeted guidance is delivered where relevant. I now turn to Lord Carter amendment 326. I have read the entire speech of my noble friend and the Bingham lecture, and in nowhere in his speech does he say that it should not be used.

As most noble Lords no employment legislation is a true Statutory Instrument because it saves parliamentary time as mentioned in the speech. It saves parliamentary time so we can get more of them on the statute book. I wish to reassure noble Lords the government sought to limit the use of Henry VIII powers in the bill and believes the approach to the use is proportionate. I can reassure the House the government already has robust plans in place to assess and review the impact of the bill.

The amendment would add unnecessary bureaucracy and other powers of the bill. It would also duplicate work the government is committed to undertaking. Take for example the power of clause 1326 and it allows them to expand or modify the list of bodies specified in schedule nine to the bill. With whom information could be shared. It is a Henry VIII power subject to affirmative procedure. The government believes this is entirely appropriate use of power and DPRRC the raises no concerns.

I would like to reassure noble Lords that where possible amendments to other primary legislation which are required as a result of the provision made in the bill have been made in the bill itself. This includes amendments in schedule one which are consequential on the provision regarding zero hours in clause 1-5 and we see consequential changes regarding unfair dismissal and the provisions in schedule 10 that are consequential under provisions in part five. It is possible that further provisions would still be identified with the consequential amendment.

Allowing this to be made by regulation will mean they can be made without delay and with appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. The power is constrained as it allows amendments only where they are consequential where provisions are made in the bill. Supporting employers to understand the requirement of the bill is key to achieving the objective to make work pay. I hope noble Lords are aware of the government commitment to effectively and appropriately support stakeholders in preparing for employment rights reform.

This is my last time speaking in this Committee for this bill and so...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If this is the last time the Minister is speaking, he did start off by telling us about the roadmap off by telling us about the roadmap which his noble friend the Minister did promise that we would see shortly. In his closing remarks, shortly. In his closing remarks, would he like to tell asked is it going to be tomorrow that we will see this roadmap? Next week? We would like to see it as soon as possible, in particular we would love if he could publish it now before he finishes his closing speech.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

speech. It is so tempting, but I can assure noble Lords it will be assure noble Lords it will be published very, very, very soon. How published very, very, very soon. How is that? Like I said, this is the last time I speak on the Committee of bill and I wanted to take the of bill and I wanted to take the opportunity to express my gratitude to all noble Lords for extensive engagements and a robust debate in engagements and a robust debate in which we have conducted this stage which we have conducted this stage of the Bill's passage.

I pay tribute to the noble Lord sharp, Lord Khan and Lord Fox, Lord Goddard and Lord and Lord Fox, Lord Goddard and Lord Palmer and standing in for him. -- Sharpe. I wish Lord Fox well in his recovery and look forward to welcoming back the House on his return. Let me be clear this government welcomes scrutiny. That is the purpose of this House, but scrutiny must be grounded in the present and focus on the issues at hand. Not lost in the annals of time or political archives.

Some articles seem more intent on reviving grievances from the 70s than addressing the needs of today's Britain. This bill delivers on a clear manifesto promise. It is part of our plan change, built not on rhetoric but the practical need to provide scrutiny for working people and a long-term renewal for the country. This is where our focus lies, not fighting the past, but fixing the future. We continue to welcome serious challenge and expect it to be robust, but we also expect them to be proportionate, honest and forward-looking.

As we approach the final Committee day, we on this side of the House look forward to constructive and collaborative meetings and engagement with all noble Lords ahead of report. With that said, I respectfully ask the noble Lord forks to withdraw amendment 317.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- Fox.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Lord Hunt for his support which was so eloquently put and I thank the Minister for his detailed
18:44
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
thank the Minister for his detailed reply. When he has started speaking, I thought he would use his remarks to say he would agree with something. I had great promise that we would agree with amendments, reasonable amendments but all they do in guidance to small business to show them what the legislation is. There I am lost, he will step down without going out on a positive note which is very sad. His arguments that all this will do is delay things, well sometimes delay is good.

It can be good if you get it. Too often things are done and delay is the better alternative. What is the answer from the Minister? We should have more statutory instruments. I have dealt with them in the 15 years I've been in the House and quite honestly we discussed things, we never ever vote, ever vote that I can remember, and those Statutory Instrument are a means for the government to tell asked what it is going to do and we've done not a lot with the agreement.

Where is the small business standard without any real guidance? The Minister has gone off with a cloud of glory but I'm afraid I still have not got an answer to if anything will be implemented and sadly I beg to withdraw the Lord Fox amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave Amendment 318, Lord Clement- Jones?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jones? A lot tell Lord Fox tomorrow what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

A lot tell Lord Fox tomorrow what he has been missing. I think Gordon Young is already making history by using the phrase a very, very soon using the phrase a very, very soon or was it very, very very soon. In my experience, my lords. I do not
18:46
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
my experience, my lords. I do not think I've heard that before. It is probably arriving tomorrow morning, I suspect. I rise to speak to amendment 380 and this is an amendment which seeks to introduce specific provisions for dependent contractors -- 318. Insertion of a new section into the employment rights act 1996 by way of a new clause after 150 intended to address a significant gap in our current employment law, by recognising and extending the essential rights to a growing segment of our workforce.

And My Lords I think this is a serious omission. A rather surprising omission from this bill. Certainly it is an omission and a gap which my own party in his gap which my own party in his manifesto last year promised to fill and I feel an obligation My Lords to put this forward, today. The Minister, talked about employment rights, in the modern labour market. I do not believe we can secure employment rights, proper employment rights in a modern labour market My Lords without addressing this issue -- Independent.

We know the nature of work has changed and it is changing, more and more individuals are involved in informal work or services personally, relying primarily on a single employer or contractor for their income. Yet they fall outside the traditional definitions employee and autonomous, independent contractor. These dependent contractors are often subject to a degree of control, over how, when and where they work, leaving them in a precarious position, without adequate employment protections. No doubt, this House will be familiar with many of those who work in the gig economy, delivering workers, piece rate, homeworkers, and even consultants, who work almost exclusively for a single client.

And, this, granted My Lords, that some Uber drivers, herpes careers had gone to court and established that they are in fact workers are not independent contractors, My not independent contractors, My -- Home carers. We have to have explicit status about the status of such workers and explicit rights set out, in this bill. My Lords, the amendment seeks to rectify the situation by defining independent contractor status, clearly, within the employment rights act and crucially, it proposes to extend several key employment rights to these individuals, treating some of the measures, within the current bill as applicable to them.

Specifically, this amendment will ensure that independent contractors are entitled to the right set out in the subclause two of my amendment, My Lords. Payment at or above the National Minimum Wage, the right to payment for curtailing shift mirroring and vital protections for Zero Hour workers, in this bill. Statutory sick pay from day one and aligning the improvements to SSP, also proposed in this bill, day one rights to paternity and parental leave, as well as the new right to bereavement leave.

A statutory disconnect from work-related communications, outside of normal working hours and protection from detriment for exercising this right. As this bill establishes other workers. Protection from unlawful deductions from pay and again for discrimination. And then the entitlement to guaranteed hours if they work regular and predictable hours for a defined period, moving beyond just the right to request and aligning with the new provisions for qualifying zero workers. And My Lords, and is also important to note that this amendment doesn't respect the distinct nature of dependent contractor relationships.

It acknowledges that unless specified otherwise in their contracts, or by future regulations, independent contractors will not automatically be entitled to statutory redundancy pay, or general minimum notice periods, for termination. There will continue to be a distinction between employment and independent contractor status. Furthermore, this amendment empowers the Secretary of State to issue further regulations, to define a key terms and the specifics of these rights, ensuring flexibility and the ability to adapt to evolving working practices. It also mandates that the issue of guidance, including an online tool to aid in determining independent contractors.

It in introducing these amendments we would have the opportunity to bring fairness and greater security, a significant and growing portion of our workforce. We can make sure the individuals who are deeply reliant on a single employer receive fundamental employment rights, reflecting them on realities of work. I very much hope that the government will support this vital addition to the bill, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 115 insert the new clause printed on I I would I would like I would like to I would like to thank I would like to thank the I would like to thank the noble I would like to thank the noble Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment and as we consider this legislation, it is timely to reflect on how it will
18:52
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
is timely to reflect on how it will interact with one of the most significant shifts in our labour market. In recent decades, the rise of the gig economy. This is delivering significant benefits, including increased flexibility, new income opportunities and innovative business models. It has allowed many individuals to engage in work on terms that suit their circumstances. It is a primary source of income or supplementary. Of course with any new form of work that is, degree of legal complexity. Our current employment framework was largely designed in a different era.

One well worked tended to take place in fixed locations, during fixed hours and under traditional contracts. Obviously, the gig economy challenges many of those assumptions. The businesses, this complexity can lead to inconsistencies in regulation. Administrative uncertainty, litigation risk, for individuals it can mean uncertainty about rights and entitlements and for policymakers it raises at the border issue of whether and how the legal definitions of employment need to evolve, to reflect the modern working practices. This bill might not exclusively focus on the gig economy does focus on workplace rights, regulation and the role of secondary legislation.

That will inevitably affect it. We should consider whether the legislation arise provide clarity for businesses, operating practical models. Whether it supports very predictable frameworks for parties and how future regulations will ensure that changes to employment classifications or entitlements are based on clear evidence led analysis. So the question before us is not so much whether the gig economy is a good or bad, it is part of the modern labour market and will oversee continue to grow. The more pressing question is whether the labour market is equipped cover to keep up with that evolution and whether this bill provides that the right foundation for doing so.

In that context, thoughtful and measured discussion about emerging work patterns, such as depending contracting, platform work, freelancing, we discussed the other day and other hybrid models, if necessary. I look forward to further discussions on the subject with the noble Lord Clement-Jones and others. Before you sit down it is a shame... Than a Lord LEA on his back. I was gonna thank you for the great courtesy with which he has always conducted himself in his discussions and deliberations. -- Lord Leong. I did feel that he was perhaps slightly irked by the fact that we have had some relatively lengthy debates.

Perhaps he was irked because he did not feel he agreed with some of the premises of some of those debates. I would have to say gently that is sort of the point of committee, you are not supposed to agree you are supposed to probe. As a former Home Office Minister, these debates are not long, these are brief. These are debates like you same bolts, hours were like Mo Farah, I have to say.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- you same bolts. Thank Lord Clement-Jones for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank Lord Clement-Jones for tabling an amendment 318, he is raising an important issue, as we have been discussing the issue
18:55
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-
have been discussing the issue around the change in the nature of work and the gig economy, it is a real challenge for us. And we recognise the complexity and the shortcomings of the U.K.'s current employment status framework. And I can reassure the noble Lord that the government has committed to consulting on a simpler framework for status and this remains our intention. We have been clear that as a result of the complexity, some of the reforms in the Plan to Make Work Pay will take longer to undertake and implement.

We want to get the potential changes to the framework right and we will first consult on the fundamental aspects before taking action. I think this in part echoes the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who again was recognising the complexity and the need to think this through before we get it right. We are determined to follow this through and to take action. And I am sympathetic towards the noble Lord aims to extend the protection of employment law, the self-employed make a huge contribution to the UK economy and as the noble Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe said, many noble Lord, Lord Sharpe said, many enjoy being their own boss and the flexibility that self-employment brings.

Others can find themselves highly dependent on one particular client, with little choice and that can bring challenge and problems for them. So, I appreciate that the noble Lord is seeking to address this, with his amendment. By introducing a new employment status independent contractor and extending employment protections to these individuals. However, have to say to the noble Lord, at this particular amendment it would further complicate what is already a highly complicate what is already a highly complex area. Where he, I'm sure he knows and several high-profile Supreme Court judgements, in recent years.

We want to avoid introducing an additional employment status, before we have had the opportunity to really reflect and consult further on this. In addition, I can assure the noble Lord that the government is committed to supporting and championing the self-employed. The already announced a package of measures to help the self-employed thrive, in good quality self-employment. This includes measures to tackle late payments to small businesses and for the self-employed. However, I would the self-employed. However, I would urge the noble Lord to listen to the recommendations we have and our determination to look at the whole issue is, around the gig economy.

To

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give us a little bit of space to do that. For this reason, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw amendment 318. Before the Baroneseses down, I wonder if she could say what the status of the consultations, she status of the consultations, she mentions, very reassuring words, my mentions, very reassuring words, my lords, that she mentioned. She said there was a consultation on employment status, is that on the employment status, is that on the wake? Would that be, the idea to eventually have the employment rights (No.

2) Bill. That we all rights (No. 2) Bill. That we all look forward to debating, my lords. look forward to debating, my lords. What is the exact status of what the Minister is reassuring us about?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister is reassuring us about? Yes, so this is, several times in the debates we have had on different aspects of employment status. The Plan to Make Work Pay, elements Plan to Make Work Pay, elements about it, implement status is something that we have said that we something that we have said that we will need to duplicate the work on. I do not think it is intended to come back in this piece of come back in this piece of legislation, the consultation hasn't started yet, I would say.

There will be a thorough consultation. We are be a thorough consultation. We are going to carry out a detailed piece of work on this and we will come back with further proposals and how we are going to progress in due course. I hope that answers the noble Lord question.
18:59
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm afraid that a ministerial, in due course is not quite as good as very, very, very soon, that is all I can say. I mean, I can see and sent a lot of goodwill coming from the Minister. This is a really, really important part of the economy. I do appreciate the noble Lord shops thoughtful comments. I didn't expect a resounding endorsement of my amendment, my lords. I did think that what he said about evolution and employment rights, making sure that we were equipped, in our employment law, to keep up with the way that the modern economy was evolving.

I think that is really important, my lords. The Minister clearly recognises that we do need to move forward, in this area. It is the pace and the fact that there are so many people, now part of the gig economy and an increasing number. We see them passing every day, don't we, in deliveries, in careers, in we, in deliveries, in careers, in In order to establish those rights. This is something the government needs to take on board at an early- stage.

We need to press this bit further. Sadly it comes towards the end of this bill whereas actually if we were looking at the modern economy, the numbers involved of independent contractors is so large that this should be something that comes earlier in the bill. That is the way the groupings have turned out. I hope we can continue a further discussion with the Minister in due course and I hope we can move a little bit further forward and say a little bit more urgent and maybe we can have a discussion with the Minister before report stage to that effect.

In the meantime I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. Amendment by leave withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 319 not moved. We now come Amendment 319 not moved. We now come to amendment 320, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Manor Castle. I rise to move amendment 320 which appears in my name and sits inglorious loan splendour and I'm inglorious loan splendour and I'm
19:02
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
not responsible for D grouping it. We will see that this is a new clause to introduce a maximum pay ratio and it says a worker must be paid by an employer at a rate of not less than the 1/10 the employer pays to the highest paid employee in the organisation. Remuneration refers to salary, bonus, pension contribution, share options and benefits in kind. I thank them with the drafting of the amendment and I will start in celebrity land with Usain Bolt and Mo Farah and I'm going further with Mo Farah and I'm going further with the wedding of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez in Venice.

It is responsible reporting from the Guardian with the campaign group No Space for Bezos Witha Billionaire Taking over a City and Totally Disrupting the life of that city for three days. Williams quotes one of the local campaigners, we wanted to problem size the ridiculous and obscene wealth that allows a man to rent a city for three days. Williams reflects that when wealth itself is acting in its own interest, accumulating to the degree that it impacts those of which it comes into contact, we have got a problem.

This amendment sets out Green party policy and is long- time policy, but I'm aiming to constructively assist the government to insist the House perhaps assisting our national debate to demonstrate it is possible to lay down bridges across the deep fissures in our society, not just in Venice or involving Amazon, but the government has looked at an expansion of Amazon in the UK and we think about those small businesses we've been talking about might go out of business because of that.

I would posit that it is essential to bridge these chasms, to tackle the poisonous inequality that affects our political landscape. Bringing the context closer to home, noble Lords may have expected me to site research out only a week ago from the high pay centre which analyses five years of mandatory pay disclosures across the FTSE 350. This was a modest legislative attempt hoping shining a light on the level of inequality might have some impact in reducing that inequality.

What the study shows clearly is the attempt to do that has failed. The figures have cobbled since 2019 and the current ratio is the median ratio of CEOs paid to that employee was 52-1 and that has been at a similar level ever since it was recorded. It was even worse for the FTSE 100 where the employee pay ratio was 78-1. Those are of course middle figures. If we take the wider ones, we go to the security catering group.

575-1 is the ratio not to the lowest paid employee, but the median. Tesco, 431-1. This situation is doing huge damage to our society, and is something I would put to the government that they surely have to tackle. A 10-1 policy, Green party policy, and I know from discussions that the noble lady the Minister had with me before we had this debate, she will not leap up and support my amendment, but I hope the government, the minister, may be able to provide some response to acknowledge we have a problem at least.

For the pay differential, it looks at the low pay environment with those essential to the success of the business are not getting the respect or the pay that they deserve. Meanwhile a few at the top are incentivised to chase short-term profits and share China's evaluation at the -- share price evaluation with no care for the impact on society. We see the bulk of workers trapped or on the minimum wage while money is shuffled away to a far away company headquarters.

Companies protect the sums as reflecting performance, but all too often as we have seen with the water companies that is far from the case. Why is it that every worker on benefit as they contributed if a company is doing well, they have contributed. This is an environmental measure given one element of the CEO lifestyle, the wealthiest people in the UK burns through more energy in flying alone than the poorest used in every aspect of their life. Environmentally, socially and politically, we cannot afford a society split between a few have yachts and the majority have-nots.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 150 insert the clause as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Marshall list. I rise to speak to this amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this amendment and to express a degree of disbelief
19:09
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
at such a proposal being made. I don't believe with due respect to the noble Baroness, I do not believe this amendment is a serious contribution to the debate on fare payer or responsible corporate governance. It is a piece of performative and ideological showmanship, a throwback to worldview that sees profit as a vice, wealth as inherently suspect, and enterprise as something to be managed, limited or downright punished. The idea that government should impose a legal maximum pay ratio, a flat arbitrary ceiling of 10-1 between the highest and lowest paid employees of any organisation, it is not just unworkable, but I believe economically illiterate.

First this would be a gift to Chrissie and every company from High Street shops to high-growth tech firms would have to monitor and police every single form of pay. -- Bureaucracy. Salary, shares, bonuses, benefits in kind, to ensure that they do not cross an artificial marker. Do we want job creators to spend their time calculating compliance spreadsheets instead of investing, innovating and employing? Secondly, I believe it would actively diss incentivised growth and ambition.

High performing individuals, though -- those that drive investment and create jobs would simply leave and take their talent elsewhere. I must remind the House the noble Baroness mentioned Amazon and I join the government in welcoming further investment Amazon is making. As a matter of record, Amazon employs circa 75,000 people in the UK. No one is on zero hours and the minimal annual starting salary is between 28 and £30,000 a year. They provide flexible working opportunities from day one including term time contracts which allow parents, grandparents or carers guaranteed leave during school holidays.

They offer paid parental bereavement leave. Amazon also offer guaranteed hours from day one and employees have the choice of full- time or part-time contracts. I do believe it is important on the record straight. Since 2010, Amazon has invested 64,000 million pounds in the UK or 12,000 million pounds over the last 12 months and support a network of around 100,000 UK based small and medium-sized businesses. I welcome the opportunity the noble Baroness has given me to put the record straight.

Back to her amendment. What it would mean is employers would be forced to avoid hiring lower paid staff altogether to protect the ratio and what would be the result? Fewer jobs, less opportunity and more outsourcing, the very opposite of what a fair and inclusive economy should look like between the least well off and most vulnerable and those at the margins of the labour market. My third point is that this is not fairness, it is levelling down. It is virtually saying do not succeed too much, do not reward excellence, do not grow too big or too fast or be too profitable.

It is not fairness. It is antigrowth, anti-aspiration and antibusiness. I have to tell the noble Baroness that this amendment looks like it would be more appropriate in a Maoist economic manifesto delivered to his revolutionary Qadarif rather than a proposal for modern employment legislation. It is not a serious attempt to solve a policy problem, but a mindset that he is suspicious of success, dismissive of wealth creation and entirely detached from economic reality. Against that background I look forward to hearing the noble Baroness, sorry, the noble minister, in his response which I hope will agree with mine that this is an amendment that should not be accepted.
19:14
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Accord will break out across the table. I thank Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for tabling amendment 320. I do not share Lord Hunt and his disbelief because I probably have an acquaintance with the Green Party manifesto more so than the noble Lord and that is the reason for it. We should be sensitive to wide workforce pay and setting pay for ward rooms and other senior leadership positions and this already addresses the point. The Companies Act requires companies to disclose and explain each year the ratio of CEO paid to that of the lower paid and average paid employers.

Under the UK corporate governance code, listed companies ask for remuneration when setting pay and engage with employees to explain how executive pay of wider company pay policy. Taken together, these measures provide important transparency and accountability in how UK list companies deal with pay and incentive across the whole base. I contrast, amendment would introduce an arbitrary cap on any regardless of the experience or skills they bring to the business as a whole. We are not aware of any other advanced economy that has introduced such a measure and have significant concerns it could undermine the UK competitiveness and it is right they should show why it lines up, but it is important companies compete with the best business talent in the UK and globally.

The amendment would significantly undermine the ability of UK companies to attract and retain skilled employees while providing international competitors the great opportunities to poach UK workers to the detriment of our economy as a whole. For these reasons I ask Baroness Bennett of reasons I ask Baroness Bennett of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This has been a short but very clarifying debate, I think of the clarifying debate, I think of the divisions in our society. And I'm going to be fairly brief in
19:17
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
going to be fairly brief in responding and there are some points I do have to pick our. I have to say the response of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt didn't really sound like a debate out of the 20th century. I started with the story of what is happening today in the coming days in Venice, because we are in the 21st century, where this is a huge political issue. If you are not prepared to acknowledge that that is an issue that is significantly shaping our politics, then you really are not in the 21st century.

To pick up some specific points made by the noble Lord, so that this would force people to monitor and police. As the Minister rightly said, all of this monitoring and reporting is already happening, in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 350 countries. It is the law already. -- Companies. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt said this would dis-incentivise ambition. I think ambition exists right across the board, in companies. I think we have millions of cleaners and caterers, new apprentices out there who have huge ambition and that ambition and that contribution they make absolutely needs to be recognised.

And I do have to pick up the point, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt missed a couple of things about Amazon which I do described as the great parasite. How many jobs has Amazon destroyed? And how many ambulances get called to Amazon warehouses where workers are worked beyond human flesh and blood trying to keep up with robots. That is the reality of Amazon. Now, I'm finally going to come to the point by the level of the Minister about economic competitiveness.

The best business talents. Well, yes we need the best talents, but we need them across the board. One person as the leader of the company is a small part of that the company is a small part of that company. The idea that this is the pyramid and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt said these are the people that create jobs. I am sorry it is the whole of our society that creates jobs. You can put one of the CEOs on a desert island and they won't make a penny.

The infrastructure, the workers, the customers, that is where the wealth comes from and if we don't have a functioning society, then we do not have successful businesses. Anyway, however, I am aware of the time and that there are some people in this chamber who are undoubtedly waiting for next business, so I will restrict myself from going on further. I will be looking to perhaps come back with a more moderate amendment, but I still will be seeking to hear from the government what they plan to do about pay inequalities.

I'm afraid I do not hear in the response from the level of the Minister any answer on what they plan to do about the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

raging problem of pay inequality. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, sorry. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn, this amendment be withdrawn, amendment by leave withdrawn. 321, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. we decided to continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we decided to continue. Won a second while I find the right piece of paper. I arise to right piece of paper. I arise to move an amendment... Sorry, 321, move an amendment... Sorry, 321, which appears in my name. Which requires that the government to review the safety and affordability of workers travelling home after 11 PM. And to make recommendations, including reviewing the best practice. I note here we are talking about some firms that already pay about some firms that already pay workers to travel home.

I want to workers to travel home. I want to acknowledge that this is actually based on work that is being done in Scotland, by the Scots Trades Union Congress and this is based on the safe home worker led initiative was safe home worker led initiative was launched in 2018, by the better than zero campaign, supported by Unite, and other unions. It was launched by the women in leadership because, when workers from hospitality, fast food and the retail sector shared at their own frightening experiences of getting home after a late shift.

Those experiences include sexual assaults, verbal harassment, violence and stalking. Now, we have a situation where large numbers of workers are now in these sectors, really having the experience of not being able to get home safely. Your Lordships' House is very well aware of how limited late-night transport can be. We currently have nearly 9 million night-time workers and 15% of those are in low-paid roles, compared to 10% employees. When you take in restaurants, pubs and entertainment activities, that rises to 38%.

You have low-paid workers, many of them are female workers. They finish work at 11 PM, or midnight, or 1 AM, how do they get home? This is an amendment, a modestly constructed amendment that seeks to say that if you have a working these hours where society doesn't provide the transport to get you home safely, your employer has the responsibility to get you home

**** Possible New Speaker ****

safely. I beg to move. Amendments are proposed, after

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendments are proposed, after clause 150 insert the clauses
19:23
19:24
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle for tabling the amendment 321. We recognise that the concern that underpins the noble Baroness amendment and we agree that workers finishing late at night should be able to travel home safely and affordably. And we are aware that for some workers, particularly those in hospitality, healthcare and security, late show's composer challenges when public transport options are limited. We also acknowledge welcome that some employees, including firms in the city of London had taken proactive steps to support their staff, with steps to support their staff, with save transport home.

What we do not believe it is appropriate to legislate for review at this time, I hope I can assure you Lordship's House they were committed to supporting workers well-being and safety. That commitment I would say is evident throughout the bill. As we discussed in the second session of committee in early May, another opportunity for a history lesson so long ago, the bill strengthens the right to request flexible working from day one by appointment. This flexible working empowers workers and employees to agree working patterns to suit individual circumstances, including, where appropriate and reasonable, avoiding late finishes.

We are also taking steps to improve enforcement of existing rights and to ensure that employees meet their obligations to provide a safe working conditions. I would add that although it is not a subject for this legislation, a discussion tonight. We are of course as the government committed to reviving and rejuvenating and investing in public transport, not least through and legislating through the Bus Services Bill, the creation of the GBR and improving rail services, huge amounts being invested, across the country, particularly in the North, in new transport projects.

All of which will provide a great level of options and service, for, not just people who are working late, but also people who want to enjoy the night-time economy and use public transport more generally. While we cannot support this amendment, we do show the underlying concern and will continue to work that workers are protected and supported. I asked Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw the amendment. I thank those were participated

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank those were participated in this very brief debate. I'm glad that the Lord Sharpe of Epsom and I can find points of agreement. There can find points of agreement. There is an issue here. I thank the novel is an issue here. I thank the novel of the Minister for his response. As to briefly respond to a couple of points. I do not think offering
19:27
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
points. I do not think offering flexible working is really going to work with a pub or restaurant. That is not going to be a valuable option. I guess I say we're talking about public transport, where overwhelmingly for these workers affected, we are going to be talking not about ground infrastructure projects, but about local buses, which have been absolutely massively decimated, over the recent decade. Nonetheless, I think the point has been made and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordship's pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 322, not moved? Amendment 323, Lord Palmer, not moved. The 323, Lord Palmer, not moved. The momentous reach through three. The momentous reach through 3A -- momentous reach through 3A -- amendment 323A not moved.... Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I beg I beg to I beg to move I beg to move House I beg to move House resumes. I beg to move House resumes. We will then move on to consider the question at the start of the debate. question at the start of the debate. We will not return to the Employment We will not return to the Employment Rights Bill, before 20, 27. -- 8:27 PM.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary, Question for Short Debate, Question for Short Debate, education

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in state schools, Baroness Keane. I rise to us as Question for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to us as Question for Short Debate. I'm co-chair, I have chaired for more than 10 years. I
19:29
Baroness Keeley Portrait Baroness Keeley (Labour)
-
-
chaired for more than 10 years. I worked with Lord Berkeley who has been co-chair as well as a Lord Aberdare, Baroness call Carty and other noble Lords. During the last six years that there has been a strong message coming towards them that the growing crisis in music education in state schools. I want to start with a review of issues in that crisis, by this government last July. Firstly, welcome the further by noble friend Baroness Debbonaire a in her maiden speech yesterday, was a pleasure to work with my noble friend, in the shadow team in 2023/2024, when she was shadow secretary and I was working in music.

It was a pleasure to hear my noble friend play the cello. At the heart of the crisis in music education in our state schools, issues affecting quantity and quality. The ones I want to highlight are, a shortage of specialist music teachers teaching confidence and expertise. The lack of curriculum time for music, declining up taking courses and access to music, at GCSE and A- level. These issues have been explored in debates and reports, in the Department and all Parliamentary groups.

The 2019 education and state of the nation. The policy of the former government and accountability measures like the English baccalaureate has had significant weighted impact on music education in schools. We also heard that the curriculum time music, which is statutory for Key Stage 1 to 3 had reduced, along with opportunities for children to pursue GCSE. The report also pose serious questions regarding the music education demoralise from the music in our schools. The government should review the progress and accountability measures, or at the very least add a six pillar for the EBacc for creative subjects.

The 29 report on the social impact also recommended the government and arts subjects. More recently in your Lordships' House macro the 2024 report the 11 to 16-year-old committee recommended the Government should abandon EBacc school performance measures and review the A 2022 survey found significant variability in music provision particularly in primary schools and found that key stage three had been narrowed in a canneries by placing music on a carousel or rota system where it was only offered in rotation with other subjects.

The cultural learning highlighted how access to music education opportunities varies greatly across the country with 42% of schools no longer entering and young people's take-up of musical instruments and ensemble playing greatly varies by socio-economic background. We can say this means that far too many young people are missing out on the benefits, experiences and opportunities that music education can bring. The curriculum assessment review could lay an important role in improving music education in state schools. Two of those issues that must be resolved are the pressures on schools created by the accountability measures and the lack of curriculum time for music.

Adam of curriculum time for music. Adam Whitaker has worked on the issue of significant disparity of access to advanced music level communication and I grateful to Dr Whittaker and Dr Anderson for making suggestions to improve the quality and quantity of music education in state schools the first recommendation is to ensure a sustained, universal music curriculum throughout a young person's life. We are nowhere near this particularly at secondary level in state schools where report after report has shown music education opportunities are not being sustained in state schools.

I want to mention the excellent work done in churches and cathedrals working with schools and the community. To mention a few, the London harmonic orchestra as the music makers bright sparks programme and the Royal Ballet and Opera learning program reaches 100,000 pupils per year. Opera Holland Park has held two performances for local schools and the national schools singing programme worked with over 36,000 children and young people. The enrichment activities are important and we must make sure music at school is present as part of the curriculum for every young person.

The next recommendation is for government to support the availability and uptake. A-level music has been a long-standing feature of musical training of many musicians, however five local authorities without a single level three music entry including A- levels, Barnsley, Hartlepool, Knowsley and Barking and Dagenham. In Hertfordshire, there were 378 music entries and in Essex 321. These inequalities start at GCSE with Blackpool and Middlesbrough having 35 and 53 entries for GCSE music compared with 1400 in Hertfordshire.

Low levels of entry in those areas highlight the music qualifications are not available to all young people in all local authority. This matters because a child cannot choose a subject local schools do not offer unless they can afford to go out to another school and they should not have to do that to get music education. National statistics show a marked production in the time teachers are spending on music despite growth in the pupil cohort at secondary schools stops in 2011, it has fallen by over 6% but the most concerning thing is the decline in examinations school years is because school hours for key stage four declined by 9% and the largest fall music was in key stage for with a catastrophic fall of 40% since 2011.

This reduction in hours shows qualifications like A-level music is being restricted or just not offered in school, key stage five and up in some areas. It may mean that where such qualifications are offered they are not given the same proportion of teaching time that they were in 2011-12 making it a potential disadvantage for those that wish to pursue a musical pathway to higher levels of achievement. State schools need to be supported by government to offer music qualifications ) to the end of key stage five even when small numbers take up the option.

Small subjects supplement could be transformative. For example, Dr transformative. For example, Dr wicked to wicked -- Dr Whittaker and Dr Anderson say that it could be delivered for less than £750,000 and if the scheme was targeted to address disparity I mentioned it could deliver more. Support like this from government could help protect progression routes from pupils into advanced music education. The next recommendation is to address the music teacher recruitment crisis to invest in high quality, reflective continuing development.

There is a continuing significant shortfall in music teachers with almost 60% shortfall on the recruitment target of last year. While there are over 400 fewer secondary teachers than in 2011, there are almost 1200 teachers in key stage five. The workforce declined by 35%. The loss of expertise may prove difficult to recover as not all music teachers can teach immediately key stage five especially in their first year following qualifying. The Ofsted subject report on music in 2023 highlighted considerable differences in how well the teachers teach.

In some secondary schools the Ofsted report found that because the music teacher is specialist they do not require further subject specific training and this can result in significant gaps in subject knowledge not being addressed. This is critical for music teachers and is problematic because music teachers are the only teacher in the department and difficulties covering absence means they are less likely to be released for it. Dr Anderson and Dr Whittaker feel that training music teachers in early careers while investing in the reflective CPD is a focus that can make a real difference.

On costing, £5 million a year, each secondary school music teacher could be released for one day for CPD which could improve musical lives and 3.21 minute ago million employees. We have just a short time for the debate. I hope I have opened up some issues that need to be addressed and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about government action to improve music

**** Possible New Speaker ****

education in state schools. It is an honour to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is an honour to follow Baroness Keeley and I pay tribute to Baroness Keeley and I pay tribute to her securing the debate. I declare my interest as chair and co-founder
19:39
Baroness Fleet Portrait Baroness Fleet (Conservative)
-
-
of the London music fund and the former chair of the model music curriculum and the plan for music education. I would like to say how much I look forward to the noble Baroness Baroness Debbonaire making her maiden speech today. No government in the last 25 years has done enough to support and promote music education. What do they not understand? Music brings young people together, helps emotional and social development and helps reading, listening, concentration and memory and it filters through to help with grades and exams and music changes lives.

The previous government made a start and published the national plan for music education in 2022 delivered by teachers working with music hubs across the country with guaranteed funding. Never enough but a start. What did the Labour government do? They pulled the plug on the national plan. Since then, there has been nothing but uncertainty and anxiety. Has funding been secured? Has musicales been supported? No have specialist teachers been reassured? No. Have they been exempt from NI contributions? No.

What are the plans to reduce hub administrative burdens? Astonishingly despite strong headwinds, many schools deliver outstanding music education. Not enough but many do thanks to the doggy determination of music leaders and teachers. The brilliant music and dance scheme is secure for a year, but then what? And as the proposed national centre for arts and music, there is confusion and dismay. Will it be new bureaucracy or just an information centre? No budget, just delay. Only schools can have a music department with three years funding at least to allow everyone to plan properly.

With support of an ambitious trust, music can be delivered in every school and we wait the review, but as of today, all of those in music and the arts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feel let down by the amendment. I thank Baroness Keeley for the opportunity to hold this debate and opportunity to hold this debate and I look forward to hearing the maiden
19:41
Lord Shipley Portrait Lord Shipley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I look forward to hearing the maiden Firstly I would like to acknowledge the important work of the 43 music hubs and organisations which partner state schools such as the Church of England. I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of the many cultural organisations which promote young people's participation in music such as the glasshouse in Gateshead, and they make an outstanding contribution. The evidence is nevertheless pretty clear. Music is only part of the National Curriculum to key stage three.

We need more secondary schools to be teaching music because 42% of secondary schools did not have any GCSEs entry in music in 2024. The vacancy rate for music teachers increased six fold between 2010 and 2023 and teacher recruitment in music over the same period dropped by half and the result is there are fewer students studying at secondary level. We have seen a drop of 1/3 in qualification in music achieved at level two. As Baroness Keeley reminded us in 2019, the House of Commons culture media and sport Committee found the introduction of EBacc had resulted in fewer students studying music at secondary level because only English, maths, and humanity, language and science at GCSE's are measured at the proportion of students reaching grade 5.

We remain deeply concerned about the gap between the government's reassuring rhetoric and evidence presented to us of the decline in music provision in state schools for which the EBacc is blamed and affects students from less advantaged socio- backgrounds disproportionately. The question is what can the government do about this situation? I hope the Minister will tell us what plans they have two richer to reverse the trend. I thank Baroness Keeley for securing the debate and I look to the maiden speech.

The musical world was
19:45
Lord Berkeley of Knighton Portrait Lord Berkeley of Knighton (Crossbench)
-
-
thrilled to have NX orchestral player to have them in such an important position and I enjoy important position and I enjoy seeing the cello case coming down the corridor. I am sure she the corridor. I am sure she approached it all too significantly, the power of music in schools. the power of music in schools. Yesterday I recorded a conversation with the children's commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza who said that Dame Rachel de Souza who said that her success in turning round failing schools was hugely due to music.

What do we need to achieve? An What do we need to achieve? An inspiring teacher, the opportunity to experience and perform music. Rachel mentioned those children left Rachel mentioned those children left agog as she rose through the agog as she rose through the stratosphere with orchestral, stratosphere with orchestral, operatic visits to schools that were absolutely vital. I have a suggestion for the government in the suggestion for the government in the light of the question. Subsidise light of the question.

Subsidise more visits to schools. Up the number of teachers. Make sure the hubs understand the policies and rationale behind the decisions. Do not tie them up in redtape. And the not tie them up in redtape. And the reforms on compliance. I hope Becky Francis will put creativity back in schools. I would like to see music back on the curriculum. It would make such a statement. But most important, more vital still, let's give children who do not have the advantage the ability to listen to and make music.

Surely a natural step for a Labour government of which Baroness Debbonaire is such a distinguished member.
19:46
Baroness Debbonaire Portrait Baroness Debbonaire (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to follow Lord Berkeley. It has been a pleasure seeing him in real life rather than just hearing on radio three which is still a great pleasure. I rise for my first speech in the House. I thank you for the warm welcome and I'm grateful to Baroness Keeley, we Lord Berkeley has vowed to me it is a cellist already. Music more broadly arts and culture are everywhere and everything. The tune we sing in the shower, the stories we read to children, the poems that There really is something for everyone.

Just saying that is not enough. We need to make a political case for the arts. Arts give us ways to dream, to imagine a better world. They are good for our economy, for our lives and for our planet. They give good economic return for tourism, jobs, the social return is enormous. This is an ecosystem of laws, the commercial and the non- commercial, the different range of skills, they all interact to sustain a goal. Much of this sector is as other noble Lords referred to, we risk losing our reputation for excellence.

I benefited from music education and I want every child to have that chance. In this ecosystem means that the person who started out at the National Theatre becomes a writer or on succession, and the film is why film soundtracks are recorded in the UK, as musicians really are the best. A TV costume designer visits a museum to capture exactly how a suit of armour moves. The game's creator inspired by their art teacher, the ecosystem is essential, not optional.

When we do this right, music and arts give enjoyment for everyone. For people enjoyment for everyone. For people from all backgrounds to earn a good living. Opera, for example as my noble friend were no employs are so many working class people from the chorus to the technicians, it really is a way to make your way in the arts. When we do it wrong, opportunities become exclusive and opportunities become exclusive and we allow talent to go undeveloped. When museums are honest about the stories behind the objects, they make better museums.

When the performing arts are at their best, they tell better stories and have more excellent performers. Fighting for the whole ecosystem My Lords and for everyone to enjoy it, will always be necessary and I will use my skills, my knowledge, my experience and my time in this place, to make that political case, while here. Thank you.
19:48
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
What an honour and a privilege and a pleasure my noble friend, Baroness Debbonaire and congratulate her on her maiden speech. I've never been present of her maiden speech that it had to be made in compressed circumstances, such as this. As you spoken with great passion about a subject which he knows a great deal and that can thank Baroness Keeley for arranging the debates, so many members on such a short time, shows you the next time this happens, we must have more time.

I only have a minute or two and I won't suspend it all praise my noble friend and what she brings to the House. Her musical talent, her patronage of the arts, her extensive experience over the years with women's refuges. The national office of the Federation of England. She was the National research manager for the anti- domestic violence organisation and she brings all this enormous experience to this House. And of course she brought it in equal measure to the other House. She was first elected a decade ago to represent us and I hope the House will understand I have a lifelong family affliction.

Five years later she was already shadow Leader of the House. Part of the important Parliamentary debates in the 2017 to 2019 Parliamentary session. Before being appointed as Shadow Secretary of State for DCMS. She did in that role enormous amounts to prepare for the government, that was elected in June last year. I am proud to do so, she is a cellist, she has performed professionally and still does perform professionally, because she is a member as members may know of the parliamentary string quartet which is performed at both ends of this House of Westminster and I recommend when you get a chance.

The statutory instrument used to rehearse in her office, in the House of Commons, where there were piles of boxes. I should declare an interest, my own daughter is the first violinist. I endorse everything she said in her maiden speech about the importance of music and everything I've heard so far. And when I look back on my own experience, my own estate secondary school had fantastic music department. Will it instruments, we had a choir, we had an entire orchestra.

I don't think you can start music at too young an age. Both my children started at the age of five, just before. They do not know a life without it. The noble Baroness, Baroness Finn said about the importance of music to people's lives. Absolutely crucial. Both my children were going to study at the Royal College of music. They poured over Europe with orchestras which is why am so strongly any moves that help repair the relationship the artist touring Europe. My time is up, we must not allow music to become a reserve the private sector.

Have I noble friend enjoyed a long and distinguished career in the House, the next time I hope we managed to hear from her there will be much more time to hear her opinions, her judgement and her passion and I hope the whole House agrees. Many congratulations.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Until recently I chair an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Until recently I chair an organisation aimed at inspiring young people for a lover Pastoral music to stop we develop teaching music to stop we develop teaching resources for schools are based on fantastic for schools. Schools are
19:52
Lord Aberdare Portrait Lord Aberdare (Crossbench)
-
-
fantastic for schools. Schools are delighted for them, scaling up prove challenging. How can we do more with the resources and dedication. The teachers are from the House, from musicians, from opera companies, from fires. From grant givers. We need better awareness of what is actually available. And the central hub, which perhaps could be one thing run by the International Centre for strategic and, can signpost resources and guidance for schools. We should also actively share good practice and success stories.

Recent events hosted by the Opera APPG have shared check showcase a big examples. An East London private school, a school choir which is sung in level M and the class of oh Karina players reading music at site. -- La Boheme Music fosters discipline and could motivate other schools. We should encourage more partnerships and less fragmentation. None of this schoolwork without trade music teachers including part-time, nonspecialist and other music teachers. The government should focus on recruiting, training and retaining them and ensuring they have time in the curriculum and the support they need to turn the national plan for physical education from fantasy into reality.

I have actually got within my time, close enough to be able to congratulate the noble Lady Debbonaire on her maiden speech. I've now overrun.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Respectfully say to noble Lords, we do need to keep to the two-minute we do need to keep to the two-minute timeline so we have the time for the Minister to respond.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister to respond. I declare my interest, the noble Lady is a distinct member. With Lady is a distinct member. With countless debates and each time I feel a growing sense of frustration in the anger, for all the fine words
19:54
Lord Black of Brentwood Portrait Lord Black of Brentwood (Conservative)
-
-
in the anger, for all the fine words we never seem to make progress. It I was very critical of the last government, better music education in state schools. Music should be a bipartisan issue, finally we see some progress. A year on from the election and still nothing has changed. No progress on post Brexit Visa issues, curriculum, funding long-term financial scalability of the Music and Dance Scheme, both forced to exist from hand to mouth. Because this action has been going on for so long there is now re- danger of terrible damage to the entire ecosystem which depends totally on the talent of young musicians to be able to progress from the earliest years to the start of their careers.

An intensive pipeline music and singing in primary schools, developing parasitic teaching, professional music teachers, entry to conserver trois University, intensive one-to- one teaching and then career opportunities. It cannot be left to chance, it needs understanding from government, coordinated strategic approach at the moment we do not have that. The Government is not joined up on policies spread, across at least four departments. No one is in charge and there is no coherent national plan. That must change and we need someone to take over the responsibility.

We need to establish long-term sustainable funding on the hubs and the MDS. We need action on the curriculum and we need to make music attractive as a profession for young people to enter the which means sorting out touring visas and also ensuring we have copyright regime in place to tackle AI. I hope next time we have a debate, there will be meaningful progress on all these issues.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I congratulate Baroness Keeley on her competent introduction. Congratulations to to Baroness Debbonaire on a passionate maiden Debbonaire on a passionate maiden speech. So Keir Starmer's speech in speech. So Keir Starmer's speech in March of last year he said, from day one we will reform the school accountability framework, to make
19:57
Earl of Clancarty Portrait The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
-
sure our account. They want long gone and the accountability measures which have nothing to do with the curriculum, per se are still with us. We are to remember that both were introduced to prioritise academic subjects and therefore less than the importance of art subjects. Removing them is an essential prerequisite, for improving not just music education in our schools, the arts education more generally. Secondly, music needs to be fully brought back, into our schools and resources and funding should be made available to do so, as it should be for all art subjects.

Thirdly, the pipeline. Central plan published yesterday with a plan for the more commercialised creative industries will stop it was not a plan for the arts. And depressingly, the cuts are DCMS funding announced in the spending review confirmed this. I understand the government wishing to capitalise on areas which are already commercial. It is what the previous government did, but that combination of local authority and DCMS funding was what has allowed both the necessary and innovative work, in music, including classical music, in dance, theatre and arts to flourish.

Also feeding it to the commercial ecosystem. This requires, as always requires that the government investment, which nevertheless gets repaid many times over and financially, as indeed the recent Arts Council report bleeding the crowd demonstrates. We urgently need that plan, a plan for the arts. Because without it even good music

**** Possible New Speaker ****

education will be worth far less. As the governments important Curriculum and Assessment Review Curriculum and Assessment Review continues, it is a timely debate and I'm very grateful to my noble friend I'm very grateful to my noble friend for securing it. And for the opportunity to contribute, alongside it so so many other noble
19:58
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath Portrait Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Labour)
-
-
colleagues. I listen to my noble friend Baroness Debbonaire's wonderful maiden speech. At least as I know full well. Children have a right to know about how music has been written, from Bach to Bronstein to Beyonce, whilst 99% of adults have not become a musician, they will all attend concerts or enjoy the stimulations of a beautiful song will Symphony. Using to compose a form is everything to learning to read books or a new language. My husband proud master asked me to add this bit.

The importance of understanding the sequence is not just entertaining. It is academic discipline in its own right. Music education is not about toxic culture, every child engaging in music, whatever level makes most sense for them. Some children who find amateurs call difficult only attend because of their music teacher. They attend because of an extracurricular club they can succeed and therefore feel that they belong in school. Many schools deploy pupil premium funding to provide music lessons for this very reason.

So that disadvantaged children feel successful. And precisely for this reason their reading, writing and maths improves too. Now is the time, with the curriculum review that a number of noble colleagues have mentioned is coming to its final conclusions, it is time to ensure music education plays the fullest possible part, for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all children's schooling. I club my congratulations to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I club my congratulations to Baroness Keeley on securing this debate and the honourable lady Baroness Debbonaire on her Baroness Debbonaire on her fascinating maiden speech. So far we've all sung from the same hymn
20:00
Baroness Wheatcroft Portrait Baroness Wheatcroft (Crossbench)
-
-
we've all sung from the same hymn sheet. We want more and better music education in state schools. The last government shared that aim and managed to simultaneously be inadequate and Wadi ambitious. This government, I'm sure embraces the same aims, but isn't getting anywhere close. We do know that music is fundamental to improving the education attainment of all children. The provision of instruments is crucial. It makes an enormous difference in deprived schools, for children to have an instrument of their own, to play in instrument of their own, to play in an orchestra, to be part of a team.

It takes them out of gangs and into positive teams. The provision of instruments was promised, it was going to be 25 million for expensive equipment. Guidance on assessing that money is almost impossible and I doubt anything has been handed I doubt anything has been handed One can only sympathise with teachers eking out what they have got in storage. We know the orchestras that can survive make a huge difference. We must thank Andrew Lloyd Webber and the work of the music in secondary schools trust and we need help for them.

But given money is tight, I want to make a special plea for the importance of music in maths and we know the importance of maths in society. New research shows early indications are that maths can help not only if it is taught separately but integrated into the teaching of maths and music. It makes a difference to both. I urge the government the possibility of merging early years communication of maths and music.
20:02
Lord Kirkham Portrait Lord Kirkham (Conservative)
-
-
The deputy patron of the former chair of the Duke of Edinburgh award. The charities focus on engaging children in challenging outdoor activity, but music has exactly the same potential to build resilience, self-confidence, perseverance and teamwork in skills, boosting mental health and delivering satisfaction in real time away from mobiles and tablets and screens. In a world where artificial screens. In a world where artificial intelligence will take jobs, it will help children to leave school with a wide-ranging interest and hobbies.

We go back to the time when children seeing in assembly and there is a relentless focus on stem subjects squeezing out music and culture as if possessing soft skills in the arts does not make better scientists and technologists. There are music hubs, but it means that a middle- class parents knows what is available and should push to get it. What of future musicians? The government funds the subsidised places of specialist independent schools, but one of the leaders in the field, 70% of pupils receiving state support delivering effectively a government programme to enable gifted but disadvantaged children the opportunity for social mobility through the arts.

Music is under pressure of time and money at every level of our education system and it richly deserves and needs more of both. Government should focus not on cost, but value and the importance of music to education, society to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

life is invaluable. In stressing the importance of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In stressing the importance of music education in schools is ably emphasised by Baroness Keeley and
20:05
Lord Harries of Pentregarth Portrait Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
-
-
emphasised by Baroness Keeley and Baroness Debbonaire. I would like to talk about the contribution the Church of England is making to musical education on our young people at the moment. The parish church uses it at the cathedral seeing project to widen it across the whole dioceses and I'm working with more than 2000 children a year. Sheffield Cathedral are teaching a thousand children each week and some partner schools have been spoken and Liverpool Cathedral in partnership with Liverpool John Moore University again deeply engaged with the community.

Sheffield, Portsmouth and Liverpool require them to deliberately recruit from a range of schools in urban and suburban and actively seek boys and girls stop choirs with well-established heritage choir schools are winding the participation and supporting local skills with great success and seeing great diversity within cathedral choirs and St Paul's is working with 12 primary state schools across London through their choral partnership programme and multiple children from their partner schools joined the choir on scholarships. Choral music and singing is a fundamental part of the cultural heritage of the country.

Cathedrals and churches which are already paying their part on the musical education of children are open to increase contribution in cooperation with states, primary and secondary school and we hope the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government will build on that. I would like to congratulate my noble friend Baroness Keeley on noble friend Baroness Keeley on obtaining this debate and I congratulate my noble friend Baroness Debbonaire on her very Baroness Debbonaire on her very passionate maiden speech. There is no doubt from all speeches tonight,
20:07
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick Portrait Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Labour)
-
-
no doubt from all speeches tonight, we hear of the importance of music on the curriculum as a tool to develop our children and the need for children to have equal fair access to music education. If I could give a perspective from Northern Ireland, there are inequalities in access to and in the provision of music education, rural versus urban, and more affluent areas against economically disadvantaged areas and of course in the Northern Ireland context segregation and sectarian factors play a part.

Those inequalities and access to music provision in schools led to students not being able to develop their talents in music and the dramatic arts. Those who have the accessed have Excel on the global stage -- excelled on the local stage. What about the role of music education on the state sector with those with special needs and their role the voluntary sector in ensuring inclusion, development of boys and asperity with musical instruments. -- Dexterity with musical instruments. Would she ensure that music education throughout the UK is shared and that the role of the voluntary sector along with education providers is celebrated as they provide music and dramatic arts against funding and staff challenges to ensure a further development of all children within

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the state sector. I would like to congratulate Baroness Debbonaire on her excellent Baroness Debbonaire on her excellent maiden speech and Baroness Keeley for securing the debate. We cannot
20:09
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
for securing the debate. We cannot flourish without expert teachers and recruitment to initial teacher training has fallen by 76% since 2020. While a 10,000 bursary is available, music training pays £9225 in tuition fees. Support is welcome but they are almost certainly taking on significant debt to train. In contrast, maths and physics teachers receive three times as much, enough to cover fees and living costs. This sends a clear and damaging message, sends a clear and damaging message, that music matters left.

-- less. Government messaging matters. We should not be surprised when graduates look elsewhere. National campaigns must champion teaching and celebrate the impact and make it clear becoming a music teacher is not only valued but vital. We must also offer music teachers careers and pathways that keep them in the classroom. Restoration of schemes would help us retain the best and allow them to mentor the next generation. We must support school leaders. Two often it is squeezed out by the EBacc confined to carousel timetables or forced into silent worksheet lessons.

Music is practical, messy, joyful, and if Head Teacher's misunderstand this, children miss out. We must help leaders understand what high-quality information looks like and provide clearer guidance to Head Teachers and trust music teachers to deliver it. On music hubs, 2024 reconstruction created complex and added the workload without benefit. Funding is top sliced and local expertise marginalised. If the Arts Council, make this work in practice, it is the time to ask if we can

**** Possible New Speaker ****

oversee it. I welcome Baroness Debbonaire and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome Baroness Debbonaire and declare my interest as 10 years of the chair of the aid foundation which combined with music performance taking singing into performance taking singing into schools and going into primary
20:11
20:13
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
Please let me thank Lady Keeley for securing this important debate and her Oral Question today and let me thank Baroness Debbonaire who absolutely correctly highlighted the social return of music. We know music has the ability to enrich lives and it is worrying the future of music education is at risk. In government we introduced 43 music education hubs and committed £70 million a year of funding to those very hubs. We announced the music progression fund piloted by Youngstown's UK supporting 1000 young people from loving families.

The UK music Chief Executive called on the Secretary of State for education to turbocharge music education funding and invest in 1000 new music teachers as has Ed Sheeran in his open letter to the Prime Minister. What other government plans to recruit more music plans to recruit more music teachers? A survey of 2000 music teachers showed 20% of primary school teachers reported no regular music lesson in their class and the majority are not taught by a music specialist. Almost 40% of secondary schools now have no compulsory music lesson in year nine.

Surely this should mean reading alarm bells. How do they address pupils taking GCSE and A-level music? We recognise the plans to launch a national centre for arts and music education, but as Baroness Fleet well highlighted, there is little detail other than the centre is expected to be established in September 26. That is 15 months away and as Ed Sheeran said in his letter signed by over 500 signatories from the world of music, we are losing time, the time to act is now so please can the to act is now so please can the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, thank you all of you,
20:16
Baroness Blake of Leeds Portrait Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, thank you all of you, everyone in the chamber for such a richer debate and especially with the time pressures that we are all the time pressures that we are all facing. Can I thank my noble friend Baroness Keeley for opening at this a valuable debate. She is such a great advocate for music education and I think we should all be very grateful for her. Many noble Lords have considerable expertise and experience in this area and it has been my privilege to talk to many of them over the last few months.

Can I start by thanking my noble friend, Baroness Debbonaire for her tremendous maiden speech. I'm delighted she was able to make a contribution, in her maiden speech, contribution, in her maiden speech, On the importance of quality and quantity of music education, in schools. I know this is a subject dear to her heart. As we have heard, she will continue to make a valuable contribution to this House and I think we can all look forward to it. I particularly echo her sentiment that we all need to be fighting for the whole ecosystem and was a powerful contribution.

Can I thank the noble Viscount Stansgate, for he is very real warm words and his acknowledgement of his family connection to this subject. Noble Lords, this government is clear. Music education must not be the preserve of the privileged few. I think picking up on Lord Wallace's points. Can I reassure him that as part of our opportunity mission we want to open access to the arts, including music, so young people can develop in the activity and find their voice.

This is important in its own right. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley said, creative exploration is a critical part of a rich education and also helps young people find opportunities and also power growth, in the creative industries, as well as raising self-esteem, resilience and contributing to the well-being, as are so many noble Lords have raised. It can bring a range of wider benefit for young people to, as we've heard. And to maths. Other academic outcomes, in other areas, as well has been picked up on by Baroness Ramsay, banners which craft.

I've mentioned this before, with Opera North projects in harmony, delivered in most deprived schools. The impact on their maths attainment was incredible. We all have to look at these examples and can I reassure my noble friend Baroness Ritchie you must work across the UK and we mustn't, all the voluntary groups that can be involved. As Baroness Keeley mentioned, so many other organisations. The London Philharmonic, making sure that high deprivation is targeted, to the enormous benefit.

Can I turned to responding to the noble Baroness lady fleet. Can I reassure her that the work that was done in the national plan is not lost and is being used. Can I thank her for that contribution and Baroness Bull, as well. It will become integral to the workplace and moving forward. As part of our Plan for Change we are committed to ensuring arts and culture thrives in every part of the country. With call opportunities for people to engage and benefit from work, in the arts and culture, where they live.

The government has announced a 270 million investment in our arts venues and museums, libraries, our heritage to, made up of multiple funds, including air created foundations funds, just to name one. And we are considering the generous tax reliefs, just come to pick up on, lack of government action, around touring, for example. At least this government has had a meeting with its European counterparts. Those discussions are part of the European Union research and we look forward to the outcome of those talks.

As per the commitment, and labours creating a roadmap. DCMS is undertaking a review, documenting current and past funding, for the arts, culture and heritage sector, as referenced by Lord Berkeley. The Earl of Clancarty, of course discussed these measures a great deal and he raises pertinent points. I would point to the independent review of the arts Council which has been undertaken. At the moment, which will examine whether regions have access to high-quality arts and culture and whether everybody is able to participate in and absorb culture and activity, regardless of their background.

We want every child, regardless of background to have a rich, broad, inclusive, innovative curriculum, including creative subjects, such as music. That is why we have the independent review led by Professor Becky Francis, looking at all subjects including music and seeking to deliver a Britain that prepares young people for life and work of including in creative subjects and skills. It is being informed by evidence, data and in close consultation with educational professionals. Perhaps, there are over 7,000 responses to the public call for evidence helps to explain why it will take some time to put that together.

We are expecting a final report, in the autumn along with the government's own response. And we will consider associated accountability measures, such as EBacc progress, mentioned by And And in And in the And in the examples And in the examples of And in the examples of Blackpool versus Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire versus Hertfordshire, Hertfordshire have to say is where my nephew is. Just as an aside. With regard to Music Hubs, could I reassure the reorganisation won't cause additional work load to hubs and responding to Baroness Fleet, I think Music Hubs play a vital role in theatres across England, supporting children and young people and providing opportunities for them to progress.

We have heard about the range of services. The government continues to support this crucial program. Music's grand Harbour funding of 76 million has been secured and longer term funding will be confirmed in due course. Wider access to musical instruments, the government is already investing £25 million in capital funding, for musical instruments equipment and technology. The Music and Dance Scheme that we have heard of, in responding to Lord Kakkar, absolutely recognise the waters of specialist training for stop that's why the government continues to provide support, to help students access to specialist music committees.

Millions over the next academic year. The details of her that are and have been well profiled. This important scheme provides a means tested bursaries and grants. Again making sure that young people don't miss out. The government support for the arts raised by the Baroness, Werner Shipley. So many areas, once we haven't mentioned, the government has announced a 270 million of invest, in venues, plans for change, ensuring arts and culture thrives in every part of the country. Generous tax reliefs, providing as well, £3 million for its creative careers program, absolutely critical that young people get to realise their young people get to realise their ambition, going forward.

Much comment about high quality teaching. Absolutely fundamental and will make the biggest difference on a child's outcomes. That's why the Plan for Change is committed to committing an additional 6.5 thousand extra teachers come across the sector. We are also offering teacher training incentive package worth £233 million. £37 million increase on the last cycle. Including a £10,000 tax-free and free bursaries. We are seeing an increase in teacher training numbers, going up still. Much more to do. As Lord Aberdare mentioned, we need to showcase a good practice and I believe the National Centre for Arts and Music Education will enable us to do just that.

That is why we announced, in March our intention to launch a new, the new centre, offering excellent arts education. Building on existing support, for music, education. We have the music opportunities pilot, targeting disadvantaged pupils and those with SEND, investing £2 million, supporting a four-year period. Delivered by in 12 areas of the country. This hasn't been a rich debate. I know this will continue to be the subject of much interest. I just want to pay tribute to the contribution from Lord Harris, just to say that the Department is providing a grant of over £210,000 to require the schools Association recognising that there school scholarship program, offering means-tested, a telling difference.

I apologise for the whistlestop tour. I have 30 seconds left to finish this debate. It has been a pleasure to be here. In closing this debate I would like to underline this government's commitment to ensuring that all the children engage with high quality music education, in and through their schools and leading into their careers. Creative subjects like music are a vital part of a rich broad school experience and also vital to our economic success stuff and as I started, we must all work together to ensure that these are not the preserve of the privileged

**** Possible New Speaker ****

few. My Lords, I think we will allow a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I think we will allow a moment for those noble Lords were not taking part in the next business

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, House My Lords, House to My Lords, House to be My Lords, House to be again My Lords, House to be again in committee on the Employment Rights Bill, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bill, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. I beg to move movie House to again resolve itself into a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

committee upon the bill. The House to again resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. As into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moment three 320C Moment three 320C --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Moment three 320C -- amendment 320. It achieves the purpose as it is intended to achieve. It is a more comprehensive amendment than the several that have been debated already. Providing certain provisions within the act falling. The relevance of the amendment as I should argue goes beyond the bill. Too often in the past, legislative success from a Minister was seen as the bill receiving Royal assent. Evidence of the constitutional committee and is a 2004 inquiry into committee and is a 2004 inquiry into the Parliament process, the former Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Professor noted that all too often Parliament forgets about legislation, once it's reached the statute book.

Legislative success should not be seen as getting a bill on the statute book, but rather as delivering on what Parliament intended it to deliver. As the then
20:32
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - committee stage (day 11) - part two
-

Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Hain told the Constitution Committee there is no point in passing
20:32
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
there is no point in passing legislation, if it is not having the desired impact, or it is having a different impact. Recognition of different impact. Recognition of that point made by the committee and is 2004 report to recommend that is 2004 report to recommend that this bill should be subject to scrutiny, within three years of the scrutiny, within three years of the commencement, or six years for enactment, whichever is sooner. The government in 2008 accepted the government in 2008 accepted the bills should not be subject to bills should not be subject to review 3 to 5 years after enacted, policy reiterated in recent months policy reiterated in recent months policy reiterated in recent months In practice not all bills are In practice not all bills are subject to postal review, but some have undertaken thorough reviews but have undertaken thorough reviews but the enthusiasm for completing them appears to differ between departments.

Earlier this year I departments. Earlier this year I asked if the government would encourage departments to emulate the Home Office which engaged in detailed legislative legislation in 2019. There is a compelling case for ensuring that in respect of certain bells post review is put on doubt through being embodied within the measures themselves. There are precedents in the bill for post- legislative scrutiny. The most recent is the Football Governance Bill. The government accepted the argument that the bill should provide for post-legislative scrutiny and brought forward its amendment on report to give effect to the proposal.

The wording of my amendment may appear familiar to the Minister as it is taken from the government amendment of the Football Governance Bill. Bills that meet certain criteria should contain such provision. The criteria I propose is that the bill is large, complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested, and is not subject to bring legislative scrutiny. Bills that meet some but all criteria may be considered. A bill that is not large but meet other criteria should normally be considered in such a group.

Each year the House appoint a specialist Committee to look at the Mental Capacity Act or adoption legislation that do not meet any criteria I have mentioned. We select the measures of scrutiny is not an argument against enshrining post-legislative scrutiny. We steer clear of acts that are large and contentious. We are not likely to be selecting the measure before for post-legislative scrutiny. Asking if we should complement what is undertaken by government of measures covered by these criteria.

The arguments for post-legislative scrutiny of major bills are severe such as the effect on drafting as they will be subject to review and concentrates the mind of drafters in preparing the bill. It serves to prompt and adumbrated of purpose, delineating the basis of which one will know if the measure achieved what it designed to do. Perhaps most importantly, it may serve to reassure critics of the measure knowing it will subsequently be reviewed. That I think was especially helpful in the Football Governance Bill and I think it applies in the case of this bill.

Above all by providing the means of checking if it has met its name identifying any problems with delivery contributes to good law. The office of Parliamentary Counsel as previously defined as a law that is necessary, clear, coherent and accessible and I've defined it as law that is well-intentioned, well drafted and well implemented. Some of these features must be checked, but some, especially being effective on my terms well implemented are best tested through post-legislative scrutiny. As one minister told the House Select Committee Mental Capacity Act 2005, getting it onto the statute book was a success, and ensuring it was fully implemented and understood was working progress.

This bill clearly meets the criteria I outlined. It is large, complex, and it makes a substantial change to employment law. It is clearly contested and not subject to pre- legislative scrutiny. The House considered 330 amendments over 11 days in Committee. There are clearly disputes of the principles it embodies and its effect. Putting a provision for post-legislative scrutiny in the bill ensuring there is such scrutiny meets the purposes I outlined. The Minister may remind us they are able to look at the review in any event, but this amendment puts it beyond doubt.

If the government has confidence in the bill, it should have no problem accepting the amendment. Critics may be reassured that as the Football Governance Bill its effects will be Governance Bill its effects will be reviewed. The amendment sets out the review to be undertaken after five years and what the review assesses and it also requires the Secretary of State to publish an invitation to interested parties to make submissions on the operation of the act. As I say, it replicates those in the Football Governance Bill only omitting the parts not specific to football and do not lend themselves to replication in other measures.

I urge the government to build on what it already achieved in the Football Governance Bill and establish best practice in embodying within this bill provision for post-legislative scrutiny. Utilising the criteria I have detailed limits the number of bills that merit such a dedicated provision. This bill I believe merits such provision and I hope the Minister will demonstrate that the government has the confidence to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

embrace it. I beg to move. After clause 150, insert the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 150, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshall
20:38
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. I welcome the opportunity to pay

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord tribute to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. He is not only a great author and academic, but he is regarded as a world authority on constitutional issues. He certainly has been described as the greatest living expert on Parliament. We take very seriously those very constructive suggestions for post- legislative scrutiny, but I now rise to speak to amendment 335 standing in my name which would introduce a Sunset clause ensuring the act will expire after three years unless the Secretary of State demonstrates it has led to a net increase in employment.

I do so against a background which has seen economic data emerging in recent months which is painting a deeply concerning picture of the UK labour market. The UK jobless rate has gone up to 4.6% in April while payroll employment has fallen sharply according to official figures covering the period when the budget and tax hikes on businesses came into effect. We did have an understanding that some of us would attempt to put together an overall view of what is happening in the jobs market at the present time.

But the response from the business community to this bill has been unambiguous and deeply troubling. The Institute of directors has published research showing that more than seven in 10, 72%, of business leaders believe this bill will have a negative impact on the UK economic growth. This is not a marginal concern expressed by a vocal or underrepresented minority. This represents a clear majority of all those who create jobs in our economy. Even more alarming, half of business leaders reported they would be less likely to hire new staff as a direct consequence of this legislation.

Let that statistic sink in. We are therefore considering legislation that according to those who make hiring decisions will directly reduce employment opportunities for British workers. These employment figures do not exist in isolation. They form part of a broader pattern of economic decline that has accelerated sadly since this government took office. The combination of increased employer national insurance contributions, various tax rises announced by the Chancellor and this additional regulatory burden creates a perfect storm of disincentives to business investment and job creation.

We are now witnessing practical consequences of economic policies cobble together on the basis of wishful thinking and political prejudice by people with little or no firsthand experience of understanding how businesses operate in practice. When costs rise, businesses must respond. They cannot simply absorb infinite increases in regulatory compliance, tax obligations and employment related expenses. The rational response is to reduce cost where possible and unfortunately employment costs are the largest element of business operations and often the most unpredictable.

Throughout the debate on the bill, both the ministers opposite and their colleagues in the other place have maintained that this will will not harm employment. They repeat this assertion with remarkable consistency despite mounting evidence to the contrary. This represents either fundamental misunderstanding of basic economic suppose or deliberate choice virtually to ignore inconvenient evidence. The government appears afflicted by a sustained illusion that it can simultaneously increase the cost of complexity of employment whilst maintaining employment levels will be unaffected.

This surely defies both economic logic and empirical evidence. It is rather like claiming someone can increase the price of a product while ensuring demand remains unchanged by insisting it must be so. We have two take the possibility that we are wrong. Perhaps the business community is wrong. Perhaps the APR is wrong. Perhaps the employment is wrong. Perhaps the employment statistics are at best misleading. Perhaps the correlation between increased business costs and reduced hiring is merely coincidental. Perhaps economic theory and established business commonsense of all the birds.

My amendment is designed to test the government confidence. If ministers are indeed confident that this will benefit workers and boost employment, they should righteously exceed to this amendment and demonstrate to us all their unshakeable iron confidence that this is not after all an unemployment bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, before... May I pick up on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, before... May I pick up on some points made by Lord Hunt to
20:45
20:47
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-
I thank the Noble Lord Lord Norton for tabling amendments 323.C and the Noble Lord Hunt for amendment 335, and of course I pay tribute to the Noble Lord Lord Norton's expertise in this area, and I can reassure Noble Lords that amendment 323.C that despite its positive intentions, it does effectively repeat what the government already intends to do. Our impact assessment sets out a clear plan to monitor and evaluate the effects of the bill. And it secondary legislation.

Following standard government practice. This approach help us assess how they are delivering on future objectives and policy. And review the impact on stakeholders whose contributions we recognise are vital to the strength of our economy, and as is standard practice in line with our Better Regulation framework obligations, we also intend to conduct a posting limitation review of the bill within five years of Royal assent. This will provide sufficient time to assess the policies effectiveness and gather sufficient data for evaluation purposes.

Also for example in the case of the Fair Work Agency, ongoing oversight of the employment rights enforcement is provided for in clause 91 and 92. They require this active state to publish a three-year labour enforcement strategy and annual reports which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Secondary legislation made under the provisions of this bill will also be subject to the requirements in the small business enterprise and deployment act 2015 regarding proportion monitoring and review.

In addition, where further detail will be set out in secondary legislation, the majority of Statutory Instruments will be subject to the affirmative procedure, allowing both houses to consider in detail and to provide Parliament with sufficient opportunity for scrutiny and debate. And furthermore, the government will consult on many of the details to be set out in secondary legislation, listening to the expertise of business, trade unions and civil society to ensure that the details of the regulations are appropriate to the current needs of the labour market.

If I now pick up on the Noble Lord hunts amendment 335, we want to ensure that the workers have these rights for life and not just for three years as the Noble Lord is proposing. And as a result we will be opposing his amendment. As is typical with employment legislation, further details on many of the policies and the bill will be provided through regulations after Royal assent. We will be beginning consulting on these reforms in 2025, seeking significant employment for Gnostic -- for more stakeholders and we anticipate that a majority of reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026.

We are committed to getting the detail right, and this means listening too and incorporating a wide range of views into our policy development. Whilst highlight statistics such as employment and unemployment rates may appear strong by historical standards, millions of workers are stuck in low paid insecure and poor quality work that is detrimentally affecting their financial stability and health. The U.K.'s productivity slowdown is more severe than in other advanced economies. A fragmented labour market with insecure work holds back growth and investment.

We also lag behind the OECD average on unemployment protections, and we paid the price. Yet the UK economy has not grown at the average rate of other OECD economies in the last 14 years. Missing out on £171 billion worth of growth. Average salaries have barely increased from where they were 14 years ago and the average worker would be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading into the 2008 financial crisis. This bill will ensure a fairer more equal labour market and deliver wide benefits to the business environment by improving well-being, incentivising hyperactivity, and creating more level playing field for good employers.

Just consider a few of the changes it brings. Over 10 million workers in every corner of the country will benefit, increase well-being alone could be worth billions of pounds a year. Less workplace conflict which currently costs the UK employs about 30 billion a year, and up to 1.3 million employees will gain a new entitlement to Statutory Sick Pay, increasing total sick pay by 400 million a year. The Noble Lord Hunt talked about the way the businesses are perceiving this, but I have to say as my Noble Friend Lord Leong said, business confidence is actually rising.

The latest Lloyd business barometer survey shows business confidence at a nine-month high with rising expectations amongst businesses, and I have to say to the Noble Lord that a Sunset clause will indeed create business uncertainty at the very time that we want to build on that confidence. And I'd also say to the Noble Lord that the Industrial Strategy which we published yesterday has been welcomed from all sectors of business, and it will help to build a long-term strategy for growth.

So given that the benefits this bill will bring for workers over the long-term, we therefore oppose the Noble Lords amendment and will continue to promote growth of businesses and the level playing field for good employers. With this in mind I therefore ask the Noble Lord Lord Norton to withdraw his amendment 323 .se.
20:53
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
I'm grateful to both my Noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the Minister for their contribution to the short debate, and very grateful for their opening comments. Which for their opening comments. Which seems to be something on which I've united the two front benches. Very grateful for the ministers considered response. Obviously I would prefer it on the face of the bill for reasons I've given but I feel I've achieved something this evening because the Minister has come to the despatch box and make the commitment she has, which I think is very valuable because it ensures that the bill will be subject to the review of the kind I'm seeking.

I would have preferred it on the face of the bill, but I think the short debate has achieved something. Clearly if it subject to post-legislative review, it picks up on the points made by my Noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral because the claims he's made about the bill, it would be a chance of testing whether it's actually delivered or not. So it's important that Post- legislative scrutiny is thorough is the way some departments have done for some bills, which I welcome, and my whole point is to encourage that, so it's something I will be returning to not necessarily on this bill but other bills as well to ensure we achieve the same result,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

but I'm grateful for both Noble Lords for what they've said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is at your pleasure that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? Amendment by leave withdrawn. Amendment 323D not leave withdrawn. Amendment 323D not moved? We come to amendment 323.D
20:55
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
Lord Berkeley?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 323.D in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move amendment 323.D in my name. -- E. And given the rather my name. -- E. And given the rather surprising title of substitution, one or two Noble Lords may be one or two Noble Lords may be wondering what it means. I will try and explain. It substitution of people with the intention of people with the intention of avoiding paying tax, national insurance or anything else. And it's insurance or anything else. And it's a problem that has grown like toffee a problem that has grown like toffee over the last few years.

Noble Lords will remember how many times in last will remember how many times in last year we've been debating whether electric scooters should go on the road or the pavement, whether we road or the pavement, whether we should have electric bikes. More should have electric bikes. More recently we've been debating bicycles, electric bicycles with big trailers behind them. Usually pulling Deliveroo or something else pulling Deliveroo or something else like that. And whereas many of us like that. And whereas many of us think it's a great idea to have green transport, when you start looking behind the way that this part of the industry is created, it's just not quite so good.

The road safety element I'm not going to go into because we are not on the road safety debate tonight. But there are other safety implications of people that drive these vehicles. And the extent to which, A, they should be in the country at all, and B, whether they are paying the right amount of tax, and that's before we get into any other thing which might be driver related. Now Noble Lords may have read a big spread in the sun today, which I think is coincidental, but what it says and I coincidental, but what it says and I quote from the headline, " Asylum seekers are cheating the taxpayer with illicit delivery and just eat accounts, offering them within 10 minutes of asking.

And it goes on to explain that there are people who are selling these accounts to become a driver, even while they are on the rubber dinghy coming across the channel from Calais. And that makes it very nice for them because they haven't got to look for a job and they know they are being taken on. That's one problem. I'm not going to repeat the rest of it. It will take all night, but it's well worth reading the reasons behind it. Because the other issue is these drivers riding their bicycles seem to be very adept at getting their friends the substitute for them.

Their friends may have no qualifications, driving licence, residential, anything else, and probably they are not recognised so they are carrying on driving these things frankly illegally, and that's before we get to this stage of why is there no enforcement of either the driving ability of these people or whether they should be here at all? I'm not going to go into any all? I'm not going to go into any greater depth of what is wrong, and it's a serious problem in London as we all know, but it's also elsewhere.

But this amendment, which is quite complicated, but employment law is complicated. And my friends in the cycling and walking community who are really fed up with this may look upon it as safety, but they also are saying, and why should people get away with doing this? They probably aren't paying tax or anything else. And so the wording put in this amendment is designed to cover the most popular parts of the industry like food and beverage delivery, postal carrier and taxi and private hire operations, probably many others.

But to make sure that if they are hired by one of these companies, to drive six vehicles on particular roots, and they actually do it rather than subcontract the work to somebody else, who has got no qualifications at all. I've not yet seen any convictions of people being found guilty of what we might call substitution, but I expect it will The Minister, The Minister, if The Minister, if he The Minister, if he accepts The Minister, if he accepts we The Minister, if he accepts we have to go into this further, I hope you will be prepared to meet me to say, if you don't like what is here, what are we going to do to make sure that everybody is operating in an...

A legal best way. This is my comment, it is against many colleagues and many ministers of this government. Why don't you do something about the electric scooters and the people who go through red lights and knock down pedestrians and everyone else... We get is that it is too difficult. This is not the same as that, this is in a separate box, if you like, I think ministers are keen to make sure that... Not only that people pay their taxes and everything else, but it might actually dissuade one or two people trying to cross the channel.

I know that is something that the Prime Minister is keen to do. It falls between, can we get less people going across the channel, but can we get the roads and the pavements and everything safer and make sure that those who obey the law benefit from it and those who do not, they get taken to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the Caymans. I beg to move. After clause 150, insert the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 150, insert the new clause is tied on the Marshalled

**** Possible New Speaker ****

list. As a member of the APPG for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As a member of the APPG for cycling and walking, I would like to support Lord Berkeley in this and
21:03
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
support Lord Berkeley in this and explain why and, as indicated, what is behind this moment is what is leading noble Lords around the chamber with a series of curved balls about e-bikes and all sorts. The All-Party Group has issued an alarming report, called unregulated and unsafe, the threat of illegal e-bikes and it has the specific part in it which is the role of the delivery platforms and the gig economy. What we are talking about this evening are two intertwined issues.

First, the employment issue. At the heart of this Bill is a wish by the government to rebalance what they view as an imbalance that has occurred during successive admins is, versus the rights and freedoms of employers. Whatever your view on that, what we are talking about today is an area of employment which is using, I would say, questionable tactics to avoid the bite and responsibilities towards the workforce. Your Lordships might recall when the phenomenon of Eva started taking over and sailing the black Business in London.

There was a long debate and a big issue around Uber, claiming again and again that the people driving forward or not its employees. Eventually, Uber had to admit that the people who drive them are employees and they have some rights of employees. We have a similar situation at the moment with these delivery platforms. These have a craving for a pizza at the o'clock in the morning, being married to an Italian, I hope you don't. You can simply reach for your smartphone and it will be delivered quickly.

The issue is that these large platforms, basically, are doing what Uber did and they do not recognise the people arriving for them as employees, they are contractors and, indeed, they allowed the contractors to actually nominate people to substitute for them. People who have no relationship with the company whatsoever. One of the larger delivery platforms, related to delivery, successfully managed to win a case in the Supreme Court that was brought by the Independent Workers' Union of Great Britain, which was aware that this particular arm, which delivers food around London and other cities, largely using unregulated e-bikes, they basically argued that successfully against the Independent Workers' Union that these were not employees, the use the fact that the people who write for them could substitute others as part of their defence, and that was accepted.

You have a strange loophole, which is harmful for these workers. And it is driving all sorts of unfortunate behaviour. If I turned back to the report of the APPG, I would like to say, this is what London councils said in the evidence, many delivery companies set up as platform companies with riders classed as self-employed so companies are not required to provide health and safety measures. They only take an advisory role in safety standards, not mandating vehicle mode or collision reporting, avoiding any financial implications.

There are no checks and balances in place, and the impact on other road users. This is actually evidence from one platform, just eat, which you might have seen on the back of either mopeds with ill plates on all these e-bikes. What they said is, pay per ride has dropped in recent years, requiring ever longer shifts with more deliveries per hour for a rider to earn sufficient money. Those of us who see these vehicles or e-bikes constantly, jumping red lights, and narrowly missing pedestrians and weaving in and out of traffic, doing it because the way in which they are compensated requires them to make the maximum number of deliveries it encourages avoiding road traffic laws and red lights and things like that, I suspect many noble Lords have had experiences.

You even go across a zebra crossing, because what might suddenly assail you. Lastly, I would say, this is a tribute to Baroness Blake, who is not in her place because this is her bill. This is written evidence from Leeds City Council which has the same problems. In addition to the safety of e- bikes, we would like to work with the government to improve industries employment and verification practices to address account sharing, where careers can substitute deliveries to others who might not have a right to work in the UK, food delivery companies business models rely on riders to confirm their ineligibility to work and this can enable illegal working.

We would like to cover how to reduce the time pressure on riders to make deliveries, driving hours and platforms a responsibility for the rider safety. Councils have made every compelling case for this, as has Lord Berkeley. I would suggest, for the government to look at this it would be aligned with much of the intent in this Bill. intent in this Bill.
21:10
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
I feel obliged to add a word to add, I was counsel for the union in Deliveroo case. The issue in that case was slightly tangential to the issue raised by Mike noble friends, the question was, whether the delivery riders, trade union rights benefit of article 11 of the European can, the Supreme Court held that the presence of a right of substitution and the contracts between the delivery riders and Deliveroo meant they weren't entitled for the trade union rights.

That reflects the situation in English law under the consolidation act. Which requires personal service that the courts have held, it excludes workers who have the right to engage a substitute, even in cases such as the delivery where the central committee held that its use was really, if ever, put into operation. It was never used by those who brought back the case. The relevance of all of this, as mentioned, the categorisation of workers, whether an employee, the Uber drivers, and what the delivery riders want to be, determined what rights of those workers are entitled to under the various structures.

I accept my noble friend, Minister, is going to say, this is going to be consulted about, the status of workers in the future, I completely agree, should be approached holistically. As somebody who has put up to Private Members' bills on the status of workers, both of which succeeded with all-party support, I'm happy to offer my noble friend my draft on that, the matter does have to be dealt with holistically but I do think Mike noble friends has got a point because this use of substitution clauses is a device and it is a device in order to deprive workers of the statutory rights which Parliament contented them to have and it is an abuse which could be addressed in this Bill, now, before we get to the consultation on a status of workers generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, and my noble friends, Lord Berkeley, indicated some of the consequences of the clauses, let me articulate two more, one is that, the one I have mentioned, where these platforms in assert substitution clauses into the contract between the contractor and the platform company, the effect is to deprive them of all employment rights. When I say the platform company inserts the clause, that is what happens, there is no agreement, there is no consultation, there is no collective bargaining, they are simply told, if you want to work, you agree to the you want to work, you agree to the substitution clause.

In a delivery case, it was accepted that was the purpose of the insertion of the clause. The second problem is the one is one that has been articulated, substitution clauses since the delivery cases have been extremely widespread and the use of actual substitutes, which was rare in the Deliveroo case has become very frequent. And it involves illegal working and so on. But, this is the final point I want to draw to your Lordships attention. Think of the workers who are engaged as a substitute, they are being paid less, even, than the contracted riders, they are being exploited, they are the people, as Lord Russell pointed out, speeding through the traffic, risking their life to get as many deliveries done as possible.

This is an abusive situation and this might be a moment to deal with it in advance of the general consultation and the legislation that will be required to regulate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to follow the Lord Hendy and the thoughtful contributions from the Noble Lord Lord Berkeley and the Noble Lord Lord Berkeley and the Noble Lord Russell of Liverpool. I think I was responsible for some of the
21:16
21:17
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
important proposal, addressing a very real challenge in the evolving world of work. And Lord Russell has pointed this out as has Baroness Rolf and Lord Hendy as well. The amendment seeks to clarify that substitution clauses in app-based platform work such as free delivery, carrier services and private hire are only valid when the right to substitute as genuine, reliable and genuinely used in practice. As many of us will know much about employment legislation was developed in an era where labour market looked very very different.

The rise in app-based platforms and the gig economy has created new forms of work that do not always fit as has been said by previous speakers into the traditional categories of employment or self-employment. This amendment seeks to clarify one such grey area youths of substitution clauses in platform work. It rightly asks whether these clauses are in practice genuine and workable whether they are being used to deny individuals worker status they would otherwise be entitled to.

And Lord Russell, Lord Hendy and others have explained in detail how that works in practice. The broader point as the government must ensure that our workers rights framework is not stuck in the past. It must be up- to-date and dynamic enough to reflect the modern patterns of work to provide reasonable security for those engaged in them. Too often the flexibility of gig work is celebrated without enough attention paid to the insecurity that comes with it. In certain hours, low pay which has been mentioned, lower pay than the actual normal driver.

And limited recourse to rights. Ensuring legal definitions we rely on are not open to exploitation is a vital step in protecting workers and maintaining fairness in the labour market. This amendment may not be the final word. I think this is what other Noble Lords absurd. It may not be the final word on the matter, but it makes an important conversation. The were discussion was used by Noble Lord Rolf. My compliments to Aaron Sandy, and others -- Baroness Henig de and others the conversation we having.

And I hope the Noble Lord the Minister will see this as a gap in employment legislation that needs to be looked at, the idea that people such as carriers and drivers are substituting paid in from lower wages, and scooting in front of you at the traffic lights trying to push up the number of deliveries or collections they are making. This is something we ought to deal with in primary legislation, not in a statutory instrument somewhere down the line, and I hope the government will look at this before we get to report stage.
21:20
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
Is a pleasure to follow the Noble Lord Palmer and I agree with him too much entirely. I'm going to say this has been a much more fascinating debate than I was anticipating, and that is a lot more about me than it does about the debate. I was bitterly struck the Noble Lord Lord Hendy's comments. I had no idea such practices had accepted by the courts. And that does seem to me to be one of those cases which we were talking about in an earlier group where the gig economy workplaces evolving rather faster than the law.

And so that's clearly something that needs to be looked at, otherwise you will end up with what seems to be as a layman to be relatively perverse situations. I have to say to the Noble Lord Lord Russell that the thought of a peanut butter and pineapple pizza sends a really nasty shiver down the spine for the people really either? I seriously hope not. The gig economy and platform-based work is honestly an integral part of the modern labour market. The sector does offer flexible at it that many workers value, don't think we should forget that.

As of course it allows people to choose when, where, how much and how they work. And for some that flexibility is vital. It means they can balance their work with other commitments or supplement their income in ways that traditional employment laws don't allow. I completely agree with the Noble Lord Lord Berkeley who put his amendment so eloquently that there would be, seem to be an incentive to come to this country and if we would control this, there will be an opportunity to help at least M the flow of the boats, something that used to occupy a lot of my time.

But regarding the amendment before us which seeks to regulate the substitution clauses and redefine certain worker classifications, we do at this stage approach with some caution while also acknowledging that it's clearly a subject which we should all return and which clearly demands further consideration. The intention to protect gig workers, gig economy workers is absolutely commendable, but we shouldn't make regularly changes that unintentionally undermine the entire industry, so with that in mind I'm looking forward to the Minister's comments, but clearly this is a subject that is not going away anytime soon.

anytime soon.
21:23
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I thank my Noble Friend Lord Berkeley for tabling an amendment 323.E and D everyone who contributed to this short but important debate we've had this evening. On the issue of substitution clauses. To be absolutely clear the government is alert to the risks my Noble Friend and indeed Noble Lord Lord Russell of Liverpool, Lord Hendy and Lord Palmer all raised around substitution. Recognise that substitution on the platform economy as an issue and we share the concerns about the impact it can have on working conditions and the prevalence of legal work.

Although I should add that a lot of the comments my Noble Friend Lord Berkeley and some of the comments my nipple friend Lord Berkeley made Iran critiquing e-bikes, e-scooters and indeed the comments that the noble Baroness Lady Neville-Rolfe does well full outsider for we are talking about. One need only be outside the chamber, in the chamber on Oral Questions to see the impact they are having a general society and people's attitudes towards very noble pursuits of cycling and walking as well, and using, sharing public space.

There is a growing awareness about substitution clauses. And as indeed set out by many Noble Lords and debate, particularly Lord Russell of livable, how they can be used to deny workers corporate actions including the National Minimum Wage and on holiday pay. It is clearly the case that in extremes, it can lead to abuse of an exploitative treatment of workers, and this is something which we are looking at closely. My Noble Friend Lord Berkeley raised particularly the issue of reporting in today's newspaper the Sun around the legal working, and I think it's an really important part of our consideration of this issue this evening, to realise that the government recently introduced an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill during report stage and the other place and to extend the scope of employers required to carry out brighter work checks to those engaged, individual subcontractors such as those working in the platform economy.

We must remain in step with modern labour market models. The purpose of these changes is to require that businesses who employ individuals in labour markets check that they have the right to participate in these arrangements and immigration for can issue penalties where they do not. This ensures the compliance is the equivalent for traditional employers, and that as I understand is the core of the issue raised in that newspaper reporting to my Noble Friend Lord Berkeley described. The links between substitution and employment status demonstrate how complex this area is.

As my Noble Friend Baroness Jones said during the debate earlier this evening on amendment 318, we are committed to consulting on a simpler employment status framework, and my Noble Friend Lord Hendy said this is something we should look at holistically. I'm confident that this will provide an opportunity to hear views from a wide range of stakeholders on the use of substitution clauses and the interactions with employment status. This is an important issue. But I'm also aware that there is a complex interplay between measures we are going to be discussing shortly in the committee stage of the border security asylum and immigration feel, and -- immigration bill, and I feel it might be useful for me to take it back to colleagues with the Home Office and see how best to pursue this further.

I would therefore ask my Noble Friend Lord Berkeley to withdraw amendment 323 and in so doing as this will be my last opportunity to speak at the committee stage on this bill, I would like to also take this opportunity to thank all Noble Lord's who have taken part in the wonderful 11, who would have thought we got so many, 11 days of committee on this bill and the constructive engagement, indeed at times engagement, indeed at times terminating debate. I take note of what Lord Sharpe said earlier about the pace and progress during immigration legislation, and as I will be on the front bench for the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill later this week, all I can say is I simply cannot wait.
21:28
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
I'm really grateful to Noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate and made many contributions, which indicate that it's a difficult subject, and it would be better if the whole thing went away, but of course it won't go away. And when my Noble Friend the Minister was just saying then that this is his last appearance on this bill, I thought is it a sinking ship or is it going to be the next stage? I hope it's not a sinking ship.

I hope it's going to be another good stage.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At committee stage, who knows

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what comes next? We did have a problem up in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We did have a problem up in the committee room last week with the mice eating through the electric cables. Which we've got a few cables. Which we've got a few problems here. But more seriously, problems here. But more seriously, it's a big problem. We only covered probably a small fraction of it tonight, but I'd be very grateful if tonight, but I'd be very grateful if the Minister would agree to meet those of us who are interested. Sometime between now and report stage to see how we can take it forward in one way or another.

Not forward in one way or another. Not sure which way forward in B, but sure which way forward in B, but otherwise it's very tempting to put another amendment down a report stage and have another debate like stage and have another debate like this, but I think it would be much better if we could also sit around the table for half an hour and hear the table for half an hour and hear what the government once to do and hopefully agree and hopefully not.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

hopefully agree and hopefully not. It's my Noble Friend -- is he about to say yes to that? It's always a pleasure over many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's always a pleasure over many years now had lots of discussions with my Noble Friend in different guises. A pleasure to meet with him and indeed any other Noble Lords who wish to engage in this important issue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to my Noble Friend. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for top shelf is at your pleasure the amendment is withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. The withdrawn? By leave withdrawn. The full clause 154, Lord Davies of Brixton. Not moved. Amendment 324.A
21:30
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
bonus coffee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Arise to move amendments 324.A, 324.B, 324.C on behalf of my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey and to speak Friend Baroness Coffey and to speak to my own amendment clause stand to my own amendment clause stand part five part one. Clause 151 bestows upon the Secretary of State sweeping, and I would submit sweeping, and I would submit troubling, power. The authority to make regulations that may provoke, make regulations that may provoke, repeal or amend any act of Parliament. So long as such changes Parliament.

So long as such changes are deemed consequential on any It It is It is not It is not confined It is not confined to It is not confined to provisions that contradict or express conflict that contradict or express conflict with the provisions of this, rather, it might be interpreted as a vast array legislative measure, past and array legislative measure, past and present, which bears some peripheral or inferred relation from the or inferred relation from the matters hearing.

This is no minor technicality, a direct affront to the fundamental principle that underpins our constitutional order. The sovereignty of Parliament. It is this Parliament and this Parliament alone that might properly enact, amend or repeal primary legislation, yet, under section 151, such powers may be exercised by ministerial fiat through the medium of secondary legislation. Often subject to minimal scrutiny with little opportunity for meaningful challenge. This is a constitutional sleight of hand, it is the shifting of legislative power from the chamber to the executive, on the back of an ambiguous and elastic phrase.

We must not allow such erosions to pass unchecked beneath the veal of procedural convenience or legislative tidiness. My noble friend, Baroness coffee, has put in my view sensible amendments that provide safeguards which I would urge the government seriously to consider. Under subsection 4, regulations that amend or repeal primary legislation are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, this means Parliament must approve such measures, however, subsection 5 states that any other regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.

This raises the critical question, while the rest of the regulation subject only to Negative procedure, what is the constitutional justification for this lower level of scrutiny? If the government is unwilling to accept the recommendations, this clause should be removed from the Bill entirely. First, I await the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, leave out subsection 2.
21:34
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

subsection 2. I think the noble Lord for giving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think the noble Lord for giving notice to oppose clause 151, which gives me the chance to set out the purpose. And also, for moving purpose. And also, for moving amendments 324 and as I understood, they were probing amendments. Clause 151 grants the Secretary of State a power by regulations to make amendments to other legislation which are consequential on any provision made the Bill. Consequential amendments are fundamental to ensuring the statute book remains coherent and workable, it is a Henry VIII power similar to the ones used in previous legislation of a previous size and complexity, it allows the amendment of Northern Ireland legislation, as it does Scottish Parliament and the Senate.

This is necessary to allow the statute book across all jurisdictions to be maintained effectively. Nonetheless, the power in clause 151 is appropriately constrained because it allows only amendments that are consequential to the substantive amendment already made in the capital itself. For these reasons, we consider it necessary and proportionate. I would remind noble Lords, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise concerns about the power in clause 151, in its report to which we will reply in due course.

I would like to reassure the noble Lord that where possible, amendments that are required as a result of provisions made in this Bill have been made in the capital itself. As Mike noble friends set out earlier. However, it is possible that further provisions could be identified, which require consequential amendments, allowing these to be made by regulation will mean that they can be made without delay and with an appropriate level of scrutiny. This is a standard power in a Bill of this size and complexity, there were multiple examples and recent governments that take the same approach, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the economic crime and corporate transparency act 2023.

Amending the clause so that any success of the power would be subject would result in debates on every amendment. For these reasons, the government opposes the amendments and I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the power is proportionate and I ask him

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to withdraw amendment 324. I would like to thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her Baroness, the Minister, for her response, however, I have to say, I response, however, I have to say, I remain unconvinced by justification for these sweeping powers. As we for these sweeping powers. As we said on several occasions already, there are far too many delegated there are far too many delegated powers, as it stands in this Bill, to extend this approach to all consequential future provisions represents a qualitative leap in represents a qualitative leap in authority that goes beyond what is necessary or constitutionally necessary or constitutionally appropriate.

I recognise the noble Baroness, the Minister, has given assurances about responsible use of these powers, no doubt well- these powers, no doubt well- intentioned, cannot substitute for oversight built into the framework itself. We are being asked to sign a itself. We are being asked to sign a bank check on the account of Parliamentary sovereignty. The breadth of these powers, combined with minimal oversight mechanisms represents precisely the kind of constitutional overreach that this House exists to prevent.

I would remind ministers, I have painful first hand experience of this, the powers might not indefinitely be in the hands of anyone party, power does change hands from time to time and they ought to reflect upon the extraordinary legacy of centralised executive power that they may find themselves bequeathing to a new administration that is not of their political persuasion. Governments change, ministers change, political priorities evolve, constitutional safeguards must be designed to protect Parliamentary Sovereignty, regardless of who holds executive office.

I urge noble Lords across the House to reflect carefully on whether we are prepared to accept such a substantial erosion of authority in the name of administrative convenience. Some administrative convenience. Some principles are to important compromise and Parliamentary compromise and Parliamentary Sovereignty is surely paramount amongst them but in the meantime, I amongst them but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw.
21:39
21:40
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment six 325, three to six, 329, standing in my name, and allude to the my name, and allude to the amendments of my noble friend. The government has stated this Bill represents the biggest upgrade to workers rights in a generation, given the importance that the government has placed on this legislation, one could have expected them to conduct a comprehensive and thorough impact assessment, the noble Lord, Lord Lyon, argued the government had done just that a bit earlier.

However, the fact remains, the regulatory policy committee has awarded the government impact assessment a red rating. This red rating encompasses several areas, rating encompasses several areas, including the Trade Union Act 2016, one rights provisions and measures addressing harassment via stop such a rating shows a fundamental deficiencies of this legislation. A point that has been argued on a number of occasions. Allow me to illustrate how inadequate this impact assessment is by examining one example. The impact assessment states, they could be wider impact on society, including reduction in it days lost to strike action.

Which will prevent significant cost on our economy. Rail strikes alone are estimated to cost the UK economy at least £1.7 million over the eight month period to January 2023. This statement exemplifies the superficial and speculative nature of the analysis, rather than provide concrete evidence, the government has resorted to hypothetical scenarios and broad generalisations. They suggest the reforms might lead to better relations which could potentially reduce reaction, which might prevent economic cost. But this assumption lacks vigorous analysis and the legislation...

Certainly of this magnitude, it demands. Whilst they cite the economic impact, they failed to provide a comprehensive analysis of how the proposals would address the causes. They offer no detailed examination of the potential unintended consequences of the reforms and neither do they adequately assess the costs that might be faced during the implementation. Just the mention of the word implementation allows me and affords me an opportunity to remind the noble Lord that we are very soon going to be delivered and implementation plan.

On amendment 325, we have heard that ministers trump it in the publications the PVC global CEO survey which ranked the UK as the second most attractive is station. This claim collapses, the survey was conducted before the current Chancellor's first budget, before the government began systematically dismantling the progrowth, pro-enterprise environment left in place. Since then, the UK position has collapsed down to 29th in the world competitive rankings. We are now considered less competitive than Amani, Saudi Arabia and the Czech Republic.

We are barely ahead of Kazakhstan and Kuwait, that is not a global powerhouse. What is the government response? They are doubling down with measures to make the UK even less attractive, less hospitable to entrepreneurs and less viable for businesses looking to grow. At the centre is the employment rights Bill, this legislation threatens to bring the most punitive labour market in the developed world. Let's be clear, the bill introduces take one rights for employers to bring legal claims, increasing the litigation risk for employers from the moment a contract is signed.

It expands rights around dismissal, probation and workplace disputes, turning small decisions into potential courtroom battles. It ruins flexibility is that employers rely on. And this might sound appealing in the abstract, modernising employment rights, and the government will say that, but what this means in practice is this, job duration will slow, entrepreneurial risk will drop and offshoring will accelerate. Businesses can choose to hire in other jurisdictions, and they will. Already we see business leaders, the cost of employing in Britain is becoming too high, not just financially but legally and procedurally.

A recent survey found that employers are planning layoffs and the operation abroad in response to increasing National Insurance Contribution's, regulatory burdens and hostile employment education. EY has warned that high energy costs are deterring investment whilst employers are renewing UK operations due to the cost of doing business. That is not accidental, it is the consequence of policy. The government insist this is about bringing us into line with Europe, but why, I ask, would we want to emulate the slowest growing region on the planet? Why are we importing continental sclerosis when we should be building a flexible, high-growth This government inherited a thriving...

Now a looming exodus of jobs and capital. That's not levelling up, it's levelling down, it is the British worker who will pay the price. So it administers to think again before more British businesses decide they are better off elsewhere. As regards the amendments tabled by my Noble Friend, he is carefully capable of speaking to them himself and I'm sure I will replicate much of what is about to say but what I will conclude with this if the government is confident in the righteousness of its reforms, then let them subject them to proper scrutiny, and if it wishes to maintain credibility when it speaks of reducing red tape, that letter apply that logic consistently

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and not selectively. I beg to move. Amendment propose clause 153 page
21:47
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment propose clause 153 page 148 line 31 at end insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as printed on the marshalled list. Arrives to speak to amendment 326 to A on behalf the noble Lady to A on behalf the noble Lady Baroness Penn who I apologise if she is not able to be here this evening. The amendment would require this active state or relevant devolved counterpart to have regard to the impact of any regulations made under this bill on economic growth and competitiveness of the United Kingdom, very similar to Manton three to five which has been introduced by the Noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom which itself mirrors the wording of the secondary objective for financial regulators which was introduced in the financial services and markets act 2023.

And that support either one. They have the ultimate same goal. As we've had communications as we've gone through committee stage, which we are at long last reaching the end of, this is a skeleton bill where an enormous amount of the details to be added later by regulation. I counted I think 173 regulation making powers in the bill. A quite staggering number. Coming old-fashioned but I rather think that we should do the work first and then legislate and not the other way round.

We also have an impact assessment that accompanies the bill as we've just been told has been described by the regulatory policy is not fit for purpose. In many cases the impact assessment makes no effort at all to quantify the cost or benefits precisely because what will be in the final regulations that will follow the bill is not yet known. The government itself concedes in the impact assessment that many of the measures in this bill will have negative consequences, for example overall government expects the measures in the bill to impose costs to business of around £5 billion.

And the government also states very clearly that these costs will fall disproportionately on small businesses. The potential negative impact on growth and competitiveness from that is I think obvious. Some of the negative aspects can be minimised if the regulations are well designed. To give just one example, I've been concentrating my efforts on the bill on the introduction of day one unfair dismissal rights. The impact assessment is very clear on the potential negative impacts from that on businesses, and in particular on the potential negative impacts on the hiring of potential employees who were seen as high risk.

Such as younger people. My top concern in that respect. The impact assessment after describing the potential negative consequences rightly says, " The impact of hiring labour mobility what you depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the initial statutory period of employment" And I agree with that. A well-designed probationary period could negate many of the negative impact the bill could cause, something incidentally I hope the noble Lady the Minster will be prepared to discuss before we go into report stage.

We have no idea at the moment as to what the final regulations will be, and now it appears does the government. It still hasn't carried out the relevant concentration. So this is a really good example of the importance of this amendment. What the final consequences are if this bill will depend on the detail that is to be added later or amended by regulation. We shouldn't just take that on trust. Must of course have the greatest faith in the noble Lady the Minister, this Government can't speak for all bind future governments.

The government consistently stressed the importance of growth and competition, although I think it's fair to say that its actions have not always followed its rhetoric. To quote the Chancellor in January this year, " Economic growth is the number one mission of this government. Most of all without economic growth we can't improve the lives of ordinary working people." Actually that last point is the main point of this bill, to improve the lives of ordinary working people, so it must be essential, and they seem agreed that whether measures in this bill could have negative impacts on growth, those negative impacts should be identified and taken into account when adding the details to this bill by regulation.

The Chancellor went on to say in the same speech, " The strategy of consistently set out is to grow the supply side of our economy, recognising that first and foremost it is businesses, investors and entrepreneurs who drive economic growth. A government that systematically removes the barriers that they face one by one and has their back." It's hard to disagree with that. Socially -- socially wish remove barriers for business. The financial services and markets act 2023 introduces secondary objective of financial service regulators to facilitate international competitiveness and growth.

Something the current Chancellor has been vocal in her support of and has rightly put pressure on regulators to follow, including to the issuing of new growth focused remit letters to the regulators. So having such an objective rightly in the case of these amendments just to have regard, is not new and is entirely consistent with state government policy. Given the potential negative impacts this bill may have, by the government's own admission, the sheer volume of detailed regulation must follow and the difference that can be made to the consequences of the bill if those regulations are well designed or badly designed, we must surely have some clear objectives for those regulations.

All these two amendments do is ensure growth and competitiveness must be taken into consideration.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Surely that's not too much to ask. I also rise to speak to amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I also rise to speak to amendment 326.A in the name of Baroness Penn, 326.A in the name of Baroness Penn, to which I've added my name. And I agree with all that has been said by the Noble Lord Lord Fox of Heron in the Noble Lord Lord Fox of Heron in introducing this. And indeed with the convincing analysis by my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe. Noble Lords may recall I cover the scrutiny of the
21:53
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
recall I cover the scrutiny of the bill constructively, having worked for Tesco for many years and enjoyed excellent relations with the USDAW union, and indeed in general with the trade union and the Noble Lord Lord Monks at that time. We always tried to treat people well. And the success of the business was testament to this. We complied with the law. But the law is now changing, and I am afraid that the whole committee stage has shown that the bill needs further work.

As drafted, it will be a huge check on growth, and undermine the competitiveness of which we have rightly been very proud in the UK. My Noble Friend Lord Hunt of Wirral mentioned earlier the worrying research by the Institute of directors that reveals that seven in 10 business leaders surveyed believe that the Employment Rights Bill will have a negative impact on UK economic growth. Now I have two particular examples, which I hope the noble Baroness the Minister will look at again.

First, ministers, or rather their civil servant agents and possibly even the trade unions will be able to take a legal case where an employee is unwilling to pursue a complaint. This is inappropriate and unfair. Consent is such an important principle. It also risks putting further pressure on the already struggling tribunal system. Second, and I apologise that this example has only been mentioned, the bill will radically reduce the effectiveness of the labour market by giving employees the right to claim unfair dismissal from day one of their employment.

Other employees will be disadvantaged as those who are slack, do a poor job or play the system will not be able to be dislodged without a long tribunal case. This will hit good employees who need to cover for their fellows. Now the Minister has very helpfully agreed that there should be a probation period, during which suitable arrangements can be made in some circumstances. But we have no detail. All of that will go into regulations. Which we will not be able to reverse.

And that is why I feel so strongly about this evening's amendment on growth and competitiveness. This would apply when regulations were being made by ministers. There are unfortunately a plethora, a cornucopia of powers in the bill. It is essential that ministers here and in the devolved administrations to which our amendment refers should be required to look at the impact on UK economic growth and competitiveness when they are making regulations. Otherwise, I fear that the growth objective of this government is for the birds.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendments in my name and in so doing support the other amendments in the group, all of which have been most
21:56
Lord Leigh of Hurley Portrait Lord Leigh of Hurley (Conservative)
-
-
eloquently described by my Noble Friend is Lord Sharpe of Ibsen, Baroness Neville Rolfe and the Noble Lord. Lord Sharpe of Epsom was absolutely right that the government's stated objective of growth, which is a very commendable objective, is hampered by some aspects of this bill. And all I'm asking for is some time for the real effect and impact of this bill to be assessed, particularly in respect of small and medium-sized enterprises, each and every one of whom I have spoken to explained what's in this act are very unhappy about the consequences that this bill will bring to their own businesses, be it small or medium.

And all credit to the Labour government, that when it's creating new regulations, particularly the financial regulations market, they've been very clear to the regulators that what they must do is not impede economic growth, and I commend them for that. It's absolutely right. So I would just encourage them to take their own advice and allow this bill to have an overriding principle that anything and everything in this bill is intended to promote and help growth. There doesn't seem to be anything controversial to be afraid of in that respect, and therefore I would encourage them to accept Lord Sharpe and Baroness Penn's amendments.

In respect of mine, which is just asking for time to consider matters, cover two areas, those of business and those in union funding. And very many small and medium-sized businesses will have read the Times comment of a few days ago, which I will repeat your Lordship's House because it's bang on. And it points out that four in five businesses expect their costs to rise in the wake of these reforms. Although ministers have shown little interest in their views.

So the inevitable result will be a waiver of redundancies, hiring freezes and a rise in automation. The rising automation of course is a good thing but it will inevitably lead to greater employment. There is no question about it and everything a business I've been talking to is saying we are freezing hiring people until we get to understand this bill better. So as they point out, this is a counterintuitive way to buttress workers rights. To say the least. And the fact as Baroness Neville-Rolfe has explained, taxpayers will be required to foot the bill, and for the operation to add insult to economic injury.

So it's an irony they point out that Labour's reforms will harm the very individuals they are designed to help. And they called for Labour to recognise and in requiring the taxpayer to underwrite the activities of trade unions, they are not only recklessly introducing unnecessary frictions to the labour market but making inappropriate demands on public money because that's where it wilful. And in the Times, is quite clear when it says Labour ought to think again. In respect of the union funds, which also ask for deferment, the government we are told is committed to reducing red tape and increasing accountability.

They only seem committed to do this when it comes to making disruptive behaviour by unions easier. And so they failed to provide a clear justifiable reason as to why they have chosen an opt out model trade union political funds rather than the opt in model that ensures active consent from members. Trade unions are institutions with significant political influence, enormous political influence. And this government is not allowing... Is It seems the unions have been given It seems the unions have been given a free pass, this amendment is a modest one, it is reasonable, essential, it simply asks that section 58, 59 and 60, which we debated earlier on, should not come into force until a comprehensive impact assessment is laid before Parliament, a clear public plan is published, outlining measures to published, outlining measures to ensure consent and safeguard, and a letter -- written statement is produced, specifying the oversight and audit mechanisms that will govern these funds under the new regime.

So, they are not radical, they are basic democratic protections that we would demand from any other political actor or funding structure. The government's failure to consult on the consequences really does undermine confidence, not only in this legislation but in the standards of public life more generally. If the government is confident in the righteousness of its reforms, it is subject to proper scrutiny. If it believes union members are consenting, let it ensure that consent is informed, transparent and credible.

Let us apply the logic consistently, not selectively. Baroness Jones will recall that when we were debating these sections, we had an interesting debate, healthy debate, principally between me and Baroness bastard, and we did not reach agreement, I think she was talking about something different to what I was talking about, and Minister said to me, at the end of the debate, I hope you have assured the Minister that question is answered and we have made significant clarity, but it is not, and we have not.

I am sure that she had parity in her mind, but they definitely isn't in my mind. Therefore, I have asked for a pause whilst this matter is considered and properly debated amongst actors to whom it will impact. Obviously, this will come back at report, I am reasonably confident that once it is properly explained, the House will agree, it will get more public exposure and as the Times has picked up, it will become an issue. So, to save a lot of unnecessary to-ing and fro-ing and ill informed debate, I hope the government spends time between now and report considering the matter in great detail.

Ideally, in consultation, but and at that stage. I beg to move. stage. I beg to move.
22:04
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-
Can I thank the noble Lord and all the noble Lord who have spoken in this debate, talking first two amendment 326, in the name of the noble Lady, I think it was moved by Lord Sharpe, in accordance with their procedure, the other place has passed a Money resolution, authorising the payment of money provided by Parliament of expenditure incurred as a result of this Bill by any government department, in practice, the authorisation of any additional expenditure, for example, in relation to the Fair Work Agency, will be approved by the elected chamber in accordance with these estimates.

As the noble Lord will know, are impact assessment for establishing the Fair Work Agency set out the current running cost of the bodies and initial estimates across. If I turn to amendment 329, tabled by Lord LEA, as your Lordships will be aware, the government is committed to ongoing detailed engagement with businesses of all sizes, as we develop the details of regulations under this act, in addition, our published assessments evaluate a range of evidence on the impact of Small and medium sized enterprises, they also plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation which will involve reviewing.

The government values the insight that SMEs and representatives can bring in ensuring the particulars of this Bill. To recognise that, ministers and officials have hosted and continue to host a range of SMEs and the representatives, both including and beyond those stipulated by the amendment. Such engagement and consultation will continue, following Royal assent, and SMEs will always feature in engagement and consultation without the need for requirement. Turning to for requirement. Turning to amendment 329, B, and amendment 330, from Lord LEA, which cover the issue of impact assessment.

I will not repeat the points made earlier, on the steps the government has and will continue to take to ensure impact properly understood and assessed. The government has noted the policy committee opinion but it has always been our intention to refine the analysis as development continues, working closely with external experts, businesses and trade unions. Meanwhile, to reassure the noble Lord on political funds, I want to reiterate that the Bill will ensure political funds operate in a transparent manner that is clear.

Section 32 and 32 a of the act will not be amended via this Bill. It will continue to require that unions provide details of income and expenditure in the annual returns to the certification officer. Which are made publicly available. And that all members receive the total income expenditure of a political fund through the annual statement. Members of a union also part of a collective of workers and political funds should be considered. If a union has a political fund, its members have control over how it is spent, through the democratic structures of the union.

Unions put effort into raising engagement in the democratic process, which any member is free to participate in, meaning they are able to decide how a fund is used. If union members want more information, or if they disagree with how that expenditure is being directed, they can take steps to change it. Union members are ultimately members of a voluntary organisation and are free to opt out of political fund contributions if they have objections to how political funds are being operated.

If I now turn to the amendments of Lord Sharpe and Baroness Penn, these would have the effect of requiring this activity to have regard to the international competitiveness and UK growth when making regulations. First, it is worth noting that the UK already on most employment protections, yet the UK economy has not grown and the average rate of other OECD economies. Missing out, as I said, on £171 billion in growth. The government's impact assessment note that the Bill could have a positive, direct impact on economic growth and will help to raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all.

Supporting the mission for growth. We will continue to pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in this Bill and produce further impact assessment in line with our better regulation requirements. Of course, this government knows impact of the UK being internationally competitive, our country has great strengths but we lack the dynamism required to seize opportunities and businesses have needed long-term stability, meanwhile, the global trading environment has become unpredictable, supply chains are fragile and other economies more assertive in protecting their security and promoting their strategic strengths.

That is why we have a clear goal, driving growth domestically, make work pay is just one aspect of our mission to boost growth and break down barriers to opportunity which have been hurting -- holding our country back. Our plan is delivering benefits already, the fastest growth in the G7 at the start of the year, interest rate cut by the Bank of England four times since the election, 63 billion of private investment announced at the summit last year, with 40 billion announced by Amazon today.

500,000 more people in work, free trade deals with global powerhouses and business confidence at a nine-month high. This is the government delivering for working people, this Bill will help more people to stay in work, support productivity and improve living standards across the country. To wrap up this Committee stage, I want to say that I conclude our final group. The government was elected on a manifesto that committed to implement the Plan to Make Work Pay, in order to put more money into people's pockets, our first mission is to deliver economic growth in every part of the country, however, securing that growth can only be worth doing if working people actually feel the benefits.

Whilst workers are subject to unethical fire and rehire practices, exploitative contracts, and last- minute shift cancellations, that certainly will not be the case. This is why this Bill is at the centre of the plans, it will protect workers from these practices and provide economic safety to the lowest paid. Just consider a few of the changes it brings, 9 million employees will gain protection from unfair dismissal, from day one. It means workers and some of the most deprived parts of the country will be sped up to £600 loss and income from the hidden cost of insecure work and it means at least 900,000 workers will benefit from treatment you.

In conclusion, myself and my noble friends very much look forward to engaging with noble Lords further on the Bill as it progresses. I thank the opposition, the Liberal Democrat Frontbench and noble Lords across the House for their contributions throughout this committee, in conclusion, I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw amendment 325.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank her for her answer, clearly, her feedback from the organisations she has met does not parallel with the feedback I had parallel with the feedback I had from similar organisations, they appreciate the meetings she has had might be in the confidence, but if not, would it be possible to publish the notes of those meetings and the notes of those meetings and publish the notes of any future meetings with the sort of representative organisations in my representative organisations in my amendment and I'm pleased to see

**** Possible New Speaker ****

other organisations she also met. We all, on these benches, meet with members of the Assembly sector with members of the Assembly sector all of the time, different meetings for different purposes, as well as the formal meetings, we are meeting them in all sort of guises on the them in all sort of guises on the industrial strategy, on some of the digital growth policies, I do not think it is practical to meet what think it is practical to meet what the noble Lord has said, but I can assure him, those meetings, more assure him, those meetings, more formal meetings, happening on a regular basis.
22:14
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

regular basis. Can I thank the noble Lady for her response, it is clear there is a significant area of disagreement, indeed, a degree of disagreement on the statistics, we both seem to be quoting statistics that contradict the other, I would say that mine are more up-to-date. I would like to thank the noble Lord, I agree with anything that he said, as I do with my noble friend, Lord LEA, and Baroness Neville-Rolfe. It is concerning that, in the other House, the government tabled further amendments with no meaningful assessment of the impact, and this is not how good legislation is made, my Lords, the Bill has been described by the Minister as the biggest upgrade to workers rights in a generation but if that is the case, one might expect incredible impact assessment, not one rated by the regulatory policy rating.

That is a minor footnote, that is a warning, a signal that the economic consequences of this legislation has not been understood. We should be the home of start-ups, scallops and global enterprise, we will not achieve that by making it harder to hire, easier to sue and riskier to grow and once competitiveness not guaranteed, it is not easily regained, decisions that we make now will determine whether the UK remains an attractive destination for business and opportunity or whether we continue to slide.

The truth is, this legislation is incomplete, the evidence-based is inadequate, the consultation has been insufficient and can I second Lord LEA's comments, we have seen multiple tens of organisations that represent businesses in this country, not one says they have been consulted. And not one support this Bill. That includes all of the major Bill. That includes all of the major , and I will digress very briefly because I think we are getting stage will be do again I'm afraid need to bring up the subject of the limitation strategy but I appreciate the Noble Lord's commitment to making sure we get a constellation very soon come under pressure the noble Lady minister will plan more engagement which is good because at the moment we can't see there has been very much at all.

But there's also an awful lot that will be left to further consultations as regards the implementation plan. And I happen to be reading a union magazine today, the Unison magazine from June. And I'm going to quote directly from it. Towards the end of an article about this particular bill, they are talking about secondary legislation and codes of practice. And I quote in full, " Our job as a union will not end when this bill is passed. Still a massive piece of work to be done because there will be consultations with government departments on how different parts of the legislation are to be implement.

The secondary legislation will look like, what the code of practice will look like, ensuring it's all in the best interests of the union." Think get to the heart of the matter. It's in the best interests of the union is not in the best interests of the UK, not in the best interest of the economy or economic growth, which is so central to the government's growth agenda, and it certainly not in the interest of those who deliver the economic growth, businesses and their workers.

We need to be very careful about this bill. Obviously going to return to many of the issues we've described during committee stage a report stage, but I would urge the government when it is consulting does it properly and not just on one very considered and careful interest. And with that, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg leave to withdraw my amendment. This at your lodge shows place of this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 326 Lord Carter of Amendment 326 Lord Carter of Haslemere not moved? Amendment 326.A Baroness's Neville Rolfe not moved? The question is clause 133 stand part of the bill. As many as are of 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.

Clause 154 amendment 326.B Baroness Coffey not amendment 326.B Baroness Coffey not moved. The question is that clause 150. Part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. The question is that clause 155 stand part of the that clause 155 stand 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 156, amendments three to seven, three to amendments three to seven, three to eight and 329 already debated, Lord Fox not moved? Not moved.

Amendment Fox not moved? Not moved. Amendment 329.A not moved? Amendment 329.B Lord Sharpe not moved. Amendments three to 30 and three to 30 .ZA already debated not moved. Amendments 330.A and B, Lord Davies of Brixton not moved. Amendment 330.BA not moved. Amendment 330.C body debated Lord Davies approach to not moved. Amendment 330.D already debated Lord Sharpe not moved. There is an error in the page numbering of amendment three heaven 34.A which means that it was marshalled incorrectly.

It should have been marshalled as 330.DA Xi will now display 334.A is 300 and... Already debated, Lord Sharpe you'll just have to trust me on this one. Not moved. 314 $314 a not moved. 330.E not moved. 231 already debated Lord Freyberg not moved. Amendment 332 Lord Sharpe not moved. And 333 already debated not moved. Amendment 334 not moved. Amendment... We 40 done that one. The question is that clause 156 stand part of the bill.

As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. after clause, Lord Sharpe not moved. The question is that clause 157 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content."... Did I do clause 156 stand part? I did. The question is that clause 157 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it.

The question is that this be the title of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. And that concludes the committee's proceedings on the bill. The House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will now resume. The committee of the whole House to which the Employment Rights Bill to which the Employment Rights Bill was committed has gone through the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

was committed has gone through the same and has directed me to report it to your Lordships with amendment. I beg to move the House be now adjourned. adjourned.
22:29
None Portrait Business of the House
-

22:29
22:29
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page