Bills
Live Bills
Government Bills
Private Members' Bills
Acts of Parliament Created
Departments
Department for Business and Trade
Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Department for Education
Department for Energy Security & Net Zero
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Department of Health and Social Care
Department for Transport
Department for Science, Innovation & Technology
Department for Work and Pensions
Cabinet Office
Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
Home Office
Leader of the House
Ministry of Defence
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
Ministry of Justice
Northern Ireland Office
Scotland Office
HM Treasury
Wales Office
Department for International Development (Defunct)
Department for Exiting the European Union (Defunct)
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Defunct)
Department for International Trade (Defunct)
Reference
User Guide
Stakeholder Targeting
Dataset Downloads
APPGs
Upcoming Events
The Glossary
2024 General Election
Learn the faces of Parliament
Petitions
Tweets
Publications
Written Questions
Parliamentary Debates
Parliamentary Research
Non-Departmental Publications
Secondary Legislation
MPs / Lords
Members of Parliament
Lords
Pricing
About
Login
Home
Live Debate
Lords Chamber
Lords Chamber
Tuesday 24th June 2025
(began 1 month ago)
Share Debate
Copy Link
Watch Live
Print Debate (Subscribers only)
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
None
-
Copy Link
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I should My Lords, I should like My Lords, I should like to My Lords, I should like to notify the House that the time is effect
from 23rd June of the noble Viscount lied -- Lord Wigley. On behalf of the House I thank the noble Viscount
14:38
Business of the House
-
Copy Link
for his service to the House. --
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Lord Waverley. First Oral Question. They have been many cases in
recent weeks of noble Lords during questions referring generally to
questions referring generally to interests at out in the register. I
interests at out in the register. I want to highlight to colleagues that this is now the incorrect procedure. Following recent changes to the code of conduct, noble Lords must now
of conduct, noble Lords must now declare financial interests in a specific way. This applies to all types of business including Oral
Questions, simply referring to your interests at heart in the register is no longer sufficient.
For example, if hypothetically I was the
example, if hypothetically I was the Chief Executive of housing is, asking a question about new social
asking a question about new social homes, I refer the House to my interests attach the register. Previously. Now I would have to say
Previously. Now I would have to say
Previously. Now I would have to say I have an interest of Chief Executive of X housing is. The housing authorities helpfully
housing authorities helpfully highlighted these changes. This was agreed by the House in March, and came into effect in April.
I might
14:39
Oral questions: Dance careers for young people from deprived backgrounds
-
Copy Link
came into effect in April. I might or noble Lords of the importance of these new rules. -- I remind all
14:39
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
noble Lords. First Oral Question. I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper.. Improved access to the arts is important for all young people which is why the government is committed to continuing to fund the Music and
to continuing to fund the Music and Dance Scheme including the centres for advanced training in academic
for advanced training in academic year 2025/26. The bursary support
year 2025/26. The bursary support will continue for the over 2,000
14:40
Baroness Keeley (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will continue for the over 2,000 students benefiting from it. And at the same rate. And will remain means-tested so it is targeted towards supporting students from low-income families. I thank the Minister for that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank the Minister for that reply and I welcome the DRV has
confirmed that continued funding for bursaries at least 425/26 but there is no commitment beyond 2026 and DfE
did cut the outreach funding for the schemes earlier this year. Can you tell me what steps the government
will take to ensure young people from rural or economically disadvantaged areas continue to have
equal access to dance training given
that short-term funding site will affect things and outreach funding affect things and outreach funding has been cut.
14:40
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The government will launch a new centre for arts and music education to take forward the ambitions that
my noble friend rightly asks of us for improved and more equitable arts
education in state-funded schools, and this would include a focus on dance. The Music and Dance Scheme is
a long-standing program in the Department will consider future funding in due course. Tough
decisions have to be made to get our finances back under control and this
includes, as my noble friend identifiers, some additional funding that was made available to dance outreach.
All eligible MDS students
bursaries.
14:41
Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome government's continue
support of MDS and the National Centre on the recognition of the vital role in opening up dance careers to diverse talent but does
the noble Lord the Minister share my
concern that too many children will never know if they have a talent for dance because despite it being a statutory part of the national curriculum, one third of primary
schools are reported not to teach it and its place within PE means teachers often don't have the
confidence and the skill set to deliver so what steps is government taking to improve the place of dance
teaching within schools, and will it consider a national plant would dance education or a model dance
curriculum akin to those that exist for music? for music?
14:42
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lady of course is right that dance is part of the National
Curriculum in PE of, which of course
is part of the entitlement for
children for all of the first three key stage but I do read nice her
point about ensuring not only that it exists in the curriculum but that it is of high quality as well. And I will bear in mind her point about
how we can ensure as we recruit additional teachers into our schools that we have the specialist teachers
with expertise in dance to be able to do that.
14:42
Lord Blackwell (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I declare an interest as the governor of a specialist music school. As she will be aware, the
India scheme covers music schools as well as dance schemes. Is she aware
well as dance schemes. Is she aware
of the uncertainty damage caused to parents trying to decide whether or not they can send their children to
these schools, as well as the viability of the schools if there is not future funding and could she clarify, when she talks about a new
centre, but this is being considered as an alternative to the MDS scheme because the MDS scheme is vital to the future of many of these very specialist but highly priced
schools.
-- Highly prized. schools. -- Highly prized.
14:43
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I hope the noble Lord recognises that I recognise the contribution
that the MDS scheme makes and particularly the way in which it
enables children who other wise would not be able to afford this
type of education to be able to afford it and as I pointed out, it is both long-standing and the government has made a commitment to
it this year, including two bursaries that are necessary for those young people to get the
benefit from it. We will make further announcements about this in
the future.
Sadly, given the way that funding decisions and budget planning goes, it's not that unusual
for there not to be a longer-term commitment to something. But the
government was not commitment so far to this has been a right and appropriate given the contribution it makes. it makes.
14:44
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
... Take the opportunity to let us
know whether they will at least upgrade the grant they are talking about here in future? If you leave them stationary they will very
rapidly become token gestures. can
the government) said it's on long- term planning by saying it will upgrade the support to giving to
people on this particular scheme? -- Connect upgrade planning.
14:44
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The government has meant end
commitment to providing generous support to help students to access the specialist music and dance
education and training that this
scheme funds. Committing 36 winning pounds for this academic year, and
of course, upgrading, so that means all families below-average relevant
income of £45,000 per annum will continue to benefit from additional financial support next academic
year. Of course the government was able to upgrade the contribution
made through the Music and Dance Scheme bursary, for example in order
to ensure that all families were unaffected financially by the VAT
change in January the VAT change in January 2025.
I think the noble Lord is trying a different way to get me
to commit future funding to this scheme at a point at which, as I think I've already identified, it's
think I've already identified, it's
14:45
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Now we have the good news that
the government has agreed to extend the bursary and the national advance
centres for training program. Will the Minister be able to facilitate an open dialogue with these providers to ensure there is a
strong voice for dance education in informing decision-making, including
going forward and the new national
arts and music centre that you referred to. Enabling providers to shape the program based on expertise shape the program based on expertise and the rich data they hold.
14:46
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think my noble friend makes a
very important point. There is an enormous amount of expertise in the schools supported by other music and
dance stuff as there is in other parts of the system. And the
priority here has had to be to bring as many different organisations and voices as possible, in order to design the National Centre for and
music, in a way that doesn't deliver
that objective of a more equitable access to education in state funded schools.
I think that will need lots schools. I think that will need lots of voices a lot of contribution and the ambition that the Government has already put into it.
14:47
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Please allow me to quote Lady
Longfield in her role as Executive chair of the centre for young lives
and I quote, "Creativity and expressive arts should be part of parcel of every child's education in
primary school. " Please allow me to quote the Prime Minister, "Every young person should have access to
art, music, design and drama that is our mission. Can the noble Baroness
the Minister please help us understand why Ed Sheeran, backed by Elton John, Eric Clapton and the
hundreds of other artists wrote to the Prime Minister just three months
ago to say the time to act is now.
State schools are seeing a decrease in music provision, how many more
venues need to close, how many music programs need to be cut before we realise that we cannot just celebrate success, we have to protect the foundations that make it.
14:48
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, I do agree with the words of my noble friend, Baroness
Longfield and I'm sure she, like I
art displayed at, for example the big call of those people able to
take GCSEs in those subjects, over the period of time that the noble
Lord was in government. He is dismayed, as the liver lady says, the number of teachers that we are
losing, in this particular area. This government has a commitment,
not only through the National Centre for Arts and Music Education, but through its investment in our
schools, our investment in its teachers and our commitment to a new National Curriculum available for all schools and an entitlement for
all schools and an entitlement for all children.
I only wish the last government had been as committed. government had been as committed.
14:48
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Further to the question of my noble friend, Baroness Bull, how is the overall effectiveness of music
and dance assessed, clearly it is a great scheme, is it possible that there are talented students who need
support, who may still be missing out. How might this be assessed and rectified. rectified.
14:49
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The Music and Dance Scheme does have a particular function to play in enabling very talented young
people, who would not otherwise be able to access the excellent
education provided by schools in the scheme. It would therefore be right
to say that, of course, there will
always potentially be other children and young people who could have benefited from this type of
education. That's why we need a broader approach as a manifest through the proposal for the
National Centre for Arts and Music Education stop to ensure that we are widening opportunities for all young
widening opportunities for all young people to get to that position of excellence, where they can benefit from the Music and Dance Scheme.
14:50
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Second Oral Questions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Food must meet labelling and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Food must meet labelling and nutrition standards. We expect the industry to improve nutritional content and labelling of foods,
content and labelling of foods, including taking voluntary action to align products with the dietary
align products with the dietary guidelines and best practice. This government is committed to raising
government is committed to raising the healthiest generation of children, which is why we are
children, which is why we are investing 557 million, which is why we are investing £557 million of her staff life services to improve
14:50
Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
staff life services to improve infant health and feeding and to provide support to parents. I thank my noble friend. In
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my noble friend. In response to mounting evidence and concern about poor nutritional and
concern about poor nutritional and high sugar content in commercial baby foods. Despite them being
marketed as a healthy substitute for home-cooked food. The NHS has issued
new guidance, advising parents not to use these products every day, but only occasionally, if at all. Given
that the crucial development depends on the best possible nutrition and
it is in these early years, lifelong
eating habits and taste can become entrenched.
The escalating crisis in child obesity. For the government now regulate what is sold as baby
now regulate what is sold as baby food? And is marketed and how it is marketed to parents. marketed to parents.
14:51
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I share my noble friends views and concerns and recognise that the
current situation is not good enough. Current regulations are set
nutritional standards and we continue to push industry to go
further, to reduce the sugar content in baby foods. We welcome the recent updates to advice for parents and
carers, on the start for life website. Picking up on a particular
point that commercial baby foods can be used as part of a baby's diet,
but should not be used as the primary source of nutrition, for
infants and completely recognise her acknowledgement of the first 1001 days of a baby's life and how
days of a baby's life and how important they are, for the rest of their lives.
their lives.
14:52
Baroness Walmsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords... Thank you. Voluntary action and expectation really have
not worked and will not do in the future. Is the Minister aware of
report published in January evaluating the compliance of UK
commercial baby foods, with WHO nutritional guidelines. Only 45% adhered to the nutritional
standards. 60% complied with Maxi
sugar content requirements and none met the requirements for appropriate nutrients, he sent a marketing
claims. The paper concluded that the regulation and regulatory measures are essential.
What does the
are essential. What does the government plan to do about it? government plan to do about it?
14:53
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I hear the frustration in the noble Lady's comments, every time she raises in this matter. I would
love to have a conversation with her
on this particular issue. Can I
emphasise, recognising the frustration, we are challenging industry to improve the nutritional
content in baby foods. Including products with dietary guidelines and
best practice. Can I just say that it is not all doom and gloom and
there is evidence, in certain areas, of improvement, as a result of this.
There is a great deal more to do and we will continue to review the
situation and work with the best interests of our children and young
**** Possible New Speaker ****
people and their families, going forward. We know how important this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
We know how important this question is an I've been here 14
14:54
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
question is an I've been here 14 years and we have been jumping up and down like crazy frogs on this
question. We know it is all about messaging, we know that pouches,
should mention that it is a
dangerous for children's tea. 4 mg of sugar is too much. Can I ask does
she think it would be a good idea if the partners could give some simple
training to our social and health
workers, so perhaps if simple eating advice to parents, when they can
make a simple, cheap food to feed their children.
-- Children's teeth.
14:55
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lady race is a very
important point and that is why we are investing so much in the dark the live program. Obviously building
on all of the evidence and experience from the Sure Start model. That model worked because it
brought all of the other professionals together under one roof and parents could go through
the door. Nobody knew why they were going through that door. There was
no stigma attached to it at all. And then the other aspect of course is
peer support.
Sharing with other parents their experience. Winning children is difficult, trust me I've
children is difficult, trust me I've
been there. It is not easy. Parents need a huge amount of support and
the pressure from advertising externally is immense. She is
externally is immense. She is absolutely right. No one agency can do this, it is a team effort and we all need to pull together. all need to pull together.
14:56
Lord Watts (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The private sector failing to actually introduce the change, the government have failed, the previous
government failed, for many, many
government failed, for many, many years to do anything about it. You need proper regulation. need proper regulation.
14:56
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Just to say our focus is absolutely on improving the
situation. I think we kid ourselves
if we think it is just going to be solved by forms of regulation. This is a much bigger issue. It is about
changing culture. It is about making
sure that we take young women and dads forward on this journey and that we look at every opportunity
that they've got to improve the performance of the industry and call
it out, when it is failing and make sure that we have the best evidence
to take things forward.
14:57
Baroness Manzoor (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
... Association estimate 54% of women, breastfeed. Of course we all know that breastfeeding is best for
babies. When you compare that with Europe, the UK is one of the lowest.
Germany, 50% of women do some extra
feeding at six months and the US it
is around 49%. New mothers are discharged from hospital the next day, even if they have had cesarean
section. I would like to ask of the
noble Lady in the Minister, what the government is doing to support a new
mothers to breastfeed their babies and what they will do to promote breastfeeding, particularly as the formula companies have huge budgets,
marketing budgets.
marketing budgets.
14:58
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
In my former life, I never dreamt I would spend so much time talking
about breastfeeding in the House of Lords. The noble Lady raises such an important point. That is why we are
investing in start for life. The start for life services includes £18.5 million to improve the infant feeding services and providing
practical support, with breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is
tough. It is not easy. They used to be, of course in days gone by, enormous support, within hospital if
the women had their babies in hospital.
That does not exist any more. We want to make sure it is
delivered through the communities, come up with a network of channels to help women and make sure that we
to help women and make sure that we improve those statistics, that she so ably outlined.
14:58
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
... Some others genuinely can't breastfeed. I was among them. What
is the government doing to strengthen the rules about sugar,
and other unfortunate things. and other unfortunate things.
14:59
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the noble Lady is
absolutely right about making sure that we do not stigmatise women who can't breastfeed. I think that is
absolutely critical and I think there is criticism of some of the organisations supporting
breastfeeding, that are perhaps going too far. Just the outline we
do take this seriously and particularly looking at the
different ages, moving from infant formula and onwards. The advice that
frankly is quite misleading, from companies, all of this needs to be taken into account to get a rounded taken into account to get a rounded picture to make sure that consumers are getting the best information possible.
14:59
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
May I agree with the noble Lady,
the honourable lady Butler-Sloss. We should not stigmatise women who cannot breastfeed. Nevertheless baby
formula does specify that breast is best. Similarly, for example a lady Hughes's question, what sort of
general awareness is the government
engaging in to inform parents on home-cooked food being better than
pre- cooked. It is not ultra- processed, it is not expensive, like baby food. Of course they know baby food. Of course they know exactly what is going into it.
15:00
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the noble Lady touches on
the importance of the family hub model. Making sure that it is
building on Sure Start. It is also important that we keep an eye on
what is happening, the Competition and Markets Authority, market study,
is important. We are looking at this very closely. We want to work with the devolved governments, to make
sure you have a UK wide response to stop so that we can respond
appropriately. Of course at that level of consultation takes time and
level of consultation takes time and level of consultation takes time and
Third Oral Question.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Paper. Quick change of heart. -- Hat.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Quick change of heart. -- Hat. This year we have boosted funding for social care authorities by up to
for social care authorities by up to £3.7 billion and provided £86
£3.7 billion and provided £86 million for home adaptations for older and disabled people. Further improvements include the largest
improvements include the largest ever uplift to carers allowance earnings limit legislating for the first Fair Pay Agreement for care
first Fair Pay Agreement for care workers and new standards for care
workers and new standards for care technologies.
Bonus Casey is chairing an independent, and to make recommendations for a National Careers Service with phase 1
15:02
Lord Bradley (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Careers Service with phase 1 reporting next year. -- Baroness Casey. I thank my noble friend for that
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I thank my noble friend for that reply and welcome the additional information she has outlined. I want to raise further the issue of extraordinary work of unpaid
extraordinary work of unpaid workers. In the care system. The government has confirmed to me that 61% of unpaid carers in receipt of carers allowance have no other
additional income from paid employment. Not surprising since eligibility for the allowance
requires 35 hours of caring every week but the amount received for
this work is only £83 a week, or
less than £2.40 an hour.
Would the Minister urgently review this woeful
level of recompense, well ahead of Baroness Casey's review in 2028 for the millions of unpaid carers
without whom social care system may well collapse.
15:03
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
And I thank my noble friend for his question and can I take this
opportunity to pay tribute to all of the unpaid carers who make such an
important contribution to the lives
of the most vulnerable in our society. This government is committed to ensuring that families
have the support they need and we know that many people want to play a role caring for their family and friends and quite frankly it's
friends and quite frankly it's
exceptionally difficult at times.
We want to ensure they are better able
to look after their own health and well to enable them to care for others. To support our unpaid carers, in April 2025 the government increased the carers allowance,
weekly earnings limit from £150 per week to £196 per week, the largest
ever increase and I know that Dame
Louise Casey through her commission will be looking at this situation
very closely as we move forward.
15:04
Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
May I declare... May declare my
interest as a director officer of an
adult social business. I think it's time and I hope the review will look at it, is actually to rename carers
as something other than carers.
Because it distorts the training, the level of professionalism carers
provide everything update. And if we try and rephrase the name of carers they may actually see that there is a career progress model in place for
them.
15:04
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I say that I welcome the comments from Baroness Casey, that
she will be looking to reach out to all of the different organisations,
to the voluntary sector and to carers themselves and I think this is something that she will hear from across the sector and I'm sure the
noble Lady will make sure her voice forward. forward.
15:05
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
The recent report of the Health and Social Care Committee found that too much emphasis has been put on the cost of reforming social care and not enough thought being given
to the human and financial cost of inaction. It also argued the government needs to measure the true cost of an action so it can present a robust financial case, not least
to the Treasury, and one that takes account of things like loss of tax receipts has people have to give up
work and withdraw from the labour market.
Does the government agree with this analysis? with this analysis?
15:05
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I don't think it will, is any surprise to the no bloody that we are looking at the recommendations of the health and social care Select
Committee report. We will be coming forward with the recommendations but
of course this is absolutely vital to look at the impact of the model
that we have now society, on those people involved, but also on the economy. The various debates we have had in this House over the time that
I've been here have picked that up and recognise the valuable contribution that people make the economy and we have to take the
holistic view moving forward, and as I say, this is why we have the commission to look at all the different aspects to improve the situation and make progress.
situation and make progress.
15:06
Lord Laming (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Does the noble Lord the Minister agree that the government will not achieve its ambitions for the National Health Service without
alongside it a well developed and successful plan of development.
Social care services. Easily
accessible, properly trained and well-respected. Could the noble Lord the Minister tell the House, does the government have a development
plan for social care in mind? plan for social care in mind?
15:07
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lord raises such an important point. And he will also be
I'm sure thinking about hospital discharge, all of those issues that
are creating such difficulties in
the system. And I want to emphasise that adult social is part of our
vision for a neighbourhood health service, shifting care from hospitals to communities the NHS
working alongside local authorities, social care providers, and that
voluntary sector. We will, I'm sure we're all looking forward to the
enhancement of the 10-year health plan.
Looking at how we can move
healthcare from hospitals to the community but recognising that all agencies out of the community have a
vital part to play to make the story successful. successful.
15:08
Baroness Pitkeathley (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Government has rightly adopted a
preventive approach as far as the NHS is concerned. Thus my noble friend agree that this would also be a good idea to apply to social care
as well? To take the issue of unpaid
carers, for example, and I can never resist the temptation to remind your lodgers that they save the nation
£192 billion a year, but if you put in a small amount of support to those unpaid carers, at an early
point in their caring journey, you can often prevent a crisis arising.
And surely this makes very sound economic sense to adopt this preventative approach to social
care?
15:08
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the noble Lady has made
the point for all of us and as we know one of the main pillars in
terms of changing the health system that we have is moving from sickness
to prevention. I believe you can transfer that logic, that thinking, to this area. We have fantastic
examples where different neighbourhoods have stepped up to
the plate, working to bridge the gap between the health service and local
social care providers, and working with carers as well.
It's a
particularly critical look at examples of good practice, and make
the shift that needs to be made.
15:09
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
In January, the government
announced that they will develop a shared digital platform to allow
up-to-date medical information to be shared between the NHS and care staff. Will the noble Baroness the
Minister tell us how much progress has been made in developing this
digital platform?
15:09
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I don't think it will come as a
surprise to the noble Lady that I can't give her the detail on that question but I'm very happy to get
back to her to give her an update on where we have got to. Obviously the whole area of digitisation is
another of the pillars in moving the
health service forward. So many people collect data about actually
don't use it. We are very good at harvesting it but not actually analysing it.
Working out how we can
use it to best effect. But that is one of the commitments. one of the commitments.
15:10
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say in terms of private
sector, what discussions are being held with private sector care
companies to acquire them in exchange for the often considerable amount of money they received from
the public purse to work with education institutions to provide high quality training for social
care staff in their local area?
15:10
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
My noble friend raises an important point. Of course if we are
moving to a neighbourhood health service we need to engage with local
social care providers and make sure that they are part of the mix and this is where Baroness Casey is starting. She's bringing everyone
together to talk about how to deliver this. But we need to make sure that our training authorities
institutions are engaged and everyone who can contribute is round
the table to move things forward.
15:11
Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Fourth Oral Question.
Paper.
15:11
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We are committed to breaking down
barriers to opportunity and supporting more children to access
high-quality PE and sport. The new commitment outlined by the Prime Minister as he wished nylon ices
good luck in the -- as he wished the Lionesses good luck is to create
links between schools, local clubs and national governing bodies of sport to help deliver on this. We
are working with the school and sports sectors to design the partnerships, further details including funding will be outlined
in due course.
Following a commercial process we expect these partnerships to be in place from
autumn 2026.
15:12
Lord Moynihan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
The announcement by the Prime Minister that every child across the country will be given equal access
to high-quality PE and sport, as the government have indicated, will be
welcomed across all sides of the House. However in view of the fact some 3.9 million children are continuing increasing this year to
40% of our children in schools do
not even meet the chief medical officer's basic recommendation for daily physical, flown access to high-quality PE, given the government 15% cut to the DCMS
penetration budget by 2030 in the Spending Review, and given the government was not plan to remove
sporting role as a statutory, salty leading to Sport England's view this
would have a negative impact on physical activity with a loss of yet more school playing fields, does the
Minister agree that a clearly costed additional multibillion pounds budget would be essential to avoid
falling massively short of the delivery of the Prime Minister's laudable aspirations?
15:13
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Of course it's important that there is a fully funded and costed
programme. But I would point the
noble Lord, when we are talking about the facilities that are so
important for enabling young people, in fact all people, to be able to
engage in sport, to first of all the increased capital investment
announced in our schools as part of the Spending Review, part of which of course can be used for maintaining facilities there. And of
course, DCMS's announcement of a additional 400 and additional 404 sport facilities.
What is important
is that where you have strong local clubs, where you have national
To give them their due, providing lots of opportunities for young people, you also need something to bring those things together to ensure that however much investment
we are making in the system, maximising it for children to be able to benefit and that is the intention of that new partnership.
15:14
Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Went a good few years ago all three major parties looked at sports
policy, we also do, yes there should
be a link with clubs outside. We also said there had to be a mix of
options available to make sure people find something that actually will enjoy. Will the government give
a commitment that they will not
create a unique monoculture for sporting so that people have
options. Some people will be hockey players, some rugby players, many will be soccer players such.
Actual that everyone has an option is very
important otherwise this will merely repeat some of the failures of the past. past.
15:15
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think he makes a really important point. Activity is
important but not every young person will necessarily want to do the same
sport and arguably, whilst as you can see with the Lionesses, football has become much more popular for
girls, often it has been a focus on traditional sports that has meant
that girls for example have not necessarily found the things they
would like to do in order to keep active. So I can absolutely give a
commitment that it will be part of the government's intention, both through this partnership and more broadly, to make sure that there are the range of opportunities to enable
everybody to find the sport and
activity that will help to improve the enjoyment and to keep them the enjoyment and to keep them
15:16
Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
, noble Lady the Minister say what
specific action is being taken to close the ethnicity gap, even with
ethnicity group they are accessing different types of sport, this gap will help with integration, help to
Well, I think the noble Lady makes a very important point. It partly relates to the extent to which we can provide a whole range of
can provide a whole range of opportunities for people to engage in activity. And the way in which we can use the new partnership
can use the new partnership arrangements, at a local level, to see what sort of provision is available and how we can link
available and how we can link schools, more easily, to that local provision, which may well have come
provision, which may well have come from and promoted by different parts of the community.
This has to be an
approach that ensures that everybody has the opportunity to benefit from
has the opportunity to benefit from the obvious advantages, that come from being a more active and for taking part in sport.
15:17
Lord Cryer (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
For many years now,
schoolchildren have been losing access to swimming pools, pool time
has been in decline. That is clearly not the fault of the present
government, however we are where we are. We need to stop that decline and reverse it so increasingly
schoolchildren have access to pools, not just to create the champions of the future, but to actually save
lives, because swimming is the one lifer that might make a difference between living and dying.
15:17
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why of
course it is a key part of the National Curriculum, before the age
of 11 that children should be able to swim. It is why the ongoing
commitment to the primary PE and sport premium, funded for the next
academic year at £320 million, can also and has been used to ensure there is access to swimming
facilities and a safety in the way
that my noble friend outlined.
Of course we need to ensure that local
course we need to ensure that local authorities, as well have both the ability and the recognition of how important swimming pools are for
important swimming pools are for everybody to be able to benefit from.
15:18
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
The government investment of £100 million to upgrade sports facilities and improve access to sport for people with special educational
needs and disabilities, noble Lords will be aware of other significant disparities which persist against across demographics and
participation in sports and extracurricular activities, including disparities in relation to race and gender as well as socio-
economic and regional inequalities. May ask the Minister how the government plans to level the
playing field regionally, to enable the most underrepresented groups to participate more fully, in sport.
participate more fully, in sport.
15:19
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right, first of all to
recognise the importance and the
possibility of engaging children with special educational needs,
disabilities, in sport and PE. That is why the government has approved a grant of £300,000 a year for up to 3
years, to increase and improve opportunities for pupils with SEND.
Identifying where there is already really good practice and sharing
that more widely. I think that needs to be an important element.
As I suggested earlier, with what happens
with the new partnerships. To make sure that there is the range and the
links made, between partners, so that everybody, regardless of their background is able to get the background is able to get the benefits of that can come from sport and activity.
15:19
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Modelling by the Royal Society for Public Health out late
yesterday, rated overweight all obese children will rise in 90% of local authority areas in the next
decade. Separately, approximately one in five children and young
A bought mental health disorders. It is a proven fact that sport,
physical exercise and good diet help with these issues. So does the noble Baroness at the Minister agree that
the various cross-party amendments, to the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, relating to nutritious food and increased physical education should be accepted.
education should be accepted.
15:20
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Well, given that we are about to go on today at eight of the
committee stage of the bill, I am looking forward to that discussion and debate. The noble Lord is of
course absolutely right in identifying what are the benefits are sport and activity to young
people, ensuring that they remain healthy and of course both physically and in terms of their
mental health. That is why, without waiting for the bill and the amendments that the noble Lords
outline, we are already making progress to support sports activity that is happening in school and more
broadly, through the work of my colleagues in the Department for
Culture, Media and Sport, to ensure that there is provision of a grass
that there is provision of a grass roots sports facilities, as well for stuff I look forward to the debate that the noble Lord mentions.
that the noble Lord mentions.
15:21
The Earl of Devon (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
And the National plan for sports, with Lord Moylan and Lord Addington
and a number other laws. We learnt at the lack of access to secondary school playing fields, after school hours, particularly for local school
clubs. It seemed to us, in
conclusion, that that was merely a lack of support, man-hours and staffing. I wonder what the government is doing to increase access to the few remaining secondary school playing fields we have.
15:22
Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
True that there are only a few
remaining secondary school playing fields, let's be clear. The noble
Lord makes a very good point. Where something is provided, importantly
to be able to focus on school during the course of the school day. We
should work harder to make sure that that facility is available to be used by communities, alongside the
additional investment the government is putting in any way, to ensure that there are grassroots and community sports facilities.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
That is the end of Oral Questions for today, those who wish to leave
for today, those who wish to leave the chamber may do so now,
15:23
Statement: Middle East Update
-
Copy Link
Questions Questions on Questions on the Questions on the statement Questions on the statement made Questions on the statement made in
the House of Commons yesterday, on the Middle East.
15:24
Lord Callanan (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Blackstone (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Unlike the extraordinary accusations made by the Conservative
party just now. I would like to congratulate the government on the
carefully thought out position it is taken out on the issue of a military
conflict between the US and Israel and Iran. I would also like to thank him and his colleagues for the
efforts they are making to try and find a long-term lasting a diplomatic solution to the issue of
nuclear weapons in Iran. Turning
from that issue to what is happening in Gaza, can I ask my noble friend
if he can tell the House a little bit more about what is happening in
relation to the replacement of the
completely failed Israeli American
method of a distribution.
Can he tell the House whether he thinks some steps have been taken to
replace them with the NGOs who are familiar with the best ways of
distributing aid in Gaza so we will not see any more slaughter of
Palestinian civilians, desperately trying to get food aid for the starving children. starving children.
15:48
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I thank my noble friend for her comments and can I be absolutely
clear, we are not leaving any stone
unturned, in relation to getting aid into Gaza. We are working with a range of NGOs, everyone possible.
And of course we remain committed to the solution through the main
agency, the UN, to ensure that that age gets properly distributed. We
have sought assurances about that. We are not going to leave. Every opportunity we have had is to put to
the Israeli government that they should open those routes to aid to
should open those routes to aid to
ensure that aid can get through.
We are now in a desperate situation as
the noble Lord Purvis said, that those who were seeking through the agency, the US agency and the
Israeli agency are being short. They are being shot as they approach the aid distribution points. That cannot
be right. We must be able to get proper aid through to the appropriate agencies.
15:49
Baroness Browning (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
... Call for the Iranians was to
Moscow. For Moscow to provide something it isn't, something that
becomes immediately aware to the world is of course scientific
expertise on nuclear weaponry and in
replacing the nuclear scientists, who we know have been killed. He is
the Minister confident that as we can't yet identify what has happened to the uranium and with that
particular port of call, it is a concern that against the backdrop of
the talks that will necessarily take place, we are actually going to keep place, we are actually going to keep our eye on what Iran is going to do in the future.
15:50
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We should be concerned that that
was the Iranian Minister's first point of call. We should be aware of
what Putin said to him. Again, I think actually that means it is even
more important that we support President Trump who has made it clear that the only long-term solution to ensure that a Rann does
not have the capability of nuclear
weapons is there to do a deal, as the President puts it -- Iran. We
**** Possible New Speaker ****
will be supporting our ally in achieving that fundamental objective. I'm grateful for the statement
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm grateful for the statement and further commitments that the government is making. You cannot
government is making. You cannot
15:51
The Lord Bishop of Leeds (Bishops)
-
Copy Link
-
government is making. You cannot bomb an idea out of existence. Going back to Lord Purvis's comments about the difference between strategy and
tactics. While scenario planning is the government doing now, to address the next three or four generations
of terrorists, who are being born, amid the traumas of the current
**** Possible New Speaker ****
violence. I think the right reverend Prelate makes a really important
Prelate makes a really important point. That our actions, in relation
point. That our actions, in relation to this shouldn't be only in terms of international diplomacy. It
should also be looking after our communities at home. It should also be about how we bring communities
15:51
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
be about how we bring communities together. It is also important that we ensure that all of our communities are safe. That is why we
are taking every possible action,
. I think he's right we should be
focusing on that community build and
making sure that the terrible conditions don't provoke people into taking these horrendous actions we have seen in the past.
15:52
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I welcome the statement from the Minister and urged the
government not to follow the drum
beat of escalation and learn the lessons of 2003 and Iraq. Can I ask
the Minister around the totally understandable delayed UN conference, initiated by the French
and the Saudis. Now that we have got this opportunity of a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. What
actions is the government taking to bring forward, as soon as possible
the date that meeting.
It is urgently needed. We cannot take our eye off what is happening in Palestine. Palestine.
15:53
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think the noble Lord is absolutely correct. We were extremely disappointed about the
postponement of the conflict. I think it was inevitable, because it wasn't going to be possible for all
the participants that needed to be there, to be there. Let me reassure
the noble Lord, we are working very closely with the French and the
Saudis to ensure that the two-state solution takes place as soon as
possible and the government will be working very hard to ensure that
working very hard to ensure that conference is a success and we can look towards a longer term future.
15:53
Lord Hain (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Just observed that the steps
taken by the noble Lord Callinan is complete various to what is
government did in 14 years in power, which is not to start nuking
everybody and seek to attack aggressively, but to pursue the very
diplomacy that he is seeking to promote now. As a former UK Middle East Minister, can I suggest that
what is needed is to recognise the two main fault lines in this region.
One, Palestine and Israel and to,
Shia Sunni, which means Iran and Saudi.
And what is needed is a
regional summit on the Saudis, the
Jordan...
15:54
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
We have been working with France
and the Saudis, in terms of that two-state solution, which of course
is extremely difficult, with allies in the region working hard. I believe that that can be a long-term
secure future. I just repeat, I
think, the Foreign Minister and the Minister for the Middle East, in the
last few days, in particular, all this week has been constant touch
with all of our Middle East partners, across those divides, to
ensure that we focus on long-term security, stability and deescalation.
That is what we've
been focused on. I think the long-
term solution to a Rann's nuclear capabilities is what President Trump
said, do a deal, secure the long- term future.
15:55
Lord Pickles (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
I congratulate the government... To move towards prescribing
Palestine action. Can I urge him to
take the next logical step to prescribe the people you pay for Palestine action, who are paying for
terrorism in Europe, on our streets and the IRGC. Can you make the
action quickly. We need to make our streets safer.
15:56
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I totally agree with the noble Lord that we need to make our
streets safer and the Iran destabilisation of the Middle East and human rights violations and nuclear escalation include also of
course the threats to people in the
UK and all of these actions absolutely, we will not hesitate to take the most effective measures
against the regime and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and we are working, at pace, to identify
further ways we can deal with state
state threats, including those with
the IRGC.
On 4 March, we announced we will replace the Iranian state, including its intelligence services
and the IRGC, on the enhanced tier of the new Foreign Influence Registration Scheme. The Home
Secretary announced to Parliament on Monday, on 19 May, Jonathan Hall,
Casey's review delivers a suite of recommendations to tackle state threats, which we are committed to
taking forward. Including the creation of the new state threats
prescription tool. I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are Lord will understand that we are focused on dealing with the threat.
15:57
Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I say how much I welcome the
way in which my noble friend has presented the case for the
government today and is calm and measured in his way in a stark
contrast to the belligerence of the opposition spokesman. I'm glad my noble friend is in charge of these
things and the opposition spokesman isn't. Can I ask him to reflect,
with me and come to the conclusion that Western intervention, in the
affairs of the Middle East rarely seems to end happily, whether it is
seems to end happily, whether it is
families, supplying arms, can I ensure that the watch work word of this government, going forward to
this series of crisis will be one of extreme caution because it is so much easier to get embroiled in a much easier to get embroiled in a conflict than it is to get out of it.
15:58
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I appreciate my noble friend's comments. Let me just reassure the
House, I am absolutely committed. We
have been working with all sides, including shadow Ministers opposite
to ensure that we put the security of this country first. There is no
partisan ownership here. We want to work together to ensure the security of this country. My noble friend is
absolutely right, that a situation that can escalate so quickly,
caution is absolutely essential. The key elements here is actually how we
do work, with our allies, not just those across the Atlantic, but
particularly those in the region to
stop the noble Lord hasn't been
provoked yet to ask me a question, but I think he has been absolutely right, in his past contributions and
particularly when he was Minister for the Middle East, North Africa and the Middle East.
He absolutely
focused on building those strong alliances, with those allies and I am determined and this government is
footsteps.
15:59
Lord Green of Deddington (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
... Than a Minister knows better
than most that this is a complex situation indeed. The government, if
I may say so have handled it rather well, so far. It has been a very
complex week and the decisions taken have been very accurate. I would just say one thing. Which I hope
that the government will be extremely careful over a Rann, that
is where the difficulty is going to arise and where we could find ourselves at short notice and a very
difficult situation.
16:00
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I appreciate the comments of the noble Lord and I, you know, we are
determined to actually focus on all of those diplomatic tools we have available. And we are, absolutely
focused. Can I also reassure noble Lords that we did not participate in
the US or Israeli strikes, we were given due notice, as we would expect
of close allies to the US. We have been moving assets in the region to
make sure that we are in a position to protect our own interests, our
personnel, our assets and of course those allies.
Absolutely our first
duty is to ensure our forces and bases in the region are safe and
secure and we have been moving
assets to the region for that region reason. I agree with the noble Lord, we are cautious and we are
absolutely focused on diplomatic efforts. We absolutely remain committed to protecting our troops
committed to protecting our troops
16:01
Lord Hussain (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome the statement on deescalation but my heart bleeds for the people of Glasgow who are being
killed, men women and children, all trying to collect food and water --
the people of Gaza. 44 people have
been killed by strikes on Friday. While collecting aid. Can the
Minister give the assurance to this House that British weapons, British
weapons supplied to Israel are not used to kill innocent men and women
and children in Gaza?
16:02
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The simple answer to that noble Lord is that I can give him that
assurance. We have absolutely complied with those licences, we
stopped issuing licences for export to the Israelis, that could be used in Gaza so we are absolutely
complying with what he says.
16:02
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
For more than 30 years, the leaders of the Arab League and its
friends, the EU and Europe as a whole, have sat on their hands and
looked down at this dyspeptic Republic has acquired the nuclear capability so does the Minister
support the military action taken by
the USA in endeavouring to destroy the imminent danger not only to Israel but to the rest of the world in general, and would he also agree
with me that in securing the release
of the 50 hostages still held in Gaza may go some way to alleviating this conflict?
16:03
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I just agree with her in the last part of her question,
absolutely. We have been very clear
that the immediate release of all hostages was vital and an immediate ceasefire, we have been absolutely
clear on that demand. But can I just say that the noble Lady sort of
implies something that isn't necessarily a case. The US have
taken action to alleviate the threat that Iran poses. But as President
Trump has repeatedly said, and said this morning, that the long-term
solution of stopping at thread, stopping Iran having nuclear-
weapons, is a deal and I have confidence in President Trump in achieving that.
16:04
Lord West of Spithead (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I have to congratulate the government on rates been handling the current situation. There's
nothing like fighting a war to make you realise, I have forced number of them, that you don't want a war and
the actions we are taking help stop that. Bombing campaigns tone to
never win wars. -- 10. And they don't get you in that direction.
Looking back historically, I worked at length with the Americans, our allies, and stopping Netanyahu doing
attacks on there only in nuclear facilities, this is going back a few
years where they actually did dress rehearsals at the time.
Could I just
clarify with my noble friend minister that if we want to have a long-term security for Israel, the
only is to stop fighting and actually negotiate. actually negotiate.
16:04
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I think my noble friend is absolutely right. And could I pay
tribute to his service for this country. I think he's absolutely
right that in the long-term, I keep repeating this, the US actions have
resulted in alleviating the threat, President Trump has made it clear that the long-term solution is a
that the long-term solution is a
deal and that is what this government will be focused in supporting. We have made clear the Prime Minister has said, and the Foreign Secretary has said, to Iran,
negotiate with the US and reach a deal that removes this thread
forever.
forever.
16:05
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
The noble Lord spoke about short-term tactical victories versus
long-term strategic outcomes. Iran is known to have had 400 kg of 60%
enriched uranium, 60% purity ring, if went to 90% could produce about
10 warheads. Many have said they do
not know where that Iranians now is and it could be moved -- where that
and it could be moved -- where that
uranium is. The endowment for international peace spokesperson
said it is difficult to overestimate what this is, and does the
government agree with that analysis?
16:06
Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Absolutely. We agree that the threat that this poses, and nobody could have been more concerned to
see prior to the attacks on those
nuclear sites, along truckloads. We don't know where they were going. We
don't know what was in them. But I think we can all assume that it
wasn't just empty packages that will
being taken out. And I think that's why, and I'm sorry I keep repeating myself, but I think that's why President Trump knows that the
actions that he took a not sufficient.
There are not sufficient to remove this threat in the long-
term and negotiated deal absolutely vital to have the future security of
the region and the world as a whole.
16:07
Statement: UK Infrastructure, a ten year strategy
-
Copy Link
Questions and statements made in the House of Commons on Thursday
19th June on UK strategy. -- UK in
19th June on UK strategy. -- UK in
16:08
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
-
Copy Link
-
... Consensus on the issue of skills. Can the noble Lord the Minister referred to the 16 to 19-
year-olds skills, requirement, age group. Would he also accept that if
we are going to get the investment successfully in sectors such as the
energy sector, which is a key part of the development the government has underlined. The University sector must also get the resources
sector must also get the resources
that are needed. In view of what has happened in the University sector over recent years, please can the Government themselves in coordination with devolved
governments, in Cardiff and Edinburgh, look at this sector, particularly, to get the resources
in, because we need the action now, it would take two, three, four, five
years before those people come out the other end.
We need them desperately to drive this forward. desperately to drive this forward.
16:29
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I completely agree with what the noble Lord is saying. The importance
of that sector. The energy sector,
for example. We have made this investment into engineering skills,
which will be valuable in that sector. I completely hear what is saying and we will keep working towards. towards.
16:30
Lord Birt (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
And the Minister may recall that
I spent six years at number 10 is Tony Blair's strategy adviser and I
spent a year of my time and first looking at the national transport
infrastructure road and rail. And we quickly identified that we had by far, it is very easy to demonstrate
the worst transport, the worst road and rail infrastructure of any major
country. We went further, if I recall the precise term, I think it
was 70 years.
It might have been
slightly yes. We looked at national investment in infrastructure of all kinds over that period. Again, the
same story, a smaller proportion of our GDP, then any major country. And
under both main parties, again and
again, and every single occasion, when the economy went into slight reverse, national investment in
reverse, national investment in
It's going to be different this time and does the Minister know, and if
he does not perhaps he could write to us and tell us what proportion of
GDP over this 10 year period is implied by this plan.
implied by this plan.
16:31
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
Definitely I would say yes to one of his questions which I am pleased
to be able to do, he talked about making sure this investment comes
back and I completely agree with him
and what he said about her previous Government have and that is absolutely why the fiscal rules are as they are, it creates space to
ensure that investment continues to
catch up day-to-day spending and I think that is for us to appreciate. He is absolutely right there has
been too little investment in transport and we have talked before
about the importance of connectivity
and control narration effects around cities, for example joining up
cities, making sure people can live
close to work and the skills conversation, so there are huge
growth benefits from transport
spending.
I think some of the money will continue £15.6 billion at city regions £2.3 billion the local
transport grant, 2.2 million for transport London as we were saying
before, so when it comes to GDP I do not have that number at hand. not have that number at hand.
16:33
Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
The Government 10 year interest of just tragic and indeed Industrial
Strategy published yesterday are absolutely essential for future growth, if I had to signal out one
item in the document it would be to develop our sovereign capacity for
the future. And as a member of the science and committee of your
Lordships house which is looking right now at the problems of scaling
those companies, but my Noble Friend the Minister sure the House that the National Wealth Fund is going to be able to provide vital early-stage
develop movement support for companies? Because we want them to scale up in Britain for the benefit
of Britain.
16:33
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to my Noble Friend.
I share his enthusiasm for what we
are doing in terms of the information landscape, £22.6 billion into R&D as part of the investment review, as he sees yesterday in the
Industrial Strategy, I think it is
exciting that we talk about the £2 million for AI and advanced manufacturing, so I think this is
all incredibly important. In terms of the National Wealth Fund, that is absolutely part of our funds and
talks about start-ups and skill ups.
The British business bank now has a
total capacity of £25.6 million which is over a two thirds increase
in UK businesses compared to 25 and 26 and tens of billions of pounds
more, so yes, the international welfare is one of the key
announcements in yesterday's Industrial Strategy.
16:34
Lord Harrington of Watford (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
In that spirit of I believe
**** Possible New Speaker ****
In that spirit of I believe
cross-party I will do my best and I chairman off UK which has more than 20,000 companies in the manufacturing and input structure
manufacturing and input structure that belong to it. I would like to commend the Government on this 10
commend the Government on this 10 year infrastructure plan, and indeed on the Industrial Strategy, because I did a review for the last
I did a review for the last Government investment and lack of consistency of policy with a number
consistency of policy with a number one item and connection to the grid, planning and other delays, so I
planning and other delays, so I really do commend the Government for that.
The question I would like to ask the Minister really is to do
ask the Minister really is to do with monitoring its implementation. For the main investing strategy the Government quite rightly set out a
Government quite rightly set out a strategy Council where each sector for example life sciences has groups
for example life sciences has groups to monitor the implementation of the industrial strategy. And I would
like to ask the Minister for the infrastructure plan which is very complex and includes skills,
finance, and then of course it includes very large things, what
16:35
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Earl Russell (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
My Lords, on these benches we very much welcome this report, and
after decades of investment this is essential to ensure our country can
operate appropriately. Could I ask the Minister a question about adoption and resilience? Our climate
is changing before our very eyes, there are a number of places in this report where there are vague
promises to do things and no firm
commitment. While we welcome the 7.9 million capital for a new 10 year
flood investment program, the report says the Government merely explores setting up the long-term multi-year target for management in line with
prior recommendations made by the
NIC.
So, can I ask the Government to go further on these and to recognise
the speed at which climate change is happening and make sure the Government puts more effort into ensuring that we really have the
best policies.
16:38
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I do absolutely agree with the
Noble Lord in terms of investment in net zero and missions to tackle climate change, and I think that from a growth perspective it is not
one the other, it goes hand-in-hand I do not quite agree with him when
it comes to vacancies, something we are putting real money behind, real
project, £14.2 million into nuclear, £9.4 million to storage, £80 million
into investments, floating offshore,
£13.2 million when it comes to more homes and a huge amount of investment to build concrete action
to really move us forward and
transport, getting people into public transport in terms of take-up
of TVs, for example.
I think there is action going on across-the-board to the different measures that he talks about.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think, I very much welcome the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I think, I very much welcome the
Noble Lord that Minister what he has really to your Lordships house this afternoon. Could I refer him to the decision yesterday in the Northern
decision yesterday in the Northern Ireland high court struck down the executive of the Department of
16:39
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party)
-
Copy Link
-
infrastructure major flagship
project with £7 billion to save
lives and improve the economic connections Northern Ireland with the Irish republics struck down because it was contrary to another
part of the nothing and executives overall strategy program for governing. Is this something that
sitting within Treasury could assist
in the executive because it certainly needs help from somewhere if it is going to be able to deliver
in infrastructure projects moving forward in light of this very serious judgement.
serious judgement.
16:40
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to the Noble Lord. I did not know about that decision
but I will happily go away and look at that. We have tried to engage extensively with the devolved
Governments to ensure there is a
strategy and what they are doing and I think they will continue to do that as we move into the
implementation, for example in the regions and we would be absolutely happy to go and talk to my
colleagues the Chiefs of how they could play a role to secure that and
we have think put in substantial
amount of capital investment into
the Spending Review and we want to make sure that is spent about way and achieves the right objectives, so I would be very happy to hand back the floor stop
16:41
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I welcome the statement made by the Minister. A much more joint and rational approach to infrastructure, long called for and very much
welcome and to the commitment to ensuring that info structure developers are going to take account
of biodiversity delivery. I was
delighted when the Ministers predecessor discovered Climate
Change Act and the fact that they discovered biodiversity is even more welcome. I also am very pleased to
see that Government committed to the framework approach for the issues
but if their number of existing
infrastructure schemes already in progress and decisions have been
made by day and preparing no spatial strategies, energy spatial
strategies, everyone has spatial strategies and we do not yet have
the framework in place and the joint
integration, so can I ask my Noble Friend when the Government proposes
to make its hand clear on the land use framework approach.
As I was
talking about and then implemented
at national and regional level and the infrastructure that is currently being made and, secondly, more of
this and on tomorrow, in my view the Planning and Infrastructure Bill
does not take a sufficiently clear
approach and in fact the framework
is singularly absent in this infrastructure bill which seems not
to be as joint as the admirable strategies. At the Minister care to respond or not? respond or not?
16:43
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am very grateful for the spatial planning elements. I do
think that spatial side of that is really important as she says to make
sure the infrastructure is not just the bill in isolation but focuses on
communities and also integrates national and regional sector level
planning. I do not have any news for her today on that land use framework and what she says about the planning
will I do not have anything to add today, but I will make sure that
when we douches one of the first.
16:43
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
May I congratulate the Government
on the 10 year strategy? To put a
smile on the Noble Lord the Ministers face. Indeed. In the interest of transparency and
clarity, can I ask him what route is meant to be for the TransPennine route upgrade? And what consultation
there will be. There seems to be
some confusion in an interview last week from that Minister responsible as to what the route would be. It would be very helpful, it would be
very welcome route.
I regret that has not taken precedence over HS2 or
HS three, but we are well be. Also, could he comment on the
implementations of clean energy? To be fully understood, it will take
10% of farm land out of production and 10% of fisheries out of reduction. Has the Government considered what impact on farming
and fisheries is going to be? and fisheries is going to be?
16:44
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to the Noble Lady for her smile, as always, it is most
welcome. In terms of the route of the TransPennine upgrade, she talked
of the importance of transparency. I think what is important is to write to her and set it out so that there
is no misunderstanding on that. In
terms of farming, I hope she welcomes the £2.7 million per year in sustainable but I think that is a
very substantial investment.
16:45
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
A number of references to the National transformation authority and the statement says this is based
on the Treasury ringing oversight of infrastructure strategy and delivery together and each great assurance signed delivery assessments. The
Treasury is not the expert in transport or energy or Social
Housing Act first. Many members of your Lordships house often lament
the dictatorship the Treasury over other Government positions. Is this
not a further concentration of power within one department in Government?
When, actually, we need the people with the expertise and the knowledge to be having the oversight, not the
to be having the oversight, not the to be having the oversight, not the
16:46
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
She might not expect me to agree with that point. I think the more in
the treasury the better in my point of view. But of course it is there to work for the whole government,
not just the treasury. It has to be based somewhere and it makes sense to be in the Treasury given the 10
year infrastructure strategy and that is what they will be overseeing. Their expertise is available to ministers right across
government.
16:46
Lord Macpherson of Earl's Court (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
Can I congratulate the Treasury
on this plan. Which is well thought through. If the economy is going to
grow, we have got to ensure that
public investment grows faster than public consumption. That is reflected in the government's plans,
but like mineable friend, Lord Bird, I worked for governments of both
main parties who announced investment plans with great fanfares
and good intentions, only for the first time they got into difficulty,
they jettisoned the plans, that
happen in 1976, 1992, 2008 and 2016.
The Minister mentioned that fiscal rules this time will see us right.
But as he knows, fiscal rules come and go. Can he assure the House
that, especially the skip six amongst us, that should the
government get into financial difficulties, it will protect investment, even if that means
investment, even if that means
bearing down on public consumption. bearing down on public consumption.
16:48
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The fiscal rules
are nonnegotiable as he will know. We have put them in place for
exactly the reason he describes, because too often in the past, public investment has been cut to patch up holes in day-to-day
spending. The reason we are setting
out this plan now, 10 year plan, is to give certainty and stability to the investment horizon and we will protect that investment going
forward.
16:48
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I will briefly go back to a subject I every several times with
him before. I welcome pages 44
through 45 in the report and I also share the views expressed interest in views expressed by Baroness
Kramer. I'm content to leave the
issues with the treasury. Perhaps the Treasury might just expand their vision a little bit wider and we
come to review the future PPP's, we might think about involving the
public in them and not limiting private simply to make capital.
There is money around amongst the
public, people are prepared to invest, we ought to be more open- minded about it, perhaps look at
some of the experience of the past, there will be money there for us and it will be committed.
16:49
Lord Livermore, The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
I'm grateful to mineable friend for the support on this and am
pleased to give them some good news as part of this because I know he has spoken extensively about the use
of PPP's and is a strong advocate for that. The government will explore the feasibility of using new
orders for taxpayer funded projects in the limited circumstances I've
talked about. As work goes forward and develops these new PPP's, it will be through engagement with department and industry and I hope
some of that engagement will include the groups mineable friend referred
to.
16:50
Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - committee stage (day 11) - part one
-
Copy Link
House to be again a committee on the Employment Rights Bill. Baroness
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Jones of Whitchurch. I beg to move that the House
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I beg to move that the House resolve itself into a committee upon the bill. The question is at the House to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is at the House to now resolve itself again into a committee upon the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Of the contrary, "Not content". The After clause 150, amendment 310,
16:50
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Meyer (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Marshall list. I would like to support this group of amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt
of the Wirral. For an impact assessment requiring independent analysis on different measures to
three of which I have added my name and shall speak on these. 310, for
an impact assessment on business, new entrants, and start-ups. 3.1 on
productivity impact and 319 and 31948 new clause on assessing the
impact of the regulatory burden on these instances.
The first 310
requiring an impact on new businesses and start-ups including
the impact of administrative and financial costs. Why do we need
this? We know from ONS data that
story of business start-ups 2016 to
17, from then, 2023/24 was one of steady increase. 664,750 businesses,
17:04
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
friend and I agree with almost everything my noble friend has said, I grew up in a time when my father
who was in business suffered the three day week. I understand the
impact it had on his business and many like him. I also understand productivity needs to be improved
and increased and we need to look at what is happening across the world to be competitive enough to stop I
know the noble Lord the Minister has got a business and understands
business.
If he were sitting on the side of the chamber, I suspect he
would be arguing in the same vein as we are arguing today. I think it would be right and proper that
instead of shirking away from proper impact assessments, proper
comparative assessments of what's happening across the world, because
all of us want a competitive country where we are leaving at the helm. --
where we are leaving at the helm. --
Leading. I think by denying and disagreeing for the sake of deny disagree, does not do this debate
any good.
17:17
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Non-affiliated)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
clause 150 insert the clauses I thank the noble lady Baroness Bennett for bringing forward this amendment, regarding the review of
safe home transport for workers. I
To Utopia from the last amendment. The safety and well-being of workers, particularly those finishing their ships late in the evening is obviously a matter of significant importance. Many sectors
operate outside traditional working hours and the challenges faced by employers in securing a safe affordable transport ocean home,
after 11 PM are varied. Understanding these issues is crucial and especially, I think, for vulnerable groups including women and girls.
For him late-night travel
can present risks. It is important to recognise the safe transport arrangements can contribute
positively to retention and may pay a role in reducing crime and
absence. The review has the potential to shed light on current practices and challenges and provide
a basis for full discussions about how best to support workers who face late-night travel plans. I look
forward to the Minister's response.
19:24
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Green Party)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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
The Earl of Clancarty (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
schools and going into primary school after primary school with no teacher with any musical knowledge
at all. They were looking at student
stinging singing together. They do
get pupils to sing together and they seeing in groups and combine with
each other and it lifts the school as a whole and lifts the sense of
common purpose. Cooperation is essential and I hope the Minister can reassure us that the government leads with that, but the most
depressing with the Minister I ever had when they told us their views on musical education which I vaguely
remember from my private school
along time ago.
Music hubs are a problem. I note in south-west London
they have an excellent hub in one worth -- Wandsworth has not yet
agreed with the organisation and I'm very critical comment on the
reorganisation and I hope the Minister can reassure us that this
is not going to lead to the
bureaucracy of hubs imposed on other
counterparts. I wish to say in conclusion I have been extremely
lucky. Not only do my children go to a secondary school which had a
strong musical tradition, but my grandchildren go to an excellent
secondary school in Wandsworth which has an excellent music tradition and if you go to Wimbledon this year you
will hear that school playing on one of the days in the first week and
the Wandsworth musical orchestra playing on another day.
Allstate
schoolchildren and my grandson will be playing in both.
20:13
The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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
Legislation: Employment Rights Bill - committee stage (day 11) - part two
-
Copy Link
Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Hain told the Constitution Committee there is no point in passing
20:32
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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
Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
some points made by Lord Hunt to support amendment 335. I am in
favour of sunset clauses because they help is to focus on a bill not once but twice and will pass
legislative scrutiny twice over and they make us and encourage us to
make better law. I think there are practical reasons for this proposed
practical reasons for this proposed
amendment 335 given that we have a 4.4% unemployment rate, or we did have going up to November last year
and it is increasing with 1.7 million people in this country
And as this measures, with her time
and time again, to know the government disagrees with it, but the figures speak for themselves,
given that it is increasing the costs and burdens on employing people, it restricts job entry and
new posts being advertised, job
vacancies are declining in the number of adverts being advertised,
and since the government came to power, the tally which I mentioned earlier, and I'm sorry to repeat it,
but it was 115,000 jobs lost.
At
this rate, there is a very good reason to support such an amendment, and hope the government will take it on board that in three years if
unemployment rises and employment
levels go down significantly, we must consider a Sunset clause for
that eventuality.
20:47
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
curveballs on illegal e-bikes and scooters that have peppered this chamber in recent years. And I
regard their operations as dangerous, especially the elderly
people and the disabled. A wild West I think was the phrase I used before
I became a minister and learned my
piece and queues. I just wanted to say that I hope the Minister will agree to the Noble Lord Barclays request for a discussion on what can
be done to tackle the current
loopholes, even if nothing can be done in this bill.
It is an important matter, and we should try
important matter, and we should try
**** Possible New Speaker ****
and progress a solution. I rise to speak to amendment 383
tabled by the Noble Lord Lord Berkeley. This is a curious but
21:17
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
Amendment is by leave withdrawn.
Amendment three to four, B. Not moved. Amendment three to four, C.
The question is that clause 151
stand part of the Bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Question is that
clause 152 stand part of the Bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. In
clause 153, amendment 325,
21:40
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Crossbench)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Labour)
-
Copy Link
-
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 (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
**** 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
Business of the House
-
Copy Link
22:29
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
Copy Link
-
22:29
Business of the House
-
Copy Link
House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 24 House of Lords - 24 June House of Lords - 24 June 2025.
This debate has concluded