Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(5 days, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chair of ACAS, as set out in the register. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his detailed introduction to these two SIs.
As we know, these proposals are part of the rollout of the Employment Rights Act reforms, which are being introduced in line with the road map published at that time, and there has been detailed consultation and stakeholder involvement in shaping the code of practice. ACAS has also been closely involved with DBT officials to shape that code. So, there has been plenty of time for employers and unions to prepare for these changes and they do not contain any surprises. In fact, in a recent YouGov survey, 62% of employers reported feeling very or fairly confident about the upcoming changes to trade union rights, with only 21% not feeling confident.
These proposals bring the balloting regime into the modern age, with the provisions for electronic, hybrid and workplace voting being similar to decision-making in many other areas, including political parties and shareholder votes. So we welcome the fact that this SI will enhance the democratic process and increase participation, giving employers and unions more confidence that the outcome fully represents the views of those consulted in the ballot.
It has been important to ACAS that the code uses clear, plain and unambiguous language. This reduces the potential for misunderstandings, non-compliance and disputes, particularly at the early stages of implementation when parties are unfamiliar with the new rights and responsibilities. It is also important that the code strikes the right balance between principles and detail and is properly tailored to those who will actually use it.
For example, ACAS-administered voluntary ballots, particularly in recognition negotiations, are a useful tool in dispute resolution. We are grateful that, following feedback, it has now been confirmed that these are out of scope of the code. This underlines how the department has listened and amended the code to reflect the practical needs of users.
Finally, although we welcome the increased participation in decision-making that the code will deliver, we urge parties to keep their focus on resolving disputes through partnership—and, of course, ACAS conciliation services are just a phone call away.
Sadly, the latest ACAS research shows that 44% of people experienced conflict at work in the last year. This has a cost to businesses, individuals and the economy—in stress, time off, presenteeism and many more effects. Your Lordships have previously discussed the fact that the number of employment tribunal cases is rising, causing a growing and unacceptable backlog of hearings. There are clearly rising levels of discontent and unhappiness in workplace relations.
ACAS already provides training and guidance on working effectively with trade unions, but we need to do more. So I hope my noble friend the Minister will say what more could be done to encourage parties to prevent and manage disputes so that the need for ballots does not arise. I hope he agrees that where disputes do arise, the parties should be encouraged to make use of ACAS collective conciliation services, or other informal resolution, rather than resorting too quickly to a ballot. I look forward to his response.
British Business Bank
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what criteria are used by the British Business Bank when investing in UK businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, the British Business Bank’s investments are aligned with its strategic mandate, which is agreed with the Government and sets the bank’s overall strategic direction. It includes four objectives, the first of which is to support our most promising businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors to scale and stay here. The bank is operationally independent and is responsible for undertaking its own due diligence and making investment decisions independently of government.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. The additional funding that has been given to the British Business Bank is welcome, but will it be encouraged to take higher risk stakes in some of our more innovative companies? Can we be assured that it has the expertise to make those critical judgments?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to ask about mandate and risk appetite. This is the direction that the British Business Bank is taking, guided by its new strategic mandate. It is increasingly taking bigger bets to enable innovative British companies to scale and stay in the UK. The Government have provided a one-third uplift to the BBB’s financial capacity to help it to do so. It is able to leverage deep industry expertise across its investment activities, including both direct investments and investments made through funds.
Technology Adoption Review
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing the recommendations of the Technology Adoption Review.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
The review’s recommendations were incorporated into the industrial strategy and since its launch we have begun to deliver on our commitments. For example, we have allocated £99 million of funding to allow for the expansion of the Made Smarter programme to support increased adoption of technologies such as AI in advanced manufacturing. We are taking forward work to implement the recommendations of the SME Digital Adoption Task Force, which published its recommendations in July.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, among its many findings, the review identified that there is a proliferation of different business support schemes designed to improve technology adoption and productivity. Many of these are short lived, their impact is variable and they are hard for SMEs to navigate. What consideration is being given to streamlining business support based on the evidence of which interventions have proved most successful in the past?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her commitment and sponsorship of this important area. Long-term certainty is critical in driving private sector investment. That is why we are expanding successful programmes such as Made Smarter Adoption, and making changes to government procurement and regulation. To make it easier for businesses to find the support they need, in July we launched the new Business Growth Service, including developing a single online access point for government-backed advice and support services. It has already seen over 127,000 domestic users.
Data Adequacy Status: EU Data Protection Standards
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My understanding is that there is a lot of to and fro, and many requests between the EU and UK of a very technical nature to allow the European Commission to make its judgment. Quite a lot of those have been published already, in the European Commission report and in the European Data Protection Board’s opinion. The process by which this is set out is already transparent and clear.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, on the assumption that we get approval on 27 December, will my noble friend the Minister move quickly to make sure, as per the economic reset with the EU, that we reduce trade barriers and boost economic growth, which has been held back in this country by Brexit for far too long?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right that the importance of digital trade to the UK and its exposure to the EU is a very significant part of our digital trade agreement, as are the relationships that underpin this. As a testament to the way in which the reset is happening, we welcome the state visit of the German President here today.
Children: Age Verification and Virtual Private Networks
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very good point about the need for accurate, evidence-based research that allows us to take the right action. As noble Lords may have seen, Ofcom published a report this morning setting out a number of methods for researching, for example, the use of VPNs by children. We should also examine technological solutions, as well as advice and guidance, and the role of Ofcom in enforcing the requirements of the Online Safety Act.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, while it is of course important that platforms maintain the standards Ofcom has set for them, does my noble friend the Minister also agree that parents have an important role to play in all of this to make sure that the parental controls on devices are implemented in full? Is there not more of a role for digital literacy for adults, to make sure they are keeping a proper eye on what their children are doing and that they comply with the regulations?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point about the role of all of us in using the technology available to protect ourselves and to equip ourselves to be safe online, and for parents to do that in respect of their children. It is also very important that the Government support literacy campaigns, both for digital skills and online safety. The Government will play their part in supporting parents in that domain.
Artificial Intelligence Legislation
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The issues to which the noble Lord refers have, of course, been extensively debated here. One outcome of conversations during the passing of the data Act was a commitment to have these discussions. I also think it would be premature to decide the nature or timing of legislation until those discussions are completed. Like the noble Lord, I highlight the importance of the parliamentary consultations, the first of which with Peers is indeed happening tomorrow, with the two Secretaries of State.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, given the concerns that exist about the misuse of AI by pernicious actors, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that the Government are regularly stress-testing these threats, that we are preparing robust answers to them and that we will not therefore have any catastrophic incidents in this country? Will the lessons from the stress testing, if they exist, inform any future legislation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her interest in this area. I can highlight that the AI Security Institute was established to provide the Government with exactly this kind of evidence and respond effectively to emerging AI risks. It has tested more than 30 frontier models, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic and others, and works closely with security experts across government, including the National Cyber Security Centre and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. This is to ensure the institute’s work informs the preparations against AI-related incidents. We are committed to ensuring the UK is prepared for the changes AI will bring, and the institute’s research will continue to inform our approach.
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Trenchard
To ask His Majesty’s Government, given their intention to align dynamically with the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) regime of the European Union, whether they intend to comply with Chapter 7 of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership on SPS measures.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK and the EU are working towards establishing a common sanitary and phytosanitary area that will remove trade barriers for areas within the scope of the agreement. The UK will not be rejoining the single market or customs union. Our focus will be to regulate consistently with the EU on specific rules in the scope of the CSPS area. We expect the agreement with the EU to be consistent with our international obligations, including those under the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. We have entered negotiations with the European Union in full awareness of those international commitments.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply but I do not share her optimism that dynamic alignment with the EU’s SPS regime will be compatible with our membership of the CPTPP. The CPTPP’s processes depend on the assessment of equivalence, rather than alignment or harmonisation, between two party’s specific SPS measures. Our CPTPP partners are concerned about our proposed dynamic alignment under the European court for many reasons. For example, the EU’s GMO, gene editing and beef hormone bans are not based on sound science. The EU could put us in breach of the CPTPP’s SPS and TBT rules. A challenge would have to go through Brussels, but the EU is not a CPTPP member. Does the Minister not agree that we would do better to retain responsibility for our own rules and avoid the risk of protracted and expensive litigation?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, quite rightly we have reset our relations with European partners to improve our diplomatic, economic and security co-operation following Brexit. We are now looking at the opportunities that can follow on from that. The discussions with the EU are at an early stage. We signed a common understanding in May this year, and there will be further negotiations that may lead to a new formal agreement in some of these areas. That may require primary legislation for domestic implementation of the agreements in the UK once finalised. Formal negotiations on the EU SPS agreement have not yet begun and we will set out further details, but we will, of course, make sure that anything we do will be consistent with our international obligations and other arrangements with trading partners.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the Opposition’s obsession with being isolated from the rest of Europe is very damaging to Britain and the industries?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I say, we see huge advantages to our reset with our European partners. The fact is that UK agri-food trade with the EU has, since 2018 to 2024, fallen by 21% for exports and 7% for imports. It is important that we re-establish those relationships so that our own trade can benefit from the new opportunities that we will have with the reset arrangements following that common understanding with the EU.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Viscount for causing the Minister to put her trade hat on. It is good to discuss trade. The Financial Times recently reported an influx of Australian steak, which is undercutting British beef. Does the Minister agree with what the Liberal Democrats said at the time: that the Australian FTA, which was made in haste by the Conservative Government of the time, sells out British farmers? What will her Government do to try to protect them from this problem?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we remain committed to our high agriculture and food standards. As the Trade and Agriculture Commission report has confirmed, all food and drink products imported into the UK will still have to meet our existing import, food safety and biosecurity requirements. We have not lowered our standards to join the CPTPP. For example, hormone-treated beef and ractopamine—I knew I would fall when attempting to pronounce that—pork remain banned in the UK, as will other products affected by pesticides. We will maintain our existing food standards.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, since we are a member of the CPTPP, can the Minister tell us whether any of the other members of that organisation have raised this problem with us and said there will be any incompatibility? After all, our intention to sign an SPS agreement with the EU is a matter of common knowledge.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, these issues are, as ever, discussed at the CPTPP ministerial meetings. We have assured all those partners that we will maintain our existing agricultural standards, as I have confirmed.
Lord Jack of Courance (Con)
My Lords, our membership of CPTPP is facilitated by our ownership of the Pitcairn Islands. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government are not planning to give that island away as well?
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will try to avoid long acronyms in my question. We had the negotiation back in May for the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Nothing has happened yet. My colleagues in the inshore fishing sector in the south-west of England want to understand whether they will be able to export to Europe in the way that they used to, without all the red tape and bureaucracy they have had since Brexit.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I have said, the discussions are only just beginning, and we will set out more details, including with respect to our other trade obligations. I assure the noble Lord that we will do everything we can to remove a lot of the red tape that was introduced, quite unnecessarily, when we left the European Union.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, on 27 August, the responsible Minister, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said that any disputes under the SPS agreement
“go to international arbitration, not the European Court of Justice”.
However, the Commission’s negotiating mandate, agreed in July, says that the SPS agreement is based on EU law and
“should ensure uniform interpretation and application”
of EU law, and that
“the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law”.
Can the Minister explain how those two statements can be reconciled?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have not seen that piece of advice. I assure noble Lords that, as those discussions continue, we will continue to keep Parliament updated, no doubt in your Lordships’ Chamber as well as through our standing parliamentary committees.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Can the Minister confirm that the value of goods exported by the EU to us that will be relieved of any liability to SPS checks is five times the value of the goods that we export to the EU? So this deal is five times as valuable to the EU as it is to us. I have no objection to being generous to the EU, since I am a French farmer myself, but was it necessary to pay for the privilege of being generous by also giving away 12 years of our right to enhance our rights over fishing in UK waters, and to agree that we would pay for the privilege of implementing this deal and give up sovereignty over our right to control our SPS rules over the rest of the world?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We will maintain our SPS standards, as I have consistently said. I remind noble Lords that the EU remains the UK’s largest trading partner for agri-food and vice versa, so there are huge benefits in maintaining or re-establishing a lot of those European trading partners, which will benefit our farmers and consumers as well.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I will develop a theme that was started by my noble friend in his supplementary question. Given that the UK is ahead of the EU in developing a proportionate regulatory framework for gene editing and that the sector has attracted significant inward investment positioning Britain as a potential global leader, will the Minister confirm that an exemption will be secured for gene editing in any SPS agreement?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That issue will be discussed as part of these agreements; it is not specific to the discussions that we are having at the moment. I remind noble Lords that we see ourselves as a global trading partner: the fact that we already have deals with India and the US and are now developing them with the EU will ensure that we can provide food on a cheaper basis for consumers while maintaining our own established food standards. That is the way that we should go in the future.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsWednesday 3rd September 2025
(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 129 Running list of amendments - 28 August 2025 - (28 Aug 2025)
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Employment Rights Bill, has consented to place his interest, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, before the formal Third Reading of the Employment Rights Bill, I will make a brief statement on its devolution status.
During the Bill’s development and parliamentary passage, the Minister for Employment Rights, Competition and Markets has regularly corresponded and engaged with his devolved Government counterparts. This has been supported by weekly engagement between officials. As a result, I can confirm that legislative consent Motions have been successfully agreed in both the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Scottish Parliament has also agreed an LCM that covers the majority of the Bill’s provisions.
However, we consider that certain amendments relating to the social care negotiating body, tabled in my name on Report and accepted by your Lordships’ House, also engage the consent process. Owing to the date that these amendments were tabled and the Scottish Parliament’s Summer Recess, it has not been possible for a further supplementary LCM to be secured by the time of this statement. Now that the Scottish Parliament has returned from recess, and noting that the Bill has the support of the Scottish Government, we are hopeful that the process around this supplementary LCM will progress swiftly.
More broadly, I am grateful to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved Governments for the remainder of the Bill’s passage as we look ahead to its implementation, the benefits of which will be felt across the United Kingdom.
Clause 162: Commencement
Amendment
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, this is a tidying-up amendment and I hope it will not delay the House too long. It is consequential on the House’s decision on Report to leave out Clause 59 on members’ contributions to trade union political funds. The amendment leaves out a now redundant reference to it in the commencement clause. It introduces and involves no new issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for tabling this amendment, which I acknowledge is a simple tidying-up one, following changes made to the Bill on Report. It is non-controversial tidying-up amendment and therefore we are content to accept it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a privilege to be responsible for the passage of this landmark piece of legislation since its arrival from the other place in March. The Bill is a cornerstone of our manifesto commitment to make work pay. It seeks to address outdated provisions and gaps in the current employment law framework and helps us turn the tide on the damaging trend of in-work poverty. It would benefit millions of people across the country, and this is particularly the case for those in insecure and low-paid employment. As just one example, over 2 million people on zero-hours or lower-hours contracts could benefit from the right to guaranteed hours and to payment for shifts cancelled, moved or cut at short notice. Alongside our newly published industrial and trade strategies, it will also help increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable and secure economic growth.
Throughout the Bill’s Second Reading, 11 days in Committee and four days on Report, noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House carefully scrutinised its provisions. While we may not have agreed on every issue, I believe we do agree on the importance of the Bill, as well as on the need to improve workers’ rights and level the playing field for good employers. Therefore, I am grateful for the pleasure of engaging with noble Lords inside and outside the Chamber, and I would like to thank all noble Lords whom I and my ministerial colleagues have spoken to for their time and wisdom.
To mention every Member of your Lordships’ House whom I have engaged with would risk taking almost as long as Committee did. While I will refrain from doing that, I would like to particularly thank a number of noble Lords. My first words of thanks must go to my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz for their dedicated support from the Front Bench. Over the course of the Bill’s passage, we have collectively had over 50 engagements with stakeholders, including noble Lords and external bodies. My noble friends have been generous with their time and wisdom, and I owe them a great debt.
Similarly, I must give thanks to my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Lady Smith of Malvern and Lady Merron, all of whom represented from the Dispatch Box in Committee. This represents a whole of government approach to bringing about long-overdue improvements to workers’ rights.
It has been a pleasure debating the Bill’s many clauses with noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, who have continuously made the case on behalf of the Official Opposition, and the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who have made meaningful contributions on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This includes contributions in relation to non-disclosure agreements, where I was delighted to see the amendments I brought forward on Report being accepted to introduce a world-leading framework on NDA protections. I would like to say how gratifying it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Fox, back in his place. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say how thankful we are for his continued recovery to good health.
I also pay particular tribute to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard. While of course the wisdom of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, could never be replaced, the noble Lord was a worthy and often entertaining substitute. I am also grateful to my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Brennan of Canton, Lady O’Grady and Lady Lister for their valued contributions in relation to seafarers, bereavement leave, trade unions and parental leave, respectively.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I think we have spent 13 days in this Chamber scrutinising this critical Bill. I salute the Ministers and Front Benches for their stamina and perseverance. The Bill has tested the patience of noble Lords on all sides of this House, so I will not test their patience further by going over the same arguments we heard during Committee and Report—very often the same arguments. I will simply raise one overriding question expressed by the FSB, the CBI, the ICAEW, the British Chambers of Commerce and, indeed, pretty much the whole private sector. They are asking, in light of the Bill, how committed the Government really are to delivering on their overriding number one mission—real, sustainable economic growth —and how the Bill will impact on the two crucial ingredients behind growth: job creation and, as we have heard, productivity.
On job creation, vacancies have now fallen to an effective 10-year low when you exclude the exceptional pandemic years. The Bill looks set to accelerate that downward trend. On the need for greater productivity across our 30-million workforce, employers are currently paying, on average, 5% annual wage increases for close to zero productivity gains. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have hailed this as an achievement, putting more pounds in workers’ pockets, but I am afraid that it is as illusory as it is inflationary, and will only contribute to ever-widening black holes.
The Bill will, as the Government admit, push up even further the costs of employment and damage the risk/reward equations behind recruitment, probation and employers’ ability to conduct those crucial performance reviews for staff. That is bad news for productivity, and I fear it will not go unnoticed by investors.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I will respond to my noble friend Lady Warwick about Universities UK’s concerns. Given the stage of the parliamentary passage that the Bill has reached and the fact that the House has agreed that Clause 36 should stand part of the Bill, the clause will not be considered further during ping-pong. But as my noble friend knows, I have written to her on this issue, and the letter is available for all Members to read. We fully recognise the need not to impose disproportionate burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities and, to this end, we intend to consult in the autumn on the detail and scope of the two-tier code. The consultation will consider the extent to which certain public authorities, including higher education providers, are required to follow its provisions. While I cannot comment on whether we can carve out particular sectors before this consultation, I can assure my noble friend that we will carefully consider the issues, particularly applying to higher education providers.
Secondly, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his kind comments. I think it is fair to say that we have enjoyed working with him.
I am sorry that we have ended on a note of discord in this debate. I thought that we had, up until this point, had very courteous discussions around all this. The fact that there are relatively few issues remaining between us is a sign of the enormous work that this House has done over the last few months on this issue. I hope that, because there are so few areas of continuing disagreement, we can reach a conclusion on this Bill very quickly.
I do not want to rehearse the debates that we have had again. Listening to this debate this afternoon, it is a miracle that only 10 or so issues are still outstanding because it feels as if we are back at square one. But I feel that we made some progress during the course of the discussions.
When we came into office we inherited an economy that was on its knees and employment rights that were way out of date. We have been working and continue to work to address these issues. We are doing it in all sorts of ways. The small business strategy that we launched over the summer, the industrial strategy and the trade strategy are all designed to make the UK a place to do business with on an international basis and where jobs will be protected in the future.
On the state of the economy—because I have been provoked on this—in the three months to June, GDP grew by 0.3%, meaning the cumulative growth this year has already exceeded the OBR’s forecast for the whole of 2025. Since the start of the Parliament, 380,000 jobs have been added. Britain has become the most attractive place to invest in the world, joint top with India following its deal with the US. The FTSE 100 index smashed through the 9,000-point mark this July, with sustained growth throughout last month. Middle market businesses are growing at their fastest rate since the last election, according to research from NatWest. Confidence among UK businesses has grown, with 54% of companies feeling positive about the current environment, according to the Lloyds Business Barometer. I could go on.
We are positive about the opportunities ahead for our economy and, in that context, we are positive about the jobs that will be provided. They will be good jobs where people feel that they have a stake in their employment and a positive future. I am sorry we ended up on that discordant note, and of course I am sure we will come back and continue to try to iron out the remaining points of difference. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsWednesday 23rd July 2025
(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Act 2025 View all Employment Rights Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-IV(b) Manuscript Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (23 Jul 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
The words that the noble Lord just said come from the Opposition Benches and do not reflect what we are intending by the Bill, or indeed these particular clauses.
I will first speak to government Amendments 156 to 158 in my name, which are minor but important technical amendments to Schedule 10. Amendment 156 makes a small correction to paragraph 36(6), replacing the phrase “that subsection” with a reference instead to “subsection (3)” of Section 15 of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. Amendment 157 ensures that Schedule 1 to the Immigration Act 2016 is repealed following the abolition of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement, and Amendment 158 removes specific reference to paragraphs 9 and 11 of Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2016. The purpose of these changes is to ensure that the provision functions as intended and provides legal clarity. They do not alter the policy or substance of the Bill in any way but ensure that the schedule functions as intended.
On Amendment 154 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Government were elected on a manifesto pledge to deliver the plan to make work pay in full. This sets out that the new employment rights enforcement agency would have the power to bring civil proceedings to uphold compliance with employment law. This clause delivers that pledge.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred to the precedent, and yes, the precedent that we are citing is the example of the Equality Act 2006, Sections 28 to 30 of which are the precedent for Clauses 113 to 115. Section 28 of the Equality Act enables the Equality and Human Rights Commission to assist an individual who is or may become party to legal proceedings. Section 30 of the Equality Act, which is the precedent for Clause 113, affords the EHRC the capacity to institute and intervene in legal proceedings, including for breach of EHRC rights, even though it is not a victim.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, said there was not an example of where the EHRC had taken over a case. However, in the case of MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the EHRC in fact substituted itself once the original appellant withdrew from the proceedings. This was a substitution, with the consent of the Supreme Court, by the EHRC in the same way that the fair work agency could substitute itself in place of a worker without their consent.
The EHRC uses Section 30 strategically to clarify the law and act where there are egregious breaches. We envisage that the fair work agency, rather than the Secretary of State as such, will use this power in Clause 113 similarly. Noble Lords have misrepresented what is intended by this clause. It is intended to address some of the worst employment practices that current regulations do not adequately cover. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that there are of course cases where individuals or groups of workers are unable or reluctant to take a case, but that does not necessarily mean that the case should not be taken, because there are wider issues at stake. For example, the fair work agency could use the power to clarify entitlement to holiday pay where enforcement officers do not have enough information to confidently issue a notice of underpayment, or the fair work agency could exercise the power to clarify the employment status of a group of individuals. Currently, employers may misclassify workers as self-employed to get out of giving them the rights that they are entitled to. Without this power, the fair work agency has no ability to challenge such claims.
To give a specific example on the possible application of Clause 113, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement has flagged endemic bad practice in the hand car wash sector. A particular challenge in this sector is misclassification of workers, which stymies HMRC’s efforts to enforce the minimum wage. Currently, if a hand car wash claims that its workers are self-employed, HMRC has no means to test this in the courts. It must go through the full notice of underpayment process and wait for the employer to appeal against the notice of underpayment. This can lead to nugatory work if the appeal is upheld and otherwise delay workers getting their due rights. This is a gap in the existing system of state enforcement, which this power will go some way to remedy.
Just as the current system works, the fair work agency will take a whole-employer approach to enforcement. This has the advantages of a resolution for more workers than individual cases against the employer. But in such circumstances, where the fair work agency may be taking action for hundreds or thousands of workers, it is simply not practical to get consent from every individual concerned. As a strategic approach, this power will be used when acting in workers’ best interests to clarify the law. As with the EHRC’s powers under the Equality Act, the fair work agency will not need the consent of each individual concerned to take on cases. The fair work agency will therefore be able to decide when to seek clear, neutral and authoritative guidance from a tribunal on the application of employment legislation.
As we know, in the worst cases of serious exploitation, workers may be reluctant to give their consent due to fear of retribution from the employer. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, was quite right to say that there are circumstances in which we have the responsibility to look after the individuals who are suffering at the hands of rogue employers and feel powerless in those circumstances. We know that many migrant workers with legal rights to work in the UK, particularly low- paid workers, are reluctant or unable to enforce their employment rights. These workers have understandable concerns, including fear of retaliation, lack of awareness or language barriers. For legal migrants, employment is their prerogative and, for those workers, there are wider implications in challenging an employer that could bring about repercussions for their employment or potentially impact on their visa. We believe that requiring consent from workers would make it easier for employers to attribute blame to individual employees, and they would suffer as a result.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am going to carry on. When exercising this power—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have had advice already about what the Companion says on this. The noble Lord has spoken once.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I think that the Companion overrides anything that I have to say.
When exercising this power, the fair work agency will of course act in accordance with the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8, and comply with data protection legislation. In doing so, it must act in accordance with the law and for a legitimate purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the issue of anonymity. In appropriate cases, the fair work agency will consider applying under Rule 49 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Rule 49 allows the tribunal to restrict public disclosure of aspects of the proceedings. That means that workers’ names can be kept from the public domain—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The point that we were making is that this is about test cases, which, as we know, is a frequent way of clarifying legislation, rather than primary legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised the issue of anonymity. In appropriate cases, the fair work agency will consider applying under Rule 49 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Rule 49 allows the tribunal to restrict public disclosure of aspects of the proceedings. That means that workers’ names can be kept from the public domain to protect their anonymity and to protect them from any reporting in the media, where it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice or to protect their convention rights. When deciding whether to give an order, the tribunal must give weight to the principles of open justice and the convention’s right to freedom of expression. The tribunal can do this on its own initiative, or the fair work agency can apply for such an order. The fair work agency must also comply with convention rights and data protection legislation, ensuring appropriate protections for individuals and fairness of proceedings.
I understand noble Lords’ interest in how this power will operate and confirm to the House that the Government will publish guidance on how the fair work agency will exercise this power in practice. We will develop detailed guidance, following deep and extensive engagement with social partners and the fair work agency’s advisory board. It will then be for the fair work agency, acting within this guidance, to determine which cases it brings to the tribunal. That will ensure that this power supports those who play by the rules. This approach enables the fair work agency to protect workers’ rights and to tackle injustice and abuse against legitimate workers.
This clause presents an opportunity to make a genuine difference in tackling the scourge of labour exploitation in the UK. Unchecked labour exploitation is unfair on the individuals who are being exploited. It is unfair on the majority of employers, who want to do right by their staff, and it is unfair on workers who are denied jobs by employers exploiting loopholes. The new power will complement the existing powers of the fair work agency, such as the powers to issue notices of underpayment, while enabling the fair work agency to act where these powers cannot be accessed. The fair work agency will exist to end labour exploitation and create a fair and level playing field for employers and for workers. A fair work agency with any less power to act for these most vulnerable would be an unacceptable failure for workers’ rights.
To the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I remain open to discussing how best to deliver this power and to ensure that it is appropriately safeguarded. However, I reiterate that this power is neither novel nor unprecedented and that it delivers a manifesto commitment. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 154.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to get up again, but would the Minister like to say something about adverse costs orders against workers?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, when we debated this in Committee, we made it clear that there would not be any cost to workers. The noble Lord, Lord Carter, suggested that the worker would be liable to costs where they had not consented to the Secretary of State taking a case on their behalf. Let me be clear that the worker will not be liable for the costs in these circumstances.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the powerful interventions we have heard this evening from very eminent speakers indeed, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Falkner. Some really powerful points have been made around the importance of personal autonomy, the unworkability of the clause in relation to witness summonses and adverse witness results, and a duty to consult, which was a powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to the fact that the worker might not want to bring proceedings and therefore would be happy for the Secretary of State to do so in his or her place. That misses the point, which is that the worker might object to legal proceedings being brought in their name and might not give their consent. That is, for me, fundamental in this whole clause.
I believe that this is legally unprecedented—we can have further discussions about that. I think it is unworkable. I think it is completely unnecessary, given that the Secretary of State can support a worker to defend proceedings themselves. I read the manifesto and all I saw was “make work pay”. Those three words cover a multitude of sins. There was no mention of a power to bring proceedings on behalf of a worker—I read it very carefully. I feel that there has been enough power and passion in this debate to warrant seeking the opinion of the House, which I now do.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment corrects an incorrect cross-reference.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I do not believe that for a moment.
This has been such an important debate. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and my fellow lawyer—not solicitor—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for what has certainly been a long-standing advocacy on behalf of freelance workers. As my noble friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said, with all his experience as a Minister, there is no doubt that freelancers play a vital role in our economy and their interests deserve proper attention.
We on these Benches have also made the case that this issue is likely to become more urgent after the passage of the Bill. We cannot avoid the suspicion that the Bill is going to drive more workers into at least considering turning freelance. Time will tell, but as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, pointed out, the number could rise towards 3 million freelance workers.
We are all very grateful indeed to the Minister for organising an important meeting on this subject, because it was most useful. We welcome the Government’s intention to create a freelance champion, announced last month as part of the creative industries sector plan. That may be half a loaf, but it is a welcome enough commitment. We recognise the intent behind the amendment to establish a freelance commissioner, but at the moment, in the light of the assurances given by the Minister, we feel that the Government should have the benefit of the doubt for now, not least because we are not totally persuaded that the creation of another public body is the only solution.
What freelancers certainly need is clarity, simplicity and proportionate support. If the new champion can deliver that, all well and good. But we remain of the opinion, as came across in some of the contributions we had in Committee and just now, that socialists despise the very concept of freelancing. “How dare workers choose to avoid our elaborate structures?”, some of them say. So we will be watching with a very keen eye to see how this proceeds, particularly in the light of the speeches we just heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hendy and Lord Berkeley.
As we salute the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, on the creative arts, I take this opportunity to assure him that if he is unsatisfied that the Government’s measures adequately address the issues that have been raised, we will certainly be on his side. So I encourage him to remain vigilant and to keep the Government’s feet to the fire. In the meantime, we look forward with great interest to what the Minister will say in response to the many questions that have been raised in this debate, in particular about the urgency of this problem.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We have indeed had a very good debate, which once again has identified the significant contribution that the creative and cultural sector makes to our industries and our lives. The Government share your Lordships’ passion for supporting the creative and cultural sectors, and we previously spelled out in detail the significant work we are already doing in this area.
The creative industries and cultural sectors are a distinct part of the wider UK workforce. They have a significantly higher proportion of self-employed individuals, reflecting the sector’s entrepreneurial and freelance nature, which is one of the points that has been well made this evening. In the latest published data, as of 2023, there were 2.4 million filled jobs in the creative industries and 666,000 filled jobs in the cultural sector. Of these jobs, 49.6% in the cultural sector were self-employed, and 27.9% in the creative industries, compared with 14% of UK jobs overall. This reiterates the point that noble Lords have made about the significance of freelancers in the cultural and creative sectors. This flexibility not only drives innovation but supports the more project-driven nature of the creative industries. However, we also know that freelancers’ creative careers, while offering a more flexible and autonomous way of working, can also be precarious and come with lower job security.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling Amendment 184B.
We recognise that workplace temperatures are changing, especially as the climate changes. We are committed to ensuring that workplaces are safe in the modern world, and we committed in Next Steps to Make Work Pay to look at how to modernise health and safety guidance for extreme temperatures.
The Health and Safety Executive is Britain’s national regulator for workplace health and safety. It is dedicated to protecting people and places, and helping people lead safer and healthier lives. To deliver on our commitment, the HSE is reviewing the approved code of practice for the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 to ensure it is fit for purpose for a modern workforce. This includes monitoring emerging evidence around the impact of extreme temperatures on workplaces. The HSE will bring forward detailed proposals on workplace temperature in due course and there will be an opportunity to comment, which I encourage the noble Baroness and others to respond to.
I assure the noble Baroness that the workplace regulations currently require that, during working hours, the temperature in all workplaces inside buildings should be reasonable. All employers must make a suitable assessment of the risk to employees and take action where necessary. This includes assessing the risk from heat stress. The Environment Agency has also issued guidance on how employers can plan for climate change impacts to their sites of work and integrate climate change adaption into their management systems. Nevertheless, I hope this broad scope of work, which is currently under way, provides the noble Baroness with the reassurance that this is a matter that we already recognise as important, and that we are actively taking steps to address the impact of increasing temperatures on health and safety at work.
Before we conclude this group, my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz and I would like to thank your Lordships’ House for the extensive and energetic debates that we have had throughout Report, as well as its continued engagement and scrutiny. Indeed, we have held over 50 engagements with noble Lords since the Bill came here from the other place, excluding the debates here in the Chamber.
This Bill will benefit 15 million people—half of the UK workforce. We were elected with a manifesto commitment to make work pay, and the Bill is a vital step in delivering that commitment. With that, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, to withdraw Amendment 184B.
Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(1 year ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 9 June be approved.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 July.