Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the Grand Committee do consider the Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument
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, as the Online Safety Act sets out, the Secretary of State must make these regulations under Sections 169(3) and 170(1) of the Act. They enable the super-complaints regime to operate by establishing the eligibility criteria that entities must meet to submit a super-complaint, as well as the procedural matters relating to Ofcom’s assessment of super-complaints.
Super-complaints are an integral part of the Act’s complaints handling, reporting, and redress mechanisms. They provide a means for eligible entities, including civil society groups with expertise in online safety matters, to raise systemic issues about the features or conduct of one or more regulated services with Ofcom, the Act’s independent regulator.
Super-complaints cannot be made by individuals, nor can they be made about individual pieces of content. The Act establishes, under Section 169, the scope of issues that super-complaints can address. This includes where the features and/or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm to, significantly adversely affecting the freedom of expression of, or otherwise adversely impacting users, particular groups or the public. We expect super-complaints to typically be about cross-platform, systemic issues. However, a complaint may cover a single service if the complaint is particularly important or impacts a large number of users or members of the public.
The SI sets out several eligibility criteria that an entity must meet to be able to submit a complaint to Ofcom. Entities must: represent the interests of users of regulated services, particular groups, or members of the public; have a composition, governance and accountability arrangements that mean it can be relied on to act independently from regulated services, although funding, or representation in the entity’s governance from platforms, is allowed; contribute to public discussions on online safety matters as an expert; and be capable of being relied upon to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. These criteria aim to ensure a wide range of entities are eligible while safeguarding the integrity of the process and reducing the risk of vexatious complaints.
In addition to the eligibility criteria, this SI also sets out the process and timeline for assessing super-complaints. Ofcom must assess the would-be complainant’s evidence against the eligibility criteria and determine whether an entity is eligible within 30 days. Ofcom must then inform an entity whether they are eligible or not and explain why. The time for assessing eligibility reduces to 15 days where entities have been found to be eligible within the past five years. In such circumstances, an entity must submit information to show that it is still an expert contributing significantly to public discussion on online safety. Eligible entities must also present current, objective and relevant evidence to support their view that one of the grounds for a complaint under the Act is met.
When assessing the admissibility of the complaint and the substance of the complaint itself, Ofcom must typically respond 90 days following the eligibility determination. This means that, as standard, the entire super-complaints process will conclude within 120 days, or 105 days where there is retained eligibility status. Ofcom may however stop the clock in certain circumstances, such as if additional information is required from the entity and the complaint cannot be progressed without it. But Ofcom may only stop the clock by the amount of time it takes to receive the requested information. Where Ofcom has determined that an entity is eligible, it must consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence presented to it. At the end of the process it must publish a response, including its determination on the matter. This may include what further action, if any, it anticipates.
In developing these regulations, the Government have consulted Ofcom and there has been a public consultation. We have listened closely to the views of stakeholders and, where possible, made changes to the policy consulted on. These changes are set out in further detail in the Government’s policy response published in June this year. In tandem with this SI being laid, a round table was also held with key civil society groups to set out the changes and our response to the concerns raised during the consultation process. These changes include lowering the bar for eligibility to enable new expert organisations to make complaints and removing the requirement to pre-notify Ofcom ahead of submitting a complaint.
The online world is complicated and ever-changing. As the Government, our aim is to remain agile and keep pace with emerging online harms. These regulations have been drafted to do just that, by ensuring Ofcom is made aware of emerging technologies, market operators and subsequent harms. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s comments, which set the context for this interesting statutory instrument.
In the process of consultation that led to the final decisions, was there time for the department to begin to implement the Parkinson rule? When my noble friend and I last met some time ago, we discussed how and under what conditions one might be able to allow Select Committees in the Commons and here with expertise in these matters to look at SIs before they are laid. I notice that this was laid on 9 June, which is well after that meeting. Was there time to let the Select Committees see this and were there useful results from that? If not, can she give us some indication of when the department will be in a position to begin to process the Parkinson rule in relation to this?
I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its very full 29th report, which went through this SI in somewhat surprising detail—we do not normally get four or five pages on an instrument each time, but that tells the story behind some of my concerns about the department’s approach to this. The committee’s first conclusion is that:
“The draft Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the ground that they are politically or legally important or give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House”.
We are grateful to it for doing that. These are interesting and important issues.
The committee’s first point for consideration is that it worries whether the regulator, Ofcom, will have the resources to carry out the sort of work envisaged in this SI and the much larger scheme of work that it is involved in. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give some thought to that in her response. I do not think she mentioned it. We understand the basis on which Ofcom makes its funding needs available—there has been notification of that recently around the level of fees to be exercised on the companies in scope of the regulator—but that is not the narrow point raised here. It is more about the question of capacity and scale, and the ability to think more widely about the system it is trying to regulate, than it is just about the money. I would be grateful if my noble friend would say a few things about how the department judges that and how it thinks Ofcom will be able to scale up its current work, which is immense. It is very important to include this activity, which in the Bill was originally intended to be of assistance to Ofcom, although some of the way it has come out does not seem to have delivered on that.
Secondly, I recollect that we spent quite a long time on the Bill working out why the Government of the day did not think it necessary to have some form of ombudsman system in place for internet matters. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will make some points about this. This was well argued and well thought through in our debates, and we had many meetings offline to try to find a way forward. We did not get what we wanted, but it was a very big Bill and other things perhaps took priority. However, we did get agreement from Ministers, in the Bill, that there would be a review shortly after its implementation— I think within two years—of how the complaints processes for users of IT systems in this country, particularly in new media, were being dealt with by individual companies. Clearly, the expectation is that each company will have its own structure but that, on occasion, issues would be raised across more than one provider. The question was how an ordinary citizen would cope with that if there was not some form of ombudsman system. I strongly believe that there needs to be an ombudsman system for this whole area, and I hope that the review to be carried out by Ofcom within two years will recommend that. This is not referred to in this SI. Will the Minister say a few words about the department’s current thinking on that?
Viscount Camrose (Con)
To pick up exactly where I left off, as with any regulatory mechanism, transparency is key to ensuring public trust and parliamentary accountability. We therefore urge the Government to clarify how the outcomes of this process will be communicated to Parliament and the public, particularly where serious harms are identified. Only then can we be confident that this mechanism will not only protect users but uphold the openness and scrutiny that must underpin all aspects of the Online Safety Act.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, including those who have rightly identified that we have taken the comments from the stakeholder engagement to heart and made changes to the eventual proposals. I will go through the very many questions that noble Lords have asked. I pay tribute to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee; we welcome its report and the scrutiny it has given to our proposals.
In no particular order, I will first pick up the question of scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about Parkinson’s law—if I can put it that way. We have spoken about this and there have been a number of different discussions about it. We recognise that the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Lords Communications and Digital Committee play a vital role in scrutinising the regime. The SI was shared with those committees in advance. He will know that Parkinson’s law is not as emphatic as it might be—it is a caveated law—but we nevertheless take on board the concerns raised about it and have met the chairs of those committees to talk about how we can take these issues forward. We have had a very good dialogue with them, on the understanding that we do not want to delay what can sometimes be very important and game-changing regulations by having a long extra scrutiny process. Nevertheless, we are trying to find a way to resolve this issue and discussions are continuing with officials.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but she said 2028. When will the actual review begin? That sounds an impossible end date for anybody to be satisfied with progress on an ombudsman being considered, let alone appointed. Does the review start in 2028, or in 2026? When does it start taking input?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The only information that I have is that we are anticipating that the report would be published and available in early 2028—so, obviously, it would need to start well before then. The noble Lord will know that setting up ombudsman schemes is not a simple process. However, we look forward to the outcome of that report, because we recognise some of the issues being raised.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
But if the report will be available only then and the regulations need to be made, the prospect of having an ombudsman is not there until 2029—something like that—or maybe 2030. Does not the Minister find that rather unsatisfactory, especially given her knowledge of the benefits of ombudsman services?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can only repeat what I said. Ofcom is going to produce a report on this; it will look at the pros and cons of the issue and it may decide that there are other ways in which to deal with individual complaints that would not necessarily be an ombudsman service. We have to give it the space to do that thinking and develop that work; it will also need to look at how the tech companies themselves respond to complaints and what gaps need to be filled by that process. So it is not a simple process—but I understand the noble Lord’s frustration with this. If we have any more information about the timescale for this, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt again, but it partly depends on how much confidence we have in the tech companies in terms of how they deal with complaints.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We will know the outcome of that much sooner than 2028, because I am sure that we will all have experience of complaints that go forward and whether they are responded to efficiently in the coming months, because there will be the opportunity to do that. In the regulations, as the noble Lord knows, all the regulated companies are required to have a named individual and a process for people to raise complaints.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about appeals. I reassure noble Lords that Ofcom’s response will be informed by its regulatory experience, as well as the information presented as part of the complaint and any additional information that has been requested, before arriving at an appropriate determination. I also remind the Committee that the objective of a super-complaint is, ultimately, to bring to the attention of Ofcom an issue, a risk or a harm that it might otherwise have been unaware of. It is not to adjudicate an individual decision or necessarily to trigger enforcement action. Ofcom has the flexibility to use any of its online safety regulatory powers to address issues raised by the super-complaint. This may include a formal enforcement action, a change in guidance or codes of practice or, indeed, no action at all.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I may not have made the point as clearly as I should have. It is not the fact that Ofcom will be unaware of an issue that is being raised as much as that the need to get a super-complaint going may frustrate Ofcom finding out about small but high-risk activity that is remote from its main activity. We went through this in some detail towards the end of the Bill and in recent SIs that have stemmed from it. Size is never the only issue that will affect how individuals are being attacked or treated by these companies. I feel very uncomfortable about a situation where a super-complaint cannot be mounted because of lack of experience or a lack of quality in its processes, when the issue itself will then get ignored. I ask the Minister to perhaps reflect on that later.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I have said, small organisations can get involved in the super-complaint process. The wording is designed as it is to allow new campaigning organisations, if you like, to come through, because this is a new territory that we are operating in, and we do not want to consult with or hear messages from just the usual, established organisations. I think that Ofcom will be sensitive about all this, but it will also, as we know, be able to enforce against small but risky services.
Ofcom is looking at what is happening in the smaller sphere, if I can put it like that. Ofcom has already started enforcement action against some of the non-compliant small but risky services. For example, it is investigating whether small services such as 4chan are complying with the illegal safety duties. There are other small services that Ofcom is now taking action against as well. I hear what the noble Lord has said, and I am confident that Ofcom will want to hear from all voices, not just the large players in this sector. I should also say that Ofcom is subject to standard regulatory redress mechanisms, such as judicial review.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked when the guidance will be in place. The Government expect Ofcom to have finalised the guidance by quarter 1 of 2026. This instrument comes into force on 31 December 2025. The guidance does not need to be finalised before the regime can come into effect. The guidance will contain important and useful information, so complainants may wish to wait until the final guidance is published before submitting a complaint, and Ofcom will consult on that guidance. But those organisations who know exactly what consumer complaints they wish to pursue do not have to wait for the guidance.
The noble Lord, Lord Wrottesley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, asked about Ofcom’s transparency and whether it will produce statistics on the evidence that it is acquiring. Ofcom recognises the importance of transparency around the work that it does and is considering how best to publish that information about super-complaints as it implements the new regime. Ofcom will publish responses to accepted super-complaints, including if they are rejected on admissibility grounds, and summaries of these complaints as required under the regulations.
Again, Ofcom and the Government will continue to communicate and develop those risks and make sure that the codes are kept under review. It is about not just producing the reports but communicating to the wider public if new risks are identified. We all accept that one purpose of the super-complaints is to bring things to Ofcom’s attention of which it might not otherwise be aware to enable it to move quite quickly to address those issues.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsMonday 14th July 2025
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Jul 2025)
“Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) After section 202 insert—“Harassment and discrimination: contractual duties of confidentiality
202A Contractual duties of confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination(1) Any provision in an agreement between an employer and a worker of the employer (whether a worker’s contract or not) is void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making—(a) an allegation of, or a disclosure of information relating to, relevant harassment or discrimination, or(b) an allegation, or a disclosure of information, relating to the response of an employer of the worker to—(i) relevant harassment or discrimination, or(ii) the making of an allegation or disclosure within paragraph (a).(2) Harassment or discrimination is “relevant” for the purposes of subsection (1) if—(a) the harassment or discrimination consists of, or is alleged to consist of, conduct engaged in by—(i) an employer of the worker, or(ii) another worker of such an employer, or(b) the person who is, or is alleged to be, the victim of the harassment or discrimination is—(i) the worker, or(ii) another worker of an employer of the worker.(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to provision in an agreement (an “excepted agreement”) that satisfies such conditions as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations.(4) But the Secretary of State may by regulations provide that any provision in an excepted agreement is void in so far as it purports to preclude the worker from making an allegation or disclosure within subsection (1)(a) or (b)—(a) to a specified description of person;(b) for a specified purpose;(c) in specified circumstances.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) provide for this section to have effect as if references to a worker included a specified description of individual who is not a worker as defined by section 230(3) but who—(i) works or worked, or is or was provided with work experience or training, in specified circumstances, or(ii) has entered into, or works or worked under, a relevant contract of a specified description;(b) make provision as to who is to be regarded as an employer of such an individual for the purposes of this section.(6) In subsection (5), “relevant contract” means any contract, other than a contract of employment, whether express or implied and (if express) whether oral or in writing, by which an individual undertakes to do or perform (whether personally or otherwise) any work or services for another party to the contract whose status is by virtue of the contract that of a client or customer of any profession or business undertaking carried on by the individual.(7) Regulations under this section may—(a) make different provision for different purposes;(b) make consequential provision. (8) For the purposes of this section, the holding, otherwise than under a contract of employment, of the office of constable or an appointment as a police cadet is to be treated as employment by the relevant officer under a contract of employment.“The relevant officer” has the meaning given by section 43KA(2).(9) Nothing in this section affects the operation of any other enactment or rule of law by virtue of which provision in an agreement may be void.(10) In this section—“discrimination” means discrimination within section 13, or any of sections 15 to 19A, of the Equality Act 2010;“harassment” means harassment of the kind described in subsection (1), (2) or (3) of section 26 of that Act;“specified” means specified in the regulations.”(3) In section 192(2) (provisions of Act which have effect in relation to armed forces)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (e);(b) for paragraph (f) substitute—“(f) this Part, apart from section 202A, and(g) Parts 14 and 15.”(4) In section 193 (provisions of Act which do not apply in relation to the security services), for “section 47B” substitute “sections 47B and 202A”.(5) In section 194(2) (provisions of Act which have effect in relation to House of Lords staff)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (g);(b) for paragraph (h) substitute—“(h) this Part, apart from section 202A, and(i) Parts 14 and 15.”(6) In section 195(2) (provisions of Act which have effect in relation to House of Commons staff)—(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (g);(b) for paragraph (h) substitute—“(h) this Part, apart from section 202A, and(i) Parts 14 and 15.”(7) In section 236(3) (regulations subject to affirmative procedure), after “125(7)” insert “, 202A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause provides that provision in an agreement between an employer and a worker is void in so far as it purports to prevent the worker making an allegation or disclosure of information relating to certain work-related harassment and discrimination.
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, this amendment is on the important issue of non-disclosure agreements. NDAs have their legitimate purposes, but they should never be used to take unfair advantage of workers and to cover up workplace misconduct. Evidence has emerged in recent years that some employers have been doing just that.
I praise the work of campaigners who have brought this evidence to light—notably Can’t Buy My Silence, spearheaded by Zelda Perkins, who has been an impassioned campaigner for change for many years and is one of many brave victims who have spoken up. This evidence shows that some employers exploit the inherent imbalance of power they have with their workers and get NDAs signed, fostering a culture of silence and impunity.
I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed across the House in Committee and thank noble Lords —as well as those in the other place—for raising the evidence for change in Parliament and for their powerful interventions on this issue. I thank in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Kennedy, Lady Morrissey, Lady Goudie, Lady Harman and Lady Kramer.
The Government have listened to those calls for action and tabled Amendment 46. This amendment will void any provision in an agreement, such as a contract of employment or settlement agreement, between a worker and their employer in so far as it prevents a worker speaking out about relevant harassment or discrimination.
Let me be clear that this amendment will not impact on the legitimate use of NDAs—for example, to protect commercially sensitive information, ideas or intellectual property in business transactions. Relevant harassment or discrimination is defined in line with the existing definitions in the Equality Act 2010 and is conduct which the worker or a co-worker has suffered or is alleged to have suffered, or conduct carried out or alleged to be carried out by the employer or a co-worker—for example, where a colleague tells another colleague that their boss has sexually harassed them. This will mean that workers who have experienced harassment or discrimination can speak up, as well as those who have witnessed misconduct or who have knowledge of it.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very important debate and I thank the Minister, the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway, Lady Goudie and Lady Ramsey of Wall Heath, the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions. In particular, I congratulate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, especially for Amendments 95 and 96. They are vital and long overdue, and I support them very strongly indeed. They strike at the very heart of what it means to have a fair, transparent and accountable workplace. Too often, whistleblowers have faced retaliation, dismissal and isolation, not because they have done anything wrong but because they have identified where something has been severely wrong. That is a moral failure in our system, and it is one that this House must now move to correct.
Workplace harassment, abuse, corruption and mismanagement are not minor private inconveniences to be swept under the carpet but serious matters of public interest. It is precisely in the public interest that these amendments redefine what constitutes a protected disclosure and establish an independent office of the whistleblower. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, just pointed out, this new body would be more than just symbolic. It would enforce real standards, offer real protections and provide real redress for those who are brave enough to come forward. It would finally send a clear signal to employers that retaliation is no longer ever going to be tolerated and that burying the truth behind legal threats and non-disclosure agreements has to stop.
It is particularly important that these protections extend to disclosures around violence, harassment and abuse in the workplace. These are areas where silence is too often enforced and where whistleblowing can save others from further harm. I urge the Government to take this opportunity to stand firmly on the side of transparency, accountability and justice.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their support for our amendment. I assure your Lordships that we will follow it through to full implementation.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked a number of specific questions. There will be further consultation on the regulations, but I assure all noble Lords around the House of the Government’s absolute determination to get this and the regulations on to the statute book. I know that noble Lords will hold our feet to the fire; I will be doing that as well, to my own Government. We will deliver on this.
Moving on to Amendments 95 and 96, whistleblowers play an important role in exposing wrongdoing and malpractice in the workplace. It is vital that workers are able to come forward with concerns without suffering adverse treatment by their employer. That is why whistleblowers have been protected from dismissal and detrimental treatment under the Employment Rights Act since reforms were introduced in the UK in 1998 through the Public Interest Disclosure Act. However, some time has passed since these world-leading reforms were introduced. The Government acknowledge concerns from noble Lords and others that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be.
That is why we are taking a range of actions to strengthen the framework. Through the Employment Rights Bill, we are introducing a measure that will expressly make sexual harassment the basis for a protected disclosure. This will provide welcome clarity for workers and have wider benefits, including encouraging more workers to speak up about sexual harassment by using whistleblowing routes. The measure will signal to employers that workers who make protected disclosures about sexual harassment must be treated fairly, as workers will have legal recourse if their employer subjects them to detriment as a result.
Additionally, we have committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers or endangering patients through misconduct. Most recently, the Government amended the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014 to allow workers to make protected disclosures to relevant government departments on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for employment protections when disclosing information on financial, transport and other trade sanctions to government and to seek redress should they suffer detriment or dismissal due to making a protected disclosure.
The amendments proposed in this group would make substantial changes which should be considered as part of a broader assessment of the operation of the whistleblowing framework. For example, the amendment that would create an office for the whistleblower would introduce a significant structural change to that framework. The Government also note that there are differing views among stakeholders about the role of a new body.
However, as an indication of the continued movement in this space by the Government, I am pleased to announce that the Government are today publishing the research report on the whistleblowing framework, which was undertaken by the previous Government. The report provides observations and insights about the operation of the whistleblowing framework, obtained from stakeholder engagement, and a literature review, which will be a positive contribution to debate. The Government look forward to engaging stakeholders about that report and the proposal for reform. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, not to press Amendment 95.
Lord Lucas (Con)
I beg the Minister, if I might, for a letter in response to my questions. I quite understand that she cannot answer them now.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am sure that we can write and provide some clarification on that. I commend Amendment 46 to the House.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsMonday 14th July 2025
(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-I(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (11 Jul 2025)
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this first group, but I shall speak briefly to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which, as she explained, is an amendment to the Government’s Amendment 8, and Amendment 22. I want to interrogate the wording of the Government’s Amendment 8. We have a 309-page Bill. There is a lot of concern outside, at the coal face, from businesses about definitions and what the Bill means. This is a good example:
“In exercising the power under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to … the desirability of preventing this Chapter from having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances”.
Can the Minister explain how these exceptional circumstances are defined, and how significant does the adverse effect need to be for it to be regarded by the Secretary of State?
I ask that mindful of the latest survey from the Federation of Small Businesses, just a couple of days ago, which surely signals significant adverse effects for the majority of small and micro-businesses. For the first time in its history, the FSB reports that more UK small firms expect to shrink, sell up or shut down over the next 12 months than anticipate growth. The FSB’s Q2 small business index shows that 27% of small businesses expect to contract, close or be sold, outstripping the 25% which are planning for growth, and it marks the first time that the balance has tipped towards pessimism since the index began. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, points out in her amendment, there is no need to layer “exceptional circumstances” on to already significant adverse effects on employers. It would be far neater, of course, to exempt small and micro-businesses from Clause 1, as I and many others argued throughout Committee.
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, I first thank your Lordships’ House for the extensive engagement, debate and scrutiny that this Bill received throughout Committee. Indeed, we have held over 50 engagements with noble Lords from across your Lordships’ House since the Bill left the other place. As we progress Report, I need to remind noble Lords that the Government were elected on a manifesto commitment to make work pay. This Bill marks the first phase in delivering that commitment. Once implemented, it will raise the minimum floor of employment rights, provide a level playing field for businesses which are already engaged in good practice and raise living standards across the country. Alongside the new industrial strategy, the Bill will support our mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.
Turning to the amendments, I have listened carefully to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on Amendment 1. I remind noble Lords that as of March 2025, there are around 1 million people on zero-hours contracts in the UK. About 33% of them have been with their current employer for less than 12 months and 51% for less than two years. These are the most vulnerable individuals in the workforce. The Government are therefore committed to ending exploitative zero-hours contracts, which the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, quite rightly describes as “precarious employment”.
Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)
Would the Minister accept that setting a cap on the number of hours still gives the Secretary of State flexibility to determine exactly what the number of hours is, while giving industry the security, comfort and certainty it needs to carry on investing in its shops, pubs, restaurants and care homes?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we intend to consult on this, and of course we will take the comments and concerns of business into account; it is our absolute intention to do that. What we do not want to do is pre-empt that by setting out the conclusions of the consultation in advance. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I do not think that fits with our model of wishing to take this and consult further on it. But of course we will take business views into account.
I turn to the amendments tabled in my name. We listened to concerns raised by parliamentarians and business stakeholders, and responded promptly by amending the Bill. The Bill allows regulations to specify circumstances in which the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply or for a guaranteed offer once made to be treated as withdrawn. We expect that this power will be used narrowly in response to changing circumstances to address situations where the measure would have significant adverse impacts. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended restating this power with greater precision.
In response, we have tabled amendments to constrain the use of this power. Our amendments require that, in exercising this power, the Secretary of State must have regard to both the benefit to workers of receiving a guaranteed-hours offer and the desirability of preventing the provisions having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances. Where this power is exercised and the duty to offer guaranteed hours does not apply, a further amendment clarifies that the exception will operate in relation to a single reference period, rather than being open-ended.
Circumstances specified in regulations would need to be specific, factual and narrow enough so that it is crystal clear that the duty then does not apply or no longer applies. There will be no room for discretion from the employer or the worker. The Government will consult on any use of this power. This way of constraining the exercise of the power still allows flexibility to determine the specific circumstances once all interested parties have had a chance to input.
Corresponding amendments are made to the provisions for agency workers. In addition, under the Bill’s current provision, an agency worker who accepts a guaranteed-hours offer from an end hirer becomes directly engaged by the hirer. The worker could then be entitled to another initial reference period as a directly engaged worker. Amendments 6 and 23 clarify that agency workers who accept a guaranteed-hours offer will not benefit from a new initial reference period. This aligns their rights with directly engaged workers and eases employer burdens.
Regarding Amendments 12 to 19, the Bill usually requires a guaranteed-hours offer to be made to a qualifying agency worker on no less favourable terms and conditions taken as a whole than those under which the agency worker was engaged during a relevant reference period. We have heard concerns about instances where agency workers are paid a significant premium in recognition of, for example, the temporary and insecure nature of their work. As the Bill stands, such pay premiums could be carried over into a guaranteed-hours offer, putting those agency workers at an unintentional advantage compared with directly engaged workers in similar roles. This could also cause employers to move away from hiring agency workers in the first place. These amendments will allow less favourable terms and conditions relating to pay to be proposed in guaranteed-hours offers to agency workers, to ensure alignment with comparable directly engaged workers, maintaining flexibility for businesses and supporting consistency in treatment of the workers.
I turn to Amendments 9 and 22, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which seek to amend the amendments in my name that I have just justified. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness’s points, but accepting her amendments and removing the reference to employers dealing with exceptional circumstances would not address the DPRRC’s criticisms regarding the breadth of the power. It would also not be clear what the Secretary of State would need to consider when setting out the specified circumstances. I reassure the noble Baroness that, once the Secretary of State has considered these matters, he can still decide to make regulations to set out the circumstances in which the duty to make guaranteed-hours offers does not apply, which may not relate to exceptional circumstances.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, to withdraw his amendment. We very much share his objective to address the imbalance of power, and I hope he has heard our case about why we believe that what is currently in the Bill is the best way to do that. I also commend to the House Amendments 6 to 8, 12 to 21 and 23 in my name.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank noble Lords who took part in this debate. The number of amendments in this group shows the depth of feeling on zero-hours contracts. I think it was the same story from the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill—for whom I have the highest regard—and the Minister. It was not a defence; it seemed to me that they were saying that giving employees this extra power would somehow not help them in asking for those contracts, as the employer might not like it.
That is the point of it. The Bill is supposed to address what employers and employees like. This is not an either/or; it is an “extra for”—an extra protection for workers. As the Minister herself said, 1 million people are on zero-hours contracts, many of which are exploitative. That should not remain after all this debate has taken place. All we are asking for is clarity and detail and all we are getting is consultation and manna tomorrow. That is not acceptable. There are 1 million people looking at this today, wondering what we are going to do. In my mind, what we should do, which I wish to do, is test the will of the House.
“(6A) See paragraph 5(3A) of Schedule A1 for provision about when the initial reference period is not a reference period in relation to a worker who is a former agency worker and that worker’s employer.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 at page 160, line 33.
“(6A) In exercising the power under subsection (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to—(a) the benefit to workers of receiving a guaranteed hours offer under this Chapter, and(b) the desirability of preventing this Chapter from having a significant adverse effect on employers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters that the Secretary of State must have regard to in exercising the power in new section 27BD(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“(b) must propose terms and conditions of employment relating to pay that comply with paragraph 2A, and(c) must propose terms and conditions of employment relating to additional matters—(i) that, taken as a whole, are no less favourable than the terms and conditions relating to additional matters that the qualifying agency worker had when working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer during the relevant reference period,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to Schedule 1 that inserts a new paragraph 2A into new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“(6A) In exercising the power under sub-paragraph (6) the Secretary of State must, in particular, have regard to—(a) the benefit to agency workers of receiving a guaranteed hours offer under this Part of this Schedule, and(b) the desirability of preventing this Part of this Schedule from having a significant adverse effect on hirers who are dealing with exceptional circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out a non-exhaustive list of matters that the Secretary of State must have regard to in exercising the power in paragraph 4(6) of new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996. It is equivalent to my amendment to clause 1, page 9, line 36.
“(3A) Where, by virtue of sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), a qualifying agency worker and a hirer are treated as entering into a worker’s contract on a day, and accordingly from that day the qualifying agency worker becomes a worker and the hirer becomes that worker’s employer, Chapter 2 of Part 2A applies in relation to that worker and that employer as if in section 27BA (employer’s duty to make a guaranteed hours offer) subsections (4)(a) and (5) (which provide for the initial reference period to be a reference period and define the initial reference period) were omitted.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment produces the effect that where a qualifying agency worker accepts a guaranteed hours offer from a hirer under Part 1 of new Schedule A1 to the Employment Rights Act 1996, so that (respectively) they become a worker and an employer for the purposes of new Chapter 2 of Part 2A of that Act, there will not be a new initial reference period in relation to the former agency worker.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 25 in particular, although I also support Amendment 24. This is about the freedom to be represented by people who represent you and your stance. Only 22% of employees in this country belong to a trade union, so surely it is right, as my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt propose, that a relevant collective agreement for the purposes of Clause 5 will be invalid unless it is open to being struck with a body which is independent of a trade union and which is not just a trade union. Given that many workplaces, particularly small businesses, do not have trade union representatives and some 80% of employees do not belong to a trade union, there really is not a case, in terms of freedom, for restricting who should conduct the collective bargaining. It is important to send a signal that we believe in a free workforce and respect the freedom of working people to join, or not to join, a trade union.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and his explanation for Amendments 24 and 25, and note that these are similar to the amendments he tabled in Committee, but with some of the safeguards and requirements removed. While I respect the noble Lord’s views in this area, I feel this is going in the wrong direction. Staff associations and employee representative bodies can of course be a very positive way for staff and employers to engage. However, we are not convinced they are the suitable vehicle for deciding whether to modify or opt out of statutory employment rights. While many maintain a good balance between positive engagement and constructive challenge, we are not persuaded that they will, in all cases, argue as robustly as a trade union on behalf of workers. In addition, without a trade union representing them, workers will not have as many protections if their employer does not deliver promised benefits.
This is nothing to do with a closed shop or industrial bullying. Under our proposals, employees will continue to have the right to be, or not to be, a member of a trade union. The issue here is the right to be represented by a body that is truly independent. We remain of the view that agreements of this type are best made by trade unions which have been through all the steps to become listed and certified as independent. I would encourage any staff association or employee representative body that wants to negotiate on behalf of its members to register as a trade union and go through the steps to obtain a certificate of independence from the certification officer.
The second part of the noble Lord’s amendment sets out that a relevant collective agreement shall not be treated as valid if it meets conditions such as imposing detriment or disadvantage on a worker who is not a member of a trade union and terms being incorporated into a worker’s contract solely by reason of union membership status. We believe that these provisions are unnecessary. The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already provides sufficient protection by ensuring that workers cannot be subject to detriment for the purpose of compelling them to join a trade union. Furthermore, the application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends on incorporation of them into their contracts, either expressly or by implication, in line with well-established contract law, rather than on the basis of a trade union membership.
I turn to Amendments 26 and 27 in my name. Currently, when the terms of a collective agreement cease to be incorporated, the worker’s initial reference period and initial information period recommence the next day. However, in some cases, there could be quite a gap between these terms ceasing to be in force and the worker next being employed by the employer to work. We heard the strength of feeling around business burden in Committee and, where it is possible to make tweaks, we will do so. In this case, we believe it makes more sense for the reference period to start the next time the worker is employed by the employer. This avoids businesses having to consider making a guaranteed-hours offer before it is sensible and necessary to do so.
We are also tabling a minor and technical amendment to new Section 27BY(8) to reflect that the duty relating to the information right in the existing provisions will be on agencies to inform potential eligible agency workers about the right to guaranteed hours in any relevant information period.
Finally, Amendment 27 ensures that the zero-hours measures in the Bill apply as appropriate to special categories of workers. This follows a long-standing precedent that these categories of workers should be treated as distinct, as they do not have a typical employment relationship or undertake a unique type of work. In line with this precedent, the amendment ensures that House of Commons and House of Lords staff, Crown employees and mariners benefit from the crucial protections the Bill provides on zero hours. It also ensures that duties made under provisions in the Bill do not apply where this would not be appropriate; namely, in relation to service personnel in the Armed Forces and police officers. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 24 and commend Amendments 26 and 27.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I first thank my noble friends Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lady Lawlor for their comments. Employee representation must be plural and not monopolised by trade unions. There are many workplaces across the country where independent staff associations or employee bodies are trusted, respected and effective. These organisations are not lesser simply because they are not unions. In fact, they are often more in tune with their colleagues’ needs, less politicised and more flexible in resolving workplace issues—yet disappointingly, the Minister says they are not “suitable”.
The idea that only a union can be trusted to negotiate terms is a fiction—we just have to look at Birmingham to see the results of that belief. This amendment simply recognises reality: that employee voices come in many forms and the law should not shut out legitimate and independent associations.
Secondly and just as crucially, we cannot allow this legislation to leave space for any form of closed shop, not in name or in practice. It is true of course that compulsory union membership is already unlawful, as the Minister pointed out, but this amendment would ensure that there were no back doors. We do not think the law should have any ambiguity on this. No agreement should ever impose a detriment on a worker simply because they choose not to join a union, and as my noble friend Lady Lawlor pointed out, the majority choose not to—in fact, in the private sector, I think that the proportion who choose not to join a union is 87.7%. No terms should be granted only by virtue of membership. That is not freedom; that is coercion.
We therefore say again that collective bargaining should not become collective exclusion. These amendments would uphold freedom of association in both directions: the right to join and the right not to, but for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(b) in relation to a worker and the worker’s employer—(i) section 27BA(5)(a) has effect as if for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) there were substituted—“(i) where the worker is employed by the employer on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(ii) where the worker is not so employed, the first day after the effective day on which the worker is employed by the employer, and”, and(ii) section 27BF(3) has effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—“(a) where the worker is employed by the employer on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(b) where the worker is not so employed, the first day after the effective day on which the worker is employed by the employer.”,(c) in relation to an agency worker and a hirer for and under the supervision and direction of whom the agency worker works, paragraph 1(5)(a) of Schedule A1 has effect as if for sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) there were substituted—“(i) where the agency worker is working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(ii) where the agency worker is not so working, the first day after the effective day on which the agency worker is working for and under the supervision and direction of the hirer, and”, and(d) in relation to an agency worker and the work-finding agency with which the agency worker has a worker’s contract or an arrangement by virtue of which the agency worker is (or is to be) supplied to work for and under the supervision and direction of a hirer, paragraph 6(3) of Schedule A1 has effect as if for paragraphs (a) and (b) there were substituted—“(a) where the worker’s contract or arrangement is in force on the day (“the effective day”) after the day on which terms cease to be incorporated as mentioned in section 27BY(7)(b), the effective day, or(b) where it is not in force on the effective day, the first day after the effective day on which it is in force.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the gloss in new section 27BY(8) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 operates effectively.
“18A In section 192 (armed forces), in subsection (2)(e), after “103” insert “, 104BA, 104BB”.18B (1) Section 194 (House of Lords staff) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—“(aza) Part 2A, apart from Chapter 1 of that Part,”.(3) In subsection (2)(c), for “and 47E” substitute “, 47E and 47H”.18C (1) Section 195 (House of Commons staff) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(a) insert—“(aza) Part 2A, apart from Chapter 1 of that Part,”.(3) In subsection (2)(c), for “and 47E” substitute “, 47E and 47H”.18D (1) Section 199 (mariners) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (8), for paragraph (b) substitute—“(b) Part 2,(bza) Part 2A, apart from Chapter 1 of that Part,(bzb) Parts 2B, 3 and 5,”.(3) After subsection (8) insert—“(9) In the application of subsection (7) to the provisions mentioned in subsection (8)(bza), the reference in subsection (7)(b) to a contract of employment is to be read as a reference to a worker’s contract.”18E In section 200 (police officers), in subsection (1)—(a) after “8 to 10,” insert “Chapters 2 to 4 of Part 2A,”;(b) after “47C,” insert “47H,”.”Member's explanatory statement
The paragraphs inserted into Schedule 2 by this amendment make amendments of Chapter 1 of Part 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (particular types of employment) that are consequential on clauses 1 to 5.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on the important topic of statutory sick pay, particularly in relation to amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for signing the amendment. I listened to her very closely in Committee; she may have got a flavour of what I am about to say, because she has an excellent overview of these matters, and I think the House does listen. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her forensic examination of the financial cost, which should never be underestimated—these things are emotional, but there are costs to anything that anybody does. It is important that we understand where the balance lies.
I will speak predominantly to my Amendment 30, which is a probing amendment. We recognise that there are challenges in creating a two-tier employment system with different obligations depending on business size. For that reason, we will not press for a Division on this amendment. However, this amendment highlights the importance of recognising the potential impact that this might have on small and medium-sized enterprises due to the costs that they incur from statutory sick pay. SMEs form the backbone of our economy. It is essential that government policy takes full account of the financial pressures that businesses face.
Expanding statutory sick pay is an important and welcome goal, but it must be done with careful consideration of how the additional costs affect the viability and growth prospects of SMEs. That is why meaningful consultation with these businesses throughout the implementation process is critical. The Government should actively engage with SMEs to ensure that their concerns are understood and addressed, so that any changes to statutory sick pay are substantial and do not inadvertently place undue burdens on the very common businesses and people who are trying to drive the economy.
I will ask the Minister to confirm that, as the Government continue their thorough consultation as part of the implementation of the Bill, they do so directly and in close alignment with small and medium-sized businesses, not during the passage of the Bill but throughout its full implementation. Can the Minister provide reassurance that SMEs’ voices will be heard, and their concerns addressed, as the policy is rolled out? Because it is only through partnership with the SME community that we can ensure the statutory sick pay system is both fair for workers and sustainable for business. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I will start with Amendment 28, which looks at retaining the waiting period for one day. The Government believe that removing the waiting period is essential in ensuring that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover when sick. That is why we committed to it in the manifesto. This is particularly true for employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions, who should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition or prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that the one-day waiting period that he was proposing should not be a punishment, but that is exactly what it would be under the proposals before us.
It is also worth saying that 25% of all employees receive only statutory sick pay, and many are forced to choose between their health and the genuine financial hardship during the first three days of sickness absence when they are not paid. Removing the waiting period will make a tangible difference to ensuring that the safety net for sick pay is available to those who need it most.
I understand that the noble Lord is concerned about the wider impacts on businesses of these changes, but, without the removal of the waiting period, many employees will be forced to continue to come into the workplace when they are sick. The pandemic exposed how damaging this can be for businesses and individuals, with WPI economic modelling telling us that presenteeism can lead to up to 12% of the workforce becoming sick from the illness of a single employee. By reducing such presenteeism, businesses may benefit from the overall productivity increase, which can also contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff.
Of course, as we have debated before, employers will need to manage sickness absence, as they do at the moment. I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on the cultural issues, and, yes, some of the things she identifies are real issues. We are addressing them across government, and she will have heard many of my ministerial colleagues set out how they plan to do that. But that does not alter the fact that, in this Bill, what we are proposing makes good sense for the lowest paid.
I also remind noble Lords that the additional cost to business of the statutory sick pay reforms is about £450 million annually—a relatively modest £15 per employee. It was quite rightly pointed out that these figures were modelled by the DWP, but it does have a reasonable track record of doing such modelling, and I do not think that the figures should be dismissed.
Amendment 29 seeks to exempt employers from having to pay the rate of statutory sick pay outlined in Clause 11 if they already provide a contractual scheme that pays at least 80% of normal weekly earnings. The rate of statutory sick pay is set out in the Bill as the lower of 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings, or £118.75. This already means that no employer will have to pay more than 80% of an employee’s normal weekly earnings. Therefore, an employer already paying 80% of an employee’s weekly earnings would be compliant with the statutory minimum set out in the Bill. As such, I am unclear on the intended impact of this amendment on employees or employers, as it does not appear to change the statutory sick pay entitlement.
I turn to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I appreciate what he said about it being a probing amendment. As I have mentioned, the changes we are making to statutory sick pay will cost businesses around £15 per employee. This relatively modest amount compares with projected costs of up to £600 million a year to government of a rebate for the full amount of statutory sick pay for SMEs. I accept the arguments made by the noble Lord that this cost will of course depend on the size, scope and complexity of a rebate scheme. However, we have experience of administering such schemes. We previously delivered statutory sick pay rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. A review found that the employers underused it and found it was complex and time-consuming to administer. Any rebate system that maximises opportunity for business take-up, which I envisage would be the noble Lord’s intent in this amendment, would collectively be costly for the taxpayer as well, whereas the cost saving for individual employers would be small and a new administrative burden would be placed on them.
Previous statutory sick pay rebate schemes also did not incentivise employers to support their employees back to work or invest in their health and well-being. This, in turn, can affect overall productivity and staff retention. We know that employers have responsibility for paying sick pay, and that helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able. I would also like to add that the Government have asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead the Keep Britain Working review, which will consider recommendations on how employers and the Government can work together to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces. A final report with recommendations is expected in the autumn.
I therefore do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, I say that of course we are continuing to have a dialogue with SMEs, and we take their concerns very seriously. I therefore ask the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Goddard, not to press their amendments.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for reminding us all that one of the great difficulties we have in debating a subject such as this is the lack of a reliable evidence base, and that is particularly relevant to the debates on these amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, quite rightly drew our attention to the unintended cultural issues, which worry us all so much and to which the Minister has just referred.
I remain wholly unconvinced by the Minister’s response when debating the removal of the waiting period for statutory sick pay. To remove any waiting period at all, and to introduce a day one entitlement without qualification, is not just a step too far but an unnecessary one. Having at least one waiting day does not undermine the Government’s stated intention to support those who are genuinely unwell. It is a modest safeguard that reflects the balance they claim to seek, and its removal creates perverse incentives at a time when we should be doing all we can to encourage people back into work.
On the issue of agency work and statutory sick pay, the Minister’s response is equally unconvincing. I did try to outline a scenario where individuals go off sick, claim SSP and then begin new assignments, while continuing to receive sick pay from another employer. I do not believe that the Minister adequately addressed that point. I suggest that perhaps we ought to put our heads together and try to find another solution. Having listened carefully to the debate, a system-wide mechanism, possibly administered by HMRC, to cross-check SSP claims across employers could serve as a much-needed safeguard. Perhaps she might reflect further on that on that idea, because I believe that such a mechanism would not target those with legitimate dual employment. We recognise that some workers genuinely hold more than one job in a given week, but it would introduce a basic layer of validation—a simple tool to distinguish between valid and dishonest claims. Without it, businesses, particularly small and agency employers, would remain exposed to fraudulent or inadvertent overclaims that could cost them thousands of pounds, all in the name of a policy that currently lacks real oversight.
I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey and the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for their important probing amendment. It has been a useful and interesting debate, but we still search for the solutions that will meet the problem. I urge the Government, in their phased consultation, to listen to businesses from across the board as they highlight their concerns. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 39.
“(ca) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (1) an employee is also a “bereaved person” if—(a) the employee has suffered a pregnancy loss of a specified kind, or(b) the employee satisfies specified conditions as to relationship with—(i) a person who has suffered a pregnancy loss of a specified kind, or(ii) a child who had been expected to be born had a pregnancy loss of a specified kind not occurred.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my other amendments of clause 18 would enable the entitlement to bereavement leave conferred by section 80EA of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be extended to cases involving pregnancy loss.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 27.
“(ga) in subsection (9)—(i) in the definition of “child”, after “stillbirths” insert “after twenty-four weeks of pregnancy”;(ii) after the definition of “child” insert— ““live birth” means the birth of a child born alive;“pregnancy loss” means—(a) the ending of a pregnancy after less than twenty-four weeks of pregnancy in any way other than by a live birth, or(b) the failure of an embryo to become implanted following a transfer carried out in the course of providing treatment services within the meaning of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990;“specified” means specified in the regulations;”;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment of clause 18 at page 41, line 27.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lord Holmes of Richmond for their amendments in this group. I join the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, in his remarks about the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, in particular, which addresses an important point about the employment opportunities for blind and sight-impaired people. Unfortunately, the measures in the Bill make it significantly more costly to hire all individuals, and this will hit those on the margins of the labour market the hardest.
My noble friend Lord Young has made some very compelling points in Committee and now on Report on Clause 20, and this is where the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, and I differ. If the Government do not accept my noble friend’s amendments, we must consider the logical—and potentially absurd—consequences of allowing unqualified liability for indirect harassment.
Imagine for a moment that the same principle was applied here in this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, just did, while making some very good points. Suppose for example a guest in the Public Gallery was to lean over and whisper something mildly controversial—perhaps a pointed remark about constitutional reform. A doorkeeper standing nearby happens to overhear it and finds it offensive. Under the logic of indirect third-party harassment liability, would the Lord Speaker be expected to issue a formal apology? Would Black Rod be required to eject the offender and impose mandatory sensitivity training on all future guests? What would the “banter consultant” mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, say about that?
This illustrates the unworkability and overreach of the current drafting. No one would expect Members of this House to be held responsible for the spontaneous and overheard utterances of strangers in the Gallery, and nor should we expect publicans, shopkeepers or venue managers to be so, either.
As to Amendment 193 standing in my name, the Government have already decided to delay many of the measures in the Bill. Originally, we were told that these measures would come into effect by 2026, but the Government’s decision to postpone parts of the Bill is, I believe, an implicit admission that their consultation process was inadequate.
The Government have now begun to recognise the very real and unintended consequences that could follow from some of these provisions. Clause 20, which seeks to impose liability on employers for third-party harassment, is one such provision that warrants further scrutiny and, at the very least, a longer lead-in time. This clause, while we accept it is well-intentioned in its aim to protect employees, risks, as we have discussed, casting too wide a net. It opens the door to legal uncertainty and potentially frivolous claims based on subjective interpretations of overheard remarks or perceived offence. Therefore, the Government must reconsider how such a broad definition of harassment could be interpreted in real-world settings, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, where employees regularly interact with members of the public.
As my noble friend Lord Young of Acton pointed out, recent warnings from the British Beer and Pub Association, which has announced that Britain is now losing a pub every day, should be heeded. This is not simply a matter of economics; it is a cultural and social loss, as my noble friend pointed out. Pubs are part of the lifeblood of our national identity. They are centres of community, debate and tradition, yet now, in addition to facing tax increases, rising costs and staff shortages, pub landlords are being told they may be held legally responsible for comments made by their patrons, even if those comments are not directed at staff. To quote again from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, this is not made-up nonsense; this is factual.
I urge the Government to take this opportunity to reflect, to consult more widely and to ensure that they do not impose a law which may undermine business, stifle free expression and expose employers to unfair liability.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this Government have provided assurances to your Lordships’ House throughout these debates, time and again, that Clause 20 will not have the chilling effect on free speech that is being claimed today. Therefore, we will resist Amendments 43, 44 and 45, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, in relation to third-party harassment.
I make it absolutely clear at the outset that this clause is about addressing harassment, not about banter. We have overarching legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998 which guarantees freedom of expression in a way that is legally and constitutionally stronger than any amendment the noble Lord could make to the current Employment Rights Bill. Therefore, we do not accept the argument that carve-outs are required or that new concepts should be introduced that would complicate the law unnecessarily.
Employers are already obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to protect employees from harassment in the workplace. That has obviously not led to “banter bouncers” in the workplace. Therefore, employers already have an understanding of how to apply these protections in practice. Our aim is not to burden employers or prevent free speech; it is to deliver on our commitment to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.
The question was raised as to whether cases would go to a tribunal for people being oversensitive. It is important to note that in an employment tribunal claim for harassment, if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipient but that was not its intended purpose, the tribunal must consider whether it was reasonable for the conduct to have that effect. The reasonableness and the facts of the individual’s situation must always be considered. It is not a purely subjective test based on the view of the recipient. In addition, there is a seriousness threshold. Conduct that is trivial or causes minor offence will not be sufficiently serious to meet that definition of harassment.
The protection we have proposed is welcomed by a recent nationally representative survey of 5,000 people by the TUC, which found that eight out of 10 people—
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I do not know what is funny about that, because I do not know that I have heard any polls from the opposite side. The TUC poll found that eight out of 10 people—79%—support the plan to protect workers from harassment.
I remind noble Lords that the Government will be publishing guidance so that employers are supported with these changes. We will make it clear that they are not required to take unreasonable steps and we will set out how they can continue to effectively prevent harassment and protect free speech. No business will be required to hire staff to monitor speech or diversity under this provision.
Many public-facing businesses, such as pubs, universities, sports venues and public transport, already have posters that signal a zero-tolerance approach to any form of harassment at their venue or site, including harassment of their staff. We would consider this a reasonable step.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised the issue of this building, and this very building has notices detailing the behavioural code, making it clear that everyone on the estate should treat one another with respect and that unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously. This has not had a chilling effect on free speech in this place.
Harassment is taking place in many workplaces that is not banter and, in some cases, employers are simply not doing enough to protect or support their employees. In a poll of 16 to 35 year-olds in 2018, the TUC explored the experiences and the impact of third-party harassment. For example, a young woman complained of
“customers sexually harassing staff members and myself whilst drunk. It also occurs when they are sober. It happens every time I work. My managers think it’s funny”.
Another customer, a sales assistant aged 18 to 21, said that they were constantly being sworn up by customers for no reason and called racial slurs, and had witnessed people being hit. I do not know what the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Young, is to all of that, but we have an answer, which is to take steps against third-party harassment.
My noble friend Lord Leong shared a very personal story about when he worked in a pub in his student days and was harassed constantly, being called all manner of racist names. He complained to the manager, who dismissed it as banter, but it was not banter, and he still finds it very difficult to talk about it to this day. He left the pub after two weeks because he could not take it any more. We do not want people to have to do that in future. It is very important to us that future employees do not feel this way.
Diversity in businesses can be linked to benefits, including improved recruitment, employee engagement, more effective teams and improved understanding of customer wants and needs. We also know that companies with the most diverse leadership teams are more likely than ever to outperform less diverse peers on profitability. A customer service survey by Hospitality UK and CGA found that almost two-thirds of customers think that a venue’s equality, diversity and inclusion policy is important, and a third said that they would be more likely to visit a venue if it had policies to promote equality. We are, therefore, convinced that very few businesses, if they want to keep their customers, would support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Young.
I now turn to Amendment 193, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As set out in our road map for delivering Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay, we intend to commence the Bill’s protections against third-party harassment in October 2026. It is important that we get implementation and the details right to ensure that employers and employees understand the new law, and that it can be as effective as possible in ending third-party harassment. The approach we have taken and the timeline set out allow the time required to deliver effective implementation.
I assure the noble Lord that there is no need to delay commencement of Clause 20 until October 2027 due to concerns relating to free speech or burdens on business. Over the coming months, we will be engaging with stakeholders to ensure that guidance is fit for purpose. This will build on the consultation held in 2019 on introducing protections against third-party workplace sexual harassment, as well as on responses to the recently closed call for evidence on equality law. This timeline therefore accounts for the need for stakeholders to prepare for changes, and we will ensure that they are supported in their preparations. I remind your Lordships that, if a woman is sexually harassed by a customer at work today, she cannot seek individual redress, and if an employee experiences racial or homophobic harassment from a third party at work today, they have no protections under the Equality Act 2010.
I hope that we can all agree that employees should feel safe at work and be free of harassment. Therefore, we should not delay introducing these important protections any longer, and I urge the noble Lord, Lord Young, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I would just like to clarify that, when I referred noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests, I was referring them specifically to my job as the general-secretary of the Free Speech Union, which has been campaigning on this issue. I thank noble Lords for all their excellent contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
I will quickly respond to a couple of points made by the Minister. I do not think she can justifiably claim that Clause 20 will be for the first time protecting workers from being racially abused by customers or members of the public. If someone racially abuses another person, as I understand it, that would be a racially aggravated offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. So it is not as if there are currently no legal protections for workers who are abused in that unacceptable way.
The Minister said that the Government intended to publish guidance. on what “all reasonable steps” employers would be expected to take to protect their employees from third-party harassment. But, as I understand it from my reading of the Bill, the Government are obliged to provide guidance when it comes to protecting workers from third-party sexual harassment. They will set out what all reasonable steps are with respect to that, but there is no comparable clause in which the Government commit to providing guidance on what all reasonable steps are when it comes to protecting employees from third-party non-sexual harassment.
The Minister said that it would introduce an element of confusion into Clause 20 to accept either Amendment 43 or 44, because the things these amendments are trying to rule out of scope are already out of scope. If that is the case, and if the Minister genuinely believes that indirect harassment is not within scope, that banter is not within scope and that this is an exaggeration, a faux outrage, and if she genuinely believes that good-faith conversations about moral, political, religious or social matters, provided that they are not obscene, are out of scope, why not accept Amendments 43 and 44?
Doing so would provide the hospitality sector, and publicans in particular, with some clarity about what reasonable steps they can be expected to take to comply with this new clause. As it stands, there is a great deal of confusion. They will feel that they must err on the side of caution to prevent the possibility of being taken to the employment tribunal by aggrieved workers.
Pubs are on their knees. I ask the House not to impose these additional burdens on publicans who are already struggling to survive and keep their businesses afloat. If the Government genuinely believe in growth, and if they genuinely believe that pubs are an important British institution and want to take steps to preserve them, at the very least they should give publicans the clarity that accepting Amendments 43 and 44 would provide.
I am afraid that I am not satisfied by the Minister’s answer and so would like to test the opinion of the House.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 and 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 23, Schedule 3, Clauses 24 to 35, Schedule 4, Clauses 36 to 53, Schedule 5, Clauses 54 to 57, Schedule 6, Clauses 58 to 87, Schedule 7, Clauses 88 to 128, Schedule 8, Clauses 129 to 132, Schedule 9, Clauses 133 to 146, Schedules 10 and 11, Clauses 147 to 149, Schedule 12, Clauses 150 to 157, Title.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsTuesday 24th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-XI Eleventh marshalled list for Committee - (20 Jun 2025)
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I will pick up on a few of the points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt to support Amendment 335 wholeheartedly. In principle, I am in favour of sunset clauses because they help us to focus on a Bill not once but twice, as they will pass legislative scrutiny twice over, and they encourage us to make better law. There are very practical reasons for Amendment 335. We have a 4.4% unemployment rate—or we did up to November last year—and it is increasing, with 1.7 million people in this country unemployed.
This Bill, as we have heard time and again—I know the Government disagree, but the figures speak for themselves—will increase the cost of and burdens on employing people, restrict job entry and limit new posts being advertised. The number of job vacancy adverts is decreasing. Since the Government came to power, the tally I mentioned earlier—I am sorry to repeat it—is 115,000 jobs lost. At this rate, there is a very good reason to support such an amendment. I hope the Government will take on board that we must consider a sunset clause in case unemployment rises and employment levels go down significantly in three years’ time.
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, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for tabling Amendment 323C and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for Amendment 335. I pay tribute to the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in this area. I reassure the noble Lord that, despite Amendment 323C’s positive intentions, it effectively repeats what the Government already intend to do.
Our impact assessment sets out a clear plan to monitor and evaluate the effects of the Bill and its secondary legislation, following standard government practice. This approach will help us assess how well the measures are delivering on their objectives, inform future policy-making and review the real-world impact on all stakeholders, whose contributions we recognise as vital to the strength of our economy. As is standard practice, in line with our Better Regulation Framework obligations, we also intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the Bill within five years of Royal Assent. This will provide sufficient time to assess the policy’s effectiveness and gather sufficient data for evaluation purposes.
In the case of the fair work agency, ongoing oversight of employment rights enforcement is provided for in Clauses 91 and 92. They require the Secretary of State to publish a three-year labour market enforcement strategy and annual reports, which must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Secondary legislation made under the provisions in this Bill will also be subject to the requirements in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 regarding proportionate 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 them in detail and providing Parliament with sufficient opportunity for scrutiny and debate. 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.
On Amendment 335, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, we want to ensure that workers have these rights for life and not just three years, as the noble Lord proposes. As a result, we oppose his amendment. As is typical with employment legislation, further details on many of the policies in the Bill will be provided through regulations after Royal Assent. We will begin consulting on these reforms in 2025, seeking significant input from all stakeholders. We anticipate this meaning that the majority of reforms will take effect no earlier than 2026. We are committed to getting the detail right. This means listening to and incorporating a wide range of views into our policy development.
While headline 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 UK’s productivity slowdown is more severe than in other advanced economies. A fragmented labour market and too much insecure work are holding back growth and investment. We also lag behind the OECD average on employment protections, and we have paid the price. 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 wider benefits to the business environment by improving well-being, incentivising higher productivity and creating a more level playing field for good employers. Consider a few of the changes it will bring: over 10 million workers in every corner of the country will benefit; increased well-being alone could be worth billions of pounds a year; there will be less workplace conflict, which costs UK employers 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 per year.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the way businesses are perceiving this, but, as my noble friend Lord Leong said, business confidence is actually rising. The latest Lloyds Business Barometer survey shows business confidence at a nine-month high, with rising hiring expectations among businesses. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that a sunset clause would create business uncertainty at the very time when we want to build on that confidence. The industrial strategy, which we published yesterday, has been welcomed by all sectors of business and will help to build that long-term strategy for growth.
Given the benefits the Bill will bring for workers over the long term, we oppose the noble Lord’s amendment and will continue to promote growth for businesses and the level playing field for good employers. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Norton, to withdraw Amendment 323C.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and the Minister for their contributions to this short debate. Obviously, I am very grateful for their opening comments; it seems to be something on which I have united the two Front Benches.
I am very grateful for the Minister’s considered response. I would prefer it to be in the Bill for the reasons I have given, but I feel I have achieved something this evening as she has come to the Dispatch Box and made the commitment she has, which is valuable because it ensures the Bill will be subject to a review of the kind I seek. Although I would have preferred that to be in the Bill, this short debate has achieved something.
If the Bill is subject to post-legislative review, it picks up on the points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral because, with the claims he has made about the Bill, it will be a chance to test whether it has delivered. It is important that post-legislative scrutiny is thorough in the way that some departments most definitely have done it for some Bills, which I welcome. My whole point is to encourage that. It is something I will return to, not necessarily on this Bill but on others, to ensure we achieve the same result. I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the Minister for what they said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for giving notice of his opposition to Clause 151 standing part, which gives me the chance to set out the purpose of that clause, and for speaking to Amendments 324A, 324B and 324C, which, as I understand it, are 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 by the Bill. Consequential amendments are fundamental to ensuring that the statute book remains coherent and workable. It is a Henry VIII power similar to the ones used in previous legislation of similar size and complexity. It allows the amendment of Northern Ireland legislation, as it does Acts of the Scottish Parliament and the Senedd Cymru. This is necessary to allow the statute book across all UK jurisdictions to be maintained effectively.
None the less, the power in Clause 151 is appropriately constrained because it allows only amendments which are consequential to the substantive amendment already made in the Bill itself. For these reasons, we consider it both necessary and proportionate. I also remind noble Lords that 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 reassure noble Lords that, where possible, amendments to other pieces of primary legislation that are required as a result of the provisions made in this Bill have been made in the Bill itself, as my noble friend Lord Leong set out earlier. However, it is possible that further provisions could still be identified that require consequential amendment. Allowing these to be made by regulation will mean that they can be made without delay and with an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. This is a standard power in a Bill of this size and complexity. There are multiple examples in legislation from recent Conservative Governments that took the same approach, including the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.
Amending the clause so that any exercise of the power would be subject to the affirmative procedure would result in debates on every consequential amendment, which we believe would be disproportionate. For these reasons, the Government oppose these amendments, and I hope that I have reassured the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that the power this clause vests in the Secretary of State is proportionate. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 324A.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response to the concerns that I raised during this debate. However, I remain unconvinced by the Government’s justification for these sweeping powers. As we have said on several occasions already, there are far too many delegated powers in the Bill as it stands. To extend this approach to all consequential future provisions represents a qualitative leap in executive authority that goes well beyond what is necessary or constitutionally appropriate.
I recognise that the Minister has given assurances about responsible use of these powers, which, no doubt well-intentioned, cannot substitute for proper parliamentary oversight built into the legislative framework itself. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque, drawn on the account of parliamentary sovereignty. The breadth of these consequential powers, combined with the minimal oversight mechanisms, represents precisely the kind of constitutional overreach that this House exists to prevent.
I remind Ministers—like many noble Lords, I have painful first-hand experience of this—that the powers may not be indefinitely in the hands of Ministers of any one party. Power changes hands from time to time, and they ought possibly to reflect on the extraordinary legacy of centralised executive power they may find themselves bequeathing to a new Administration that is not of their political persuasion. Governments change, Ministers change and political priorities evolve. Constitutional safeguards must be designed to protect parliamentary sovereignty, regardless of who holds executive office. I urge noble Lords across the Chamber to reflect carefully on whether we are prepared to accept such a substantial erosion of parliamentary authority in the name of administrative convenience. Some principles are surely too important to compromise, and parliamentary sovereignty is surely paramount among them. But, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I begin with Amendment 326B in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, which was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. In accordance with procedure, the other place has passed a money resolution authorising the payment, out 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 government expenditure, for example in relation to the fair work agency, will be approved by the elected Chamber in accordance with its Estimates procedure. As noble Lords will know from the previous debate, our impact assessment for establishing the fair work agency set out the current running costs of the enforcement bodies and initial estimates of set-up costs for the fair work agency.
I turn to Amendment 329A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. As your Lordships’ House will be aware, the Government have committed to ongoing, detailed engagement with businesses of all sizes as we develop the details of regulations under this Act. In addition, our published impact assessments evaluate a range of evidence on the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises. They also outline a plan for monitoring and evaluating the impact of the Bill and subsequent secondary legislation, which will involve reviewing how the reforms have impacted SMEs.
The Government value the insights that SMEs and their representatives can bring in ensuring the particulars of this Bill strike the right balance. To recognise that, Ministers and officials have hosted and continue to host a range of SMEs and their representatives, including and beyond those stipulated by the noble Lord’s amendment, to discuss the Bill. Such engagement and consultation will continue following Royal Assent, and SMEs will always feature in such engagement and consultation without the need for a formal requirement.
Amendment 329B from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendments 330BA and 330E from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, cover impact assessments. I will not repeat the points made earlier by my noble friend Lord Leong on the steps the Government have and will continue to take to ensure impacts are properly understood and assessed. The Government have noted the Regulatory Policy Committee’s opinion on our impact assessments, but it has always been our intention to refine our analysis as policy development continues, working closely with external experts, businesses and trade unions.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on political funds, I reiterate the point that the Bill will ensure that political funds operate in a transparent manner that is clear to union members. Sections 32 and 32A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 will not be amended via this Bill. It will continue to require that unions provide details of their total income and expenditure in their annual returns to the certification officer, which are made publicly available, and that all members of a union receive information on the total income and expenditure of a political fund through the annual statement to members.
Members of a union are also part of a collective of workers, and political funds should be considered in that light. 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 considerable effort into raising engagement in their democratic processes, which any member is free to participate in, meaning they are able to decide how their political fund is used. If union members want more information on political fund expenditure, 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 a political fund is operated.
The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the UK’s international competitiveness and UK growth when making any regulations under the Bill. First, it is worth noting that the UK already lags the OECD average on most employment protections, yet the UK economy has not grown at the average rate of other OECD economies in the last 14 years, missing out, as I said earlier, on £171 billion in growth. The Government’s impact assessment notes that the Bill could have a “direct and positive impact” on economic growth and
“will help to raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all”,
supporting the Government’s mission for growth. We will continue to pay close attention to the potential impacts as we develop regulations to implement the measures in the Bill and produce further impact assessments in line with our Better Regulation requirements.
This Government know the impact of the UK being internationally competitive. Our country has great strengths, but we have lacked the dynamism required to seize new opportunities, and businesses have needed long-term stability. Meanwhile, the global trading environment has become unpredictable, supply chains 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. Making work pay is just one aspect of our mission to boost growth and break down the barriers to opportunity which have been holding our country back.
Our plan for change is already delivering benefits. We had the fastest growth in the G7 at the start of the year. Interest rates have been cut by the Bank of England four times since the election. A record £63 billion of private investment was announced at the investment summit last year, with £40 billion announced by Amazon just today, and 500,000 more people are in work. We have three trade deals with global economic powerhouses, and business confidence is at a nine-month high. This is a Government delivering for working people, and this Bill will help more people stay in work, support workers’ productivity and improve living standards across the country.
To wrap up this lengthy Committee stage, I want to say that it is with great pleasure that I conclude our final group of this Committee. The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to implementing Labour’s plan to make work pay in full, in order to put more money into working people’s pockets. Our first mission as a Government 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. While workers are subject to unethical fire and rehire practices, exploitative zero-hours contracts or last-minute shift cancellations, that certainly will not be the case. That is why this Bill is at the centre of the Government’s plans. It will protect workers from these practices and provide economic safety for the lowest paid in the labour market.
Just consider a few of the changes it brings. It means that 9 million employees will gain protection from unfair dismissal—not after two years, but from day one. It means that workers in some of the most deprived parts of the country will be spared up to £600 in lost income from the hidden costs of insecure work, and it means that at least 900,000 workers every year will benefit from bereavement leave following the death of a loved one.
In conclusion, my noble friends Lord Katz and Lord Leong and I very much look forward to engaging with noble Lords further on the Bill as it progresses to Report. I thank the Official Opposition, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and noble Lords across the Committee for their contributions throughout this Committee. I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to withdraw Amendment 325.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I thank her for her answer. Clearly, the feedback from the organisations she has met is not in parallel with the feedback I have had from similar organisations. I appreciate that the meetings she has had may have been in confidence. But if not, would it be possible to publish the notes of those meetings and of any future meetings with representative organisations such as those in my amendment, and of meetings with the other organisations that, I am pleased to hear, she has also met?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We on these Benches meet with members of the SME sector all the time for various purposes. As well as the formal meetings, we meet them in all sorts of guises—for example, to discuss the industrial strategy and some of the digital growth policies. I do not think it practical to do what the noble Lord has asked, but I can assure him that the more formal consultation meetings happen regularly.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. It is clear that there is significant disagreement on this subject. Indeed, there is a degree of disagreement on the statistics. We seem to be quoting statistics that contradict each other. I have to say that I think ours are rather more up to date—but I would say that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. I completely agree with everything he said, as I do with everything said by my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is very concerning that, in the other House, the Government tabled further amendments with no meaningful assessment of their economic or practical impact, and no proper consultation with the stakeholders that this will affect. This is not how good legislation is made. It is not the standard Parliament or the country should accept.
The Minister just described the Bill as the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. If that is the case, one might reasonably expect a thorough and credible impact assessment, not one that is rated red by the Regulatory Policy Committee. That is not a minor procedural footnote; it is a warning and a signal that the economic, legal and operational consequences of this legislation have not been properly understood.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsWednesday 18th June 2025
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-X(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Tenth Marshalled List) - (17 Jun 2025)
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I will speak to the significant number of amendments in this group in my name. This is quite an interesting cornucopia of amendments, a number of which are, in essence, probing amendments. The very nature of the work we are undertaking is to look at the minutiae of the Bill and to see it through the prism of how it impacts on small businesses. It is very important, when we consider the fair work agency’s powers, that we look at the Bill’s real-world ramifications and consequences.
Although some of the amendments may seem somewhat obscure, I think they are nevertheless quite compelling and worthy of the Minister’s attention. In addition, the Clause 95 stand part notice is in my name; I will come to that shortly. I also have a more substantive amendment near the end of the group on a duty on the UK border agency and the new enforcement agency, the fair work agency, to collaborate or co-operate.
I begin by considering the clause stand part notice. I remind noble Lords that, ostensibly, Clause 95 circumscribes the powers available in respect of using a warrant to enter a dwelling. On the face of it, the clause looks pretty innocuous, but I do not think it should be in the Bill because its wording is quite loose and opaque. I have serious concerns about the use of permissive, wide-ranging powers, particularly in subsection (3)(b), which says
“that it is not practicable to communicate with any person entitled to grant access to the documents or equipment”.
Further, paragraph (d) says
“that the purpose of entry may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless an enforcement officer arriving at the dwelling can secure immediate entry to it”.
I would like to interrogate the Minister’s perception and interpretation of these powers. For the avoidance of doubt, I think that the question of whether this clause should stand part of the Bill is worthy of our consideration. Although, of course, it was not considered by the statutory instruments committee—the name of which escapes me—to be a particularly egregious example of permissive or Henry VIII powers, I nevertheless think that it could be misconstrued.
I will now consider the other amendments in my name. Amendment 273A would require the Secretary of State to have “an evidential basis” for believing that a labour market offence is being or has been committed in order to request an LME undertaking, as opposed to requiring merely that the Secretary of State “believes” this to be the case. This amendment is important because what I am attempting to define more clearly the limits of the powers being conferred—in other words, to make it explicit that there has to be a firm evidential basis for exercising those powers. We do not want a situation in which the Secretary of State may do as he wishes as long as he pleads that he believed an offence was being committed.
I am not a lawyer, but I make reference to powers being conferred on a Minister based on subjective jurisdictional criteria. Let us look at—I am sure that the Minister will be advised of this—Customs and Excise Commissioners v Cure & Deeley Ltd 1962, in which it was found that Parliament would never presume on courts adopting a particular approach to statutory construction, especially when it comes to the subtleties of administrative law. I think that this reasonable and rational amendment would tighten up the wording.
Moving on, Amendment 273B would mean that the Secretary of State could impose a prohibition, restriction or requirement as an LME undertaking only where they considered it “proportionate” as well as “just and reasonable”. The test of proportionality is, of course, at the heart of adjudication and the justice system; it is the bread and butter of administrative decision-making, especially in respect of our human rights regime. It is good practice to have statute clear in order to direct Ministers to undertake the kind of judgments which the legal framework will impose on them anyway, and which otherwise will have to be communicated by the production of additional guidance material. That is the basis for that amendment.
Amendment 273C would reduce the maximum period for which an LME measure can have effect from two years to one year. This is a practical amendment, because there is no obvious reason why any necessary measures cannot be imposed and changes expedited within 12 months. It is better, for one thing, that a business falling foul of standards should be made to get its house in order quickly and to be compliant with any LME measure within a reasonable space of time. We are talking not about a month but about 12 months; I think that is a reasonable reduction from two years. It is also better for the economy, public expenditure and Civil Service efficiency to have a shorter timescale.
Amendment 273 would require the Secretary of State to bring the end of the LME measures to the attention of “all” other persons likely to be interested in the matter, rather than “any” such persons, and the subject of the measures. This is clearly straightforward. If you are in a business, you will have multiple partners, directors or people with a significant interest in the business. Therefore, to avoid bureaucratic mistakes and errors, I think it is fair to involve as many people as practicable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I am trying to follow the noble Lord’s arguments, but I think Amendment 273 is in a different group.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to clarify where I am: it is Amendment 273D. My apologies if I have not been clear enough.
This amendment would make a small clarifying adjustment: where the text currently says that the Secretary of State must take whatever steps she or he considers appropriate to bring the end of LME measures to the attention of
“any other persons likely to be interested in the matter”—
that is, other than the subject of the measures—it would use the words “all other persons”. It is important for business certainty, good faith and, indeed, fairness that all those who are affected or likely to be affected by a quite significant measure are kept properly informed about it. Otherwise, we may see messy episodes unfold where there is a misunderstanding or extra, hidden penalties imposed on businesses in the form of the costs of informing the other people affected by the LME measure that it has, for instance, come to an end.
Amendment 273E to Clause 119 would require notice of LMEs against a partnership to be given to “all partners”, rather than just “any partner”. This does not reflect what running a business with multiple partners is like, perhaps in multiple locations or running multiple business units as partners, whether it is an accountancy firm, solicitors or others—I know that there is a different regime for solicitors. It is not sensible to advise only one partner of a significant infraction or issue arising from an LME. If you want businesses to co-operate in ameliorating the issues identified in the LME, you would really need—I admit, at some modest cost—to advise all the partners. You need also to cultivate good faith in order to make the changes necessary arising from the LME.
Furthermore, it is possible that the courts will decide that notice has been given as a matter of law in circumstances where the one partner who was theoretically served it had not actually seen it and was not subjectively aware of it. Better, then, to require that all partners be given notice to ensure that businesses are genuinely aware of the ramifications and the LME decisions.
I am mindful of the time, so I will move with greater alacrity. Amendment 273F would increase the proposed burden of proof for court orders of LME measures from balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. There is reason to fear that a future Government will use the provision of Clause 117(3), which empowers the Secretary of State to create new kinds of LME measures by regulation, to create measures which go beyond regulation and become punitive, in which case the criminal proof standard will be appropriate. More generally, good faith between businesses and government, which aids compliance, will be better cultivated if they are required to comply with LME measures only in cases where there has been a clear violation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I am responding to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who have tabled amendments on the powers of the fair work agency and oppose Clauses 95 and 134.
I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that some of his amendments are probing amendments. I will attempt to respond to each in turn. Forgive me if I repeat some points that my noble friend Lord Katz made in the previous debate, which covered similar ground. I think we covered some of this ground in debates on a previous day. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I have no need to justify the unjustifiable in my response.
I will speak first to the fair work agency’s investigatory powers and address the opposition of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, to Clause 95. I listened to the noble Lord, but investigatory powers are common to all regulators. The fair work agency’s powers are based on those set out for existing enforcement bodies in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. Employment rights enforcement agencies have had power to enter premises used as dwellings since their inception. For example, HMRC’s minimum wage inspectors can and do regularly visit business premises used as dwellings to gather evidence. It is right that officers should be able to gather evidence from such premises. Businesses operating from premises used as dwellings is nothing new. Pubs, for example, often have flats above the public area where the business’s documentation is kept.
Today, more and more businesses operate from home. Current law makes no distinction for dwellings. This Government believe in stronger safeguards for such powers. That is why Clause 95 introduces a new requirement for a warrant to enter dwellings. Together with the additional safeguards in Clause 128 and Schedule 8, this clause strikes the right balance between protecting the privacy and rights of individuals and allowing the fair work agency to go about its job of enforcing labour market legislation. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords on this point, and that noble Lords can agree that Clause 95 should stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, also addressed his amendments to Clause 128. I recognise the intent behind these amendments, but there are already extensive safeguards around the use of investigatory powers in Part 5, including the new requirement for a warrant when entering a dwelling. Clause 128 is a sensible provision that sets out that any enforcement officer has the right to execute a warrant and, as long as the enforcement officer is present, they can be accompanied by an authorised person or persons if they deem it relevant to the investigation—for example, an IT specialist.
Turning to Amendment 271ZC from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, enforcement of holiday pay is a key part of the fair work agency’s remit. Large numbers of workers are missing out on their statutory right to paid annual leave. The Trade Union Congress estimates that 2 million people lose around £3 billion per year by not receiving holiday pay to which they are entitled. We recognise that this disproportionately affects the lowest-paid workers. The fair work agency will not be able to meaningfully support workers to recover the holiday pay they are owed if it cannot issue notices of underpayment. This is a power that is already available in the national minimum wage enforcement regime, which has been successful in ensuring that workers receive the arrears that they are owed. Therefore, I must respectfully resist this amendment.
I turn now to the amendments to Clauses 116 to 121 inclusive, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Jackson, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, together with the amendments to Clauses 126 and 136. These pertain to the labour market enforcement undertakings and orders regime. Although these amendments touch on important aspects of the Bill, they either duplicate existing provisions and introduce unnecessary complexity, or risk undermining the careful balance that has already been struck in the drafting. The labour market enforcement regime was introduced by the 2015 to 2017 Conservative Government. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, at that time in the other place, voted in favour of this regime consistently during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016.
It is a regime that works and works well. It promotes a compliance-first approach, as employers are first encouraged to enter into voluntary undertakings to correct their behaviour. Only persistent or egregious offenders are issued with a compulsory order to stop. As of March 2024, there have been 140 labour market enforcement undertakings and just 14 labour market enforcement orders. These amendments seek to water down the regime and increase legal tests and administrative burdens for its use. By making the labour market enforcement regime more cumbersome and less effective, the fair work agency would have to resort more often to prosecution, which could be disproportionate and time-consuming for all concerned. The effects of these amendments would be to make enforcement more heavy-handed, less efficient and less focused on helping businesses to comply. This is not what businesses or workers want or need, and it is not what the fair work agency is about.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I hear what the Minister says, but surely she would agree that, if one looks at Amendment 273F, which moves from having “a balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”, if you are taking forward an LME infraction case beyond reasonable doubt, you are more likely to succeed, and the corollary of that is that you are not taking forward cases on which you have a paucity of evidence. So, with all due respect to the noble Baroness, I disagree. If you are bringing in proportionality and “beyond reasonable doubt”, you are going to have sharper cases that tackle the most egregious examples of infractions of the legislation and do not waste a lot of time—and consequently save the taxpayer money.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The evidence shows that the current wording is proportionate. There has not been a huge number of cases. Maybe we could argue about whether there should be more cases, but the fact that there has not been a huge number of cases is a reflection of that. What we do not want to do is set the barrier so high that we cannot take the cases that are necessary to deliver the changes and the better worker protection that we seek to achieve.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 273N. I agree that effective sharing of information and pooling of knowledge will be crucial to the success of the fair work agency. The list of bodies that the agency will be able to share information with is limited to those with a need for access, and safeguards are provided for. However, the power to update the list is necessary to ensure that the fair work agency can respond to future changes in the wider labour market and the regulatory landscape. It means that we can keep the list of bodies under review and remove bodies where the need to share information no longer applies. This is good data information governance.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about the Low Pay Commission being listed. The fair work agency will be able to share information with the bodies in Schedule 9 if it is for the purposes of a function of the body. This does not need to be about the enforcement functions. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee expressed no concern with this power in its report on the Bill.
On the opposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to Clause 134, HMRC data is critical for investigating and enforcing various employment rights, not just the national minimum wage. However, I say to the noble Baroness that much of HMRC’s data is confidential, and it is therefore prudent to require an extra level of approval before this information is shared further.
Clause 134 restricts the sharing of confidential HMRC data without authorisation from HMRC commissioners. This will ensure that the fair work agency operates in line with the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act. This is a standard safeguard which is necessary to ensure responsible data sharing between HMRC and the fair work agency.
In relation to Amendment 273PB from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, I reassure him that the Bill already gives the Secretary of State the power to share information with border authorities, such as the National Crime Agency and immigration officers. Rather than enhancing enforcement, the amendment risks introducing unnecessary complexity and diverting attention away from the fair work agency’s core task. The amendment’s intended effect can be achieved through the existing Bill drafting.
I turn to the noble Lord’s Amendment 273R to Clause 140. The ability to recover enforcement costs in relation to the time spent is a matter of fairness. Restricting the use of hourly rates would in practice force the fair work agency to adopt fixed fees. A fixed approach to cost recovery could mean that a small business ended up paying the same as a much larger organisation, regardless of the scale or complexity of the case, and that is not fair. This clause is an enabling power. Regulations made under it will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Parliament will be able to scrutinise and debate whether to adopt a fixed-fee or variable-fee regime at the point where the regime is proposed, and it is right that we afford that flexibility in design at this stage.
In conclusion, while I appreciate the intention behind the amendments, they either replicate what is already achieved by the Bill’s existing provisions or risk unsettling a framework that has already been carefully constructed. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, not to press Amendment 271ZC.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive canter through my amendments. I defer to the poetic licence of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and accept that it is not a cornucopia, but my cup overfloweth nevertheless.
I appreciate the spirit in which the amendments were received. I was attempting to improve the Bill. Not for the first time, my noble friend Lord Hunt put it much more succinctly than I did in that, certainly with regard to proportionality and “beyond reasonable doubt”, notwithstanding the excellent drafting by officials, the amendments would have improved the Bill.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable an application for an order enforcing a requirement in a notice of underpayment to pay a sum to an individual to be made in Scotland to a summary sheriff (as well as to a sheriff).
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by saying what a pleasure it was to be chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who is celebrating 55 years of public service today. I congratulate her.
Back to the not-so-inspiring business: I am responding to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, on his amendments relating to civil proceedings and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for giving notice of their opposition to Clause 113. The Government are committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This includes enabling the fair work agency to challenge breaches of employment rights and labour abuse where individuals may not be able to pursue this for themselves or where these cases are not suitable for other enforcement routes.
I am sorry to hear that some noble Lords cannot envisage the circumstance in which these powers might be necessary but, as we rehearsed on a previous group of amendments, many vulnerable workers, especially migrant workers, are reluctant or unable to bring their case to the tribunal to enforce their employment rights. Rogue employers exploit this, break employment law and get away with it. That is unfair for the majority of businesses that do right by their staff. It is unfair for the vulnerable workers involved in being denied their rights. It is unfair for British workers who are denied work opportunities due to illegal practices undercutting them. That is why, in the plan to make work pay, which was a manifesto commitment, we set out that the fair work agency will have the power to bring civil proceedings to uphold employment rights. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker. It will mean that all employers are held to the same standards.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that these provisions on civil proceedings are modelled on the Equality Act 2006, which allows the Equality and Human Rights Commission to institute legal proceedings that are connected to the commission’s functions. This includes bringing proceedings for breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights and assisting individuals who are party to proceedings related to the Equality Act 2010.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
If the noble Lord lets me finish this point, I may answer his question.
The Employment and Human Rights Commission does not need consent for this and has issued proceedings in its own name before. When acting as an intervenor, the EHRC has also previously received court approval to take over conduct of an appeal on behalf of an appellant when the appellant decided to withdraw from the legal proceedings. This was done with the consent of the Supreme Court in the case of MS (Pakistan) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. I give way.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for reaching the end of that paragraph. She agrees that the power for the EHRC to intervene in proceedings is not a power to take over and institute proceedings if people do not want to. Instead, it is a power to intervene and carry on proceedings in the event that somebody wants to withdraw. That is not based on any statutory provision; this is still extremely novel. I am sure that the Minister will agree that there is no statutory precedent for the kind of power that the Government want to take in Clause 113.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As the noble Lord has more legal expertise than me, I am happy to write to him on that point because it is an important point that we need to clarify. Of course, these are relatively new powers that we are taking on board, and we are taking them for very good reasons. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite do not see the case for this, because, certainly, an awful lot of workers are being exploited out there. At the moment, they do not have the power to speak for themselves in the way that many others who are better informed can do.
While I respect the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, behind some of his amendments, I must state they are unnecessary. Some of the provisions of the amendments are already provided for, either within the existing drafting of the specific clauses or in other clauses of the Bill. Regarding Amendments 271D, 272ZZA and 272ZZD, as I mentioned on Monday, normal practice would be for the Secretary of State to bring proceedings with a worker’s consent and involvement. However, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, workers may fear the repercussions that they may face from their employer should they be de-anonymised. By allowing the Secretary of State to take a case forward without consent, it would be harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees. Therefore, limiting this power in the way that these amendments seek to do could prevent the Secretary of State pursuing serious breaches in some of the most egregious cases.
Amendment 272ZZB is an unnecessary amendment. Legally privileged material and confidential information is already protected under the Data Protection Act, as well as under usual legal rules and principles that apply to proceedings.
On Amendment 272ZZC, normal public law principles already take account of all considerations referenced in this amendment, including the best interests of a worker. This is therefore another unnecessary amendment.
Amendment 272ZZE is yet another unnecessary amendment. Clause 113(6) does not provide a blanket exclusion from all liability, and it is self-evident that the Secretary of State would be held accountable if they undertook actions that were unlawful. This is a basic principle of the rule of law.
On Amendment 272ZC, it is clearly in the interests of enforcement authorities and all parties that the most effective and proportionate means of enforcement is chosen. The Bill already provides that civil proceedings cannot be initiated where a notice of underpayment has been given. It would be inappropriate to impose hurdles on the fair work agency’s use of its powers; it should be able to decide how best it will use this and its other powers to enforce labour market legislation in each case.
On Amendment 272AA, Clause 92 already provides for the fair work agency to prepare and publish an annual report, which we would expect to cover all of its activities. It is simply not necessary to require individual reports on individual powers.
We strongly resist Amendment 272AB. Ultimately, the business of the next Parliament should be for that Parliament to decide and not for us to dictate now.
Briefly on Amendment 272AC, only officers with appropriate knowledge and training will carry out these powers. Clause 87(6) already clearly provides that a person can exercise the powers of an enforcement officer only to the extent specified in their appointment by the Secretary of State. This amendment would duplicate that existing provision.
To summarise, Clause 113, together with Clauses 114 and 115, delivers a manifesto commitment. It provides a new power that will enable fair work agency enforcement officers to bring proceedings to an employment tribunal in place of a worker. It is designed to address situations where a worker has a legal right to bring a claim but, for various reasons, including fear of retaliation, lack of awareness or language barriers, they are unable to do so. This clause enhances the state’s ability to support the most vulnerable workers in accessing justice and will be particularly valuable in cases involving labour exploitation or breaches of minimum employment standards.
It will bring broader benefits. The fair work agency will be able to bring multiple complaints simultaneously. This will save time and costs for workers and employers alike. It has the potential to reduce the burden on the employment tribunal system over current practices, where most claims are brought individually.
Importantly, the clause is tightly drawn. The fair work agency’s tribunal proceedings will follow the same process as if they were brought by workers. This includes a requirement for ACAS consultation. Additionally, the power cannot be used in cases where a notice of underpayment has been issued under Section 100. This ensures that there is no duplication of enforcement mechanisms. Both the Secretary of State and the worker can appeal a decision, recognising that both parties have a legitimate interest in the outcome. The clause includes safeguards to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot be held liable to the worker for how they exercise this power, reflecting the discretionary and strategic nature of enforcement.
This clause forms a crucial part of the fair work agency’s toolkit, enhances the effectiveness of labour market enforcement and delivers a manifesto commitment upon which Members in the other place were elected. It should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I am listening very carefully to the Minister, and she did not address either of my specific points. Given that she is saying that this rather strange clause is to defend the interests of new migrants and black and minority-ethnic folk, many of whom work in agriculture, particularly in the east of England and other parts of the UK, why is there a carve-out for agricultural workers? The Minister did not answer my question on why that happened. Secondly, can I press her on my specific point on why de facto unemployed people fall under the purview of subsection (7) of this clause, allowing the Secretary of State to insert state apparatus into their litigation, when they are not even in gainful employment?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. My apologies; I should have answered both of those questions. On the issue of agricultural workers, I do not know the answer, so I will write to the noble Lord. On his question about why subsection (7) covers people who are not yet employed, the clause was worded in that way to capture whistleblowers and was amended to widen it to include zero-hours contract workers. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I am slightly confused. This seems to be quite a heavy-handed way of capturing workers who may have difficulties understanding their rights. Instead of being so heavy-handed about the whole approach and making it look like a two-tier system is being created, in which migrant workers in particular are focused on, maybe we can look at how we can inform both employers and employees about their rights, without taking such an approach. The people we are trying to protect will most definitely not be protected by this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Although I did talk about migrant workers as an example, this is meant to capture all vulnerable workers and all workers who are exposed to unfair practices or intimidation—which happens rather more than noble Lords opposite like to acknowledge.
In conclusion, the civil proceedings powers within the Bill align with our manifesto commitment—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister explained subsection (7)(a)(i) of this clause with regards to zero-hours contracts. In subsection (7)(a)(ii), I am struggling to understand how an individual
“seeking to be employed by a person as a worker”
could be a whistleblower. I would be grateful to understand that better, but I am happy for the Minister to write.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
On that point of clarification, I will write to the noble Baroness.
In conclusion, the civil proceedings powers within the Bill align with our manifesto commitment to strengthen enforcement and improve outcomes for workers through a fairer, more accessible system. We need to let the fair work agency operate with the tools it needs, guided by the statute but not constricted by inflexible restrictions or ministerial bottlenecks. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw Amendment 271D.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She will not be surprised to know that I am afraid I did not buy any of those arguments.
I am extremely grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Lawlor, Lord Jackson, Lord Ashcombe and Lady Verma for their interventions; they all made extremely good points. I will return to the points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere and Lord Murray of Blidworth, in a second.
We have just heard this clause described variously as “beyond belief”, “especially bonkers”, “an utter mess”, “quite extraordinary” and “perverse and unheard of”. Do you know what? It is all of those things. This has been an extraordinary debate, and so many interesting points have been made that it is hard to sum up. However, there is one point that was brought to my attention by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, who was sitting next to me at the time. He pointed out that this clause might be in contravention of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to respect for private and family life. This needs to be explored, and it is important for the Minister to take account of, because, under Section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, she has to sign on the front of this Bill that it is compatible with the rights under that convention.
I will read the relevant article, so it is on the record:
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence … There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others”.
I do not expect the Minister to answer this now, but I would be very grateful if she could at least allude to the legal advice that she was given before she signed the Bill to confirm that it did not contravene Article 8.
I appreciate that government legal advice is rarely published, but, having had some experience of government lawyers and their risk-averse nature, I would be very surprised if they had considered this in its entirety. I would be grateful if the Minister would come back to that issue, perhaps in the letter to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. This is clearly one of the subjects to which we will have to return, because, as both the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and my noble friend Lord Murray have explained, this is extraordinary and positively Kafkaesque.
I will leave the last words to my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, who pointed out that we could end up in a state where we have litigation about litigation on behalf of someone who does not want to litigate. That is frankly absurd. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Before I sit down, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, on her 55 years of public service. I believe that she was first elected on 18 June 1970 to represent Merton and Morden—many congratulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for introducing her amendment and also to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the first of which proposes a report on the expansion of legal aid in employment tribunals. It would not itself change entitlement but seeks to prompt a structured exploration of the options. Legal aid is, of course, a complex and often contested area, and this amendment simply calls for a government-led review that considers both employer compliance and the financial position of workers. It is reasonable to assess whether the current system adequately supports access to justice in employment disputes.
I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I will discuss with him outside but, just to get it on the record, I am curious to know whether the “report on the options”, which he describes in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause in his lead amendment, extends to small and medium-sized employers as well. I am interested to know whether he thinks they should be included within that survey based on the fact that many of them will also suffer some financial hardship.
On the proposed new clause on summary judgments in employment tribunals in Amendment 323 by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, such a power could offer a means of reducing the burden on tribunals, improving efficiency and focusing resources on cases where the issues genuinely require full examination. In short, both amendments are interesting and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I will first speak to Amendment 279H in my name, which increases the time limit for making a claim to an employment tribunal in relation to paid time off for employee representatives in consultations on certain changes to occupational and personal pension schemes from three months to six months. This would amend the employment tribunal time limit that is set out in the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006.
This amendment is essential to ensure consistency with the time limits for the majority of tribunal claims which are being amended to six months throughout the Bill. This is a technical amendment which brings the provisions on consultations on pension schemes in line with the other clauses in the Bill regarding the increase in time limits which have been set out.
Increasing tribunal time limits will provide employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally or through the conciliation process as well as more time for employees to consider the merits of bringing a claim to an employment tribunal. Judges will continue to have the discretion to hear out-of-time claims on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment 279GZA from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, seeks to provide that the extension of employment tribunal time limits from three to six months does not apply in respect of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland. We have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to develop an approach to extending time limits which respects the Northern Ireland Assembly’s competence to legislate on devolved matters. Where time limits are in UK-wide legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and that relates to matters that are reserved, such as the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, this Bill amends the time limits for bringing a claim to the industrial tribunal in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work with the Executive to consider implementation and, if appropriate, these changes may come into force at different dates for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The Bill does not amend time limits in legislation that extends to Northern Ireland and is transferred—that is, devolved powers.
On Amendments 273 and 323, I understand the motivation of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in tabling his amendments, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to them so ably. In order for the reforms we are making through this Bill to be effective, it is vital that workers can enforce their employment rights. As noble Lords know, tribunals, including employment tribunals, are designed to be informal, accessible and low-cost means of accessing justice. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that the backlog of tribunal claims at the moment is unacceptable. We are taking steps to address that backlog in conjunction with the Ministry of Justice, and the fair work agency can also play a part in easing that load. We will be able to debate the measures that we are taking further in later groups.
However, I would like to reassure the noble Lord that legal aid is available, subject to means and merits tests, in relation to discrimination and breaches of the Equality Act 2010. Where an issue falls outside the scope of legal aid, funding may still be available through the exceptional case funding scheme. Of course, members of trade unions will receive advice and representation anyway as part of their membership.
Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on employment tribunal summary judgments, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that employment tribunals have a wide range of existing powers to address weak claims or responses, including strike-out and default judgments, to achieve the aims set out in this amendment. The strike-out rule in its framing and application is already similar to that of Rule 24 in the Civil Procedure Rules. It allows employment tribunals to strike out half or all of a claim or response, including where there is no reasonable prospect of success. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 273.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes a minor drafting change.
“The Security Industry Authority.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would enable information obtained in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill, or functions under or by virtue of clause 113 or 114 (powers in relation to civil proceedings), to be disclosed to the Security Industry Authority for the purposes of its functions.
Member's explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that enforcement costs recovered by the Secretary of State under clause 140 will be payable into the Consolidated Fund.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsWednesday 18th June 2025
(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-X(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Tenth Marshalled List) - (17 Jun 2025)
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendment. She raises thoughtful and important questions about Parliament’s role as an employer and the complexity of managing the site, which contains over 600 other employers. These are legitimate concerns that deserve proper consideration, not least because Parliament should seek to model best practice in matters of employment and compliance. I think we all agree with that, but does it comply, and should there be a power of entry into these premises to check that we are complying?
My noble friend has made compelling points, and I hope that the Minister will respond with clarity and detail. The concerns that my noble friend outlined are not theoretical; they touch on the credibility of this institution as both lawmaker and employer. I therefore look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and the Government's justification for retaining—or reconsidering—the exemption as drafted.
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, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which raises an important topic: how the enforcement provisions in Part 5 would apply to Parliament and MPs as employers.
Parliament must of course comply with employment legislation. However, the Bill provides that the powers of entry in Part 5 cannot be exercised in relation to
“premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament”;
otherwise, Part 5 would apply to both Houses of Parliament and to MPs as employers. We are in danger of having something similar to—but slightly less than—a deep constitutional crisis, because the approach was agreed on the advice of the House authorities. It is therefore not a government decision; it is a decision made by the House authorities. They are more powerful, as far as I can see, and they can therefore overrule what the Government may think about all this.
This approach is not unusual. It aligns with recent precedents, such as Section 165(1)(a) of the Building Safety Act 2022, to respect parliamentary privilege. In this case, Parliament has to comply with employment legislation. The only issue raised here is about the power of entry not applying to the Parliamentary Estate. The noble Baroness might understand why we want to make sure that the Parliamentary Estate is secure from that challenge, and there is probably another place where she could raise her concerns about employment in the Parliamentary Estate. I have some sympathy with some of the cases that she argued about, but I suggest that she sees the House authorities about them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I certainly will withdraw it. I did not mean to put the Minister in a difficult place, and her answer was very gracious. My amendment was based on the expectation that this is a royal palace, where things such as licensing laws and health and safety rules do not technically apply. However, that aside, we still need to consider how we act. If nothing else, I hope that this short debate has contributed to reminding ourselves of the obligations that we all share. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.
“(2) Any reference in section 134 to HMRC information includes a reference to any information mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) or (d) which—(a) was disclosed to the Director of Labour Market Enforcement or a person falling within paragraph (a), (d), (e), (f) or (g) of paragraph 6(4) by the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or a person acting on behalf of the Commissioners, and(b) was not obtained by an officer in the course of acting for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 or by virtue of section 26(2) of the Immigration Act 2016.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for information previously disclosed by HMRC to enforcement authorities, and treated by paragraph 13 of Schedule 11 to the Bill as having been obtained by the Secretary of State in connection with the exercise of enforcement functions under Part 5 of the Bill, to be treated as HMRC information for the purposes of clause 134, which imposes restrictions on the onward disclosure of such information without authorisation from HMRC.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 148 at page 146, line 43 and page 147, line 9.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 279GA for a sunset clause. I perfectly understand the reason for extending the period in which employees can make claims, but I am quite sure it will increase the burden on the tribunals. We have heard about the very long delay, with even preliminary hearings not scheduled until April 2026, and these delays have continued for some years. People going to tribunal sometimes have to wait more than 18 months just to have the preliminary hearing. If numbers increase, as they are likely to, as my noble friend suggested, it is going to put far more pressure on the tribunals. The parliamentary oversight proposed and the sunset clause must take account of that.
Not only is there no point in law in having a claim left unsettled for years, but it is very bad for business to have the uncertainty. It is very bad for employees and their lives to be subject to such delays and uncertainties in what is going to happen to them professionally, because taking a claim to tribunal is not an easy matter. It can be expensive and full of obstacles. Not knowing how it will pan out is very worrying for people. For businesses, being subject to constant pressures of claims in a tribunal, whether they are justified or not, brings insecurity and a lack of confidence.
For these reasons, I think this moderate request for a sunset clause and coming back to Parliament for an affirmative vote are a good proposal, and I hope the Government will listen kindly to it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for introducing these amendments, but I say to him that the problem he has described so vividly was one we inherited from the previous Government. We are acutely aware that these issues need to be addressed, and I share his desire to ensure that the employment tribunal system can manage its existing caseload and the potential increase from the Bill’s measures. I assure your Lordships that we are working across government and with business and the unions to identify ways to improve a system that we inherited that is not working currently for anyone.
We are already recruiting more judges and legal case workers and providing additional resources to ACAS. On top of that, we are considering other things, such as the role that the expanded fair work agency could play in reducing the time spent awaiting costly and lengthy tribunal claims.
I would be delighted to receive any constructive suggestions from the noble Lords on this issue, but it would be entirely disproportionate to make the vital improvements to workers’ rights contained in the Bill dependent on the kind of review that their amendments propose. It would be wrong to take workers’ rights to challenge unfair practices away from them when they are not to blame for the backlog that we are currently grappling with.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
The Minister made reference to the number of judges that the Government are busily recruiting so as to help the backlog, and this is part of the Government’s response. Of the 35,000 extra civil servants recruited since March 2024—these are the March 2025 figures—how many are judges, and how many of them will be in the employment tribunal service? I do not expect the Minister to have the figures to hand, but I would be pleased if she could write to me.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, 50 new fee-paid employment judges were appointed in 2024-25, and a further three recruitment exercises to further increase capacity are now being undertaken in 2025-26.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for putting all this in the context of the security or insecurity of workers right across the board faced with this terrible backlog. The Minister upbraided me for the previous Government’s culpability in this, but she will know that we have been expressing serious concern about this backlog for a very long time. The fact is that it has got worse: it is 20% up on what it was when the Government came into office last year. The Minister was quite right to say there was a backlog, but my plea to her is not to make it worse.
As we draw this debate to a close, I worry that the Government have not fully grasped the critical importance of these amendments. They are not obstacles to progress but necessary safeguards to ensure that the rights we are creating are not rendered ineffective by an overwhelmed tribunal system. We urgently need clarity on the implementation plans.
The Minister promised that we would have the implementation plan “shortly”. The definition of “shortly” is “within the next hour or so”. In the dictionary, we are told that shortly means that something is about to happen. So where is it? I would like to believe that the noble Baroness’s reference to the word, which she must have carefully considered, means that tomorrow we will get it. I am very happy for her to interrupt me if I am incorrect—perhaps she could clarify.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I was trying to be helpful to the noble Lord, but since he provokes me, I will simply say that I have used my interpretation of “shortly”, rather than the dictionary definition. It will not be happening in the next hour, I can assure the noble Lord of that.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Could I possibly have a copy of the noble Baroness’s dictionary? She has just quoted from her dictionary, but sadly I do not have it to hand. We would all like to see the implementation plan, so please can we, if possible, before our next day in Committee next Tuesday?
There are all sorts of issues we have discussed that have not been answered. Why a measured approach between day one and two years? Was it ever seriously considered? There has been no answer from the noble Baroness on that. Did she look at it or did she move straight to day one? The gap in reasoning leaves many of us deeply worried about the unintended consequences for workers and employers alike. Regrettably, these are crucial issues which remain unresolved, and the Government have yet to provide the assurances we need. As we approach Report, we will have to return to this matter with a determination to secure the clarity and commitments that are so essential if the Bill is ever to be successful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, most of what I needed to say was said in the last group, so I will not labour the points, except to add a bit of colour, because my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral and I consult quite widely. We consulted this morning with a distinguished employment lawyer, who told us that, if you apply now to an employment tribunal, you will have no chance at all of getting even a preliminary hearing for 10 months. That is next April. In order to get a resolution, a case resolved, you would be looking probably at December 2027. That is nearly two and a half years away. It will take a lot more than the number of judges the noble Baroness mentioned that they have recruited so far in order to fix that particular problem. I wish her good luck and I hope she succeeds, but I really do not think that we should be doing this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the first thing I will say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, is that if we say we are going to write, we will write: we do not need to be told that this is being monitored in some way. I would say that I feel that we on these Benches have bent over backwards to engage with noble Lords, not only in debates but outside, by having meetings and trying to work through some of these issues in more detail. So I do resent the accusation that we are somehow hiding from accountability on these issues. We are bending over backwards to be accountable.
I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that we have updated the impact assessment and written to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about it already. As noble Lords have said, we have now debated this issue quite extensively. We argue that the proposals we are putting forward will benefit not only employees but employers, by increasing the time within which workplace procedures and conciliation can be completed, creating an opportunity for more disputes to be resolved without the need for litigation.
Current ACAS performance data shows that that around a third of early conciliation notifications go on to submit an employment tribunal claim. Therefore, the longer period of time for resolving disputes internally and/or via conciliation will simplify the time limits for making employment tribunal claims and improve access to justice.
I have heard the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and, as I say, we have now debated this extensively. I can assure your Lordships that this clause and schedule are essential for those who need to bring a claim to a tribunal in order to have adequate time to prepare a robust claim. I therefore ask that they stand part of the Bill.
“Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006
13A In the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/349) (employment rights and protections in connection with consultation), in paragraph 4(2)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “three” substitute “six”;(b) in paragraph (b), for “three” substitute “six”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends from three to six months the time limit for bringing a claim in an employment tribunal under paragraph 4 of the Schedule to the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for so expertly introducing her amendment, and I welcome the contribution from my noble friend Lady Penn regarding the establishment of an employment law advisory committee.
We believe my noble friend’s amendments would significantly strengthen the framework for effective and balanced labour market regulation. The creation of a dedicated advisory committee, modelled on the Social Security Advisory Committee, seems a prudent and timely measure. It would provide the Secretary of State with expert independent advice that draws from a diverse range of perspectives: employers, workers, and independent experts alike. This inclusive composition is vital to ensuring that any regulations developed under the enacted Bill are well-informed, fair and workable in practice.
Moreover, the proposed committee’s clear statutory function to scrutinise draft regulations before they are laid before Parliament would introduce an important additional layer of oversight and transparency. It would help to ensure that regulations and the views of all relevant stakeholders are carefully considered. The requirement for the Secretary of State to publish the committee’s report alongside any laid regulations, including an explanation when recommendations are not followed, would enhance accountability and public confidence in the regulatory process.
In sum, we think that these amendments represent a balanced and constructive approach to policy-making in the complex area of employment law. They would help guard against rushed or poorly considered regulations, support better policy outcomes and uphold the principles of consultation and transparency that are essential to good governance.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her Amendments 299 and 300. The Government have already committed to consulting on the detail of implementation and have already undertaken extensive engagement with employers, businesses and workers’ representatives, trade unions and experts. We will continue with this approach as we develop our secondary legislation.
There are some specific instances, such as in the enforcement space, where we are proposing setting up an expert group. Upgrading the enforcement of workers’ rights is an important and complex task, where it is right to draw on expertise from businesses, workers and independent representatives.
That is why the Bill requires the Secretary of State to establish an advisory board. It will play a critical role in providing advice and insight to the Secretary of State on their enforcement function under Part 5 of the Bill, which they will in practice deliver through the fair work agency. This is a proportionate and necessary step to help ensure the agency’s effectiveness. But this is not required across the Bill and wider labour market legislation as a whole. The committee proposed by the noble Baroness would be a repetition of the planned engagement and consultation on the Bill. We have already engaged with more than 190 different stakeholder organisations on our Plan to Make Work Pay, including employers of all sizes, from SMEs to large corporations, trade unions and representative organisations representing thousands of businesses and millions of workers.
We have held round-table discussions focused on particular topics, such as zero-hours contracts, and with particular groups, such as leaders of small businesses or retailers. As a Government, we are committed to engaging closely on our plans, and we will continue to do so. This engagement will continue throughout implementation, including as we develop regulations under the Bill.
On parliamentary scrutiny, the Select Committees will of course scrutinise the government proposals and reforms as they are rolled out. The Economic Affairs Committee had an inquiry on the labour market, and the noble Baroness was herself a member of that committee, so we know that there are already bodies in the parliamentary network that can be used to provide that scrutiny. On the basis of our proposed consultation and the parliamentary scrutiny available, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment 299.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain the Committee for long. With the exception of the expert group, which I was not aware of, I could have written the Minister’s speaking notes myself. They ran along the lines of, “Blah, blah, blah, consultation; blah, blah, blah, Select Committees” and, basically, “We know best”.
My amendment was a genuine attempt to try to enhance the process of parliamentary scrutiny. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Select Committees are simply not set up to deal with the detail of secondary legislation; they are set up to do some things very well—usually broader-ranging topics such as those undertaken by the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House—but they never attempt to look at secondary legislation. I can see a lot of secondary legislation coming down the line and the need for a better process and greater information to help Parliament in its job on that.
I am not surprised by the Minister’s response. Before we get to Report, I will consider again what to do with my ideas, which I had hoped would be constructive contributions to the Government’s Bill. I beg leave to withdraw.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsMonday 16th June 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-IX(Corrected)(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Corrected Ninth Marshalled List) - (16 Jun 2025)
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Goddard is disappointed that he is unable to speak on this group this evening. Given the multiple groups of amendments concerning the fair work agency, we will restrict our comments to this group. The Department for Business and Trade has set out the rationale for the fair work agency, suggesting the current system of employment rights enforcement is fragmented and inefficient. We agree. This fragmentation causes confusion for both workers and employers and leaves many breaches, such as underpayments, unchallenged. The Bill aims to establish the fair work agency and will consolidate existing bodies responsible for enforcement, abolishing those authorities and transferring their functions.
However, there remains some uncertainty about the agency’s precise scope and responsibilities, how it will relate to existing organisations, the level of funding it will receive, how it will access and use data, and the mechanisms for compliance and oversight. Although the Bill includes data-sharing provisions and the Minister has highlighted further detail, these issues will be key in determining the agency's effectiveness.
On powers and oversight, many enforcement powers currently held by other bodies will be transferred to the fair work agency, including powers of entry. New powers, particularly in relation to HMRC, will also be introduced. Oversight of these powers is planned to be provided through independent policing standards authorities, but it is important that the limits to these powers are clear and that they are exercised proportionately.
Regarding resourcing, it is understood that around £600 million is currently allocated across the authorities being restructured into the new agency. I am sure that discussions with the Treasury on the appropriate level of funding are ongoing, but is the Minister confident that this figure will provide the resources needed to meet the scale of the agency’s mission?
Bringing enforcement functions together in the fair work agency should improve the Government’s ability to tackle labour market abuses, including serious issues such as modern slavery. It is also acknowledged that previously, fragmented responsibilities caused confusion, duplication and ineffective enforcement, so this consolidation aims to provide a clearer, stronger enforcement framework.
I will not speak at length on the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, but what he said was very wise. He raised important questions about the advisory board’s composition and enforcement powers which deserve further consideration by the Minister and the Government. Given the wide-ranging powers the agency will have—from workplace inspections to civil penalties and criminal enforcement orders—it is only right that Parliament has a clear opportunity to scrutinise how these powers will be used in practice.
Before the agency becomes operational, there should be clarity around its remit, resourcing and relationship with other enforcement bodies, and around the structures of accountability that will apply. This is particularly important for small and medium-sized businesses, which often lack the internal capacity to navigate complex regulatory frameworks. Advance scrutiny and a clear published framework would offer reassurance to both workers and employers that the agency’s approach will be proportionate and well targeted. We would welcome the Minister’s further explanation of how the Government intend to maintain transparency and accountability, to ensure balanced representation on the advisory board, and to keep Parliament informed throughout the phased implementation of the fair work agency.
Finally, I seek clarity on the Government’s timeline for the agency’s full implementation and how they plan to keep Parliament updated on progress. These are significant institutional changes and deserve close attention. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
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, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group, all of which pertain to the governance of the fair work agency and its relationship with government. While I appreciate and respect the spirit in which they have been made, I must set out why the Government do not believe they are necessary or appropriate.
Amendment 263ZA in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has good intentions; however, in practice, it introduces unnecessary rigidity into a system that already works effectively. Currently, enforcement officers undergo extensive training; for example, HMRC officers complete an 18-month programme that equips them with the skills and knowledge they need. This is a robust and proven process. There is no evidence that adding a legislative requirement for qualifications would improve outcomes. Moreover, this amendment would reduce flexibility. It would impose a legal burden that could hinder recruitment, especially when enforcement needs evolve rapidly. Finally, it is important to note that Clause 87(6) already gives the Secretary of State the power to specify which powers an officer may exercise in the appointment. This ensures appropriate oversight and safeguards without the need for additional legislation.
Similarly, Amendment 263ZB, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is, in practice, unnecessary and creates duplication. The powers granted under the Bill already require enforcement officers to provide written notices such as a notice of underpayment. These are not optional; they are embedded in the operational framework. Moreover, current enforcement bodies such as the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate already maintain detailed records of inspections. Officers also operate with a strong emphasis on consent and co-operation, often arranging visits in advance and documenting their findings thoroughly. Introducing a statutory requirement for additional reporting and oversight risks creating administrative burdens without adding meaningful value. It could divert resources away from enforcement and into bureaucracy. This amendment seeks to legislate what is already standard practice; it is not needed in the Bill, and I urge noble Lords to reject it.
Turning to Amendment 263C, the Bill already provides limitations on what powers officers can exercise through letters of appointment. I appreciate the noble Lord’s desire to ensure that enforcement officers exercise powers in a way that minimises disruption and harm to individuals and businesses, particularly as they will be extensive powers. This includes their powers to enter premises to determine whether there has been non-compliance. However, while these powers are by nature disruptive, they will be required to be exercised proportionately and reasonably, and, where possible, officers will carry out their duties on a consensual basis. In practice, this means officers will correspond with a business in advance to arrange a reasonable time and date before they visit, and they will also generally enter during business hours.
It is also worth noting that we are setting up the fair work agency as an executive agency of the Department for Business and Trade. Enforcement officers will therefore be civil servants who are subject to the usual standards of public life and will be required to operate in line with the Civil Service Code. The fair work agency will take a balanced approach to carrying out its role. This is in everyone’s interests.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I want to ask the Minister a question. It may be that I have missed the answer, although I have tried really hard to listen to every word that she has said. If a business wants to appeal against a decision by an enforcement officer, where does it seek that appeal?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I did cover that, but now I have forgotten what my answer was. I will write to the noble Baroness, but I think it was in my earlier contribution.
I reiterate on the small business question that businesses that comply with their obligations should not see any increased burden from enforcement activity. The fair work agency will target only the minority of employers engaged in illegal practices, so including specific carve-outs could create loopholes that bad actors might exploit. In fact, businesses of all sizes stand to benefit from a fairer labour market where exploitative practices are actively addressed as this will create a level playing field for all.
Let us not forget that we are creating the fair work agency to deliver an upgrade to the enforcement of workers’ rights. If we created a carve-out for businesses based purely on size, we would be creating a two-tier system for enforcement. This is unfair for workers and businesses.
Amendment 268 risks compromising the balanced representation of the advisory board. The current drafting has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model that has served the Low Pay Commission and ACAS well for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked on behalf of his noble friend Lord Holmes whether representatives of labour market standards would be on the advisory board. The Secretary of State will appoint individuals if they are considered to be independent experts. That recruitment and selection process will include a thorough assessment of the applicant’s qualifications, experience and potential conflicts of interest.
Vulnerable workers have been waiting for the fair work agency for years. It will deliver the worker protection enforcement authority that was proposed in the Liberal Democrat 2024 manifesto and the single enforcement body that was the policy of successive Conservative-led Administrations. It now forms a key plank of the plan to make work pay, a key manifesto pledge upon which this Government was elected. Bringing together the fragmented labour market enforcement landscape has been a policy aim for successive Governments. We cannot let this critical policy be delayed any more. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 263ZA.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I am very grateful for what the Minister said in response to my amendments. I think she said that the framework document will state that enforcement officers will have complete operational independence from Ministers, which is reassuring to know. Presumably, therefore, it would be possible for the terms of appointment of enforcement officers under Clause 87(6) to state the same thing. Clause 87(6) states that:
“A person appointed under this section may exercise any powers of an enforcement officer to the extent specified in the appointment”.
There is another perfect place in which to reassert that they are operationally independent of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I said earlier in my contribution that the letters of appointment made to these people will spell out their duties. Obviously, their relationship to the Secretary of State will be spelled out in the letter of appointment. I have said several times now that they will be operationally independent, so that could be a key message in those letters of appointment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for her extensive answer and to my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Coffey, the noble Lords, Lord Carter of Haslemere, Lord Londesborough and Lord Stoneham, for their contributions to this short but very interesting debate.
As we come to the end of our discussion on these amendments to the Employment Rights Bill, I express my thanks to noble Lords who have contributed with such clarity and conviction and my disappointment with the Government’s response. Amendment 269, tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, fits very neatly with the requirement on the Secretary of State to produce annual reports under Clause 92. The Secretary of State has a duty to consult the advisory board, so I simply cannot understand why the Government would reject the idea of just combining the two and getting on with it. Equally, I do not understand why they would not want to take the suggestions of my noble friend Lady Coffey to tighten up the requirement. Nothing under those terms for the advisory board or the reports that need to be produced by the Secretary of State require a great deal of external information.
We have tabled amendments that are measured, constructive and rooted in principle. We have not sought to gut the Bill or to frustrate its aim of enforcing fair and lawful treatment in the labour market. On the contrary, we have sought to strengthen it and to ensure that the powers that it grants are effective and accountable, that enforcement is robust and fair and that ordinary businesses, especially small and micro enterprises, are not crushed under the weight of uncertainty, disproportionate penalties or faceless bureaucracy.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, made excellent points about accountability. Enforcement is about not just force but legitimacy. It is about trust, and trust is only sustained when those who wield power are subject to oversight, transparency and to reasonable limits. That is not red tape. It is just a democratic principle. That is why we ask for qualifications and training to be made a prerequisite for enforcement officers, an obvious step given the serious powers that they will be entrusted with.
The Minister rejected my amendment introducing that notion, saying that it was not necessary because of Clause 87(6), just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. I note that Clause 87(3) says:
“In this Part ‘enforcement officer’ means a person appointed by the Secretary of State under this section”—
note that it says, “a person”, not necessarily “a qualified person”—whereas Clause 87(6), on which the Minister replied, says:
“A person appointed under this section may exercise any powers of an enforcement officer to the extent specified in the appointment”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, informed us, there is no notion in there of independence, skills or anything else. That argument as to why our amendment is not necessary falls based on what is in the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Just before we move on, I wanted to clarify to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that I have now found the note in my speaking notes. I confirm that I did say that the fair work agency will have a clear and transparent complaints procedure modelled on the procedures of the current bodies, including the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move Government Amendment 264A, and will speak to Government Amendments 265A, 271A, 272A, 273M, 273P, 273S, 279A, 279B, 279C, 279D, 279E, 279F and 279G. I thank all noble Lords who attended the all-Peers briefing on these amendments that I gave on 8 May. As was explained at that time, the amendments aim to make the creation of the fair work agency effective, including by ensuring a smooth transition from the current arrangements, and they are not new policy.
Without the correct information-sharing gateways, the fair work agency will not be able to do its job; Clause 132 is vital to making sure that it can. Government Amendment 273M makes a minor drafting change to Clause 132(3). Specifically, it clarifies that information obtained by the fair work agency in connection with an enforcement or civil proceedings function under Part 5 of the Bill can be used for other functions under Part 5. This change ensures that the benefits of bringing together responsibility for enforcing a range of rights are fully realised.
Government Amendment 273P adds the Security Industry Authority to the list of persons in Schedule 9. This will enable the fair work agency enforcement officers to disclose information obtained under the enforcement functions in Part 5 of the Bill with the Security Industry Authority, where that information relates to its statutory functions. Any disclosure will be subject to other restrictions in the Bill and existing safeguards. For example, a disclosure will not be authorised under Clause 132 if it would constitute a breach of data protection legislation or is otherwise prohibited by certain provisions of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Government Amendment 279A clarifies that the information captured by the definition of “HMRC information” in Clause 134 will be subject to appropriate safeguards regarding onward disclosure where specified conditions are met. This will ensure that there will be continuity as we set up the fair work agency and that all information is handled with the appropriate sensitivities.
Government Amendment 271A is a minor technical amendment to Clause 111. It sets out that where a liable party has failed to comply with the requirement in a notice of underpayment to repay arrears to an individual, the fair work agency can make an application to court for an order. Sub-paragraph (6) defines “a court” for the purposes of this section. This amendment clarifies that summary sheriffs can also have jurisdiction to hear these applications in Scotland.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that in good legislative processes it is not ideal to have technical amendments at this stage. However, it is better to identify them now rather than later in the process, and we have bent over backwards to engage Peers to explain why they are necessary. In a previous role on the Opposition Benches, I spent a lot of time in secondary legislation sessions correcting technical issues that should have been identified in primary legislation by the previous Government, but that debate may be for another day. In the meantime, of course we aspire to better legislative processes in future, and I agree with the noble Lord. I beg to move.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the definition of “worker” being inserted into Part 5 by my amendment of clause 148 at page 147, line 9.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Jackson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for tabling their amendments. This Government are committed to ensuring a fair playing field for all employees and businesses. This is why the Secretary of State will have the power to bring proceedings in place of a worker: it will mean that all employers are held to the same standards.
Amendments 267A, 271B, 271C and 272ZA have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. While I appreciate the noble Lord’s intentions behind them—seeking fairness, clarity and accountability—I believe that they undermine those objectives. I have major concerns about Amendment 267A. A fundamental principle of the fair work agency is that it will have operational independence. As we have debated, the Secretary of State’s involvement will be at strategic level only. This amendment would undo all that; it would explicitly make any use of the civil proceedings powers dependent on a political decision. This goes against the whole thrust of what we have been debating up to now, and we therefore cannot support the amendment.
Amendment 271B would exclude legislation, such as on family leave, unfair dismissals or redundancies, from the scope of this power. These issues can have a substantial impact on people’s working lives and they are part of the employment package. It is right that the fair work agency has the discretion to support enforcement in these areas and to ensure that employees get what they are entitled to.
Amendment 271C is unnecessary. The Bill already builds in appropriate safeguards to prevent cases being relitigated. In considering whether a worker will bring proceedings, the Secretary of State will have to consider whether a worker has already contacted ACAS. If they have, it would serve as a strong indicator that they are contemplating proceedings. Therefore, where a settlement is being discussed, or has already been reached through ACAS, it is highly unlikely that the Secretary of State would pursue a claim. This amendment would create a rigid prohibition that may have unintended consequences. The Government would be restricted from acting where new evidence shows that a settlement was reached under duress.
On Amendment 272ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, the Bill already makes it clear that any reference to a worker in proceedings brought by the Secretary of State should be read as including the Secretary of State. In practice, this means that, while it is for the tribunal to decide whether or not to award costs, a costs order could be made only in respect of a party to the case. This would be the Secretary of State, where they are the party that has brought this case. Therefore, this makes this amendment unnecessary.
On Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in the worst cases of serious exploitation and intimidation, a worker may want to bring proceedings but fear the repercussions they may face from the employer should they be de-anonymised. Allowing the Secretary of State to take a case forward without consent would make it harder for employers to attribute blame to individual employees and also ensure that action could be taken against exploitation. Ultimately, I agree with the noble Baroness that this will take place only in exceptional circumstances, not least because it is more difficult to argue a case without the assistance of the worker. Nevertheless, where there is a breach of employment rights, there should be consequences. The fair work agency will decide the most appropriate route of enforcement, and it is important that in the most serious cases we allow this power as an option.
Finally, on the Amendments to Clause 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the existing drafting of Clause 114 states:
“The Secretary of State may assist a person”.
This drafting was carefully thought through and is deliberately broad and inclusive. It includes both natural and legal persons, so it already covers both employers and their legal advisers. This amendment does not alter the substance of the clause, but merely restates what is already covered and therefore risks introducing confusion.
On the noble Lord’s Amendment 272C, Clause 114 has been carefully monitored against the provisions found in Section 28 of the Equality Act 2006, which also provides for any other form of assistance. This language has been used to ensure flexibility and inclusivity in the types of support that may be provided. This is neither novel nor excessive and is limited to assistance in the context of civil proceedings. To narrow the clause in the way this amendment does would compromise its effectiveness and undermine its accessibility. On that basis, I hope noble Lords will not pursue their amendments and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, to withdraw his Amendment 267A.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Noakes for providing an important guardrail: the idea that the Secretary of State has to pass a public interest test. I do not think the Minister gave us a direct answer to that suggestion. So far as my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Jackson of Peterborough are concerned, there are huge concerns about the way this will affect small businesses in particular. Again, I do not think the Minister addressed that particular point. I regret the fact that the Minister has not acknowledged the importance of these significant gaps in the Bill.
It is concerning that the challenges inherent in delegating the Secretary of State’s enforcement functions to others who may lack the necessary competence or accountability are not being fully recognised at the present time. How does such delegation genuinely serve the interests of workers if it risks inconsistent decision-making and a lack of clear responsibility?
Moreover, the Bill fails to address the very real issue of claims that have already been settled. Employment tribunals are already struggling with an overwhelming backlog, and reopening settled cases would only exacerbate this problem. Surely, we have got to avoid a situation where the Secretary of State is empowered to reopen disputes that workers and employers believed were finally resolved. This not only causes unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty for all parties involved but threatens to damage the fragile trust and relations between employers and employees. If this Bill is to be truly effective and fair, it has got to acknowledge these realities: —ignoring them will only undermine the very goals it seeks to achieve. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments. I will begin by addressing Amendments 267AC and 267BB, which relate to the chair of the advisory board. The Bill already provides for a strong and credible chair, and we are confident that appropriate appointments can be made under the current drafting. These amendments would significantly narrow the pool of qualified candidates and exclude highly capable candidates. There is no precedent for such restrictions among similar bodies.
For example, the current chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission is the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. She brings deep expertise in public policy, regulation and public service to the role, but she is not a practising barrister. The focus should be on appointing the best candidate through a rigorous merit-based process, not restricting eligibility by profession. Moreover, there is no precedent for these amendments. Similar bodies, such as the Low Pay Commission and the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, do not impose this level of restriction or require parliamentary approval. These models work precisely because they allow the Secretary of State to appoint individuals with diverse and complementary expertise. We fully support a strong, credible chair, but that is best achieved through a robust and flexible appointments process, not through rigid statutory constraints or exclusions.
On Amendments 267B and 267BA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we have no objection in principle to a larger advisory board, but this should be balanced against an increased cost to the taxpayer. In practice, we anticipate there will be nine members of the board mirroring the make-up of the Low Pay Commission, which has operated successfully for 25 years. The current drafting provides flexibility so that the Secretary of State may appoint more than nine members, but it is unwise to lock a specific number into primary legislation without operational justification. The amendment would create a fixed number of advisory board members. Clause 90 already provides for what the amendment seeks to achieve.
Turning to Amendments 267C and 267D, these amendments risk compromising the balanced representation of the advisory board. The current drafting has been carefully chosen to reflect the social partnership model that has served the Low Pay Commission and ACAS well for so many years with a mixture of employer, union and independent representation. Amendments 267C and 267D also seek to broaden employee representation on the advisory board by reducing the emphasis on trade unions. Let me be clear: trade unions serve to protect and advance the interests of all workers, and they are best placed to represent workers’ interests on the advisory board. Moreover, the Secretary of State has broad discretion to appoint members with relevant expertise as independent experts. The Government are also committed to ongoing engagement with relevant stakeholders through a variety of formal and informal means, so the advisory board is only one part of the landscape.
This leads me on to Amendment 268A, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The independent experts are intended to bring deep subject matter expertise and a perspective not already captured by the other members of the advisory board. The existing drafting already protects against partiality, as an independent expert is a person who does not fall within the groups mentioned in Clause 94. The Bill already provides a sound and balanced framework for the board’s composition, one that is adaptable, proportionate and future-proof. I must therefore resist these amendments.
I must also respectfully resist Amendment 269, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which risks undermining the very purpose of the advisory board. Transparency in governance is vital, and the Government share the commitment to ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny. Placing a statutory duty on the advisory board to publish its advice could compromise that level of confidentiality and flexibility which we believe is essential for it to carry out its role effectively. Mandating a separate annual report also risks formalising what should remain a responsive advisory relationship, potentially limiting the board’s ability to offer genuine, timely and informal guidance on emerging issues.
Introducing even more reporting requirements would place a confusing and unnecessary reporting burden on enforcement teams, potentially diverting staff and resources away from front-line inspection and enforcement work, where they are most needed.
With this in mind, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 267AC.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My noble friend Lady Coffey and I raised the increasing statistical irrelevance of the trade unions. I do not think the Minister addressed that point. She also seemed to write off the idea of the advisory board amendments that we proposed, on the basis that they would be expensive to the taxpayer. But Clause 90(6) says:
“The Secretary of State may pay such remuneration or allowances to members of the Board as the Secretary of State may determine”.
They could determine to pay nothing, presumably, so why would that be an expense to the taxpayer?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thought I covered those points. As I said, we anticipate that the advisory board will have nine members, but we are building in some flexibility. We were trying to avoid locking a specific number into the primary legislation without any operational justification. I think that answers that point.
On the point about the unions, of course, if we stick with the social partnership model, they will be in a minority anyway. They will have the expertise and the knowledge to represent all employment issues on behalf of the workers.
Online Abuse: Protection for Children
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect children against abusive online communication.
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, keeping children safe is a priority for this Government. Under the Online Safety Act, services must prevent all users encountering illegal abuse and harassment online. These duties are already in force. Services likely to be accessed by children must also protect them from content that is harmful to them, including bullying, abusive or hateful content. Ofcom recommends measures including ensuring that algorithms filter out such content, to make sure that children are protected from abusive online communications.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. A recent NSPCC report highlights how the design of social media platforms is enabling the abuse, exploitation and harassment of girls. Girls are disproportionately at risk, with only 9% of them feeling safe in online spaces. The report shows how the detailed nature of public social media accounts makes it too easy for adult strangers to pick out girls and send unsolicited messages to their accounts. Online platforms need to prevent abusive content being sent and develop a safety-by-design approach. How will the Government ensure that Ofcom is doing everything in its power to require tech companies to keep girls safe from unacceptable abuse and reaffirm the Government’s commitment to protecting girls online?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this profound issue. Ofcom’s codes go beyond current industry standards and practices. Under the Online Safety Act, companies cannot decline to take steps to protect children, including young girls, because it is too expensive or inconvenient. Protecting children is a priority. The Secretary of State has said that safety by design is one of the priorities in the statement of strategic priorities of this Government. Ofcom is required to consider those priorities in its approach to online safety regulation and will need to provide regular updates on how they are being delivered.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, why have civic groups and campaigners been told that their responses to the consultation on the children’s code will not be considered for incorporation into the code until the next round of regulations in 18 months’ time? When dealing with the rapidly evolving tech sector, does the Minister not agree that this regulatory cycle is too slow?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as part of its statutory duties, Ofcom consulted widely on the proposals in the codes and considered responses from a wide range of stakeholders, including children and civil society organisations. Ofcom has been clear that it has reflected these views in its decision. It has made a number of changes reflecting feedback from civil society stakeholders. For example, it has substantially strengthened the expectation on services that set a minimum age—often 13.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister not concerned that in present and projected legislation for online content the responsibility of those who provide the source of this material is out of proportion to that of the platforms? Is she satisfied that the platform operators are sufficiently responsible for what happens?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, Ofcom has to take steps, and will do, under the illegal content codes and the children’s code against those platforms and the originators of harmful or illegal content. Indeed, I am pleased to say that as Ofcom has started to roll out its responsibilities, a number of what we would regard as inappropriate app sites have been blocked or ceased to function in the UK, because they know they cannot comply with the current legislation.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, given the grave, ever-present threat to children’s mental well-being from all online activities, what updated guidance, if any, has been issued to schools on child protection?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, schools must have a policy on this issue. They are all expected to have a policy about the use of phones in schools, for example, and we have been very clear about our expectations on that. The noble Baroness is right: the issue of mental health is fundamental, and tackling excessive screen time among children is a real priority for the Government. Nevertheless, we recognise that online activities can have benefits for children, such as helping them make connections, learn new skills and gain independence. We want to get that right and make sure that children have a balanced childhood overall, with a mixture of online and offline activities, and that will be our strategy going forward.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, following on from that last question, can the Minister say what is being done to ensure that teachers have the right skills to train children in school on the dangers of online communication?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this is already a priority. The Department for Education is making sure that teachers have the training support to tackle these issues. Teachers have been asking for this, and we have responded, because sometimes they feel that they do not have the tools to raise these issues appropriately. It is something that the department is anxious to deal with, and it is building it into future training programmes to give teachers more confidence to tackle these issues.
Lord Markham (Con)
Given that children are among the most vulnerable users online and are often disproportionately affected by online harms, it is notable that none of the eligibility criteria of the super-complaints mechanism recognise or require expertise on online safety relating to children. Are the Government prepared to address this oversight?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this is an issue that we of course take seriously. We want to make sure that we have the right spread of expertise reflected in the super-complaints process. We are still working that through with Ofcom, and we will be able to spell it out in more detail very soon. However, I take the noble Lord’s point, which is a good one. I will go back and check that that is indeed being addressed.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that too many of our regulators use consultation as a method of doing nothing? Should we not ask our regulators to be more precise, get on with the job that they have been charged with doing and protect the public?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
In this case, Ofcom can do only what legislators ask it to do or provide for it to do. It is limited in that. As noble Lords will know, Ofcom has a clear remit to implement the Online Safety Act. I know that we have discussed this several times before, but I think that as we roll out the illegal codes and the children’s safety code, they will make a profound difference to what children can see. I am confident that Ofcom has the resources and wherewithal to make that step change, which we all know is necessary.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am an ex-trustee of the NSPCC. One of the answers that the Minister gave regarded algorithms. What experience and expertise does Ofcom have to ensure that those algorithms capture the vast majority of harm that is put on the internet and on social media, because who develops the algorithms holds the key to this?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. Algorithms are a real challenge, and we know some of the damage that can be done by them if they do not operate effectively. When Ofcom published its child safety codes on 24 April, it set out 40 measures that companies are expected to take to comply with the child safety duties. Measures include age-assurance technology, changing algorithms to filter out harmful content and adopting mechanisms so that parents and children can easily report harmful content. It is part of the children’s code to address algorithms. Over time, Ofcom will be able to report on how successful it has been in expecting that of platforms.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, building on the comment of my noble friend Lord Colville about the amount of time between consultation and action being taken, could the Minister draw to the attention of Ofcom the report by the NSPCC that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to? It contains no fewer than 27 specific suggestions and solutions for Ofcom to include in the illegal harms code of practice, in addition to the 40 she just named. If she could bring that to the attention of Ofcom and perhaps encourage it to get its skates on, that would be greatly appreciated.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that Ofcom has regular dialogue with the NSPCC and other stakeholders, but I will double-check to make sure that, as the noble Lord says, the issues and recommendations are being addressed.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch ExcerptsWednesday 11th June 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 108-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Amendments - (11 Jun 2025)
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49F and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 49P, 49Q, 49R, 49S and 49T in lieu.
“Progress statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out what progress has been made towards the publication of—
(a) the economic impact assessment required by section (Economic impact assessment), and
(b) the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems).
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the economic impact assessment and the report have been published before the end of the period described in that subsection.”
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, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. I will keep my opening remarks brief. The Government have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that we need to properly analyse the 11,500 consultation responses before we consider bringing forward legislative change relating to AI and copyright. For that reason, the amendments in lieu, passed by the other place, are the same as the government amendments previously tabled in this House. I understand that this is a source of disappointment to some noble Lords, but it is not fair to say—as some have outside of your Lordships’ House—that the Government have in any way been unclear about their intentions, or misled or disrespected noble Lords.
I turn to the new Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. I understand and share his desire for a quick and effective solution. I thank him for the productive and helpful meeting we had ahead of this debate. I recognise that people have not been reassured entirely so far, which is unfortunate. I want to give the House the same undertaking I gave the noble Lord: we will work as hard as possible on this issue. I can reassure him, and your Lordships, that our plan will give copyright holders as much protection and support as possible, including via transparency, enforcement and renumeration, while not pre-empting the outcomes of the important and necessary processes that we have set out and without pre-judging any future legislation. We want to ensure that we uphold our gold standard copyright regime while also adapting to the new challenges. I look forward to working with the noble Lord as part of the parliamentary working group on this issue.
In the meantime, I urge noble Lords to accept the Government’s Motion and the amendments in lieu. That is the best way to finally pass the data Bill, with the compromises the Government have made to address this issue as quickly as possible. This will speed up our work, make it more comprehensive and provide Parliament with a meaningful update within six months—a clock that only starts ticking once this Bill has passed. These steps increase engagement and accountability, but without pre-judging or pre-empting the consultation to which so many took the time to respond.
In my most recent all-Peers letter, I was pleased to share details of the cross-party parliamentary working group that DSIT is establishing to support our next steps. I take this opportunity to reassure those already on the relevant Select Committees that this group will not in any way replace or dilute their core work. Minister Bryant confirmed yesterday that we will meet with relevant Select Committee chairs in both Houses to discuss how this new group can complement existing mechanisms. I will provide an update to your Lordships’ House on the formation and progress of the working group as soon as I am able to.
Lastly, I thank Members of your Lordships’ House for their contributions to the debates on the Bill during its passage. I look forward to hearing their contributions on other matters once the Bill has passed. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, as everybody has said, it is deeply disappointing that we once again find ourselves in this position. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has brought the concerns of copyright owners to the attention of the Government time and again. Throughout the progress of the Bill, the Government have declined to respond to the substance of those concerns and to engage with them properly. As I said in the previous round of ping-pong—I am starting to lose count—the uncertainty of the continued delay to this Bill is hurting all sides. Even businesses that are in industries far removed from concerns about AI and copyright are waiting for the data Bill. It has been delayed because of the Government’s frankly stubborn mismanagement of the Bill.
I understand completely why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, feels sufficiently strongly about how the Government have acted to move his very inventive amendment. It strikes at the heart of how this Government should be treating your Lordships’ House. If Ministers hope to get their business through your Lordships’ House in good order, they will rely on this House trusting them and collaborating with them. I know that these decisions are often made by the Secretary of State. I have the highest respect for the Minister, but this is a situation of the Government’s making. I note in passing that it was very disappointing to read that the Government’s planned AI Bill will now be delayed by at least a year.
All that said, as the Official Opposition we have maintained our position, as ping-pong has progressed, that protracted rounds of disagreement between the other place and your Lordships’ House should be avoided. This situation could have been avoided if the Government had acted in good faith and sought compromise.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I repeat again our absolute commitment to the creative sector and our intention to work with it to help it flourish and grow. This is London Tech Week. All Ministers, including me and my colleagues, have been involved in that, showcasing the UK’s rising tech talent to the world. I do not feel I should apologise for our involvement with the tech sector in that regard.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
Perhaps the Minister could note that I said that of course they should be meeting. It was the fact that the creative industries did not get a response that was at issue here.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I apologise to the creative sector if it did not get a response. I can follow that up, but I was responding to a different point made by other people casting aspersions about our ministerial involvement with this sector, which is an important sector for our economy.
It is clear that several noble Lords still have concerns about the Government’s plan. I understand their concerns, even if I do not share them—just as I am sure that they understand our concerns with the proposed alternatives, even if they do not share them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that it is a matter of fact that the Bill does not change, weaken or block anything in copyright law. We believe in transparency, protection and enforcement, and we agree with remuneration. This is our task ahead. But the Government’s firm view remains that we cannot prejudge the consultation, the technical or parliamentary working groups or the proposals resulting from these that will be brought forward in our report.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I understand the Minister’s point about not wanting to prejudge the consultation—although on other issues, such as VAT on school fees, that did not seem to apply. What I have difficulty with is why the Government were not prepared to take a power that would enable them to act at a subsequent date and does not require them to do so.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this is because we believe the powers we already have are sufficient to enable us to enact the regulations once we have finished the piece of work we are working on.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his speech, and repeat my assurances in response to his ask. Our plans will give copyright holders as much protection as possible via transparency, enforcement and remuneration. Our report, nine months from Royal Assent, will contain our proposals to put this in place. The Government are also looking at the case for more comprehensive AI legislation that delivers on our manifesto commitment. I expect any comprehensive legislation to address the opportunities and challenges presented by AI to the creative sector.
I turn now to concerns that the Government have not compromised on this issue. Noble Lords are right that we have deep concerns about pre-empting all the work that is necessary to determine what future laws should contain. It is an important principle that good government consults, respects the responses and then sets out its proposals. I expect any comprehensive legislation that follows—to address the opportunities and challenges presented by the AI sector—to encompass those principles.
However, I want to remind noble Lords of everything I am referring to when I say that the Government have compromised. The Government have compromised on the consultation with the Secretary of State, recognising concerns about the preferred option and the lack of an impact assessment, and by introducing a report that will set out proposals and which will be accompanied by a full impact assessment.
The Government have also compromised on the process. The reports will be brought forward even more quickly, with more topics included in them, and there will be a progress statement, and technical and parliamentary working groups will now be set up to complement this process.
I press my point to noble Lords: the Government have compromised many times on many issues, but where we cannot compromise is on one of the principles of good government: namely, that we cannot prejudge the outcome of these processes.