Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for his expert introduction to the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about common sense, but I fear that went out of the window of an employment tribunal some years ago. As my noble friend Lord Young laid out in an earlier group, this Bill threatens to restrict free expression in some cases with its provisions. It is for this reason that I support the amendments, which seek to safeguard political opinion and affiliation within our employment laws.

At the heart of any thriving democracy lies the freedom to hold and express political beliefs without fear of retribution. In a democratic society, freedom of speech and freedom of belief are not luxuries; they are fundamental rights that underpin our entire system of governance and civil life. The workplace, where so many of us spend a significant portion of our lives, must be a space where individuals can hold and express their political views without fear of unfair treatment or dismissal. As it stands, our existing laws provide only patchy protections for political beliefs, and they leave many workers vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Young’s examples are truly shocking, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish, in particular, Mr Poursaeedi well in his ongoing battles.

We should draw upon the timeless wisdom of John Stuart Mill, who was one of the great architects of liberalism. He argued in his seminal work On Liberty that the truth emerges only through free and open debate, and he warned against the suppression of any opinion, because no one person or group holds a monopoly on truth. Even opinions that we may find mistaken—perhaps such as democratic socialism—or indeed offensive, must be heard and challenged openly, for only through such dialogue can society discern truth from error. Voltaire was right on this. I must admit I find it a bit disappointing that the Liberal Democrat Benches are not more enthusiastic about these amendments.

By protecting employees from dismissal or discrimination based on their political opinions or affiliations, these amendments would ensure that the workplace remains a forum where diverse ideas can be expressed, scrutinised and debated. Suppressing political expression risks silencing valuable perspectives and preventing the emergence of truth through robust discussion.

We in this House pride ourselves on opening our minds to a broad range of political views. Obviously, that involves robust engagement, challenging each other and refining our positions through vigorous debate. If such diversity of opinion is essential to the functioning of this Chamber, why would it not apply beyond these walls, and particularly in other workplaces? Workers, like us, should be free to express their political beliefs without fear of losing their jobs or being discriminated against.

In conclusion, I urge the Government to accept my noble friend’s amendments. To go back to the great liberal John Stuart Mill, he also said:

“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury”.


This is not the time for inaction. These amendments not only would protect workers from unfair dismissal and discrimination but would uphold our fundamental democratic values. By embedding these protections into our laws, we would reaffirm our commitment to free expression. I am afraid saying just that they are not necessary is not good enough. They clearly are necessary, as we heard in the examples from my noble friend.

[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 all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it would be helpful if I first clarify where the law stands on this.

On Amendment 101B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, let me make it clear that religious and philosophical beliefs are already protected by the Equality Act 2010, including in the workplace. However, political belief—in the sense of a party-political affiliation or opinion—was not included as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. The noble Lord referred to the Grainger case. That case and the definition that the noble Lord read out referred to the issue of philosophical belief, which is already protected by the Act.

In 2015-16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reviewed whether Great Britain’s equality and human rights legal framework sufficiently protects individuals with a religion or belief and the distinction of a religion or belief organisation while balancing the rights of others protected under the Equality Act 2010. The review found that the definition of religion or belief in the Equality Act is sufficiently broad to ensure wide protection for many religions or beliefs. It recommended no change to the definition of religion or belief or to the approach that the court should take in deciding whether any particular belief is protected under the Act.

We are not convinced that a political opinion or affiliation should be specifically protected by amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in contrast to other religions or beliefs. The extent of protected beliefs has been developed in case law, and we have not been presented with strong evidence that any legislative amendment is necessary. The amendment the noble Lord is proposing would potentially cause legal uncertainty over its relationship to the protected characteristic of religion or belief in Section 10 of the Equality Act, which has a much wider application than just the workplace.

The Government frequently receive calls for new protected characteristics—there have been over 21 suggested to date. While some of these carry merit, it simply would not be practical to include these all in the legislation, which would quickly become unmanageable for employers and service providers to follow, and for courts and tribunals to process and judge.

The noble Lord referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts and tribunals will always be required to balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as academic freedom.

Noble Lords have referred to a number of individual cases. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases. However, I can assure them that free speech is a cornerstone of British values. We are firmly committed to upholding the right of freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Monks that, in many cases—and preferably in all cases—it is ideal for these issues to be resolved by common sense at the workplace.

Turning to Amendment 141A, I seek to reassure the noble Lord that further legislative provision on this matter is not needed. Through the Bill, the Government are creating a day one right against unfair dismissal. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged in his explanatory statement, additional protections for employees already exist under Section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which currently ensures that claims for unfair dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation are not subject to any qualification period. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that, while dismissal on the grounds of political beliefs and affiliations is not automatically unfair, if brought to a tribunal, the tribunal could find that it was unfair based on the circumstances at hand.

As we have said, these issues will very often have to be decided by a tribunal, based on the facts of the case. This will obviously also have to apply to the noble Lord’s amendment as well. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the delays in employment tribunals are a very real challenge that we are very conscious of, and we have already reported elsewhere in other debates on the Bill that we are taking steps to address this.

Relevant case law sets out the circumstances where political beliefs may constitute a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, discrimination provisions could apply. Following a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, the qualifying period for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal relating to political opinions or affiliation was removed, further strengthening employees’ access to justice in instances of unfair dismissal based on political views. The Bill ensures that claims for dismissal on this basis continue to be treated in the same way as claims for automatic unfair dismissal by carving them out in a new Section 108A from the requirement that any employee must have started work before a claim can be brought.

We regard this as the right approach. Making dismissal for political opinions automatically unfair, as this amendment seeks to do, would fundamentally change the way that free speech is considered in relation to dismissal for the holding of views or the expression of views that the employer regards as unacceptable. It could sweep up such a wide range of views as to be unworkable. As sufficient protection against dismissal for political beliefs already exists, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 101B.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments. I echo the tribute made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to the journalist Patrick O’Flynn, who has just been taken from us so ahead of his time. I appreciate the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who I note did not oppose the amendments, although she was a little bit sceptical about the case I had made. I also thank my noble friend Lady Verma for her intervention.

In response to the Minister’s remarks, as she says, some political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. The issue is that not all political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. I gave some examples and I will give just one more: an employment tribunal decision that a belief in Scottish independence is protected, but a belief in unionism is not. There is often not much rhyme or reason to these employment tribunal decisions, because the Grainger test leaves so much room for bias, interpretation and subjective judgment. I am merely asking the Government to bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 14 lists the characteristics that should be protected and includes the words “political … opinion”. That means all political opinions, not just those you disagree with.

Finally, I come to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and point out that Saba Poursaeedi did not lose his job at the housing association because he was tactless or undiplomatic; he lost it because he was intending to stand as a candidate for Reform UK. The association had no misgivings about his performance in his role; indeed, it promoted him. He was a model of tact and diplomacy when dealing with the residents managed by the housing association. That was not the reason he was fired. The noble Lord is, of course, welcome to join the Free Speech Union, and I hope that he does. I have reached out to Gary Lineker, not to defend him in any case he might want to bring against the BBC—which I do not think he intends—but because the police have said they may now be investigating his remarks. I reached out to him and said that, if that happens, we will provide him with a solicitor and, if necessary, a barrister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lucas for their amendments and their thoughtful contributions in this group. It has been a most interesting debate. I will speak to my Amendments 103, 113 and 123.

I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it would be much better to get this right now rather than pursuing Amendment 103 in particular, which returns to the Government’s insufficient impact assessment. The assessment that has been produced states that this provision will have one of the highest impacts, yet, as we have mentioned before, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s analysis in this section a red rating. The RPC’s critique is not a matter of minor technicalities because it identifies serious deficiencies in the Government’s case for intervention in the options that they have considered and in the justification for the policy that they propose. The Government’s impact assessment admits that it lacks robust data on dismissal rates for employees with under two years’ service. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, there is no evidence for that. It proceeds regardless, however, with only superficial reference to “asymmetric information” and without any substantive analysis of any market failure.

The RPC highlights the impact assessment’s failure to consider how long-serving employees might view the equalisation of rights for new joiners—an issue of fairness and workplace cohesion that the Government have ignored. The impact assessment itself mentions that options such as reducing the qualifying period to 18 months or one year were considered and rejected without detailed assessment. No real exploration of probation periods was provided. That is not a balanced appraisal of possible alternatives; it is a justification for a predetermined decision.

On the justification of the preferred option, the impact assessment is again found lacking. The RPC calls for clarity on the costs to businesses—the costs of managing performance, handling disputes and the increased settlements to avoid tribunal risks. It also questions whether the Government have considered evidence from existing unfair dismissal claims and how risks might vary across sectors or job types, particularly in roles where reputational damage from a claim might deter employers from hiring at all.

More significantly, the Government have not addressed indirect and dynamic labour impacts, such as whether day-one rights might lead to more cautious hiring, greater use of temporary contracts or weaker overall job security. These are not abstract concerns as they go to the heart of how this policy might reshape employment relationships across the country. Noble Lords might be interested in a real example. I was talking this morning to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company. It is an exemplary employer in every way; for example, offering many day-one rights. But this year—partly as a result of the jobs tax but also in anticipation of the Bill—it has reduced its hiring by 84%. I repeat that for the record: 84%. This is not abstract or theoretical. This is real, this is now.

It is important to note that these likely labour market impacts are not accounted for in the £5 billion cost to businesses, so the real cost is likely to be significantly higher. The result is a policy with high ambition but little practical clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has just noted. How will unfair dismissal rights interact with a statutory probationary period? Will employers still have access to the same set of fair reasons for dismissal? Will there be a different threshold for acting reasonably during probation? Can probation be extended if needed? None of those questions has been clearly answered.

The noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us of the light-touch, nine-month proposal, but what does that mean in practice? My noble friend Lady Meyer asked that. At the same time, the Government’s own analysis predicts that granting day-one rights for unfair dismissal alone will result in a 15% increase in employment tribunal claims. Using the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that is an additional 750 claims per year, on top of the 50,000 backlog already waiting 18 months to two years. The noble Lord argued that this is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance, but it is not to the 750 business owners who are being dragged through courts. That is a substantial impact. It represents direct costs to businesses in terms of time, legal risk and, of course, the chilling effect on recruitment.

The tribunal system itself needs to be looked at. Without significant new investment it is hard to see how the system will cope with this 15% increase. The result could be longer delays, greater costs and justice deferred for all parties. In an earlier group we heard about a case that is going to take more than two years to come before a tribunal. Yet the Government intend to bring these changes into force in 2026. On what basis? There is nothing in the impact assessment that explains why 2026 has been chosen or how the system will be ready by then. Businesses will need time to revise contracts, restructure probation processes and train managers on the new rules. What assessment has been made of whether 2026 is realistic, with all those things in mind? What engagement has been carried out with employers, particularly SMEs, about what implementation will require?

It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to explain how the timeline was determined and whether it is genuinely achievable, given the lack of clarity in both the policy detail and the supporting evidence. We all agree that employees deserve fair treatment, particularly in the vulnerable early stages of employment, but employers must also have a reasonable opportunity to assess performance, capability and suitability without the immediate threat of litigation.

We have established that there is no evidence for any of this clause. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was arguing his point, he said that it is very difficult anyway for employees to take a case to an employment tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, as I just mentioned, said it is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance. If there is no evidence, it is too difficult and it is a statistical irrelevance, why are we bothering at all?

I want to raise a final point that others, particularly my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, have referred to. It is not just about the policy itself; it is a more troubling concern. The policy will create unintended incentives, but for whom? It is not just about employers scaling back hiring overall but about who they stop hiring. If we remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and provide no workable probationary mechanism, we tilt the hiring incentives away from risk-taking, as we have heard. It will, in effect, stop employers taking a punt.

Right now, a small business owner might be willing to take that chance on someone with no formal qualifications, or from a non-traditional background, or re-entering the workforce after a time away. That chance exists because the employer has a short window to assess their suitability—and vice versa, of course—before facing the full weight of employment litigation risk. If that safety net is removed and exposure begins from day one and the probationary period lacks clarity or legal protection, that same employer will think twice. They will play it safe.

Noble Lords opposite should pay attention to those of us who have employed people. It is a simple fact. Who is going to suffer? It is not the already advantaged candidate with a polished CV. It is the young person with gaps in education, the career switcher with no references, the working parent returning after years out of the labour market, or the person coming back to work after a long period of illness. Noble Lords opposite should reread the speech given by my noble friend Lord Elliott, with his experience of the Jobs Foundation. He explained this much more eloquently than I just have. Those are the people who benefit from flexibility and second chances and who may now find those doors quietly closed.

This goes to the heart of social mobility and genuine workplace diversity. I would like to ask the Government a rhetorical question: have they considered the incentives this policy creates? If they have not—both common-sense experience of real working life in the private sector and, indeed, the RPC suggest that they have not—we risk designing a policy that sounds progressive but, in practice, reduces opportunity for the very groups that we should be helping the most. We need a decent impact assessment, and my amendment would allow for it.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As there have been a number of questions about our intentions with these clauses, I think it would be helpful to clarify them and put them on the record.

Clause 23 introduces Schedule 3 and repeals Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. Schedule 3 further amends the 1996 Act, including the introduction of a statutory probationary period in legislation. Schedule 3 also removes the two-year qualifying period for the right to request written reasons for dismissal. Any employee who has been dismissed after the statutory probationary period will have the right to written reasons for dismissal within 14 days upon request.

The legislation will introduce a statutory probationary period that will maintain an employer’s ability to assess any new hires. Schedule 3 allows the duration of a statutory probationary period to be set in regulations by the Secretary of State following consultation. The Government’s preference, as we know, is for this probationary period to be nine months in length. Schedule 3 also creates the power to modify the test for whether dismissal during the probationary period is fair for reasons of performance or suitability for the role.

The Government’s intention is to use this power to set light-touch standards for fair dismissal during probation. The power will be limited to the following reasons for dismissal, which, under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, qualify as potentially fair reasons: capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. The Government will consult on the light-touch standards and proceed to set out in regulations what specific reasons relate to the employee and when.

Schedule 3 amends the delegated power to set the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal so that a different maximum can be set for dismissals during the probationary period and when the light-touch standards apply. It is our intention to consult before the introduction of any new cap on awards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She will know that I share her ambitions for the tech sector. The UK remains the number one country for venture capital investment, raising $16.2 billion in 2024—more than either Germany or France—and since last July we have secured £44 billion in AI investment. Strengthening employment rights and giving day-one protections can help support talented people to take the leap into a start-up company.

I turn to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Setting a statutory probationary period during which light-touch standards will apply is a crucial part of our plan to make work pay. I can reassure the noble Lord that setting out the detail in regulations is fundamental to fulfilling this commitment. It is not necessary to make this a requirement in legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a number of questions. He, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked why the Government are doing this. The UK is an outlier compared to other OECD countries when it comes to the balance of risks and entitlements between the employer and the employee. We believe that it is an important principle that employees should have greater security at work. Our reforms will mean that around 9 million employees—31% of all employees —who have been working for their employer for less than two years will have greater protection against being unfairly dismissed.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I hate to interrupt the noble Baroness at this late hour, but that is just a repeat of what has been said before; it is not a tangible quantified reason for doing this. Yes, for a short period of time, they will have greater security in theory, but the downsides of this—they are in the Government’s own impact assessment—are really clear. The Government say that this will reduce the life chances of people who are riskier hires. It will cost business hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no quantification of that benefit against those downsides, and I am still not hearing that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks.

I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I never mentioned spent convictions; I referred merely to the risk of employers taking on ex-offenders. I cannot think of a point I could have made in relation to spent convictions. The issue is these categories of potential employees who a represent higher risk in terms of judgment to employers, and I was using former offenders as one example of that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point. I can only reaffirm the point I was making: with all these issues, there can be reasons for fair dismissal during the probationary period, and we have set out quite clearly what the grounds for that would be.

Amendment 107A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As always, he thinks outside the box and comes up with interesting ideas, including the idea of a probationary period here in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure we all have strong views about. Going back to the specifics of his proposal, the Government have expressed an initial preference for a nine-month statutory probationary period. We intend to consult with stakeholders and the wider public before committing to a duration, which will be set by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation after this consultation has taken place. Maintaining this flexibility allows the duration and calculation of the statutory probationary period to be adapted in light of future changes in employment practices.

Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would also amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. It is of great importance to this Government to get the length of the statutory probationary period correct. The Government have already stated in Next Steps to Make Work Pay their preference for the statutory probationary period to be nine months in duration. However, this is subject to consultation, and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on that matter.

On Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while I recognise what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with his amendment, I reassure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that the Government have no intention of removing the two-year qualifying period until the regulations setting out the statutory probationary period are in force. We will, of course, give businesses time to prepare, and we are engaging with them already. These provisions will not commence before autumn 2026, which will give time to prepare. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.

I move on to address Amendments 103 and 123, from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, in respect of their mandates for further impact assessments. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, published alongside Second Reading, and based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, employees and the wider economy. Our analysis includes an illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting the record straight about the impact of tribunals, and the thorough ways in which they conduct their proceedings. Many cases settle in advance, and we want to encourage more cases to reach a settlement with proper advice and support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Barber for putting the scale of the problem in perspective, with only 5,000 cases referred to ACAS in 2023-24.

We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament, to the extent that those changes significantly change the impact of the policy on the enforcement system. This impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation.

To follow up on the impact of this, we acknowledge that the policy is expected to benefit close to 9 million employees, driven by well-being benefits arising from increased job security for those with under two years of tenure. There will be costs to businesses, including familiarisation and compliance costs, from this change. However, businesses could benefit through improving their people management and hiring practices, which could deliver medium to long-term benefits, such as higher labour productivity. In addition, increasing employee well-being could increase worker productivity. These benefits will be tested further during consultation.

The Government have also pledged to conduct a consultation on unfair dismissal policy, to collect feedback from employers and employees. Specifically, the Government have outlined that we will consult on the length of the statutory probationary period, and the potential cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal occurring during the statutory probationary period. I can reassure the House that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement. We will be updating our impact assessments in any case, alongside the consultation on implementing the various provisions in the Bill.

I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are not proposing to expand the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal that have been a central part of employment law for decades. An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in the early stages of their employment or otherwise will have to be underpinned by a fair dismissal reason, such as capability or conduct. It stands to reason that these would be the most likely dismissal reasons when employees fail their probation.

I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. I therefore ask that Amendment 103 be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, we are being promised a blizzard of consultations, but can the Minister give me any idea when those consultations will take place? Can we also have some assurance that all the employer organisations will be consulted on this occasion? From our conversations with many of them, they do not feel particularly consulted up to now.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

First, on the issue of consultation, I assure the noble Lord that there have been a considerable number of consultations, not only with the main employer organisations but in terms of working parties working on particular aspects of the Bill, and those will continue. That consultation will continue—and I have now forgotten his other question.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Will the Government consult with employer organisations?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The Minister has not addressed the fact that there are already powers in existing legislation to modify the qualifying period. The Minister talks about going into consultation, but that consultation on the probationary period could start right now with the SI, and that element. I struggle to understand why we have to wait such a long time when, actually, the Government could get on with their policy a lot more quickly.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

That has reminded me that that was the other question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.

As we have said before, we are working on an implementation plan, which we hope to share with noble Lords as soon as we can. It is in my interests as well as noble Lords’ interests that they see it sooner rather than later, but there is no point in sharing something that is not complete. Noble Lords will see that—and it will set out exactly what we are planning to do and where the consultations will fit in with all of it. I hope that when noble Lords see it, it will reassure them.

To go back to the particular question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we see this as a wholesale package. It is right that it is introduced to employers as a package; it will have appropriate timescales in it. We do not want to do things on a piecemeal basis, we want to do them in the round. That is why we are attempting to address this in the way that we are proposing today.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Unfortunately, that is our concern—that we do not know what the detail is, and we are being asked to pass a Bill without all that detail, as I said in my speech.

There was a more technical point that I wanted to raise with the Minister, if she wants to come back to me. I set out how having to cover an extra 9 million employees is going to lead to huge amounts of extra compliance costs. She emphasised the benefits for the workers, but she did not at all address the monumental amount of paperwork. My noble friend Lord Sharpe raised a similar point. As he explained, all managers in all companies are going to have to prepare for this and work out how they treat their employees from day one and what paperwork is required. I am not convinced that there is any understanding of that.

When we had similar consultations on the minimum wage, when I was in business, which the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, there was a great deal of detailed consultation very early on on how it would work. I said in another debate how I was consulted about whether we could put it on the payslips—and I explained that it would cost us £2 million, so it would cost the whole economy an awful lot just to put the minimum wage on the payslip. That sort of detail is incredibly important, if you are bringing in regulation that affects all employers and potentially benefits all employees.

I urge the Minister to think about these things and not say that it is going into the long grass and that we will get an impact assessment ex post, but think about how employers will actually manage this.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I can assure the noble Baroness that not only have we thought about this but we are working very closely with the business sector to get this right. We understand that some of these things will take time. It takes time to change systems, and a lot of it is about changing computer systems for processing and so on. We are aware of this and, when the noble Baroness sees the implementation plan, it will reassure her that we have allowed space and time for it, as well as proper consultation with those who will be affected.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it has been a long debate so I will try not to detain the Committee much longer. I thank the many noble Lords across the Committee who have contributed. It has been long because this is really important. I confess that I come out of the end of this debate feeling somewhat depressed. I still have not heard really why we are doing this, and what the real, tangible benefits are, to offset against the very real negative impacts, particularly on those who are looking for employment and are perhaps disadvantaged in one way or another: they have not worked before, they are young, they have a gap—we heard all the various examples. The Minister did not really address that point terribly clearly in her speech, and it is so important.

This may be, as the Government have regularly called it, a Bill for workers. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is not a Bill for people who want to work—the potential workers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. He stole my Charlie Mayfield quote, but I will not worry about that. It is true that Denmark has much easier hire and fire, and he was using that as a paragon of virtue because it allows people who are harder to hire to get into employment, which is so important.

In the interests of being constructive, I hope the Minister understands the real concerns about those people and the impact the Bill is going to have on them, and the negative impacts this section of the Bill will have. I hope that she will be prepared to spend a bit of time with us between now and Report to try to find solutions to those negative impacts, to minimise the problems and downsides that they will cause. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks: I am not making this up, or crying wolf, as with the national minimum wage, as the noble Lord suggested. This is what the Government say will be the impact. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is not me saying that; the Government say this will be impact. If we can try to work together before Report, to try to find ways of knocking the edges off this and reducing the negative impacts, that would be very helpful. With that, I will not oppose Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.

Online Harms: Young People

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the challenges facing young people from online harms, as raised in the Netflix drama series Adolescence.

[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, we are committed to protecting children from online harms. Under the Online Safety Act, social media companies have a duty to remove illegal, misogynist and violent content from their platforms. From July, platforms will also need to protect children from harmful content, including hateful or abusive content, violent content and pornography. Ofcom is clear that it will use its strong enforcement powers for platforms failing to fulfil these duties. This reflects the priority the Government place on these actions.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, the Netflix programme “Adolescence” is a brutal exposition of the growing incel culture and manosphere that is infecting too many hearts and minds. A staggering 45% of young men have a positive view of the misogynistic influencer and conspiracist Andrew Tate. Every 29 minutes there is a post about rape on a popular incel forum. This content is leading to hatred of women and girls, and to serious violence. I listened closely to what my noble friend just said. Is she able to set out what the Government are doing to prevent this explosion of harmful misogynistic content and, in particular, the radicalisation that it can inspire?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise the destructive role that misogynistic attitudes, including online misogynistic content, can play in society, including the impact it can have on the views and behaviours of men and boys. Tackling misogyny both online and offline is central to our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, supporting victims and preventing harm in our communities. We will publish a new violence against women strategy this year. The Government will ensure that schools address the root causes of violence against women and girls, and teach pupils about healthy relationships and consent, and will continue to ensure children and young people are at the heart of prevention and intervention programmes and policies.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, one of the key themes in “Adolescence” was intimate image abuse. Just this week, the Government have rejected the Women and Equalities Committee recommendation to increase from six months the time limit for victims to seek justice when their intimate images have been non-consensually shared. Will the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for rejecting a change that would help so many victims?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government welcome the Women and Equalities Committee report on tackling non-consensual intimate image abuse, and the issues it raises are an absolute priority for us. That is why we have taken action by strengthening the Online Safety Act and introducing further offences as part of the Crime and Policing Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Bill—and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all the work she has done in helping to us to strengthen that legislation. We will not hesitate to go further to protect women and girls online. Technology-facilitated abuse will be a key component of the upcoming cross-government violence against women and girls strategy.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, there has been much discussion about online access for children and young people at schools, and the advice on keeping phones out of schools is much welcomed. However, surely we need to ensure that parents and carers have all the information and skills that they need to navigate and guide their children. Are this Government planning a comprehensive campaign to alert parents to online harms and to ensure that they have the right digital skills to be able to access information and support for their children?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that important point. Media literacy in all its forms is important for parents, teachers and young people, to make sure that we create a respectful online environment. Ofcom has specific media literacy duties that it will carry out. Its media literacy strategy prioritises research and initiatives to address online misogyny, including research to understand how such harmful behaviour occurs. As set out in the strategy, Ofcom expects its work on online misogyny to directly target teenage boys and young men. However, the noble Baroness is right that it goes further than that: we have to educate parents as well, to look at what their children are accessing. There is a huge job of work to be done on education in the wider sphere. Obviously, schools are playing their part in that now, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, but we have far more to do on this, and all aspects of government are addressing these issues.

[Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)]

My Lords, the Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to look at how much children are using social media, yet the new children’s code from Ofcom does not mention addiction. What are the Government doing to deal with the problem of screen addiction among our children?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Viscount will know that schools already have a policy, or are expected by the Department for Education to have one, to ensure that children do not have access to phones in schools. That is a clear policy that the Government are keen to reiterate. What we are talking about here is what children do outside the school environment. From July, the children’s code of practice will provide much greater reassurance and protection for children. Services will be expected to provide age-appropriate experiences online by protecting children from bullying, violent content, abuse and misogynistic content. In other words, there will be much more forceful regulation to specifically protect children. Obviously, we will continue to monitor the codes of practice, but there are specific new powers under the code that come into effect in July and we want to see their impact.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope the Government are actively tracking and measuring the effects of schools’ own policies on mobile phone use during the school day. If so, what conclusions can be drawn about the wisdom of an outright ban? If they are not tracking that information, why not?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as I said, the Department for Education’s mobile phones in schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. The Government expect all schools to take steps in line with that. Beyond that, my own department, DSIT, has commissioned a piece of research to look at young people’s use of social media and their access to it throughout the day. The outcome of the research is due very soon and we will learn the lessons from that. Up until now, the evidence has not been as clear-cut as we would like. We hope to learn on an international basis how to protect young people throughout the day, and will apply those lessons once the evidence has been assessed.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, “Adolescence” is probably the latest in a long line of TV dramas that have the effect of changing societal attitudes—you can think of “Cathy Come Home”, “Queer as Folk”, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” and indeed “Breathtaking”. One of the ways in which young people can be encouraged to get off their mobile phones is through engaging more in drama, but we are seeing drama and arts taken out of the curriculum. Does the Minister agree that there is value in these dramas, not just in raising awareness and changing attitudes but in helping young people to explore themselves and their identity, and to communicate in ways that do not involve devices?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point that we need to provide alternatives to online activities for young people. She is absolutely right about drama, and sport can also help with that. The Department for Education is conducting a curriculum review at the moment and one of its priorities is to make sure that children genuinely have a balanced, wholesome curriculum that deals with all those issues—one that is not just academic but deals with children’s development in the round, which is exactly what the noble Baroness is saying.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, Finland is known as a global leader in education and has schools that focus on critical thinking and the ability to absorb online information and regard it sceptically, when needed. Does the Minister agree that that is something we need to see much more of in British schools? We are presenting teachers with a real challenge, with so many subjects focused on teaching to the test and rote learning things to regurgitate. We have to think about the whole way in which our schooling operates, so it is focused on critical thinking.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point, and it goes back to the need for a balanced curriculum. In the past, our curriculum has become too focused on a very specific set of goals and not the broader issues. Having healthy relationships is part of teaching and learning at school; that is absolutely something that we need to do and we are strengthening the provisions for that within the curriculum. The Department for Education will provide guidance to help young people develop the skills that all young people need to be able to navigate this complex modern world.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I agree that this has been an extremely interesting debate. I thank all noble Baronesses—they are mostly Baronesses, with some noble Lords—for their contributions. In particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, deserves singling out for her very thought-provoking introduction to this group.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral pointed out in the previous group, every individual should feel safe and supported in their working environment. We recognise that NDAs have deviated from their original purpose, which was to protect trade secrets and intellectual property, as the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, pointed out. They have been abused in some circumstances, particularly where they are used to silence the victims of misconduct, which includes sexual harassment.

However, we must also acknowledge there are some cases where NDAs may serve a legitimate purpose. Some individuals may wish to resolve disputes privately, without the need for public disclosure. It is important, therefore, that we do not take a blanket approach but instead consider the context in which NDAs are being used. Many of the amendments acknowledge those simple facts. Having said that, we also need to consider the wider impact that NDAs might have—for example, in cases of medical malpractice. How can society and the medical profession learn from mistakes that are not made public?

It is clear that further scrutiny of NDAs is essential. The potential for abuse cannot be ignored, and we must ensure that any agreement entered into is fully informed and entirely voluntary. I will briefly speak as a non-lawyer, because I was particularly taken by Amendment 281, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I was rather shocked that such an NDA might exist even under the current regime. How can one sign a legally binding document that prevents the disclosure of a breach of the law? With apologies to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, I say that only the legal profession could manage the perverse logic to invent such a thing.

As we have seen, particularly in the NHS, whistle-blowers are often the individuals who bravely speak out against wrongdoing, misconduct or unethical practices that might otherwise go unnoticed. Their courage in raising concerns is critical to maintaining trust and ensuring that the organisation remains committed to the highest ethical standards.

Both noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to the NHS. I looked into this earlier, and in one high-profile case, the NHS spent over £4 million on legal action against a single whistleblower, including a £3.2 million compensation settlement. This sparked criticism from Professor Phil Banfield, the chairman of the British Medical Association, who argued that whistleblowing is often not welcomed by NHS management. He emphasised that NHS trusts and senior managers are more focused on protecting their reputations than addressing the concerns of whistleblowers or prioritising patient safety. That is clearly a very unacceptable state of affairs, and that example alone suggests that the Government should take these amendments extremely seriously.

I am sure that the Minister is about to stand up and offer to have further discussions on this subject. We will pre-empt her and volunteer to take part in those discussions. There is clearly much more work to be done in this area. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks.

[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 genuinely thank all noble Lords—they have mainly been noble Baronesses—who have taken part in this excellent debate, in which we have addressed some important, salient and highly concerning issues about the misuse of non-disclosure agreements. We have heard some very moving and completely unacceptable examples that have no place in the modern workplace.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friends Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Goudie, for their Amendments 98, 101 and 101C, which seek to restrict the use of non-disclosure agreements that prevent workers disclosing certain misconduct. My noble friend Lady Kennedy’s amendment looks to apply this to a broader category of misconduct, including harassment, retaliation and discrimination. I also acknowledge that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy make it clear that workers should still be able to request confidentiality protections in agreements between a worker and employer, if they so choose. A number of noble Lords have reiterated that that is an important principle.

I also thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for her Amendment 281, which makes express provision for a court to void an NDA in the public interest if it seeks to prevent the disclosure of illegal conduct by the employer. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that my noble friend made a very compelling case on that issue.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, for Amendment 101A and her contribution today. Her amendment would void any provision in an NDA that prevents a worker making a disclosure about sexual harassment. However, it would allow NDAs in settlement agreements to stand where the victim of sexual harassment requests them and where they have received independent legal advice. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his comments in support of that amendment.

Today’s debate on NDAs demonstrates the best elements of your Lordships’ House. Points have been well made by all noble Lords, and we have listened carefully to their arguments. I was grateful to have the opportunity to meet with a number of noble Lords in recent weeks to reaffirm the Government’s position on the misuse of NDAs and to understand the intention behind these amendments. Let me be clear: NDAs should never be used to silence victims of sexual harassment and other forms of misconduct in the workplace.

My noble friend Lady O’Grady asked whether the proposals extend beyond sexual harassment. The whistleblowing measures in the Bill cover only sexual harassment. However, the whistleblowing framework already covers disclosures about criminal offences, breaches of legal obligations and endangerment of health and safety. In many cases, harassment and discrimination in the workplace will fall within those categories.

While the Government agree that NDAs should not be misused by employers to conceal misconduct in the workplace, any restrictions on their use must be carefully considered to avoid unintended consequences. For example, confidentiality can allow employers and workers to resolve a dispute and move on without publicity and expensive legal proceedings. It is vital that we take the time to consider any impacts on a worker’s ability to choose the right outcome for themselves, including the option of an NDA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

May I just add to that? My concern is that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is right that, in law, one should not use contractual agreements to avoid criminal processes. However, you do not have criminal processes unless you have a complainant, and often women do not want to go through that process. They would rather have a settlement, but they want to be in control—it is about giving power to the person who is at the receiving end of abusive conduct. That is why we are asking that these amendments be considered, so that, in the light of the Government’s great commitment to the protection of women and girls, women and girls in the workplace have the opportunity of saying, “I would like an agreement, but I want it on my terms” and may choose anonymity so that it does not remain the case, as happens now, that women then carry it forward—they are the ones who bear the burden of having to go public with a complaint. Often, it affects their employment possibilities in the future.

This is about women being in the driving seat when there is a complaint of bad behaviour in the workplace. That is why just having a bland thing saying, “This is criminal conduct, if somebody squeezes a woman’s breast in the workplace or keeps patting their behind and so forth” is not good enough. Women should be allowed to say, “I do not want this to continue. I want to remain in my job. I want protection for my employment, and I want it to be dealt with by way of an agreement where I am in the driving seat”.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the answer to both noble Lords—and I think I said this during my response—is that the amendments are all raising really important issues. There is an issue about the breadth of the issues and the extent to which we need to legislate or perhaps amplify things that are already the law but are not understood to be the law. We have more work to do on this, but we are working at pace on it. We still have time before the Bill passes through your Lordship’s House, so I hope we can make some progress during that time.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble Baroness once more. Does that mean she intends to talk to interested Peers before Report?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I have already had one meeting and, as noble Lords will know, I seem to be in perpetual meeting mode. I certainly am very happy to carry on having those discussions.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 has been a good introduction to the further debates we will have today on provisions in the Bill on harassment. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Morrissey, for tabling Amendment 82A. Both made important points about investigation and action being crucial.

The Government agree that while the preventive duty places broad requirements on employers, it is important to ensure that specific steps are taken by employers to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. This is why, in addition to strengthening the preventive duty, we are introducing a delegated power, enabling us to specify steps that are to be regarded as reasonable for the purpose of meeting the obligations set out in the Equality Act 2010 to take all reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment.

The regulations may also require an employer to have regard to specific matters when taking those steps. The regulations that the power will introduce will help clarify what is expected of employers, as well as guiding the EHRC or employment tribunals when taking enforcement action. These steps may include requirements on employers to undertake investigations following complaints and action recommendations, in addition to the requirements set out in the ACAS code of practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures. To better understand what steps are effective and proportionate, we have launched a call for evidence, and we will give responses careful consideration.

I have to say to the noble Baroness that it would be premature to introduce specific requirements in relation to investigations at this stage. I ask her to withdraw Amendment 82A, but I hope she will take on board that I am happy to continue discussions with her on these issues after the call for evidence concludes. I am sure we can reach an agreement going forward on that basis.

[Baroness Morrissey (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for their thoughtful remarks, and in particular for highlighting the need for investigation and action to protect the victims.

I was slightly surprised at the grouping of this amendment, as it probably sits better among the other provisions and amendments designed to combat sexual harassment that we will be discussing later.

I am glad to hear from the Minister that a consultation is planned, which may include provisions requiring employers to conduct proper investigations. I look forward to hearing further about that. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Young of Acton and Lady Noakes very much for their expert, valuable and important introductions to and insights into this group. I also thank my noble friends Lady Meyer, Lady Lawlor, Lady Cash, Lord Strathcarron, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Murray for their practical, legal and philosophical objections to Clause 20, which, as noble Lords will perhaps not be surprised to know, I do not regard as straw-man arguments. It was also wise of my noble friends to note that these amendments have the support of UKHospitality. They also have the support of the British Beer and Pub Association.

These amendments are vital in ensuring that we do not inadvertently restrict fundamental rights of free expression in the workplace and beyond. We all recognise the importance of protecting employees from harassment. It is not about not caring about their plight, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, implied; it is about also ensuring that we are not creating a framework that stifles open and honest conversation. That is especially true in matters of political, moral, religious or social debate.

Clause 20 as it stands is, as my noble friend Lady Cash pointed out, poorly drafted and therefore risks leading to unintended consequences. In fact, I agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, about the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, who made a very persuasive case that Clause 20 is superfluous in its current form.

The inclusion of speech or conversation that simply expresses an opinion on a political, moral, religious or social issue would lead to significant restrictions on individuals’ freedom to speak openly. This could lead to employees feeling that they cannot express their thoughts and ideas or, perhaps worse, would be penalised for expressing an opinion that someone else may find uncomfortable or offensive. As my noble friend pointed out, we must be mindful of the unintended consequences that could arise from an overbroad definition of harassment. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, gave strong examples from the footballing world. If I may speak as a fellow West Ham United fan, I am very aware that being a supporter of that august club can be a very testing experience that can drive one to the occasional profanity.

It is not just in sports that these concerns arise. Think about public spaces such as pubs, about which we have been hearing. If an individual overhears a conversation that they find offensive or upsetting, where does the line lie? What happens if somebody misunderstands something that is said and it is taken to an employment tribunal as a case of harassment? In such situations, the burden placed on employers would become unreasonable. Would they be required to intervene every time someone overhears an opinion that they find discomforting or just dislike?

If I may ask a genuine question, how are people supposed to judge, to quote the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, whether a conversation is obviously fake or not? As my noble friend Lord Young and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, argued, are we expecting publicans to make finely calibrated judgments on ECHR Article 10 in particular? We should remember that even senior police officers, who are trained in these matters, often struggle to make such judgments. Employers will inevitably err on the side of caution and that is chilling.

I believe that we must ensure that harassment in this context remains focused on behaviours that are truly indecent or grossly offensive, not on speech that is merely uncomfortable or challenging. People must have the right to engage in conversations, to express differing opinions and to debate issues of public importance without the fear of being accused of harassment. To allow an employer to be forced or encouraged into silencing this kind of expression would be a serious violation of freedom of speech, which is a cornerstone of our democracy and society.

The amendments before us offer balance. They ensure that employers are not required to protect their employees from hearing or overhearing expressions of opinion, provided that those opinions are not indecent or grossly offensive. This is a reasonable and sensible approach. It respects individuals’ rights to express their views without creating an environment where every opinion has the potential to be deemed harassment.

Moreover, these amendments recognise the specific context in which such protections should apply. By excluding certain sectors, such as the hospitality industry, sports venues and higher education, we acknowledge the diverse nature of these environments where debate, disagreement and the expression of differing opinions are often the fabric of daily life. To apply the same strict rules in these settings as we would in an office environment or a more controlled space would be misguided. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, may well say that this is not the purpose of Clause 20. However, as my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Murray pointed out, the drafting means that that is unlikely to be the effect.

The requirement for repeated instances of harassment before an employer must take action, as outlined in Amendment 86, aligns with the principle of proportionality. We should not expect employers to become the arbiters of every comment or opinion expressed, especially when such comments are made in good faith. The amendment rightly recognises that harassment should be defined as something that occurs repeatedly, not something that might result from a single isolated incident of disagreement or discomfort. I agree with my noble friend Lord Young of Acton that this is a solution in search of a problem or, based on his statistics, a sledgehammer in search of a nut.

When the Minister responds, can she please answer my noble friend Lady Noakes’s point on territorial extent? These issues are clearly not going away, so I urge the Government to take them very seriously. As it stands, Clause 20 is garbled and needs rewriting.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I hope I can reassure the Committee of the Government’s approach, as well as set straight some considerable misunderstandings on how the provisions will operate. I stress at the outset that the provisions in the Bill will protect employees while preserving existing human rights, such as freedom of speech, which I hope we can all agree are core British values. Also core to our identity is the belief that with rights come responsibilities.

I will first address the noble Lords, Lord Young of Acton and Lord Strathcarron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who oppose Clause 20. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, for meeting me to share his views. When we met, he pushed his position that our proposals are anti-banter, and he has reiterated that today. I make it clear that we are anti-harassment, not anti-banter, and this is what Clause 20 delivers.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I feel that we have been subjected to a wave of synthetic rage by many on the other Benches this evening, who have given examples that simply would not be covered by the harassment provisions in Clause 20. Removing Clause 20 would not only go against the manifesto on which this Government were elected but deprive employees of protection from all types of harassment by third parties under the Equality Act 2010. This Government are committed to tackling all forms of harassment in the workplace. In order to make workplaces safe, we must require employers to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.

For example, if a woman is sexually harassed by a customer at work today, she has very few effective options by which to seek legal redress, even if her employer has made no effort whatever to address the issue. The only possible employment law action in this scenario at present is for the Equality and Human Rights Commission to exercise its unique enforcement powers against the employer. However, such powers can be used only very selectively and strategically by the commission, and would be unlikely to be used in anything other than an exceptional case.

Sexual harassment is, sadly, not the only type of harassment that is experienced in the workplace. Employees can experience racial harassment or harassment related to their disability or other protected characteristics. In the case of non-sexual harassment, not even the possibility of enforcement exists at present. As such, Clause 20 is required for employees to be able to seek legal redress where they have experienced third-party harassment, and to ensure that employers are clear about their responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I would like some clarity. There is some confusion over what the definition of harassment is in law. If you asked whether I was for the harassment of employees and workers, I would of course reply that I am not, but we have to look at the way the law defines harassment, particularly indirect harassment and some of the issues that were raised.

Despite the noble Lord, Lord Fox, imagining that we have all been whipped up into some synthetic rage by the noble Lord, Lord Young, because we are incapable of working out for ourselves what we think about a piece of legislation, there is concern about free speech. I am confused about what the Minister is saying free speech is. She keeps saying that we cannot allow unacceptable behaviour. Is that part of the legislation? What unacceptable behaviour is she referring to? Is it detailed in the law? Which things is she talking about? It is one thing to say that a football team has rules, but have the Government come up with a new behaviour code in this Bill that society must adopt? If they have, I have not seen the details.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

There is harassment, and what we are debating now is third-party harassment. Obviously, tribunals would have to take into account the practicality of enforcing third-party harassment, and I have been trying to set out the grounds on which it would be considered either reasonable or unreasonable. That would have to be considered case by case, but nevertheless the issue is very different from an employee’s absolute right not to be harassed directly in the workplace.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

I am a bit puzzled as to how the tribunal will measure this alleged harassment, given the different interpretations that could be put on it. There are some conflicts, as we have heard today.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thought I had explained that in my description, and I do not really want to have to repeat it. I explained the grounds that would be considered when comparing harassment with acceptable behaviour.

Amendment 85 also seeks to significantly reduce the scope of Clause 20 by excluding the hospitality sector, sports venues and higher education. This would create a disparity and a hierarchy of protections across employers and sectors, leaving swathes of employees without equal protection. This cannot be justified, given that employers in these sectors will be required only to do what is reasonable, and this will depend on their specific circumstances.

Amendment 86 seeks to reinstate the three-strike rule that was repealed in 2013. However, as I have explained, an isolated or one-off incident is much less likely to amount to harassment than continuing acts. The recent Free Speech Union campaign against this clause stated that

“when the Equality Act was originally passed, it included a clause making employers liable for the harassment of employees by third parties, but it was repealed in 2013 because it proved to be so costly and difficult for employers to comply with. We mustn’t make the same mistake again”.

We agree that we should not make that mistake again. We cannot see why the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would wish to impose on employers the unnecessary costs and burdens that this amendment would bring. By contrast, the Government’s approach will make it simpler for employers to understand their obligations and will ensure that victims can be confident that they are protected by law.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

In relation to the last passage of the Minister’s speech, it appears to be the Government’s position that it is not accepted that carve-outs for three strikes are necessary because that would impose a burden on business. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill, and to the Equality Act, specifically state that in determining the effect of the unwanted conduct, courts and tribunals must balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case—the point that the Minister has just made. Will she not accept that the effect of the provision, as presently drafted, will be for a sensible employer to take overly defensive approaches to prevent actions being brought against them under these provisions? It is that reaction which will cause a stifling of free speech, and this Committee should be very worried about that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot see why we should carve out some of the most customer-facing sectors, where the sorts of harassment we are talking about are probably more prevalent. I cannot see the point of that. Surely every employee in this country has the same right to be protected from harassment, and that is what we are attempting to achieve. Most of the pubs and sports grounds that I frequent already have these policies, so it is a minority of pubs—obviously the sorts of pubs that the noble Lord, Lord Young, likes to go to—that do not have them. I think most people would like to frequent places where they feel that the employees are treated with respect and are protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why Clause 21 gives power to the Secretary of State to make provisions in relation to reasonable steps only for sexual harassment and not non-sexual harassment? I think she said something about it being an area in which there is evidence that this would be useful—I cannot remember her exact words. I cannot understand why the Government have not extended the logic of giving assistance in this area to tribunals beyond sexual harassment, especially given the broadening of the extent of non-sexual harassment by including third parties.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I can say only that it is for the reasons I have outlined previously in my speech. We want to make sure that where we broaden the protections, it is done on a very careful basis and achieves the desired effect.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

We are not talking about broadening protections; we are talking about setting out what constitutes reasonable steps in the case of sexual harassment, which is included in Clause 21, and other kinds of harassment, which, incomprehensively, are not included. I am simply asking why the Government have gone down that particular route.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the easiest thing is for me to write to the noble Baroness to explain this. It is obviously based on previous experiences of case law and so on. I will write to the noble Baroness.

Her previous question was about the Bill’s jurisdiction over overseas employees. While I cannot necessarily speak to the example that she raised, the Bill does not broaden the jurisdiction of employment tribunals beyond their current jurisdiction over any overseas employees. The situation will remain as it stands.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Can the Minister explain what the current jurisdiction is? What is the current territorial extent for all tribunal cases?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I presume that it is where employees are based here in the UK, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Baroness and clarify that.

In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. The Government are on the side of workers, not abusers. We will ensure that workers have the fair protections at work that they deserve. I therefore ask that Amendment 83 is withdrawn and that Clause 20 stands part of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I asked the Minister to set out in detail how future regulations and these clauses will work in practice. I hope she is able to take that on board between Committee and Report.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will attempt to update your Lordships’ House on these issues at the time the noble Lord has suggested.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

Can I ask the Minister about one very troubling case, which I am sure is known to everybody? Professor Kathleen Stock of the University of Sussex faced three years of undoubted bullying and harassment because she held and still holds gender-critical views. She was bullied and harassed by students and other staff, which resulted in her resigning. The university was fined by the OfS for breaches of freedom of speech but still believes, according to the vice-chancellor, that being fined was wrong and that free speech was being hindered by—presumably—Professor Stock having to resign. How would Clause 20 affect this well-known situation—Professor Stock bullied for three years because of her gender-critical views? The university, like all universities, has signs everywhere saying, “We do not tolerate abuse” et cetera, but I do not know whether that does much good.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate to talk about an individual case, but can I make it absolutely clear here that we are committed to defending free speech and upholding academic freedom? The significant penalty showed that the Office for Students will take robust action where universities fail to do so. If you go to university, you must be prepared to have your views challenged, hear contrary opinions and be exposed to uncomfortable truths. We recently announced that we are giving the OfS stronger powers on freedom of speech. The sector needs to take academic freedom and freedom of speech seriously. We hope that the OfS report and regulatory action will incentivise providers to fully comply with their freedom of speech duties.

[Lord Young of Acton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords on all sides of the Committee who have contributed to an excellent debate. Just on the final point made by the Minister, the Government’s commitment to academic freedom and free speech and upholding them in universities was not particularly clear at the beginning of the Government’s term. Bridget Phillipson torpedoed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act within days of getting her feet under the desk and agreed only reluctantly to implement some of the clauses that were due to be implemented last year, on 1 August, thanks to a judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union.

I am not sure that the Minister responded to the very good question that my noble friend Lady Noakes asked about whether the liability of employers for third-party harassment would extend to their employees overseas.

I would like to respond in a bit of detail to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry of Muswell Hill. One of the safeguards she mentioned against the overapplication of Clause 20 is that only an employee with the relevant protected characteristic could sue if they had been offended or upset—if they felt harassed—by virtue of that protected characteristic. But that is not quite accurate. You do not have to have the protected characteristic in question to sue your employer for failing to protect someone with that protected characteristic from being harassed, as established in the case of English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd, in which someone successfully sued their employer in the employment tribunal for not protecting a notional employee with the relevant protected characteristic, when she herself did not have that protected characteristic.

The noble Baroness also said she thought it very unlikely that an employee could sue their employer for failing to take all reasonable steps to protect them from overhearing remarks, jokes, expostulations et cetera made by customers or members of the public. But in the case of Sule v Shoosmiths in the employment tribunal, a woman did successfully sue her employer, Shoosmiths, for a conversation she overheard about immigration. She was a Nigerian lady and she overheard a conversation —not directed at her—which she found upsetting or offensive by virtue of her protected characteristic. If that woman had been employed in Downing Street and had overheard a conversation between the Prime Minister and his aides last week about the speech the Prime Minister was about to give about immigration, it may well be that she could have sued the Civil Service for not taking all reasonable steps to protect her from being harassed in that way—overhearing a conversation about immigration that she found offensive or upsetting.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, sincerely believes that Clause 20 is not intended to be invoked to ban banter, why not accept Amendment 88, which would exempt employers from being sued for indirect third-party harassment? We have heard the argument over and over again on the other side of the Committee that the amendments that my noble friends and I and other noble Lords have suggested as ways of improving the Bill and clarifying exactly what steps employers would need to take to protect their employees from third-party harassment are completely unnecessary because the clause is not intended for things such as overheard conversations—banter—to be in scope. But it seems a little naive to imagine that the clause will be applied only in ways that the Government currently intend. What about unintended consequences? The noble Baroness said that she was not anti-banter, just anti-harassment. I am anti-unintended consequences. If you want to avoid those unintended consequences materialising, these vexatious complaints being brought in the employment tribunal or eccentric decisions being made by the tribunal, why not clarify exactly what the limits of employers’ liability are by accepting some of these amendments?

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, accused me of erecting a straw man and said that I was trying to generate synthetic rage about the risks I claim arise from this clause. Well, it is not synthetic—it is real. I know this because the Free Speech Union has taken on at least five cases in which people have been silenced because of a misunderstanding about the scope of the Equality Act due to a belief that the Equality Act, as it stands, requires employers to protect their employees from third-party harassment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned that one of the likely consequences of this clause is that gender-critical feminist groups might find it difficult to book spaces in pubs and other venues for fear that trans and non-binary employees of those venues might object that merely inviting women with those views into the pub would constitute a form of harassment. That has happened three times. We have cases of gender-critical feminist groups being ejected from pubs because the managers have misunderstood what their responsibilities and legal duties are under the Equality Act. They believe that those duties extend to protecting their trans and non-binary employees from being harassed by allowing third parties to discuss views they find offensive, deeply upsetting or disagreeable.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 32, on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 32D, and do not insist on its Amendments 32B and 32C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement, to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.

32D: Because it is not appropriate to require the Secretary of State, in preparing the DVS trust framework, to carry out an assessment of whether listed public authorities reliably ascertain sex data.

[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 will also speak to Motions B and D. This first group is concerned with amendments relating to sex and gender in digital verification services, the data dictionary and scientific research. In relation to digital verification services and the data dictionary, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for his continued engagement on the issue of sex data. Although we are not dealing with amendments in lieu today, I will take this opportunity to address some misunderstandings that I fear sit behind the concerns of noble Lords which were raised in previous debates.

This Bill does not create one digital identity app or system that lists attributes such as gender that those wanting to verify information about someone are required to accept. Instead, it creates a legislative structure of standards, governance and oversight for digital verification services. It is possible to create a reusable digital identity. However, when an organisation chooses to use a DVS, it will enter into a contract with that provider; that contract will specify which attributes the organisation needs to verify and how the DVS will do it. Reusable digital identities can therefore be reused only when an organisation accepts in writing that they meet its needs. If a reusable digital identity verified gender, it could not be used to verify biological sex in cases where that was needed instead.

Where a public authority is using a DVS, it remains the case that a contract will have to be entered into. This will again set out what types of information the DVS will be able to make checks against and for what purpose. This will ensure it is explicitly clear what information is being verified when a DVS relies on public authority data released through the information gateway. I hope this reassures noble Lords that gender data could not and would not be used to verify biological sex. Similarly, individuals would not be able to reuse a digital ID verifying gender to verify biological sex.

It is for these reasons that I have laid the Motions to agree with the elected House, which removed Lords Amendments 32B, 32C, 52B and 52C. I am grateful to the Opposition for accepting the assurances offered and not tabling a Motion to insist on the previous amendments.

In response to last week’s debate, I would like to respond to concerns raised by a few noble Lords around public data when sex and gender data appear in the same field. Existing legislation already requires those processing personal data to ensure that the data they process is accurate for the purpose for which it is being used. This means that personal data processed as part of a digital verification check must be appropriate for the specific requirements of that check.

The contracts I have mentioned are a way to ensure compliance with this principle. Any personal data passed through the information gateway to DVS providers is a new instance of data processing, and therefore the data accuracy principle is reapplied. That principle requires that the personal data must not be misleading, which is of particular relevance given that public authorities will be sharing data for verification purposes. As Minister Bryant set out in the other place, if the Government identify an instance where a public authority is sharing gender data in a way that is misleading as to the fact that it cannot be used to verify biological sex, they will of course respond appropriately. In light of these reassurances and noting the clearly expressed view of the other place on these issues, I hope noble Lords will agree with Motion A.

On scientific research and Amendment 43B, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for the time he has afforded the Government on this issue and for our productive meeting last week. I hope to reassure him and other noble Lords that there are, as we have argued throughout, sufficient protections against the potential misuse of the term “scientific research”. It is not the effect of the provisions to provide blanket approval of the reuse of personal data for AI training under the banner of scientific research.

The policy intention behind the clauses is not to enable the reuse of personal data for AI training unless it is for genuine scientific research, which is set out in the criteria in the ICO guidance. As part of its Bill implementation work, the ICO will prepare revised guidance around processing for research purposes. I expect this will cover information on compliance for data protection principles, including the fairness and purpose limitation principles. This will include the reasonable expectations of data subjects for AI model training when it constitutes genuine scientific research.

As with the previous topic, I have tabled Motion B to agree with the Commons on this issue. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for not tabling an amendment in lieu. On this basis, I hope noble Lords will also agree with Motion B and secure the continued success of the UK’s scientific research sector. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her introduction to the three Motions in this group.

On these Benches, we welcome the Supreme Court’s judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. However, as Ministers have stressed—and we agree—it is paramount that we work through the implications of this judgment carefully and sensitively. As we have previously discussed, the EHRC is currently updating its statutory guidance.

Ministers have previously given assurances that they are engaged in appropriate and balanced work on data standards and data accuracy, and we accept those assurances. They have given a further assurance today about how the digital verification services framework will operate. We rely on those ministerial assurances. In summary, we believe that the previously proposed amendments were premature in the light of the EHRC guidance and that they risk undermining existing data standards work. On that basis, we support the Minister in her Motions A and D.

Turning to Motion B, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will not press his Amendment 43B at this stage, as he intends to accept the assurances given by Ministers. We have consistently supported the noble Viscount’s efforts to ensure that scientific research benefiting from the Bill’s provisions for data reuse is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks. The Government have given significant assurances in this area. We understand that their position is that the Bill does not alter the existing legal definition or threshold for what constitutes scientific research under UK GDPR. The Bill does not grant any new or expanded permissions for the reuse of data for scientific research purposes, and, specifically, it does not provide blanket approval for using personal data for training AI models under the guise of scientific research. The use of personal data for scientific research remains subject to the comprehensive safeguards of UK GDPR, including the requirement for a lawful basis, the adherence to data protection principles and the application of the reasonableness test, which requires an objective assessment.

The collection of assurances given during several stages of the Bill provides reassurance against the risk that commercial activities, such as training AI models purely for private gain, could improperly benefit from exemptions intended for genuine scientific research serving the public good. I very much hope that the Minister can reaffirm these specific points and repeat those assurances.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I reassure your Lordships’ House that the Government are progressing workstreams focused on the accuracy and reliability of sex data in public authority datasets in a holistic and measured manner, as I have described in previous debates. We welcome the Supreme Court ruling, and are now working hard to consider those findings and the upcoming guidance from the equalities regulator, which will help.

I reiterate that the trust framework requires DVS providers to comply with data protection legislation, including the data accuracy principle, where they use and share personal data. That includes the creation of reusable digital identities, as well as one-off checks. If they fail to comply with these requirements, they could lose their certification. This means that the sex information listed on a passport—which, as we all know, could be a combination of biological sex, legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and gender identity—cannot be used to verify biological sex.

The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, asked whether a person can have different genders appearing on different documents. Yes, you could have both genders appearing on different documents, but they could not be used to prove biological sex.

I should say to noble Lords that there is a requirement for all this information to be recreated, reused and rechecked each time. In response to noble Lords who asked about historic data, the data will be renewed and checked under the new information that is now available.

In the majority of cases where DVS are used, there will not be a need to verify biological sex, as we have noted before, because many DVS requirements do not ask that question. Data sharing under the power created in Clause 45 will involve new processing of data, which must be in compliance with the data accuracy principle: that is, it must be accurate for the purpose for which the information will be used. Of particular relevance, given that public authorities will be sharing data for verification purposes, is the fact that data accuracy principles require that the personal data must not be misleading.

With regard to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about supplementary codes of practice, I can confirm that the trust framework already includes requirements on data accuracy for DVS providers. That framework will, of course, be updated from time to time.

On scientific research, let me repeat my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for his contribution on this issue. I am glad that he was reassured by my remarks that we have been able to come to an agreeable resolution. I very much concur with the comments of the noble Lord Clement-Jones, that there has to be an ethical basis to those standards, and that point is absolutely well made.

On that basis, I hope I have reassured noble Lords. I commend the Motion to the House.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder, with regard to sexuality, whether the Minister has considered those children who are, unfortunately, born with perhaps an ovary and a testis, or with genitalia which are difficult to identify. How do those become categorised under this regulation?

The second thing is that the definition of science proposed in the Bill is not science; it is technology, and there is a big difference, as I explained in the last speech. Science involves knowledge, and we do not know that knowledge until we have the knowledge. We cannot act on that knowledge until we know what the knowledge is. That is hugely important and, as the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, who is not now in his place, said, this has the risk of holding up research which is really necessary.

Before I close, I mention just one example of this to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. He made a rather derogatory point about my comment on infection. I did not point out to him that, when I was seven, my father came home with a mild bronchial infection, which went on to be pneumonia. After six months with various inadequate antibiotics—because they did not understand the dosage—penicillin did not work and he died of a brain abscess when I was just eight. That is an example of where research is needed continuously, even when we do not know what we are doing. It is very important to understand that. This Bill and its wording do not fully define science satisfactorily, certainly to scientists.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, the first thing I would say about categorisation, as I hope I have stressed all along, is that data verification services will be required to provide accurate information. Normally, biological sex is not one of the things that most people need for their identity most of the time, but there are provisions under DVS for categorising to take account of those variations. I talked about biological sex, legal sex under the Gender Recognition Act and gender identity, for example. I hope that my noble friend has taken on board that point.

We have a fantastic scientific research community in this country, and it is our intention that it will thrive and grow. We absolutely intend to provide the proper underpinning of that, so that the scientific community does not feel that it is being undermined. I can reassure my noble friend that the provision in this Bill does not undermine the scientific research community, and it can remain confident that it will be protected going forward.

Motion A agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 43B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 43C.

43C: Because it would not be appropriate to restrict the meaning of “scientific research” in the UK GDPR in the ways proposed by the Lords Amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49C.

49C: Because the Amendment would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Motion C1.

I am conscious of the words of my noble friend the Chief Whip at the start of our proceedings, so I will try not to add unnecessarily to our ongoing discussion on the issue of AI and copyright. As both Minister Bryant and the Secretary of State have said, we share the ambition of your Lordships’ House to foster vibrant, sustainable and secure creative industries in the UK. We all want to get our response to this complicated issue right.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has twice introduced measures into this Bill that would commit the Government to prematurely implementing transparency obligations on AI developers, without consideration of the broader supporting measures that are required, nor how measures would work in practice. Twice the elected House has removed these measures, with the Government and elected Members sending a clear message that although we will take action in this area, this Bill is not the right vehicle to tackle this important problem.

Today we are debating a third iteration of the noble Baroness’s amendment. Although I am glad that the noble Baroness now agrees that the Government’s reports are the right mechanism to come to a clear view on transparency, this amendment does not consider the relevant issues together as a complete package.

I will not repeat Minister Bryant’s extensive remarks in full, but it remains the Government’s view that transparency cannot be considered in isolation. Regardless of whether an amendment says “must” or “may” in relation to enforcement, it remains the case that careful thought must be given to how transparency obligations would be enforced and by whom.

Alongside transparency, we must also consider licensing, the remuneration of rights holders, the role of technical solutions, and any other number of issues relating to copyright and AI. This is why we consulted on all these topics.

We must also keep in mind that any solution adopted by the UK must reflect the global nature of copyright, the creative sector and AI development. We cannot ring-fence the UK away from the rest of the world. This is why the reports and impact assessment that the Government have committed to publishing in their own amendments to this Bill will give proper consideration to the full range of issues in light of all available evidence.

I share the view expressed by noble Lords and Minister Bryant that this is an urgent issue which needs to be addressed. But jumping straight from reporting on four things to regulating one thing is clearly not the right approach. Piecemeal regulation such as this is not the way to prioritise the protection of 2.4 million creatives. The fact remains that we must develop this policy properly, using the evidence we are gathering from each of the 11,500 consultation responses.

We must devise a way forward that addresses these issues coherently and which works for all sectors involved. I look forward to making progress on that soon. We will bring our reports forward as quickly as we are able to, but this is too important a topic to rush. A real example of acting quickly is, as Minister Bryant announced in the other place, convening technical working groups as soon as the Bill is passed. We will get the best minds from the creative industries and the AI sector together to help us to pin down solutions that will work.

Our working groups will look in detail at how measures on transparency can be delivered and technical standards promoted and disseminated to support approaches such as watermarking, which is a focus of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose. We are ready and enthusiastic to get on with those discussions and to get workable solutions in place. Our creative industries will be best served by this approach, rather than a process that deals with only one, albeit very important, strand of a complex issue.

I understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for these issues to be properly addressed. I accept the wish expressed by this House to send a signal to the creative industries that they are cherished and supported. We share that sentiment, and we will, through the process outlined, legislate properly on the basis of evidence and workability. There will be many opportunities for the House to be updated throughout that process.

Noting the clearly expressed view of the other place and our commitment to bring forward our proposals as quickly as we can, I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, not to push Motion C1 at the end of this debate. I beg to move Motion C.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, it is probably redundant to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for her tenacity and determination to get to a workable solution on this, because it speaks for itself. It has been equally compelling to hear such strong arguments from all sides of the House and all Benches—including the Government Benches—that we need to find a solution to this complex but critical issue.

Noble Lords will recall that, on these Benches, we have consistently argued for a pragmatic, technology-based solution to this complex problem, having made the case for digital watermarking both in Committee and on Report. When we considered the Commons amendments last week, we worked closely with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to find a wording for her amendment which we could support, and were pleased to be able to do so and to vote with her.

It is important that the Government listen and take action to protect the rights of creatives in the UK. We will not stop making the case for our flourishing and important creative sector. We have put that case to Ministers, both in your Lordships’ House and at meetings throughout the passage of the Bill. As a responsible Opposition, though, it is our view that we must be careful about our approach to amendments made by the elected House. We have, I hope, made a clear case to the Government here in your Lordships’ House and the Government have, I deeply regret to say, intransigently refused to act. I am afraid that they will regret their failure to take this opportunity to protect our creative industries. Sadly, there comes a point where we have to accept that His Majesty’s Government must be carried on and the Government will get their Bill.

Before concluding, I make two final pleas to the Minister. First, as others have asked, can she listen with great care to the many artists, musicians, news organisations, publishers and performers who have called on the Government to help them more to protect their intellectual property?

Secondly, can she find ways to create regulatory clarity faster? The process that the Government envisage to resolve this issue is long—too long. Actors on all sides of the debate will be challenged by such a long period of uncertainty. I understand that the Minister is working at pace to find a solution, but not necessarily with agility. I echo the brilliant point made by my noble friend Lady Harding that agility and delivering parts of the solution are so important to pick up the pace of this, because perfect is the enemy of good in this instance. When she gets up to speak, I hope that the Minister will tell us more about the timeline that she envisages, particularly for the collaboration of DSIT and DCMS.

This is a serious problem. It continues to grow and is not going away. Ministers must grip it with urgency and agility.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, once again, I acknowledge the passion and depth of feeling from those noble Lords who have spoken and, again, I emphasise that we are all on the same side here. We all want to see a way forward that protects our creative industries, while supporting everyone in the UK to develop and benefit from AI.

Of course, we have listened, and are continuing to listen, to the views that have been expressed. We are still going through the 11,500 responses to our consultation, and I have to tell noble Lords that people have proposed some incredibly creative solutions to this debate which also have a right to be heard.

This is not about Silicon Valley; it is about finding a solution for the UK creative and AI tech sectors that protects both. I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, now endorses the Government’s reports as the right way to identify the right solutions; however, I will address some of her other points directly.

First, she talked about her amendment providing certainty to the creative industries. I can provide that certainty now, as Minister Bryant did in the other place last week. Copyright law in the UK is unchanged by this Bill. Works are protected unless one of the exemptions, which have existed for some time, such as those for teaching and research, applies, or the rights holders have guaranteed permission for their work to be used. That is the law now and it will be the law tomorrow.

I also want to reassure my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who talked about us stripping away rights today. I want to be clear that the Government have proposed no legislation on this issue; the Bill does no such thing. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would provide no certainty other than that of more uncertainty—of continuous regulations, stacked one upon another in a pile of instruments. This cannot be what anyone desires, and it is why the Government do not agree to it.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, suggested that her amendment, requiring regulations on only one issue ahead of all others and via a different process, would somehow leave Parliament free to consider all the other issues independently. I am afraid that this is not the case; this is a policy decision with many moving parts. Jumping the gun on one issue will hamstring us in reaching the best outcome on all the others, especially because, as I said earlier, this is a global issue, and we cannot ring-fence the UK from the rest of the world.

We refute the suggestion that we are being complacent on this. I say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that I of course agree that the UK should be a global leader, but we need to make sure that we have the right approach before we plant our flag on that. There is a reason that no other territory has cracked this either. The EU, for example, is still struggling to find a workable solution. It is not easy, but we are working quickly.

The noble Baroness once again raised enforcement, and she has left the mechanism to the discretion of the Government in her new amendment. While we are pleased that the noble Baroness has changed her approach on enforcement in light of the Commons reasons, we all agree that for new transparency requirements to work, enforcement mechanisms will be needed and must be effective.

The noble Baroness said she has tried everything to persuade the Government, and I would have welcomed a further meeting with her to discuss this and other aspects of her revised proposals. Unfortunately, however, that invitation was not accepted. To reiterate, in spite of all our different positions on this Bill, we are all working towards the same goal.

Following proper consideration of consultation responses and publication of our technical reports, we will bring forward comprehensive and workable proposals that will give certainty to all sides. If the House has strong views when the proposals come forward, there will of course be the opportunity for us to debate them. We have made it clear that our reports will be delivered within 12 months and earlier if we can. I remind noble Lords that the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will not take effect for 18 months. There is not an instant solution, as many noble Lords want to hear today. Neither the noble Baroness’s nor our amendment is an instant solution; it will take time, and we have to recognise that.

We do not believe, in the meantime, that protracted ping-pong on this one remaining issue in the Bill is in anyone’s interest. The elected House has spoken twice and through legislative and non-legislative commitments, the Government have shown they are committed to regulating quickly and effectively. Therefore, I hope the noble Baroness and your Lordships’ House will accept these assurances and continue working with the Government to make progress on this important issue.

A lot has been said in this debate about the importance of transparency. To my noble friend Lord Brennan, I say that the Government have said from the very beginning that we will prioritise the issue of transparency in all the work we do. Transparency is essential to licensing; licensing is essential to the question of remuneration; and remuneration is essential to AI being high quality, effective and able to be deployed in the UK. These are the challenges we are facing, but all these things have to be addressed in the round and together, not in a piecemeal fashion. However, noble Lords are absolutely right to say that, without transparency, it is, of course, worth nothing.

On enforcement, the Government are sympathetic to the argument that it is a different matter for individuals to enforce their rights via the courts as opposed to large creative agencies. This is the kind of the thing that the working groups I have mentioned will explore. As Minister Bryant said last week, we want to make the new regime effective for everybody, large and small.

I will finish with some things I am sure we can all agree on: the urgency of the problem; the need to be evidence-based; that solutions will require collaboration between the creative and the AI sectors; and the solutions must work for everyone. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, that everybody will have a seat at the table in the discussions. I hope noble Lords will agree with me and truly support the innovators and creators in the UK by voting with the Government on this Motion, which will deliver a full, comprehensive package that will make a difference to the creative sector for years to come in this country.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has spoken on this issue in the House and outside of the House. I particularly thank the Members on the Government Benches; I know it comes hard to disagree with your party, and I really appreciate it, as do all those outside the House.

I am going to try to take the high road from the Minister’s passionate defence. If the Government had spent as much time talking to me as they did to their own Back Bench to say, “Please do not rebel”, we would be in a different place. I did say that I was not able to be there at a particular time, but there were quite a lot of other occasions on which other Ministers, including the Secretary of State, knew where I was.

To go to the crux of the matter, the noble Baroness the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that this is UK law and the Government have done nothing to change it. This is precisely the problem: it is UK law, but it is unenforceable because what you cannot see you cannot enforce—period. That is the problem we are trying to solve, and it is a separate and different problem from the enormity of all the other issues she rightly raises. While I accepted the report as the mechanism and the idea that the Government could have their enforcement procedure in their own timeline, nothing that any Minister has said in either the other place or your Lordships’ House has put a timeline on it. It will take years and, by that time, there will be no creative industry left, or it will be in tatters.

I was interested in the contribution that said that AI companies have transparency and renumeration; that is the fundamental principle. I will not detain the House any longer. I am so grateful for everybody’s contributions to all our debates. This was a Lords starter; this does not challenge the primacy of the Commons. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendment 52, on which the Commons have insisted for their Reason 52D, and do not insist on its Amendments 52B and 52C proposed to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords disagreement, to which the Commons have disagreed for the same Reason.

52D: Because the Disagreement by the Lords to Commons Amendment 52 and the Lords Amendments would involve charges on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Trade Negotiations

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as a vice-chair of the All-Party Motor Group, I must say that this agreement was good news for the UK car industry or, perhaps more importantly, it was less bad news—coming in where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, left off. In truth, manufacturers will still see a rise from pre-Trump tariffs of 2.5% to post-Trump ones of 10%, but that is much more manageable than the 27.5% that was being faced and jobs will be saved, which is good news. As a key shareholder in the industry, I am sure the Government will welcome the moves on steel as well.

But on those and on the wider perspective, there is much detail still to resolve and I think it would be helpful if the Minister could set out a timetable for when businesses will start to know the detail of what this agreement will actually deliver. To date, the Government have not published the documents we need, such as impact assessments on key British industry. That leaves us in the dark at the moment as to what Ministers have really given up in exchange for these lower tariffs.

I was a little intrigued by the ethanol concession. Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds said in the Commons:

“On ethanol, we … are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/25; col. 35.]


This seems a little late. Some weeks ago, when I met staffers of senior senators and asked them what their number one red line was, the most popular response was “Ethanol”. If I knew six weeks ago, I assume the Government knew a long time before that, which means there was plenty of time to work through the implications on domestic suppliers. Yet it seems only now is that process under way. How can negotiators know the value of what they are conceding without having done the work that seems now to be under way?

The deal also allows more American beef into the UK market. The Secretary of State was at pains to say that imports would not compromise our standards, so can the Minister confirm that this is being achieved by uprating the tariff rate quota for so-called “high-quality” beef? To put this into context, can the Minister share the Government’s analysis of how much high-quality beef the US produces per annum and what is the annual expected level of imports of that beef into the United Kingdom? Finally on this, can she set out in detail what border inspection regime will be planned to make sure that this indeed meets the standard of high-quality beef?

Given the urgent need for phytosanitary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what conversations the Government have had with their EU counterparts about this decision to allow US beef into the United Kingdom?

Overall, how certain is any of this? For example, Trump 1 signed a full trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the USMCA, in 2018 and then Trump 2 threw this self-same deal out in his first week of this presidency. This UK-US agreement may have been endorsed by President Trump this month, but what confidence do the Government have that new demands will not be made next month, or the month after that—or at Christmas? Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the best long-term defence is to build our trading relationships with long-standing partners which do not change their views all the time, including the European Union and dependable allies such as Canada? Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House the Government’s analysis of how this US deal impacts the furthering of relationships with those reliable potential partners?

A further unanswered question, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, surrounds our position with China. The deal with the US includes strict security requirements, particularly around the British steel and pharmaceutical industries. These requirements have already caused China to complain that this could be used to squeeze Chinese products out of British supply chains. How will the Government manage their relationship with China when President Xi knows that Trump is leaning on us in every way with our relationships? What is the Government’s message to China as a result of this deal?

The level of uncertainty over the details in this agreement begs many questions, but again, it seems the Government will duck proper scrutiny. If this was a full-blown trade agreement, we would expect it to be put before your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member. But so far, we have been starved of the involvement of the Grimstone agreement and we have not really been taken in on this. Can the Minister confirm whether the International Agreements Committee will scrutinise this agreement?

Even if we did make a report, the key to a debate in the Commons is still held by the Government. The shortcomings of our scrutiny process of trade deals are laid bare. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that this agreement will have a full Commons debate? If the Government do not follow this course, that will indicate that this agreement is not a treaty that needs to be fully ratified and lodged with the WTO. If it is not a fully ratified treaty, under the WTO most favoured nation rules the UK will have to offer similar tariff-free entry to all other countries, not just the United States. Unless Keir Starmer wants to join Donald Trump in breaking a fundamental international agreement that supports world trade, this should be treated as a trade deal and lodged with the WTO. That requires a full CRaG process in your Lordships’ House.

[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 noble Lords for their remarks and the questions they have asked today. Of course, we recognise the strong level of interest in this House in this historic trade deal that we have secured with the United States. To ensure that those interested can see for themselves precisely what has been agreed, the general terms of the deal have now been published on GOV.UK and a copy has been placed in the Library.

As the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are living in a new world now, one

“less governed by established rules and more by deals and alliances”.

Our vision is to leverage our relationships with other powerhouse economies to make the UK a global hub for trade and investment. This is why last Thursday we reached an agreement on the basis of an economic prosperity deal with the United States. But I say in answer to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that this is a deal; it is not a full-blown treaty. We need to be absolutely clear about that.

Our trading relationship with the US, worth £315 billion per year, is now set to grow. We already have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and between us we employ about 2.5 million people across both countries. That is why the deal is so important. Saving thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs that are vital for our economy is essential, protecting jobs in the automotive, steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals and aerospace sectors, which employ over 320,000 people across the UK. In addition, an estimated 260,000 jobs are supported across the economy by the auto industry alone.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, said that the deal on the automotive sector brought welcome relief. I agree with that. For the car industry, we have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles which reduced tariffs from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an arrangement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role the sector plays in our economy. We have already seen Jaguar Land Rover come out in support of the deal. It is very positive news for iconic British manufacturers such as McLaren and Morgan.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the future of the steel sector. For steel and aluminium, the deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs to an average of 0.6% for steel, including derivatives, and 2.7% for aluminium, including derivatives. This is a major victory for steelmaking in the UK. It reassures us that steelmaking is alive and well in this country, thanks to the action that this Government are taking, providing a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about agriculture. For UK beef farmers we have delivered unprecedented market access. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef, through an exclusive UK quota, to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market. The NFU has long campaigned for this, and this Government have delivered. I want to be crystal clear: agriculture imports to the UK will still have to meet our high-quality food and animal welfare standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox—or maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—asked whether we were engaging with the farming community. I confirm that colleagues in Defra regularly engage with the farming organisations, and indeed with the NFU, on this issue of market access.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about statistics to do with beef. I have to say that I do not have those to hand, but obviously I am happy to write with the detail of those proposals.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the digital services tax. I reassure him that there are no changes to that tax in the agreement.

The noble Lord also asked about the impact on the pharmaceutical sector. For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, the deal provides assurances that we will receive significant preferential access in the case of any new US tariffs in future, something that only the UK has so far secured. The pharmaceutical manufacturing sector alone contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, so that is a welcome move.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about Northern Ireland. I confirm that we have closely considered the impact of this agreement on Northern Ireland. First, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exports can access the US markets under this deal on the same basis as those from the rest of the UK. Secondly, the deal does not affect how imports in Northern Ireland operate, and Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under the deal can avoid unnecessary duties within the established Windsor Framework schemes, such as the UK internal market scheme. As we have said all along, we continue to act in the best interests of all UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lords asked whether Parliament will have a say. I make it clear that the general terms document is not a treaty and will not be subject to a vote in Parliament. We will implement the terms of the existing deal in accordance with the appropriate domestic processes. To be clear, we are not seeking any change in the process of ratification of any duty. Members of this House will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed and presented to the House.

If I have missed out any of their points, I will of course write to noble Lords. To summarise, the deal shows what can be achieved through pragmatism, diplomacy and acting in the national interest. It shows the UK to be a key and influential player on the world stage, and one that can get deals done. We are sending a message to the world that Britain remains open for business, we will protect jobs and investment, we will boost and defend our industries, and we will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for the Conservative Opposition, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for the Liberal Democrats, were as one in commending the remarkable change this deal represents from the initial proposals of President Trump. I adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says about the role of Parliament. Both of us happily serve on the International Agreements Committee, and we know that our Parliament must be very jealous of the way in which such a treaty would be dealt with in the US Congress. What is clear, although unstated by both those earlier speakers, is that any objective observer will surely praise the role that the Prime Minister has played in his relationship with President Trump. He has played it extremely skilfully to change positively the initial deal that was proposed. This is obviously a very limited deal and the best we can get in the circumstances. Is this the end of the story or are there other parts of our trading relationship that are still on the table and from which we expect to see some positive developments? If there are such other elements from which we can optimistically hope for further developments, what are they?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the Prime Minister has played a brilliant role in all this and got one of the best deals that has been negotiated anywhere around the world, so we absolutely give him all the credit due for that. My noble friend asked whether this is the beginning or the end. This deal marks only the beginning. We are continuing to talk on the wider UK-US economic deal that will look at increasing digital trade, access for our world-leading service industries and improving supply chains. The US has committed to further negotiations, including on the 10% tariffs introduced on 2 April across our economy. The Government will continue to act in Britain’s national interest for workers, businesses and families.

[Lord Mountevans (CB)]

My Lords, following the Minister’s comments about the next phase, financial and professional business services are Britain’s leading industry here in London but with two-thirds of the jobs overseas. On the goods agreement so far, some £59 billion-worth were exported to the USA in 2024, while £119 billion of services were exported to the USA in 2023. This is potentially a moment of great opportunity for the United Kingdom in financial and professional business services. We have a unique position between the USA and Europe, and we can have a great platform here as an independent, neutral and very powerful player in this space. With our shared roots in common law with the United States, this is also a strong opportunity for us, so can Minister assure us that financial and professional business services will be a central part of the agenda as we move forward to the next stage?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a vital point. It is very much an area where we can have shared benefit. The trade strategy is aimed at achieving long-term, sustainable, inclusive and resilient growth throughout trade, supported by a rigorous economic and geopolitical analysis that will set out how we can take some of these issues forward. The noble Lord is right about the contributions that we can make to the US and the contributions that it can make to us. I think that the leaders of both countries understand that we have joint benefits in common, and I am absolutely convinced that we can take these issues forward and make further trade deals on that basis.

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, I have two questions for the Minister. First, as my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked, will the new agreement operate with most favoured nation rules, which, as she knows, means that the lowest tariff offered to one country must be offered to all? The reason why I ask whether the agreement is consistent with the MFN rules is because Mr Navarro, the architect of President Trump’s trade policy, as recently as 8 April wrote a very strong article in the Financial Times criticising the MFN rules. The alternative to those rules is, of course, reciprocal tariffs, which Mr Trump has been proselytising, but that would lead to a much more complicated system of international trade, with a huge amount of business bureaucracy, and to commercial chaos throughout the world. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer that question.

The second question that I would like to ask relates to the 10% basic tariff. The Minister indicated that the Government might want or be able to negotiate further on that. The 10% tariff obviously places businesses in Britain at a disadvantage compared with where they were before, but it is strange that the 10% applies to Britain because the object of American policy is to remove imbalances in the trade system, and Britain had no imbalance in goods, as President Trump acknowledged. The implication seems to be that the 10% is going to apply to all countries throughout the world which, as the Governor of the Bank of England said, is bad news not just for Britain but for the whole world.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I can confirm that we will maintain our status with all the international obligations that we currently have, including with the most favoured status and the WTO. Both of them are very important for our status going forward.

The noble Lord raises the question of the 10% tariff. As we know, the deal removes the 25% tariff on steel, aluminium and autos, but the US has committed to further negotiations, including on the 10% tariffs introduced on 2 April across our economy. We are continuing to negotiate in the interests of key sectors for the UK and, obviously, we will seek the best possible outcomes for those vital parts of the economy and those that are vital to our critical infrastructure. A whole range of negotiations will continue, including on that 10% tariff impact.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the repeating the Statement. The Statement says:

“We will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments throughout the negotiations that will follow today’s announcement”. —[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/25; col. 898.]


Could my noble friend outline the detail of those discussions with, for example, the First Ministers in Northern Ireland? I recently had a letter from the Minister for Agriculture in Northern Ireland in which he stated that the detailed elements of guidance had not been provided to them. Will that guidance be provided to the Northern Ireland Executive, who can then provide it to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, which will be directly impacted by all this? Will the Windsor Framework be protected?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I think that all noble Lords will appreciate that discussions with the US have taken place at pace. Throughout this, Ministers and officials have had significant levels of engagement with the devolved Governments on both the US tariffs and progress on talks with the US.

My noble friend asked specifically about Northern Ireland. As it is part of the United Kingdom’s customs territory and internal market, exporters can access the US market under this deal on the same basis as the rest of the UK. Northern Ireland businesses importing US goods under this deal can use the schemes established under the Windsor Framework to avoid any necessary duties. As we have said all along, we will continue to act in the best interests of UK businesses, which of course include those in Northern Ireland.

The noble Baroness asked particularly whether further guidance will be spelled out. These discussions have been taken forward at pace, but of course we will work out that guidance and present it as soon as possible.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, the deal that has been struck is clearly limited in scope. However, it is clear that the Government see this as part one of a wider package that will develop and will be particularly significant in terms of pharmaceuticals, in which I think we will show a good deal of interest. It is also the case that, while it is limited in scope, those aspects and sectors of the economy which have been dealt with in the deal have been dealt with quite significantly.

To follow up on the questions about Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland has been left in a different customs regime from the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly as regards imports. Although the Minister makes reference to the reimbursement scheme, that has been very cumbersome and lengthy and is a very difficult hurdle for many businesses to overcome. What specific steps will the Government be taking, first, to improve that scheme, to make sure that it delivers; and, secondly, what actions will the Government be initiating with the United States to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are able to gain full benefit from this deal?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Well, my Lords, as I just said, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and we will all have those benefits together, including Northern Ireland. The noble Lord asked about the customs duty waiver scheme. There is, as he knows, a comprehensive tariff reimbursement scheme. Of course, we continue to keep such schemes under review. Nevertheless, we are still operating under the Windsor Framework and, as such, the internal market scheme will apply.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this agreement —another Brexit dividend. Knowing the Government’s dedication to international law, I am sure they regret that this deal rewards the flagrant violation of WTO rules by Trump’s imposition of discriminatory tariffs. I accept that they had little option but to ignore that violation, but why are they now proposing to reward the EU for its flagrant flouting of rules on SPS checks? The WTO rules are quite clear:

“Sanitary and phytosanitary measures shall not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade”,


which is what is happening at present. They go on to say:

“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.


Our rules do not differ; they are identical. There is no legal case for checks at the border on our exports of food and goods to Europe. Why are the Government proposing to make concessions which are in any case unnecessary? They claim it would reduce the cost of food imports from Europe, but we can unilaterally not impose checks on those food imports, as we have done for three of the last four years.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As the noble Lord says, the WTO rules are still a very important part of our international trade system, and we remain a committed member of the WTO and a keen supporter of the multilateral trading system. The WTO has made global trade more predictable and, indeed, it plays a vital role in providing stability and predictability for businesses and consumers around the world. The noble Lord asked about the EU. We are in early discussions with the EU. That is a separate set of discussions. Nothing has been agreed, but we are moving along with those discussions and we look forward to the UK-EU summit on 19 May.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

Did my noble friend hear, as I did, the leader of the Opposition today calling this a “tiny tariff deal”? Given that she had had agreements only with Colorado, Oklahoma and states such as that, it would perhaps have been more generous of her to welcome it. Our right honourable friend in the other House said that this was a treaty, and my noble friend seems to be saying that it is not. That is really important, because if it is a treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, says, that will come under the CRaG process. Can she clarify whether this will be a treaty and therefore have to come before both Houses?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, my understanding is that this is a trade deal but not a treaty in the normal sense. We are not seeking to change the process of the ratification of any treaty once we receive it. MPs will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed, but we are not at that stage yet. When it is agreed, it will be presented to the House and the implementation will still have to come to Parliament. At the moment, this is not a legally binding document, but there will be a vote on the legal framework and the secondary legislation, and it will be processed through parliamentary scrutiny in the normal way.

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sharpe pointed to the absence of any reference to the defence industry. That may be another sector that is to be dealt with in future negotiations but I would certainly like to know what proposals there might be in relation to arms sales on a reciprocal basis.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, defence does not form part of the deal we have in front of us today but, as I said, there are a number of other areas where negotiations are continuing and we hope to have a much more comprehensive deal with the US as quickly as we can. I am sure that defence will be a consideration in those discussions.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that this deal has been warmly welcomed in steel and in the automotive industry, not just JLR. Not everybody realises we export a significant number of Minis to the United States, so it is good news there too.

I have two very quick questions. The first is about labour rights and how they will be protected and advanced as this deal progresses—that would be useful to know. My noble friend the Minister may be aware that under the previous Government and the previous Administration in the United States there was a quad—involving the TUC, our sister trade union centre, the AFL-CIO, the Secretary for Trade, and the US ambassador for trade—which was involved in consulting and developing those labour rights discussions.

Secondly, is it envisaged that there will be an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism? As my noble friend the Minister is very aware, concerns have been expressed that the mechanism models we have to date privilege the interests of big corporations over those of citizens and workers. Her answer will be very important, particularly when we get to the stage of talking about big tech and technology.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point about the wider consultation that needs to take place and, of course, we take the issue of labour rights and labour representation very seriously. As I said, this deal has been put together very quickly. There is a lot more work and consultation to be done on this. We want to make sure that when we get the detail of the treaty it is absolutely fit for purpose and that everybody in the UK will benefit from it. Wherever possible, we intend to make it in the interests of business but also of the workers and citizens of this country. That will be the essence of a good trade deal.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the much-discussed issue of security requirements—the American requirements that there be security of the supply chain for steel and aluminium. In the document, that requirement applies not just to steel and aluminium but to the pharmaceutical sector. Indeed, it envisages that it will also apply to all other sectors where there will be agreements. This seems to now be a general requirement of the American trade relationship with us. My simple question is: are these security requirements set out in a document anywhere or will they be subject to ongoing discussion with the Government in the future?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I will need to check what is already set out in writing. There is a good deal more work to do on the background information that will need to be set out. I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Can the Minister share that response with Front Benches as well, please?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes.

[Lord Cryer (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the earlier question from the noble Baroness opposite, what my noble friend seemed to be saying was that defence does not form a part of these negotiations, but it will form a part of the next stage in the process. Am I right in thinking that?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My understanding is that all issues and opportunities are being explored at the current time, so we are not able to rule anything out. I certainly cannot say that defence will not be part of those discussions. We are looking at every opportunity when it is in the UK’s interests, and I am sure we will pursue everything on that basis.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there have been some excellent debates in this group. I ask for some clarification, particularly from the Government, on something I am confused about. I am sympathetic to Amendment 74A. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made a very useful and insightful contribution that brought another layer to the discussion. There is a danger of us talking about these things technically, yet in a rather old-fashioned way, when there is a lot more evidence and new phenomena to consider.

Amendment 74A looks at the impact on—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we are not debating Amendment 74A. It is grouped elsewhere.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have the right group; I have just said the wrong thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a very interesting debate. I will try to reflect on what I have heard as I speak; that will make my job quite difficult and probably make my speech completely incoherent, but I will do my best.

We closed last week with a couple of de-grouped Conservative amendments. I promised to reserve what I would say on statutory sick pay for this group, which means that I am unlikely to speak on the next group. Last week the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, spoke firmly against the Government’s proposed changes. I have seen evidence of businesses arguing strongly either for the status quo or for a two-day threshold.

I am not a behavioural scientist, but I can read a room politically. The party that is sitting on a huge majority in the Commons has made it very clear where it stands on this issue, and that has been reasserted by some of the even stronger comments we have heard from the Benches opposite. Businesses have drawn the same conclusion. Many of those I talk to are seeking ways to ameliorate this, rather than eliminate it, which is probably unlikely.

I was interested to hear the noble Lords from the Conservative Front Bench speak to Amendments 71A and 71B. Their version of amelioration appears to be to reduce the amount of SSP, or at least severely limit it. We heard a different story from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady O’Grady, who set out why SSP is important and why the rate is meaningful. To contextualise poverty, we are talking about the poorest people who are working people but still extremely poor. It is difficult to overestimate the generosity of this scheme, but that is what I have heard from several on the Conservative Benches. This is a very modest offer. With her statistics, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set it out very clearly, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

Before I talk to my own Amendment 74 and Amendment 73, I will deal with the others. In Amendment 75, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, call for a reviewer to report within two years. I mentioned there is a subsequent group which also has impact assessment amendments in it. I am not really sure why we are debating them separately. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am going to mention 74A to 74C, which have been shunted into a separate group. Taken together, there is a slightly curious mismatch of timings: Amendment 75 is after two years, 74B and 74C after six months and 75A after a year. I agree that there do need to be impact assessments following whatever your Lordships decide, perhaps on a more systematic calendar than the ones suggested.

I am interested in the pre-emptive impact assessment. For the benefit of your Lordships’ Committee, it would be good to hear the Minister spell out the detail of the impact assessment of business on the current proposed measures. If, as the Minister says, the costs will be relatively modest, the costs of Amendment 73 or 74 would also be relatively modest, which takes me to the point in question.

As we have heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she and I have come up with very similar suggestions in terms of amelioration, which is what I was talking about earlier. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I slightly prefer the version from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but that is not the point—this is not a competition. We would like to sit down with the Government and thrash through a way whereby a rebate scheme can be reintroduced. This seems to be the sensible approach. We care deeply about SMEs—they drive a huge part of our economy. This is a way of making sure that they do not get disadvantaged as employees get what they deserve as SSP. That is what I am asking for from these Benches. Very sensibly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Noakes, and others supported it. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive noise about that and we can sit down and have that conversation.

Today, we have heard that SSP is absolutely vital for a section of society who are already massively disadvantaged. We should not be drawing lines and pushing them further down. We should be finding ways of making sure that they are not disadvantaged even more and, at the same, we should find ways of making sure that our SME sector is not also disadvantaged.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a really good debate on these issues, and I hope that I can do justice to all the questions and points that have been raised.

I begin with Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, on independent reviews into the effects of SSP reforms on small and medium enterprises. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published on 21 November 2024 and can be found on GOV.UK. This considered the likely direct business impact of the SSP changes, including on small and medium enterprises. In the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that delivering these measures will cost businesses a modest £15 extra per employee. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of the SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

I draw attention to the Keep Britain Working review. We asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead this independent review, which will consider recommendations to support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces, support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence and retain more disabled people and people with health conditions.

While I am speaking about the variety of illnesses that people on sick leave incur, let me address the issue of mental health absences, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the Bill. The Bill is intended to improve the experience of employees at work, so measures such as flexible working, guaranteed hours and protection from harassment could—we believe will—reduce stress at work, potentially leading to fewer incidents of burn-out and better employee mental health, and therefore fewer related absences. For us, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor.

Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a rebate scheme to reimburse SMEs for the cost of SSP for the first four days, although I think she clarified that she meant three. I thank her for her interest in SSP, and of course I appreciate her extensive knowledge and experience in this area, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As previously mentioned, regarding waiting days, the changes we are making to SSP will cost businesses around an additional £15 per employee, a relatively modest amount in comparison with the benefits of reduced presenteeism and the positive impact that this will have on our lowest paid members of society. As the noble Baroness may recall, we previously delivered SSP rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. This was abolished due to SMEs underusing it, and feedback that the administrative burden was complex and time consuming. So I suggest that a rebate scheme that covered only the first three days of sickness and absence would also be quite administratively burdensome, both for businesses to claim and for the Government to process.

Previous SSP rebate schemes also did not encourage employers to support their employees. We know that employers having responsibility for paying sick leave 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.

Sticking with the theme of rebate schemes, Amendment 74, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would introduce an SME rebate scheme for the whole duration of sickness absence. I reiterate the points I made earlier about the limited cost to business as a result of SSP changes and the experience of previous rebate schemes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that we have moved a long way from the Beveridge system of social insurance. The costs and the mechanisms are very different now.

A rebate for the full cost of SSP could cost the Government up to £900 million a year. I do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time. We will be considering the findings of the aforementioned Keep Britain Working review, which is expected to produce a final report with recommendations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, challenged me to keep talking about this, and of course I am very happy to do so.

Amendments 71A and 71B were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As they may be aware, the Government consulted on what the rate of SSP should be for those who currently earn below the lower earnings limit. There was no clear consensus from stakeholders on the percentage. The Government believe that the 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to the lowest paid employees when they need to take time off work to recover from illness and limiting the cost to business. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, if we are not careful, we will be penalising the very poorest in our society.

Crucially, the total amount saved by business, if the rate were set at 60% compared to 80%, would be around £10 million to £30 million per year. That is about a £1 difference per employee per year, or less than 0.01% of total spending on wages annually by businesses. On the noble Lord’s Amendment 71A, which would set the rate at 60% for the first three days of a period of incapacity for work, the amounts potentially saved by business become even smaller, with the difference in cost being a matter of pennies. Given the minimal savings for businesses, the complexity for employers in administrating different rates is difficult to justify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am a little puzzled by the groupings between this and the previous amendments. I have gone the opposite route and decided to speak to this group rather than the last one, but everything that I say in this group applies equally to Amendment 75, which would have created a review of the impact of the changes on small and medium-sized businesses. This group would require impact assessments to carried out for the various other effects that the Bill would have—so really it is the same subject.

Frankly, a lot of this would not be necessary if the Bill had been properly thought through from the beginning, if there was not so much detail to be filled in later by regulation and, in particular, if a proper impact assessment had been carried out on the various changes proposed. The Bill will, by the Government’s own admission, impose costs on business, disproportionately on smaller businesses, of around £5 billion, and will, again by the Government’s own admission, have potentially negative impacts on employment opportunities for those with poorer employment records. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it should not have been properly impact-assessed.

The Regulatory Policy Committee rated the impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. It is worth reminding noble Lords what it said:

“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly, the pass-through of employer costs to employees. The eight individual IAs and the summary IA need to provide further analysis and evidence in relation to the rationale for intervention, identification of options (including impacts on small and microbusinesses) and/or justification for the preferred way forward”.


It is damning that that was not done before the Bill was presented to us.

Now, before the Minister points this out, I concede that the statutory sick pay individual impact assessment is the only one of 23 that is rated as good—in itself a pretty damning statistic. However, the impact assessment for the monitoring and evaluation plan for the statutory sick pay part is rated as weak. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already referred to the potential behavioural aspects that arise, which are not in any way covered in the impact assessment. In fact, there is a complete cop-out; it says, “We can’t do this because of the behavioural impacts”.

Sadly, these proposed amendments and Amendment 75 in the previous group are clearly necessary, as are the others that we will debate later today and throughout the Committee process. The five-year review that the Minister referred to earlier frankly does not cut it, given the significance of the measures in this Bill and how quickly how they will have impact. Five years is way too long to wait to understand whether it is damaging.

I do not wish to test noble Lords’ patience by repeating this speech multiple times during the process of the Committee, so I ask the Minister to take as read my support for proper and timely reviews and assessments of the impacts of this Bill as we go forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have identified, we are now continuing the important debate on statutory sick pay and specifically to address the impact of these measures on businesses.

It is important to highlight that the statutory sick pay system, and the changes that we have brought about as part of this Bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual with minimising the costs to the employer. This group of amendments, Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health, and short-notice shift working.

As I mentioned earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already identified, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment which considered the likely direct business impact of SSP changes. This included considering the impact on small and medium enterprises and sectoral impacts.

Overall, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be approximately £15 extra per employee, a relatively modest amount when compared to the positive impacts that these changes will have for employees and overall productivity. I thank the noble Lord for the three amendments tabled in this group, all of which would require impact assessments. I look forward to debating those with the other 23 or so requests for impact assessments that the Opposition have already tabled. We have a plethora of requests for impact assessments. I reassure the noble Lord that we are at the same time updating our regulatory impact assessment and operating a post-implementation review of the measures—so the Opposition’s requests are probably not necessary.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 74A, requiring an assessment of the impact of the changes to SSP in the Bill on absenteeism, we acknowledge that overall sickness absence may increase as a result of this Bill. This is not a loophole, nor are the Government not considering businesses; rather, it is the very objective of these changes to enable the lowest-paid employees to take time off when they are sick. Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time that they need to recover from short-term illness without struggling through work and often risking the spread of infectious diseases such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition to prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employees might be encouraged to misuse the system. However, if employers have the right policies and practices in place, the risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.

Additionally, the noble Lord’s amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism versus legitimate sickness absence, and in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked the employer or the employee. The Government intend to build on the regulatory impact assessment and, as I have said, we intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill.

I turn to Amendment 74B, to assess the impact of the reforms in the Bill on employers’ ability to continue offering enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly in low-margin sectors such as retail. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the potential impact on this matter, and the Government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone’s interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay or occupational health provision. However, the Government’s view is that these changes will serve only to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I question why any business would want to use these changes as a reason to reduce the support that they provide their employees to help them stay in, and return to, work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about the Government’s policy on getting people back to work, and she was right to raise the issue. We are talking about a balance here; when people are sick, they should have the right to be off sick. I also accept the point that she made that being at work can in itself be a healing experience, and we should not lose sight of that—that there can be a positive health impact from being at work.

I once again draw noble Lords’ attention to the Keep Britain Working review. As I set out earlier in the debate, Sir Charlie Mayfield will consider recommendations on how the Government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces and support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. That review is expected to produce a final report in autumn this year. I believe that much of what the Keep Britain Working review is doing will address the noble Lords’ concerns, and I hope this reassures them that the Government are taking this matter seriously. We look forward to the results of the review.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 74C, which seeks to review the effects of the SSP changes on shift management and short-notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in relation to Amendment 74A, the number of sickness absences may go up as a result of these changes. This is because it would enable employees to take time off when they are sick.

I again reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to understand the impact of these changes on businesses. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of these measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

However, this amendment would require the Government to collect a significant amount of data from businesses on what noble Lords will understand is quite a wide range of issues. We believe that this would be administratively challenging for them to provide, particularly in less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid—the extra bureaucracy that he has talked about. For example, asking employers, including SMEs, to accurately record and report to government the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments because of sickness absence is not practical or reasonable.

We have had a worthwhile, short debate on these issues, but I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that we are on the case and therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said during her remarks that there would be a cost per employee of £15; I think she said that in the earlier group as well. Can she provide any more information on this? It seems counterintuitive. If the average number of sick days per employee is around eight, which is what the most recent survey data showed, that implies that employers are already bearing the cost of something like seven and a half days and are going to pay only for an extra half day. That does not seem to be consistent with the evidence of the nature of absences that also exist, which implies that most are at the shorter end and probably are going to be below the level at which they are currently being reimbursed by statutory sick pay.

It has been troubling me for some time, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some further information. I do not expect it from the Dispatch Box, although I would be delighted if it were to come from the Dispatch Box right now, but if she could write to me, I would be most grateful.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I suppose the simple answer to that is that it is in the regulatory impact assessment, which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, acknowledged was one of the things that we got a fair rating for. I refer the noble Baroness to that, which I think will give more details.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I have read it. There is no more detail in that impact assessment on the £15. That is why I am asking whether the Minister can provide further detail on how that £15 was arrived at.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It would be very useful if she could share it with the other Front Benches as well.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion on Amendments 2 to 31

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Moved by

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 31.

2: Clause 4, page 6, line 26, after “authority” insert “to do something with the business data”

--- Later in debate ---

Motion on Amendment 32

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Moved by

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32.

32: Clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out subsections (3) and (4)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 33.

33: Clause 45, page 43, line 12, leave out subsection (6)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 34 and do propose Amendments 34B and 34C instead of the words so left out of the Bill—

34: Clause 56, page 54, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 3

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 35 to 42.

35: Clause 56, page 58, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert “obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers in relation to any provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 43.

43: Clause 67, page 75, line 26, leave out “and that is conducted in the public interest”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 44.

44: Clause 95, page 120, line 31, leave out subsection (1)

[The Parliamentary Hnder-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 45 to 51 and 78. There has, quite reasonably, been significant interest in the topic of AI and copyright. This is a hugely important issue, and a complex one. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me as I set out the Government’s position, which has been the subject of some misrepresentation in recent reporting. I make it clear that this Bill does not introduce any changes to copyright law or wider intellectual property regulation. It does not introduce an opt-out system, nor does it contain any delegated powers that would allow such a system to be implemented. All existing copyright rules continue to apply to the use of material for AI training in exactly the way it did before the Bill was introduced.

This Government recognise the enormous economic and social value of our creative industries. We saw that just last week, as the nation came together to commemorate the anniversary of VE Day. Our creative sector entertains and informs us. It is the best of us as a nation. Our manifesto quite rightly pledged to work with the creative industries to unlock their potential after years of neglect. As noble Lords will know, the creative industries are worth £124 billion GVA and support 2.4 million jobs. Since 2010, they have grown at 1.5 times the rate of the rest of the economy.

The creative industries are one of our eight priority strands within our industrial strategy. In January 2025, as a first step in delivering that strategy, we announced: first, that the British Business Bank will increase its support for creative industry businesses to help them access the finances they need to grow; secondly, that UKRI will strengthen support for the sector to drive R&D-led growth; thirdly, that shorter-duration apprenticeships as a first step towards a flexible growth and skills levy that meets creative industry employers' needs will be introduced; fourthly, a commitment to devolve funding to six priority mayoral strategic authorities to drive the growth of creative clusters; and, fifthly, a £19 million package of funding for programmes including the UK Games Fund, the UK Global Screen Fund, music export growth schemes and create growth programmes. The Government will build on this support through the upcoming creative industry sector plan, which we publish very soon.

Our manifesto also recognises both the opportunities and the risks of AI. We pledged to take early action, and one part of this was the launch of a detailed consultation on the future of copyright reform to ensure that protections are fit for purpose as technology evolves and its use becomes more widespread. That consultation closed earlier this year, and we are now analysing a large volume of responses—something in the region of 11,500—and assessing the evidence that we have received. Our proposals will be based on that evidence and what works, rather than any preferred option. This will take time to do properly and, as such, the Government did not and do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle to make any substantial changes to the law on this issue. Yes, we must act quickly, but we must also continue our thinking and engagement to ensure that the policy outcome is the one that best balances the potential of AI and the need to support rights holders.

Although we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle for wholesale change to copyright law, we understand the need to demonstrate that this Government, unlike others, want to follow best practice, engage meaningfully with all sides and come to the right conclusions. This is why the elected House took the decision to remove the relevant amendments passed during Lords stages and insert new provisions to demonstrate our commitment to legislate on AI in a fair, evidence-based way.

Of course we agree that there should be greater transparency about the use of protected material to train AI models. We agree that there should be more work done to identify the technical solutions that will empower rights holders to decide whether and how their material is used. We must continue to talk to all sides and to ensure that a reformed copyright regime is carefully thought through, effectively and robustly supported by the evidence. As our amendments set out, we will report on four substantive areas within 12 months. These will clearly signpost what we want to deliver and how we propose to do so. We will also carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes once we have come to a settled view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I shall make a very brief speech. I stood up when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stood up, but unfortunately, as so often in my life, he completely ignored me, so I will just slip in after him and just before our Front Bench. I declare my interest in the register as an adviser to ProRata.ai, which is a company that seeks to pay royalties to creatives for the use of their content in AI models. It was good to see not only the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, standing at the Bar, but also the Creative Industries Minister, Chris Bryant, which shows that something is up. They were very clearly wanting to be seen by the 400 or so creatives who wrote to the newspapers over the weekend expressing their concerns about the Government’s AI legislation and also to seek, as we all do, to curry favour with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has led so well on so many of these issues.

As she was speaking and making the point that creatives and technologists are not apart at all, but are together, it reminded me that I became the Technology Minister in the Cameron Government because I was the Creative Industries Minister, and the reason I became the Technology Minister was because I was the only Minister in the Cameron Government in 2010 meeting the technology companies. The reason I was meeting the technology companies was because the technology companies were busily ripping off the intellectual property of the creative industries. At that time, in 2010, you would sit down with Google and say, “Anyone can search for any material on your website, come up with it illegally, stream it and download it without paying the creators of that material. What are you going to do about it?” Of course, they said, “We’re going to do absolutely nothing because you are just a little British Minister, and we only do what the White House tells us to do”.

The Labour Government had passed legislation that was concluded in the wash-up in 2010 that effectively criminalised, to coin a phrase, the teenager in their bedroom downloading music, just as perhaps some of us as teenagers might have taped music off the radio in the past. I knew when I became a Minister that that legislation was completely unworkable. It was pointless to be prosecuting teenagers when you should be taking on big tech. Actually, the music industry found a solution by using the Fraud Act and began to take action in the courts against websites that were completely ripping off IP. It allowed courts to order those websites to be blocked.

I also knew that there would be no solution until there was a commercial solution. In fact, that commercial solution has come about. In 2010, people were predicting the entire death of intellectual property, the death of the music industry, the death of the film industry and the death of television. They have never been healthier: there are commercial models because more people are prepared to pay a subscription to Spotify, Netflix or Amazon Prime to get great content for a reasonable price, so a commercial solution is possible when people work together.

It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the opt-out model because it implies that you can have a conversation between big tech and creatives. The creatives can either opt out or opt in. We referred earlier to licensing deals. If anyone reads FT Weekend—in fact, everyone in this Chamber obviously reads FT Weekend as it is the Bible of the chattering classes—Sam Altman from OpenAI was featured in “Lunch with the FT”, an honour he shares with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In fact, I texted her when she was in “Lunch with the FT” and said that it is better than a peerage. At the beginning of that lunch, it says that the FT has a licensing deal with OpenAI, so it is possible to have licensing deals.

What I think none of us can really stand is the utter hypocrisy of people saying that, for the national interest, we have to rip off intellectual property. It is completely hypocritical and nonsensical. You would not find a single tech chief saying, “I think it is fine if people take our patents because that is how you get economic growth. Just take my patent”. In fact, you will not find a CEO saying that. You will see them saying in court, “He’s ripped off my patent, and I want my money back”. That is intellectual property that big tech is prepared to fight for, yet big tech is still prepared to tell us, just as they told us 15 years ago, that they can grow only by ripping off the IP of the creative industries. Let us face it: there may be AI start-ups that need open source. I totally accept that. It is a complicated landscape, but we are still talking about big tech. We are talking about Microsoft, OpenAI, xAI and Meta. We are talking about the role of the United States. Donald Trump wants to make Hollywood great again. This is where he could start.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords from across the House for their many eloquent and well-made speeches. The Government share the passion displayed today. We all care about the creative sector and want to see it flourish. We all want to find ways to make that a reality. We are talking here about the practicalities of how we can do that in a proper way; that is what we are addressing today. Nobody doubts the fantastic contribution that the creative sector makes to the UK. I thought I had set out some of that in my opening speech, but I am very happy to confirm it again.

On the practicalities, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, sets out wide-ranging obligations on businesses that make AI models available in the UK and would require the Secretary of State to nominate a body to enforce them. I agree with the noble Baroness that the creative sector has always been an early adopter of technology, and that the creative and AI sectors go hand in hand. A number of noble Lords made that point, and made it well.

I also completely recognise the value generated by the creators—again a point well made by a number of noble Lords—and their great cultural and economic contributions to society. The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Brennan and many other speakers spoke about that.

It is the Government’s view—and, moreover, morally right—that creators should license and be paid for the use of their content. The Government have always been clear that we want to see more licensing by the AI sector. The obligations in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, however, would affect a wide range of businesses and require detailed disclosure of information. This would include a mechanism to identify individual works, but it is very uncertain whether it would be possible to meet that requirement when a significant proportion of material on the internet does not have clear metadata to facilitate this. The scale of the impact on those businesses is unknown but, without a proper impact assessment, there is a real risk that the obligations could lead to AI innovators, including many home-grown British companies, thinking twice about whether they wish to develop and provide their services in the UK.

We agree that, if transparency obligations are to be created in this way, there will need to be provision for their oversight and enforcement, but that is not something that can be dropped on the first regulator that comes to mind. There is currently no body with the skills and resources to perform this function. We need a proper discussion about funding, clarity over what enforcement powers are required, and answers to a whole range of other questions.

It should also be noted that one of the main issues that creative industries are struggling with is enforcement of their rights under the current rules. As was said earlier—and I am happy to reiterate—we are not saying that the copyright laws are broken; at the heart of this is the question of enforcement.

Transparency would help with knowing what is being used, but that alone will not be a silver bullet for small creators and businesses seeking redress through our legal system. As many noble Lords will know, there are live court cases in train in the UK and other key jurisdictions. The Government, and I, recognise the urgency of the problem, as so fantastically put by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.

This is why DCMS and DSIT Ministers are prioritising meetings with creative and AI stakeholders to discuss potential solutions as a top priority. Indeed, they held meetings and discussions with both sectors last September. We have moved quickly to consult, having hosted round tables and bilateral meetings with creatives and their representatives. These have been of great value and we will continue to hold those meetings.

However, all these moving parts mean that something needs to be developed as a full working approach. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, does not offer an instant solution, instead asking the Government to come up with regulations in 12 months. We cannot make such significant interventions without properly understanding the impact. This is why our position is to report on four substantive issues within 12 months and set out our proposals in that time. As I said in my opening speech, our proposals will be based on the evidence from the 11,500 responses and, indeed, will concentrate on what works rather than any preferred option. As the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, the solution must indeed involve creators and AI developers being in the same room, and this is what we will endeavour to do.

I further agree with the noble Lord that AI should not become a way to whitewash copyright piracy. The Government support strong action against copyright piracy and we will continue to do so. I also agree that it is important to support transparency. I cannot say this strongly enough. Noble Lords have seemed to suggest that we are not taking that issue seriously. Of course we are. The Government fully support and are encouraged by the work of the IETF and other fora developing new standards to help identify metadata, which will make this easier.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 45.

45: After Clause 134, insert the following Clause—
“Economic impact assessment
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning
with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of each of the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) lay a document containing the assessment before Parliament. Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 7
(2) The document may include an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of policy options which are alternatives to the options described in subsection (1)(a).
(3) An assessment included in the document must, among other things, include assessment of the economic impact of each option on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the impact on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(4) In this section—
“AI system” means a machine-based system that, from the input it receives, can infer how to—
(a) generate predictions, digital content, recommendations, decisions or other similar outputs, or
(b) influence a physical or virtual environment, with a view to achieving an explicit or implicit objective;
“the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper” means the command paper “Copyright and AI: Consultation”, numbered CP1205, published on 17 December 2024;
“copyright owner” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“develop” an AI system means carry on an activity involved in producing the system, such as (for example) designing, programming, training or testing the system (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly); “digital content” means data which is produced and supplied in digital form; “medium-sized business” means a business with at least 50 but fewer than 250 staff;
“micro business” means a business with fewer than 10 staff;
“small business” means a business with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff;
“use” an AI system means instruct an AI system to generate outputs or to influence an environment (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly).”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 46.

46: After Clause 134, insert the following Clause—
“Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) such alternative options as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The report must consider, and make proposals in relation to, each of the following—
(a) technical measures and standards (for example, measures and standards
concerned with metadata) that may be used to control—
(i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers);
(b) the effect of copyright on access to, and use of, data by developers of AI systems (for example, on text and data mining), including the effect on developers who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses;
(c) the disclosure of information by developers of AI systems about—
(i) their use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) how they access copyright works for that purpose (for example, by means of web crawlers);
(d) the granting of licences to developers of AI systems to do acts restricted by copyright, including the granting of licences by and to individuals, micro businesses, small businesses and medium-sized businesses.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consider the likely effect of proposals, in the United Kingdom, on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the likely effect on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(5) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must have regard to, among other things, the Consultation Paper responses.
(6) The Secretary of State may comply with this section by preparing and publishing two or more reports which, taken together, satisfy the requirements in this section.
(7) In this section—
“Consultation Paper responses” means responses to the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper received by the Secretary of State on or before 25 February 2025;
“copyright” means the property right which subsists in accordance with Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“copyright work” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“web crawler” means a computer program that obtains data from websites in accordance with instructions and that can autonomously determine which websites to visit.
(8) Terms used in this section and in section (Economic impact assessment) have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 47 and 48.

47: Page 170, line 2, leave out Clause 135

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 49.

49: Page 171, line 15, leave out Clause 137

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 50 and 51.

50: Page 171, line 37, leave out Clause 138

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 52.

52: Page 173, line 13, leave out Clause 140

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54.

54: Clause 141, page 173, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 174

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 55.

55: Clause 141, page 174, line 26, at end insert—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 56.

56: Clause 141, page 174, line 29, at end insert—
“66EA Requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests the creation of a purported intimate image of another person (B) (either in general or specific terms),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the creation of the purported intimate image, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests that, if a purported intimate image of another person (B) is created, it includes or excludes something in particular (whether relating to B’s appearance, the intimate state in which B is shown or anything else),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the inclusion or exclusion of that thing, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(3) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) include doing an act which could reasonably be taken to be a request (such as, for example, indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer).
(4) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) are references to—
(a) making a request directed to a particular person or persons, or
(b) making a request so that it is available to one or more persons (or people generally), without directing it to a particular person or persons.
(5) References in this section to consent to a person requesting something are—
(a) in a case described in subsection (4)(a), references to consent to a request being made that is directed to the particular person or persons, and
(b) in a case described in subsection (4)(b), references to consent to a request being made so that it is available to the person or persons (or people generally), as appropriate.
(6) An offence under this section is committed—
(a) regardless of whether the purported intimate image is created,
(b) regardless of whether the purported intimate image, or the particular thing to be included in or excluded from such an image, is also requested by another person, and
(c) regardless of where in the world the person or persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) is or are located.
(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for making the request.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).
(9) In this section, references to a purported intimate image, to creating such an image and to a person shown in an intimate state have the same meaning as in section 66E.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 57 to 79.

57: Clause 141, page 174, line 30, leave out “soliciting” and insert “requesting”

NHS: Single-sex Spaces for Staff

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a timed debate and people have quite rightly put their names down for it. As the Deputy Chairman of Committees said, the gap has already been passed and I suggest that we move on to hear from the Government Front Bench.

AI: Child Sexual Abuse Material

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Internet Watch Foundation’s Annual Data and Insights Report 2024, published on 23 April, particularly with regard to child sexual abuse material generated by artificial intelligence.

[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 welcome my noble friend Lady Berger to her first Oral Question and thank her for it being on such an important issue that faces us today. The Internet Watch Foundation’s annual report highlights a harrowing increase in the amount of AI-generated child sexual abuse material online. The scale is shocking, with over 424,000 reports in 2024 suspected to contain child sex abuse imagery. The Government are deeply committed to tackling this crisis through the Online Safety Act and are specifically targeting AI CSAM threats in the Crime and Policing Bill. I pay tribute to the work of the IWF, which has been vital in helping us to identify and block such content.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. As she alluded to, the Internet Watch Foundation’s report points to hundreds of thousands of reports during the 2024 period. It is a record-breaking number of reports, which is driven partly by a number of new threats, including AI-generated child sexual abuse, sextortion and the malicious sharing of sexual imagery. The IWF says that under-18s are now facing a “crisis” of sexual exploitation and risk online. I heard what the Minister said and ask her what the Government intend to do to protect children in the UK and around the world now to ensure that, when the 2025 report comes out next year, we see a significant reduction in the number of these crimes.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government will introduce a new suite of measures to tackle the growing threat of AI. This includes criminalising AI models made or adapted to generate child sexual abuse imagery and extending the existing paedophile manuals offence to cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material. In addition, the Home Office will bolster the network of undercover online police officers to target online offenders and develop cutting-edge AI tools and other new capabilities to infiltrate live streams and chat rooms where children are groomed. The Home Office is developing options at pace on potential device operating system-level safety controls to prevent online exploitation and abuse of children. It is also vital that we tackle the widespread sharing of self-generated indecent imagery. The report shows that 91% of the images are self-generated. This is young people who are being groomed and often quite innocently sharing their material, not realising the purpose for which it will be used. This is a huge and pressing issue, and my noble friend quite rightly raises that we need to take action now to tackle this scourge.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that, with the constant evolution of technology, we risk not being able to legislate rapidly enough to keep pace. How are the Government conducting their horizon scanning to ensure that we are always one step ahead of those who seek to abuse children in this way?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right that we have to keep the technology up to date, and of course we are endeavouring to do that. I should say that UK law applies to AI-generated CSAM in the same way as to real child sexual abuse. Creating, possessing or distributing any child sex abuse images, including those generated by AI, is illegal. Generative AI child sexual abuse imagery is priority illegal content under the Online Safety Act in the same way as real content. However, she is quite right: we have to keep abreast of the technology. We are working at pace across government to make sure that we have the capacity to do that.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, and the IWF have both called for a total ban on apps which allow nudification, where photos of real people are edited by AI to make them appear naked. The commissioner has been particularly critical about the fact that such apps

“go unchecked with extreme real-world consequences”.

Will the Government act and ban these AI-enabled tools outright?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are actively looking at options to address nudification tools, and we hope to provide an update shortly. It is a matter that we take seriously. If such tools are used to create child sexual abuse material, UK law is clear that creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated using nudification tools, is already illegal, regardless of whether it depicts a real child or not.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a rather high percentage of the material was generated by young people themselves, without being aware of the implications. What is she doing with the Department for Education to ensure that the risks and challenges of unsafe online behaviour are highlighted to children through schools?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point about media literacy. It is again an issue that my department is taking very seriously, and it is an issue that Ofcom also has a statutory responsibility for, but she is right that schools have an essential part to play in this. The curriculum review which is currently taking place is identifying the need to give children more resilience and to give them the tools to identify what is safe and what is unsafe behaviour and to scrutinise the posts that they see in a more informed way. That work is ongoing in the curriculum review and the interim report from the Department for Education has identified that it is a priority.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the rapidly increasing number of AI-generated images in circulation that depict child sexual abuse is deeply disturbing. The creation of such imagery uses the faces or bodies of real children, and much of it falls into category A material, depicting abuse of the most extreme kind. Will the Minister explain what the Government’s plans are to crack down on those who share information specifically on how to use text-to-image-based generative AI tools, a practice which leads to the creation of this appalling material?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are already taking steps to deal with this. We are committed to making sure that our laws tackle child sexual abuse materials and keep pace with technological developments. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have introduced an offence to criminalise AI models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material. We have introduced an offence to criminalise those who maintain or moderate websites that use such services and use shared child sexual abuse imagery—whether it is real or fake, as the noble Lord says. In the Data (Use and Access) Bill, we have updated existing law that criminalises paedophile manuals to cover artificially generated CSAM. So there are a number of steps that we are already taking within the current legislation programme to deal with these incidents.

[Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)]

My Lords, a number of concerns have been raised about Ofcom’s recently released draft illegal content codes of practice. Can my noble friend the Minister say what plans the Government have to monitor the effectiveness of those codes of practice?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that the measures that Ofcom has set out in the illegal content codes of practice and, last week, in the child safety codes of practice are a landmark change to protect users online. They mark the first time that platforms in the UK are legally required to tackle illegal content and content that is harmful to children. Section 47 of the Online Safety Act requires Ofcom to keep these under review. Additionally, Section 178 requires the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regime two to five years after the legislation comes into force. The report on the outcome of that review must be laid before Parliament. I stress to my noble friend that the Act is not the end of the conversation; it is the foundation. We continue to look at how we can develop the legislation and how Ofcom can strengthen the codes in its own way. We are listening and debating, and we will not hesitate to take further action if it proves to be necessary.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as the wording of my noble friend Lady Berger’s original Question and her supplementary question rightly emphasises, the report pinpoints AI-generated child sexual abuse images as a growing area of concern. Many of them were indistinguishable from real photographs, with the IWF suggesting that their growing number risks re-victimising persons who are previous victims of sexual abuse. Over 70% of AI-generated sexual abuse images are hosted on servers in Russia, Japan, the United States and the Netherlands. What is being done to solve the jurisdictional issues that allow perpetrators and disseminators of this appalling abuse to act with impunity?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important point, but I stress that if a service, including file-sharing and storage services, poses a material risk to users in the United Kingdom, it must abide by the Online Safety Act and the illegal content duties, no matter where it is based. Ofcom has recognised the importance of tackling this issue specifically and has identified it as an early priority for enforcement, opening up a programme to assess the measures being implemented by file-sharing and file-storage services to prevent those services being used. My noble friend is right that a lot of these incidents are happening on an international basis. We are working with our colleagues internationally to make sure that we share information and determine the source of some of these materials, because sometimes we need to take action on an international basis.