Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

280: After Clause 150, insert the following new Clause—
“Substitution clauses: duties of company directors(1) The director of a relevant company has a duty to ensure that the company keeps a register of all dependent contractors.(2) The director must supply details of the register under subsection (1) with the Secretary of State within 12 months of the passing of this Act and every 12 months thereafter, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 2018.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about what information must be supplied in the register of dependent contractors.(4) For the purposes of this section―(a) a “relevant company” is a company that―(i) provides services in relation to postal and courier activities, food and beverage service activities or taxi operation,(ii) has more than 250 employees in the UK and overseas, and(iii) includes provision within the company’s contracts with contractors which allow the contractor to send another qualified person (a “substitute”) to complete the work in the contractor’s place if the contractor is unable to complete the work,(b) a “director” includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called, and (c) “dependent contractor” means a person who—(i) performs work or services for the relevant company,(ii) is paid according to tasks performed rather than hours of work,(iii) depends partially or primarily on the relevant company for employment and income,(iv) is not required to perform services for the relevant company, and(v) is not specified as an employee or worker for the relevant company within a statement of employment particulars or a contract of employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require certain company directors to keep a register of the people carrying out work for the company under so-called “substitution clauses”, which allow companies to permit their suppliers – including some delivery couriers – to appoint a substitute to supply services on their behalf.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 280 is designed to address the use of substitution clauses that allow for illegal working. There are different ways of measuring it, but on some estimates there are 4.7 million gig economy workers in the UK, including around 120,000 official riders at Uber Eats and Deliveroo, two of the largest delivery companies in the country.

For years we have heard stories of labour market fraud and visa abuse committed by contractors related to those companies, and much of that abuse has come through the legal loophole created by substitution clauses. These clauses have traditionally been used to give flexibility to businesses, but in the gig economy they are being used to allow illegal working. From late 2018 to early 2019 there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to Transport for London. During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally.

I acknowledge that some action is being taken that will address part of this issue. Ministers have said that they will consult on employment status and moving towards a two-part legal framework that identifies people who are genuinely self-employed. I support that ambition, but as someone who worked on the original proposals in this area that stemmed from the Taylor review, I also understand the complexity of resolving this, and I fear that it could end up being put in the “too difficult” pile in Ministers’ in-trays.

The Government have also brought forward amendments to the borders and immigration Bill to include a legal requirement for organisations to carry out right-to-work checks on individuals they employ under a worker’s contract or as individual subcontractors, and for online matching services that provide details of service providers to potential clients or customers for remuneration. What are the timescales for the consultation and the secondary legislation to bring those measures into force? On my understanding, these provisions will not extend to the use of substitutes, meaning that this loophole will remain.

Amendment 280 seeks to go some way to addressing this through the introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors. Such transparency would help to ensure that employment rights are upheld and pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, and would also support the enforcement of right-to-work checks. An alternative approach would be to ban substitution clauses altogether, or at least for those companies and sectors where abuse is the most prevalent—or, as Amendment 323E in a later group from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, seeks to do, restrict their improper use.

Given that substitution clauses have played an important part in case law on determining employee or worker status, this could have broader implications, so I have focused on transparency as a first step. But I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on removing or restricting the use of substitution clauses and whether that is preferable to a register delivering transparency, for example.

A further alternative would be to introduce right-to-work checks for substitutes by the original engaging business. While this was deemed to be out of scope for this Bill in the Commons, I had hoped that the Government’s amendments to the borders Bill would fill this gap. However, unless I have misunderstood—I would be grateful if the Minister can clarify this for me—their approach leaves this loophole untouched. The impact assessment for the Government’s amendments to the borders and immigration Bill reflects the harms that illegal working has on our economy. It says:

“Illegal working creates unfair competition, negatively impacts legitimate businesses, and puts additional pressure on public services. A rapid growth has been observed in the UK in modern labour market models where businesses can currently engage workers without the requirement to complete right to work checks”.


Without further action to address the abuse of substitution clauses, as the App Drivers and Couriers Union has said:

“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything”.


The Government need to take action to guarantee fairness and justice in our labour market. A register of dependent contractors provides a way to resolve this abuse and hold big employers in the gig economy to account. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Penn on tabling this important amendment. The requirement for certain company directors to maintain and report a register of dependent contractors under substitution clauses is a measure that would bring much-needed transparency to a complex area of employment. It recognises the evolving nature of work arrangements in sectors such as courier services and taxi operations. Of course, there are compliance burdens associated with maintaining such registers, especially for large companies operating over multiple jurisdictions. Additionally, data protection considerations must be carefully addressed to ensure sensitive personal information is handled appropriately and securely. These are important factors that require careful balancing against the benefits of increased transparency. We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for her Amendment 280 and for meeting with my noble friend Lady Jones and me last month to discuss this very important issue.

I reassure the noble Baroness that the Government are already taking action to tackle the main risks that arise from substitution, including illegal working. As she mentioned, substitution is a complex area on which we are still gathering data.

An ONS online survey of around 10,000 businesses from across the UK, published this month, found that close to 3% of UK businesses use substitution clauses. While we do not know the number of substitution clauses used in the gig economy, we know that this could impact a large number of individuals. Although estimates of the number of gig economy workers vary vastly in various surveys, from around 500,000 to 4.4 million people—the noble Baroness mentioned some 4.7 million people—the CIPD finds that roughly 75% of those in the gig economy consider themselves to be self-employed.

We have introduced an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, to extend the scope of employers required to carry out right-to-work checks to those who engage limb (b) workers or individual sub-contractors, such as those working in the gig economy. This requirement will cover those working as substitutes.

We understand the complexity of these issues, and of employment status more widely, and that is why we have committed to consult in detail on a simpler framework for employment status. Comprehensive consultation will better account for the full range of today’s employment relationships, while addressing the minority of employers who will seek to avoid legal obligations.

We were clear that some reforms in our plan to make work pay will take longer to undertake and implement. We do not have a set timeline for consulting on employment status at this point, and I assure the noble Baroness that we will keep her up to date as and when this happens. We understand the complexity of employment status, as I mentioned earlier, and we are definitely committed to consulting in detail. Comprehensive consultation will better accounts for the full range of today’s employment relationships, while also addressing the minority of employers who will seek to avoid legal obligations, as I mentioned.

The noble Baroness’s amendment would create significant additional reporting burdens for businesses and would not necessarily change how those businesses use substitution clauses, as I mentioned in my earlier speech. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, to withdraw Amendment 280.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, could I confirm what I think I heard, that the amendments to the borders and immigration Bill will cover the use of substitute workers and substitute clauses with the extension of right-to-work checks?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I had better clarify this. I said that the amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will extend the scope of employers required to carry out right-to-work checks to those who engage limb (b) workers—perhaps one could classify that as those without many rights—or individual sub-contractors, such as those working in the gig economy. Perhaps that answers the question of the noble Baroness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

So not, therefore, the use of substitute workers. That answers my question, but it leaves the issue unaddressed. The challenge before the Government is that they have acknowledged the existence of this problem, with amendments brought to the borders and immigration Bill on Report, but they propose to leave this loophole unaddressed. The powers they are bringing in that Bill will require further consultation and then secondary legislation, and the Minister was not able to put a timeline on that. If this is not addressed by those proposals in that Bill, then when will it be addressed?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I stand corrected on that point. The officials have just given me a note that it does cover substitute workers.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Okay. Perhaps it might be good to sit down between now and Report and clarify the exact proposed powers in that Bill. If it does—although the powers are then for secondary legislation and the detail is to be worked through—if the Government are taking the powers to address this loophole and can do it through secondary legislation under that Bill, that is welcome news. The transparency measures proposed in my approach were really an interim measure due to scope and other wider considerations. If we can directly place the obligation to carry out right-to-work checks on those organisations engaging people and their substitutes, then that would be very welcome news indeed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 280 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

My voice is about to go. That is just as well, because I now beg to move.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, given the hour, I will be incredibly brief. My noble friend and I do not always find common cause—even though we are on the same Benches—but this is an extremely sensible amendment, and my noble friend has explained the extent to which she has shaped it in accordance with the Government’s wider thinking in their approach to the Bill. Given the amount in the Bill that is being left to secondary legislation, if I was in the department I would welcome a proposal like this, even if it did not stem from our own proposals and officials. In having this proposed expert committee review the secondary legislation and help the department get it right first time, this is a good example of giving very careful consideration to what it would bring. That can only be welcome, so I add my support to my noble friend’s amendment.

Ofcom: Protection of Children Codes

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about that. As part of my role, I have seen horrendous material that I do not think anybody—not adults and certainly not children—should see. We are determined to get this right and to be forward-looking, because anything that we do in legislation needs to be fit for the next generation as well. There is no point legislating just for the now; we need to legislate for the future. We are very aware of that. We are continuing to talk to Ofcom and other stakeholders about how we can take this work forward. We are determined to make this a safe place for children to grow up and thrive.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the research that the Government are doing on the impact of phones on children. The research is overwhelming on the impact of screen use on early years development for children, but there appears to be no specific guidance to help parents navigate that. What are the Government doing to ensure that parents of preschool children get proper, age-appropriate guidance on the use of screens?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. We are looking at what further advice we can give to parents. This is a sensitive issue and, as the noble Baroness will understand, we must be careful in how we raise these issues. We all understand that children often have a very different experience and a detailed knowledge of how smartphones work from their parents, so we have a role in education. Obviously, media literacy is an important part of that, but we are looking again at what further guidance we can give to parents.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

This is not just about fairness in the workplace; it is about supporting families in those precious first days, allowing both parents to share the load, bond with their child and begin family life on an equal footing. The current system entrenches outdated assumptions about who provides care. Making paternity pay available from day one would send a powerful signal that we value fathers’ roles in early childhood. Every child, regardless of their parents’ employment history, deserves a supported start. On that basis, I hope the Government will consider this amendment thoroughly, as we continue to debate this Bill.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 127, 128 and 139 in my name. Before doing so, I would like to add my support to all the amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 76 of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I have also added my name.

As we have heard already, our current system of parental leave is in desperate need of reform. For some of that reform, I accept a review is necessary. How can we improve shared parental leave? This is something that I was proud to have worked on during the coalition Government, but I and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, have to accept that this has not delivered the change we want to see. Also, how do we extend parental leave to self-employed people—mums, dads and adoptive parents—at a proper rate of pay?

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, knows, I believe she is being too generous to the Government with her timelines. When this Government first took office, the Employment Rights Minister, Justin Madders, committed to the review of parental leave being completed within their first year; now, it is meant to be launched within their first year. On Report in the Commons, the Minister committed only to a launch ahead of Royal Assent of this Bill, which even on the most optimistic timetable will be after 4 July.

As well as giving important clarity to the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has made—calling for the review to cover key issues, including measures designed to improve fathers’ take-up of parental leave, such as a dedicated period of leave, adequate payment and the inclusion of self-employed fathers—could the Minister give us some reassurance on timelines? Will the review be launched within Labour’s first year in office? How long will the review take? To me, six months seems a reasonable period of time to report back on its outcomes, but I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government’s plan is.

While reviews are perhaps necessary in some areas, it is important not to confuse a review with action. The Minister kindly met with me last week to discuss my amendments, and it was clear at that meeting that the review would not be a consultation on specific proposals; those would have to come later. Added to any timelines for action would be a consultation on the outcomes of the review, and then, subject to its findings, further legislation. In reality, we are talking about a timeline extending over several years.

I am afraid that is not good enough on an area where there is clear evidence to support action now, and that is on improving paternity leave. It has been said that we are an outlier on how bad our paternity leave is in the UK and how unequal provision is between mums and dads or second parents. And yet, if you increased paternity leave to six weeks’ pay at 90% of salary, capped at average earnings, as my Amendment 127 does, the evidence for the benefits is overwhelming.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, it would improve things for dads. This week is Mental Health Awareness Week. According to research by the Dad Shift and Movember, nearly half of new dads report experiencing multiple symptoms of depression in the first year after their baby is born; 82% of them agree that better paternity leave is the number one thing that the Government could do to protect new dads’ mental health. We have heard how it will support new mums and kids too. And it will support economic growth—and that is meant to be this Government’s number one priority.

This last point is really important. In our discussions on this Bill, I am acutely aware about the concerns employers have expressed about many aspects of the Government’s plans, but, in the context of our earlier debate on statutory sick pay, it is important to remember that statutory paternity pay is reimbursed for businesses at a rate of 92% for larger businesses and 108.5% for those which qualify for small business relief. Of course, it is not only the pay that affects business but also the prospect of more administration and disruption, which can be a concern. This is why for smaller businesses the government compensation rate is at over 100%.

As we are so far behind many other countries when it comes to paternity leave, we can look at whether those concerns have been borne out in practice when leave is more generous. The short answer is that they have not. A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US on Danish parental leave showed no reduction in firms’ output or decline in the wellbeing of other employees at the firm when parents took time off at the birth of their child.

One of the reasons that better paternity leave has the potential to bring such significant economic gains is that, although you lose the dad's economic output for the time he is off, the loss is limited to that period only, whereas for mothers you see an increase in labour market participation and hours worked on a sustained basis, increasing the level of economic activity overall. Reimbursing paternity pay would come at a cost to the Government, but again increased economic activity as a result of the policy would offset four-fifths of that.

It might also be argued that it is not a priority for employers or employees when there are so many other issues that need our attention. However, only 18% of the public think that two weeks is enough paternity leave and 81% agree with the statement that “I believe that giving fathers a decent amount of paid paternity leave so they can be a bigger part of their children’s lives is good for families and good for the country too”. That includes a majority of support from voters from all political parties across the spectrum, including Reform.

As I mentioned, many employers already offer enhanced pay and leave, because they see the benefits for their employees but also, as companies, for recruitment and retention of staff. According to CIPD data from 2024, around 30% of organisations enhance paternity leave beyond the statutory two-week minimum, and around 37% enhance paternity pay beyond the statutory provision.

If this is the case, why is government action needed? For two reasons, I think. First, we are talking about a culture shift. Our system of paternity leave does not reflect many people’s attitudes and plans for starting a family in today’s society. None the less, moving away from the current system is a big shift for our society, and it is one that will not happen on its own. At the moment, the statutory system tells employers that two weeks is enough, and it tells employees that that is all they can expect.

The second reason, as I have said, is that the Government reimburse employers for the statutory system. If a firm wants to go further than the statutory entitlements, they bear the burden of all the costs. That is particularly difficult for smaller businesses. While there are long-term benefits for employers, we also get benefits as a society for supporting people to start and grow their families, and we should recognise that. The CIPD asked employers about their views on paternity leave in 2022 and 2024, and almost half supported extending the statutory paternity leave and pay system, with only 24% opposing it.

Finally, I turn briefly to my other amendments in this group, which would make smaller, but none the less important, improvements to our system of paternity leave. Amendment 139 takes the new day one right to paternity leave included in this Bill and makes it paid. I have to confess that, from everything the Government had said, I thought it would be paid, as they always talk about extending the right to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave. Well, parental leave is always unpaid, so specifying it for one but not the other feels a little misleading.

It also makes no policy sense. We know the biggest barrier to take up of paternity leave is financial. The current statutory rate may be low, but it is far better than nothing at all, particularly at such a point of financial stress in families’ lives. It makes no sense to me that Ministers and the Government acknowledge that paternity leave should be a day one right but are introducing it in a way that makes it hard, if not impossible, for those who most need it to actually take it up. On the subject of costs to businesses, this would be minimal. As I have said, they are reimbursed for this cost.

Amendment 128 would require businesses with 250 or more employees to publish their leave policies on their websites. That would help people thinking about a job move to have transparency on what their entitlements are, and it would help create a race to the top, where companies would need to keep pace with their competitors to attract the best talent.

Unlike almost every other measure in the Bill, this policy has actually been consulted on. It showed that 98% of respondents supported the proposal, including 96% of businesses and business representative organisations. One of the consultees could be considered to be Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked about this policy by Mumsnet in 2020 and said:

“I completely support this. In fact I’m really surprised it hasn’t already happened … I will wholeheartedly support this”.


Perhaps, in responding to this debate, the Minister can explain to the Prime Minister why this has not happened already and why his Government do not want to take the opportunity of this Bill to correct it.

[Baroness Morrissey (Con)]

My Lords, I am also pleased to support Amendment 76 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and add my voice to others in the Chamber asking the Government to review paid parental leave in this country. I confirm, as someone who is involved with a number of multinational businesses, that Britain certainly has fallen behind the modern practices of other countries.

I appreciate that, as my noble friend Lady Penn has already said, some Members of this Committee might consider this to be a matter best left to businesses rather than government policy or law. Unfortunately, in my experience, many British employers—not the ones cited by my noble friend Lady Penn, but the others—take a rather old-fashioned view of paternity leave, leaving the UK at risk of continuing with this unusually gendered approach to parenting and childcare, which is ultimately detrimental to society, to women, to men and to the economy.

As set out in my registered interests, I chair the Diversity Project, which seeks to future-proof the investment industry’s ability to attract and develop the very best talent. We have been working with almost 120 member firms on enhanced paternity leave and pay. There are a number of early adopters, including Aviva, Mercer, Janus Henderson and Julius Baer, which have all reported positive impacts on culture, retention and staff morale. In a “Dragons’ Den”-style competition —I do not see the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, in the Chamber—at our International Women’s Day event earlier this year, somewhat ironically, enhanced paternity leave was voted overwhelmingly by the audience as the single biggest game changer for women’s progress. I endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others that this would help drive gender equality.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the quad of maiden speakers we have had in our debate today. In four minutes, you need to cut to the chase, so that is what I will do.

I am not someone who believes that that any improvement to employment rights negatively impacts employers or the economy. But, as the Government themselves have said, it is all about balance. Too many of the provisions in this Bill have got the balance wrong—including the day one right on unfair dismissal. The Government themselves recognise this. That is why they have committed to introducing a probationary period, but we have no detail on how this would work. That is just one of many examples in this Bill where the detail is not developed and employers have serious concerns.

Not only have the Government got the balance wrong in the Bill, at the same time they have failed to address one of the biggest imbalances in employment rights: paternity leave. In the UK, we give mothers 52 weeks of maternity leave and fathers just two. This is the lowest level of paternity leave across Europe. Take-up of that two weeks is lowest among dads on low pay, as the rate of pay for that leave is so poor.

The Minister said that new action plans would help close the gender pay gap. We can be confident that they will lead to plans, but less confident that they will lead to action. Instead, more generous paternity leave has demonstrated that it can close the gender pay gap. It is also good for fathers, good for children and, importantly, good for the economy. ILO research shows that it can contribute 2% to 3% of GDP. I know that the Government intend to do a review on this, but there has already been an evaluation and a consultation—so now is not the time for another review. It is time for action.

The other imbalance I want to address is the increase in compliance costs for businesses doing the right thing, while leaving significant loopholes allowing labour market abuse. Substitution clauses have traditionally been used to give small businesses flexibility. But there is increasing evidence that they are being abused by contractors to gig economy businesses.

With its substitution clauses, Amazon tells couriers that it is their responsibility to pay their substitute at any rate agreed with them and that they must ensure that any substitute has the right to work in the UK. This is clearly not happening. During random checks two years ago, the Home Office found that two in five delivery riders who were stopped were working illegally. And, from late 2018 to early 2019, there were 14,000 fraudulent Uber journeys, according to TfL.

It is not right to pass responsibility for compliance with criminal and right-to-work checks on to workers. The introduction of a comprehensive register of all dependent contractors would help to ensure that employment rights are upheld, pay is not suppressed through illegitimate competition, and support for the enforcement of right-to-work checks. If the Minister will not listen to me, perhaps she will listen to the App Drivers and Couriers Union, which says:

“Unfortunately there is this loophole that allows some bad people to come through. They are not vetted so they could do anything”.


I hope the Minister will take action to address the balance of this Bill. At the moment, it risks damaging jobs and growth, while at the same time it fails to address some of the most significant flaws we have in our labour market today.

Online Safety Act 2023 (Category 1, Category 2A and Category 2B Threshold Conditions) Regulations 2025

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to illustrate why we are as concerned as we are. One of the platforms that would not come under the categorisation that we would wish it to is Telegram. Last month, on 16 January, a 19 year-old man, Cameron Finnigan, a member of a Satanist extremist group called 764, was sentenced to six years in prison on charges including encouraging suicide and possessing indecent images of a child.

764 originates in the United States; Telegram has been used to disseminate it across the Atlantic. The FBI describes 764 as

“a network of violent extremists who seek to normalize the production, sharing, and possession of child pornography and gore material to desensitize and corrupt youth toward future acts of violence. Members of 764 gain notoriety by systematically targeting, grooming, and extorting victims through online social media platforms”,

particularly the small ones. It continues:

“Members demand that victims engage in and share media of self-mutilation, sexual acts, harm to animals, acts of random violence, suicide, and murder, all for the purpose of accelerating chaos and disrupting society and the world order”.


On that basis, you can understand completely why Ofcom thinks this is fine.

This is unacceptable and the Government really should look at this again. Above all, it is incumbent on Ofcom to recognise that to, apparently wilfully, diverge from the clear stated will of both Houses of Parliament, and what is written in the Act, is not simply inappropriate but, as other noble Lords have suggested, may well be illegal, and that should be looked into.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will be incredibly brief, having not been part of the collective of Peers who worked on the parent Act to this statutory instrument. The key question that has been highlighted is, what is the Government’s interpretation now of the powers in the Act? The Government’s and the Official Opposition’s interpretation at the time it was passed was that it had the power to include in category 1 providers on the basis of risk, not size. I am incredibly concerned because, in the debate in the Commons, the Minister said that

“as things stand, the Secretary of State does not have the power to include them”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/25; col. 16.]

That was a reference to small but risky providers, and actually the Minister seemed slightly outraged at the implication that they were not acting where they should otherwise be doing so. So can the Minister clarify for this debate whether it is the Government’s position that they would like to include them and that that is the intention that they thought the Act had given them, but they cannot under the law as it is written; or that they do have the powers but have chosen not to, which is our understanding of their decision-making?

The reason that is so important is that the Minister has committed to reviewing these thresholds in future, but such reviews will have very little power if the Act itself is faulty and does not give them the ability to designate on the basis of risk, or the review is pointless because they already have the powers and the evidence of the risk of these providers but are choosing not to act.

I have another point on legal advice. In the debate in the Commons, the Minister committed to writing, including a letter from government lawyers, setting out in great detail what she was saying

“in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State in setting the categories”.—[Official Report, Commons, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/2/25; col. 19.]

In other words, the letter would clarify for people what the interpretation, which has so shifted from the original debate, is from the Government. I may have missed that letter—maybe it was placed in the House of Commons Library—but perhaps the Minister could say whether the letter was written and share its content with this Chamber also, because I think that gets to the heart of what we are regretting today from the Government.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I just want to say very briefly that, having served alongside my noble friend Lord Stevenson on the Front Bench during the passage of this Act, I want to thoroughly endorse what he has said. I am very proud of the work that we did together—I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said—to try to create a piece of legislation that could work in a very complex area, and I think we did a good job.

My fear now is that, now that Ofcom, the regulator, has published its road map, it is like a juggernaut: it has just got on with delivering what it was always going to deliver and has ignored what we in this House amended the Bill to do. In that respect, it is treating us with contempt and it is important that we express our regret in one way or another this evening about the way that we have been treated. I came in wanting to be convinced by my noble friend the Minister; I am afraid that so far she has not done it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The SI before us today, based on Ofcom’s advice, is the best way that we can find, in terms of practicality, of enforcing what was written in the Act.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Does the Minister accept that the Act does not oblige the Secretary of State to follow Ofcom’s advice, and that the Government have a separate decision-making moment—a process—to consider that advice and reach their own decision? So it is not on Ofcom; it is on the Government. It is the Government who think it is the correct way forward to ignore what was previously in the Act.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that that is a factor that we considered. The Secretary of State received Ofcom’s advice, duly reflected on it, looked at all the evidence and decided that we would abide by Ofcom’s advice on the issue. It was the Secretary of State’s decision, and that is why we have this SI in front of us today.