Employment Rights Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

201: After Clause 54, insert the following new Clause—
“Chapter 4Industrial undertakingsRestriction on the employment of children in industrial undertakingsIn section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of women, young persons, and children in industrial undertakings), at the end of subsection (1) insert “(but voluntary work on a heritage railway or heritage tramway is not employment in an industrial undertaking)”.”

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 201 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank him for agreeing to put his name to it—I am delighted, and I look forward to his speech.

The amendment’s purpose is to remove what is, in effect, an unintended consequence of a piece of outdated legislation on the training, education and skills development for a group of young volunteers, particularly young female volunteers, on heritage railways. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 was passed in a very different era, some 33 years before the first preserved railway started operation using volunteers. It makes it unlawful to employ young people under 16 on railways and—by an extension through later legislation—that work now includes unpaid work by volunteers.

No prosecution has ever been brought under Section 1 of the 1920 Act, and the provision languished unknown on the statute book for many years until it was brought to light in 2015. The Heritage Railway Association—I declare an interest as its president—was so concerned at the implications that it sought counsel’s opinion, which confirmed that the 1920 Act remained in force and that it was unlawful to allow volunteers under 16 to undertake work on a heritage railway.

The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail held an inquiry into the subject and published a report with recommendations in July 2018. On 15 July 2022, I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that sought to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act. My Bill passed all its stages through your Lordships’ House unamended and received widespread support across the Chamber. Disappointingly, however, the Bill made no progress in the Commons.

Subsequent meetings with, among others, the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road produced some helpful assurances—namely, that any prosecutions would rely not on this outdated Act but on more recent legislation, particularly the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the safety management regulations produced following the Railways Act 1993. Officials were unwilling to repeal the relevant sections of the 1920 Act, partly because, in their view, it was unnecessary, and partly because it might have unforeseen implications on other activities, although those were never specified. To address this point, my Amendment 201 seeks to disapply the relevant sections of the 1920 Act to heritage railways and tramways, rather than to repeal the whole section.

Although they were helpful, the HSE and ORR views do not solve the basic problem if the 1920 Act remains on the statute book. That is because, even if a prosecution may not be brought by official bodies, it could be brought by a local authority or by a relative of a young person, regardless of the assurances given. Heritage railway managers, not surprisingly, do not wish to break the law even if it is moribund and other safeguards exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, my reputation seems to precede me on this amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for tabling Amendment 201 and have enjoyed a slight diversion in subject matter on the Employment Rights Bill. It is truly a pleasure to be able to continue the discussions that I have had with my noble friend Lord Faulkner about the railways for many years, both inside and outside this House. My noble friend is a true champion of heritage railways across the whole piece, not simply on this issue. I pay tribute to his role as president of the Heritage Railway Association.

It has been fantastic to hear from a number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendoza and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, all of whom extolled the virtues of heritage railways in providing a positive way of involving young people in transport, industry and civic engagement—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was just saying—as well as contributing to the tourist sector and the Government’s mission for growth. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, spoke very strongly about that, and, as he pointed out, it is the 200th anniversary of the railway this year. We are doing a lot to commemorate that, and heritage railways will have their own role in that. I pay special thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for being the first person to out me as a rail nerd in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also had that pleasure.

The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, took us on a little tour d’horizon of the Private Member’s Bill debate we had in this House on this topic a few years ago, and mentioned a number of heritage railways. I can speak of the pleasure I had as a young child travelling on the Ruislip Lido railway, which was small in scale but mighty in reputation for those of us in north-west London. The noble Lord is right to point to the virtues of heritage railways, both as an economic activity and in individual engagement.

As a Government, we recognise and support the valuable opportunities young people have through volunteering to do a wide range of different work activities, including on heritage railways. Obviously, it is important that these things are carried out in a safe way, with employers, organisers and volunteers supervising activities to make sure that risks are properly controlled. To give some background, I will say that noble Lords will be aware that the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for regulating health and safety at work, but, in the case of the heritage railways, the Office of Rail and Road is the enforcing authority. Both these regulators have considered carefully what powers they have and how these would be applied in the case of young people aged between 14 and 16 volunteering on a heritage railway.

The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920, which my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to, is a long-standing piece of legislation intended to prohibit the employment of children carrying out high-risk work, such as construction in industrial settings. To be honest, amending or repealing it would not be a straightforward matter.

The law protecting children in the UK is also a complex area, and this amendment touches on not only health and safety protections but other legislation and local authority by-laws. These are all devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and this amendment would impose changes there too. The 1920 Act is old legislation; amending it should be considered only after a thorough review of the impact on other areas of law, as there may be unintended consequences. It is worth pointing out that the primary legislation governing child employment, including light work, is the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Amending or repealing the 1920 Act would still leave the 1933 Act in place, which—together with any by-laws made under it by local authorities—limits children to undertaking only light work. So repealing the 1920 Act could have unintended consequences across a number of sectors, and a full impact assessment would be required.

As we have heard, modern health and safety legislation does not prevent children and young people volunteering on heritage railways. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred to the Heritage Railway Association survey, which demonstrated that there are around 800 under 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways across the country. There may be activities that are unsuitable for young volunteers to carry out—for example, safety-critical tasks such as train diving—but I am pleased to say that both regulators are very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to determine what sorts of activities would be safe, appropriate and suitable for young volunteers aged 14 to 16 to perform on the railways.

Of course, regulators should, and do, take a proportionate approach to enforcement action. It is worth noting that the last time the 1920 Act was used to support health and safety enforcement was in 2009. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester told us, there have been no prosecutions under the 1920 Act, either of public bodies or private individuals, which proves that the status quo is not absolutely terrible.

The aim of this amendment is to remove any barriers to allow children to gain valuable experience volunteering on heritage railways and tramways. Nobody wants to see more young men and women developing an interest and, indeed, a career on the railway more than I do. It is not clear that there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that this legislation is creating any barriers and, as we know, many heritage railways run very successfully with young people volunteering in a wide range of activities to support those ventures.

Both the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive remain very willing to work with the Heritage Railway Association to develop additional guidance and, possibly, examples of good practice to ensure that young volunteers can continue to work safely in heritage railway settings. While this is a sensible and proportionate way forward to address this issue, I have heard the strength of opinion on this matter from across the Committee. I am more than happy and willing to facilitate a meeting with my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester—other noble Lords may be interested—with the HRA, DfT, ORR and HSE to further pursue this issue. Without making any further commitments, I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw this amendment for now.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, when the Minister has his meeting with the Members of this House who are interested in this issue, I think he will need to hold it in quite a large room. I am very gratified by the strength and quantity of support that there has been for this amendment and issue from across the Chamber.

I intend to take up the Minister’s kind offer and I hope we can do that before we reach Report. If, by then, it is possible for there to be an understanding of how the law can be interpreted or possibly changed, it may not be necessary to come back on Report. However, I think the House as a whole would like the opportunity to express its view on Report, particularly in view of the very strong support in the Chamber this afternoon, if we do not have a solution by then.

Meanwhile, I thank everybody who has taken part. I thank my noble friend the Minister; my co-signatory, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay; and all the other noble Lords who took part. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 201 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 16th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

I advise the Committee that if this amendment were agreed to, it would not be possible for me to call Amendment 264A for reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey for her amendment in this group and for her introduction. I will speak to Amendments 266 and 267 in my name. These amendments are not presented in opposition to the spirit or general objectives of the Bill. Indeed, we fully support the aims of enforcing employment rights and ensuring that bad employers do not undercut fair ones. These amendments respond to a real and serious concern about the breadth of the power that the Bill currently gives to Ministers—a power that, if left unchecked, would allow a future Government to expand the remit of the fair work agency with far-reaching consequences but only the most minimal parliamentary oversight.

Paragraph 35 of Schedule 7 allows the Secretary of State to add to the list of enactments that fall under the enforcement remit of the fair work agency by way of regulations. That list, set out in Part 1 of Schedule 7, includes a range of statutory rights covering pay, working time, sick pay and protections against exploitation. The current drafting allows for the addition of any enactment that relates to employees, workers, employers or trade unions. That is an extraordinarily broad formulation. It would allow the Secretary of State to bring into the fair work agency’s scope virtually any area of employment or labour law, potentially even those governing union recognition, industrial action or collective bargaining, by secondary legislation and with no meaningful boundary in statute.

Amendment 266 seeks to address this by narrowing the scope of this delegated power. It would limit the types of enactments that can be added to those that relate to hours, pay or holidays. These are, after all, the core minimum terms and conditions of the employment relationship. They are well understood, capable of objective enforcement and already subject to statutory minima in other parts of the Bill. They also reflect the matters over which the recognised trade unions typically have statutory bargaining rights. There is, therefore, a clear and principled rationale for limiting the fair work agency’s enforcement jurisdiction to these domains.

We put forward this amendment on the grounds that it is both reasonable and proportionate. It would still allow Ministers to respond to emerging issues in labour markets, such as new forms of pay abuse or evasion of working time rules. It would, however, prevent this power being used to draw the FWA into controversial or contested areas of employment law, or into territory where individual enforcement through tribunals is more appropriate than systemic enforcement by a regulator. It would preserve the coherence of the agency’s function and protect against mission creep over time.

We anticipate that Ministers will argue that this amendment is too prescriptive and does not allow sufficient flexibility to bring in related rights that may not neatly fall into the categories of pay, hours or holidays, but that are none the less important for fair work—for example, information rights, certain protections from detriment or emerging contractual abuses not yet addressed by current law. The Government may say that drawing such hard lines in primary legislation is undesirable and that a degree of discretion is necessary for effective future-proofing.

If the Government do not accept Amendment 266 on the grounds that it is too narrow, it follows that the strength of Amendment 267 becomes even more essential. This amendment would require that any regulations made under paragraph 35 be subject not merely to the affirmative resolution procedure but to the super-affirmative resolution procedure, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is fond of, as defined in Section 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006.

The super-affirmative procedure is not some theoretical or obscure mechanism. It exists precisely for circumstances such as this, where Parliament grants the Executive a broad power to amend the application of primary legislation by secondary means. The procedure ensures that Parliament is properly consulted, that draft regulations are subject to scrutiny before they are laid and that there is an opportunity for representations to be made, considered and reflected in the final statutory instrument.

The two amendments offer a choice. If the Government agree with us that the power to amend Schedule 7 should be tightly confined, they can accept Amendment 266. If they prefer to retain flexibility, they must accept that that comes with the responsibility of subjecting that power to a higher standard of parliamentary scrutiny, in which case Amendment 267 is the minimum safeguard necessary. What would be constitutionally unacceptable is for the Government to reject both amendments, leaving in place a broad and undefined power exercisable by ordinary affirmative resolution. That would be to hand the Executive a blank cheque over the shape and scope of labour-market enforcement in this country, without adequate safeguards in place.

To conclude, I urge the Government to consider carefully the implications of paragraph 35 as currently drafted. It is not enough to say that Ministers do not intend to use this power in a wide-ranging or politically contentious way. We are legislating not just for the current Secretary of State but for future ones, too. If the Government want discretion, Parliament must have oversight, and if they want latitude, we must have safeguards. The amendments give the Government the opportunity to make a choice: define the limits of this power clearly or accept the heightened scrutiny that wide powers properly demand.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for making an excellent speech which I could very easily have made myself—there was nothing in it with which I disagreed. He rightly referred to the fact that he and I tabled an identical amendment in Committee. We have come back tonight because this issue really has to be settled one way or another. I have previously declared my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association. I should also say that I am the sponsor each year of an HRA award for young volunteers, to encourage a continued influx of young people to learn the skills and enjoy the satisfaction that working on a steam railway brings.

Last month, in my role as president of the HRA and co-chair of the All-Party Group on Heritage Rail, I was fortunate enough to take part in the 70th anniversary celebrations of the Ffestiniog Railway in north Wales, which was brilliantly organised and fitted in admirably with National Rail’s Railway 200 programme. It involved a cavalcade of every steam locomotive that the railway possesses, in procession on the Cob in Porthmadog, and it was a very fine tribute to the railway’s history and its contribution to the economy of north Wales. I met many young people who are keen to join the railway but are prevented from doing so because of their age, and I took the opportunity also to talk to older volunteers who are now part of the very successful team on the Ffestiniog. Almost without exception, those older volunteers started at ages as young as 13, back in the 1970s, in blissful ignorance of the Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920—an Act which, frankly, had disappeared from public consciousness. Indeed, many were involved in the hard physical labour of building the deviation that some of your Lordships may know, which allowed the railway to be carried above the waterline of a new reservoir to reach the northern terminus of Blaenau Ffestiniog.

As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, once the HRA received the wholly unwelcome advice that the 1920 Act had been interpreted to extend to under-16s and included volunteering as well as paid work, things changed. The safety regulators have made it clear that they would not prosecute under the 1920 Act and would maintain safety and safeguarding under more recent and appropriate legislation; but if that is so, I have to ask why this anachronistic legislation is still on the statute book.

I am most grateful to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Katz, for the discussions he initiated with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and me on this, and I know how sympathetic he is to the points we have been making. I understand that the possibility of further guidance from the safety regulators remains, but that guidance must be reinforced by statutory force, because while the 1920 Act is in force, responsible Heritage Railway managers will not wish to break it. Even if the ORR would not prosecute, what is to stop a local authority or a parent doing so? It is time to make things clear and simple by removing this outdated restriction that is holding heritage railways back from encouraging the next generation, preventing them enjoying the opportunities that so many leading figures in the railway heritage movement had as youngsters.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. I put my name to this amendment in the spirit of support for our heritage, of which our heritage railways are a significant part. We need to do everything we can to allow young people who wish to do so to work as volunteers in this area. I hope that the Government will look favourably on this amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I can be very brief because the Minister has brought glad tidings. I thank him very much for that and for the way that he set out this debate.

As noble Lords who followed this narrow but important issue will know, this confusion stems from the question of how a 1920 Act of Parliament applies in the modern era to volunteers and young employees on heritage railways and tramways. For more than a decade, this has been taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has been campaigning to clarify this in law; I pay tribute to him for 10 years of hard work and for his efforts behind the scenes to secure this important change today.

I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, whom I welcome to her place. We had a very helpful meeting last week with them both. They were in listening mode and I am glad they have taken this away and helped to solve it. We welcome the drawing up of guidelines, as we said in our meeting, and I am glad to report that the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have already begun their work with the Heritage Railway Association, as the Minister said. I am delighted to hear that the target is for that to be completed by 31 March; I am sure that work can indeed be done.

The sticking point for us is that this needs to be clarified in law as well as in guidelines. In our debate on Report, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler- Sloss, said that it is no use Ministers saying that guidance shows that organisations will not prosecute; the fact is that the law forbids it—and if the law forbids it, no respectable organisation should allow it to go forward. That is why I was so keen that these guidelines should be given some statutory backing. In effect, the amendment that I tried to table sought to describe what the Government, the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered and are happy to happen. I am delighted to hear that the Government are happy for that to be written into the Bill. I accept that my version has some drafting deficiencies, which I would be very glad to work with the Government to clear up.

I have a non-financial interest to declare: I am the unremunerated chairman of the Heritage Railway Association. I am very pleased to have succeeded the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, who had to give it up to become the Rail Minister. Next week, I will be in Southampton with heritage railways from across the country, which will be delighted to hear that this long-standing problem, which holds back young volunteers from getting experience and skills in our heritage railways, will finally be solved, and I am grateful to the Government for their part in solving it.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I am almost lost for words. As the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, this campaign has been running for almost 15 years. The first stage was when I took a Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House to attempt to address the problems of the 1920 Act. It passed without any opposition, except from the Government Front Bench, sadly—not this Government Front Bench but previous one.

We have reached this point because the organisations involved—the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive—have been instructed by the department to come to a conclusion. We had an excellent meeting on 21 October, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, referred to, which my noble friends Lady Lloyd of Effra and Lord Leong also attended. I offer them, the ORR and the HSE my warmest congratulations and thanks for what is a very satisfactory outcome.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, in addressing Motion C, I thank the Government for their amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Katz, in particular, has been very patient and has provided us with his time. He has responded to an issue that was first raised by Sir Ashley Fox in the Commons, when one of his constituents, who was a special constable, presented the unfairness of the fact that he could not get time off from his employer as a right. That issue was raised in his amendment, which was dismissed in the Commons but was supported in the Lords by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Evans, which I appreciate.

Of course, I would have preferred that the specials were added to the list of those who get that right, but the Government responded by saying that they would have a review. I then said that reviews often do not happen—and if they do happen, they do not get any outcome. They replied, “In that case, how about making it a statutory one that is time limited? Now what is your argument?” That is a fair point, and I accept that the review will take place and is time limited, and I look forward to its outcome.

The Government’s other point was that, of course, there are other groups that might want a similar right on a list that is waiting to be addressed, and it would be unfair to consider the specials only. That is a fair point. Nevertheless, I am glad of the progress that has been made and the support that the Government have shown.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their engagement on this issue.

The Government’s amendments, which were tabled in the other place, build on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, placing a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways. This guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The Government are committed to this work, with publication targeted for 31 March 2026.

By working with the regulators, as well as heritage railways that are already operating successful volunteering programmes for children, there can be clear and practical guidance to protect the health, safety and well-being of young people interested in volunteering on heritage railways. This collaborative approach will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering. In turn, it should provide the necessary bodies with reassurance.

It is of utmost importance that young people get the opportunity to learn new skills and gain confidence, as well as to help their community—all while ensuring that high-risk activities are not carried out and only appropriate activities are undertaken. I beg to move the Motion.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over the past 10 years, ever since the counsel’s opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 Act. The government amendment, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I discussed with Ministers during the process of the Bill’s consideration, removes that threat from heritage railways provided that they follow the guidance which the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive lay down for them. I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce that guidance, we hope by 31 March. Meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters legally and, I believe, successfully to be involved in the running of the railway, and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will of course support the Motion that my noble friend has moved.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I will be briefer still. I renew my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and the Government for listening on this issue and my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who has campaigned on this issue for many years. This compromise from the Government, which the noble Lord very kindly outlined to us before the tabling of the Motion in another place, puts beyond the uncertainty of recent years an issue that has prevented young people from gaining skills and opportunities in volunteering on heritage railways, which are often considerable employers in their local areas and the linchpin of the visitor economy. This is a measure which will help growth and employment, as well as extending opportunity.

As it happens, when the Government were inserting these new words into the Bill in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I were both at the Heritage Railway Association’s annual conference in Southampton where the Government were rightly getting the plaudits that they deserve for moving on this issue, so I am very grateful that they have done so.