Employment Rights Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

146: Clause 34, page 60, line 2, at end insert—
“(A1) After section 5(1)(ec) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, insert—“(ed) requiring employment businesses participating in employment arrangements to be subject to a licensing authority nominated by the Secretary of State.””

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to begin this Committee day on the Employment Rights Bill. This is probably the most straightforward of the amendments I have on the Order Paper this afternoon; it simply seeks to bring clarity, consistency and fairness to this whole area. What does the amendment do? It simply states that employment businesses participating in employment arrangements must be subject to a licensing authority.

The fairness this brings is across both employment businesses that operate in this country and those that may be outside this country but involved in employment arrangements in this country; thus a licensing authority would bring them into the same regime as businesses in this country. It also reflects the situation in other sectors of the economy, so it has an element of consistency and is thus easily understandable to people who come to this from other domains within our economy. It is simply a question of clarity, consistency and fairness in employment businesses. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for his amendment concerning the licensing of employment businesses. I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in saying how nice it is to see him in his place this afternoon. I share the privilege that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, noted as I responded to the amendments that were tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and these were on important issues that he was right to raise. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, these are around fairness, transparency, equity and the problems that some less than scrupulous umbrella organisations and employment agencies currently raise in the market. He is not raising unimportant issues.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already noted, through Clause 34, the Government have sought to amend the definition of “employment business” in the Employment Agencies Act 1973, so that it includes the concept of employment arrangements. This expanded definition will capture so-called umbrella companies and place them in the scope of regulation. As your Lordships know, employment businesses are subject to regulation through the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses Regulations 2003, which were enforced by the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and subsequently will be enforced by the new fair work agency that Part 5 of the Bill creates.

The Government acknowledge that the current regulations are not appropriate for application to umbrella companies so, following consultation, we will set out a new regulatory framework that will apply to umbrella companies. In our view, these regulations are the most proportionate way of reducing non-compliance in the umbrella company market, without introducing a new regime that would add complexity for business. The creation of a licensing authority at this time would therefore not be appropriate. I am happy to say that on this rare occasion, we share the concerns of both the Opposition Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, from whom we heard earlier on this amendment.

The regulation-making powers in the Bill have been carefully considered and included only where the Government consider it justified and necessary. We are not convinced that the amendment will provide additional benefits for businesses or workers significant enough to expand this power, as it proposes.

The Government want to take care to get the regulations right. We have heard throughout our wonderful time spent discussing the Bill in Committee so far that there is a balance to be sought between the burdens that we create through new legislation and regulation on businesses, including small businesses, and protecting the rights of workers. It is a balance we get right, and we want to make sure that we get regulations right in relation to the new definition of employment businesses in this case. Our focus will be on that, alongside the establishment of the fair work agency.

Taking all these factors into consideration, I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble lords who contributed to this short debate. I listened very carefully to the Minister, and I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for his comments. His drafting pen is always both sharper and smarter than mine, and we all benefit from that. I thank him for moving my amendment on Monday in my absence, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for doing so on a previous group. I accept the comments at this stage and am very keen to see what might be possible between now and Report. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 146 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I repeat that these amendments are not about stifling innovation; they are about ensuring that the introduction of AI into the workplace is managed responsibly and does not undermine the fundamental rights, conditions and well-being of workers. By requiring employers to proactively assess potential risks, mitigate them and consult with those affected, we could help build a foundation of trust and ensure that the future of work is one that benefits everyone. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In doing so, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. It is a pleasure to follow him because this has always been his “WAIRIA” of expertise—bear with me. I will speak to my Amendments 289 to 298 and 314 to 316, but before doing so, I give full-throated support to everything the noble Lord said and his amendments. We are very much on the same page.

There is a strange situation with government at the moment when it comes to AI. That is not specific to employment rights but across the piece. We have been subject to it for the past year. We are told consistently that the Government will not be bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation. That position is to be defended if it is taken—the Government have decided on a domain-specific AI approach. But the difficulty with that is that whenever we have had domain-specific legislation coming through your Lordships’ House—be it product regulation, data or any of the Bills that I, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others, have worked on—we have been told that those are not the Bills where AI is to be considered. In only a slightly reductive way, we currently have a situation, to be clear, where the Government are saying they are not bringing forward cross-sector AI legislation and specific Bills are largely—not exclusively—not the place to incorporate AI issues.

The amendments that noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I set out in this group are key to one of the most important sectors—it is broader than a sector, and such an important aspect of our lives. It is how we are employed, what that employment looks and feels like, and how it is experienced by all of us. These amendments do not seek to address issues that will occur next year, next month or even tomorrow. AI is impacting workers right now, oftentimes without them even knowing that it is in the mix.

My first amendment seeks to suggest that the principles that have variously appeared in White Papers and other reports are put on a statutory basis in the Bill. We give ourselves the best opportunity to optimise with AI if we take a principles-based, outcomes-focused and input-understood approach. Similarly, I set out in Amendment 290 that all employers and organisations that develop, deploy or use AI should have an AI responsible officer. For this, do not think burdensome, bureaucratic or overcompliance. Because of the proportionality principle, it simply means that there is an obligation on those employers to report on their use of AI in the workplace. It can be well understood through reporting obligations such as those set out in the Companies Act, which employers will be very familiar with at this stage.

My amendments then move to questions of use. What happens where IP or copyrighted material is being used in the workplace? There needs to be labelling so that everybody is clear on, and there is transparency about, what is going on. What about the use of workers’ data? This is an incredibly rich resource that should not in any sense be served up or sold off to the highest bidder. The use of AI in the workplace should be clear and transparent, and workers should have an opt-in, not an opt-out, responsibility, as set out in the amendments.

Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has touched on, there is the question of automated decisions. It is clear that workers not only have to be aware that ADM is being used—and have the right to opt out—but also need the right to a human explanation of what is happening in those situations. If we are to optimise things with these technologies, concepts such as “human in the loop” and “human over the loop” must be understood. Safeguards need to be in place, not least where ADM is used, and this could form part of the data protection impact assessment that employers have to undertake.

Then there is the question of regulators. Employment and recruitment currently find themselves wide open to the use of AI. An individual may find themselves not getting shortlisted, not getting hired and not even knowing that the reasoning behind that was algorithmic processing rather than human judgment and human reasoning. It is critical to consider the right approach to fill that regulator gap. Would a specific employment and recruitment regulator do the job? My view—and I think there is evidence to support this—would again be that we could have a cross-sector AI authority. Again, do not think of a bureaucratic and burdensome AI regulator; instead, think of a nimble, agile, adaptive and, crucially, horizontally focused AI regulator, not only in the area of employment rights but across the whole of our economy and society. It would deliver that clarity, consistency and certainty that we all need wherever we come across AI in our working, professional and private lives.

It is so significant that, in Amendment 315, I believe there should be a commission on AI in the workplace. Mindful of comments from Monday, I am certainly no fan of setting up a commission to delay or kick issues into the long grass. But perhaps by using the technology to solve some of the issues that are created by the technology, we could have a reimagined approach to commissions and consultations.

Finally, I come to Amendment 316 and the algorithmic allocation of work. This is already happening, and it has already been in front of the courts. It is clearly an issue and one that needs to be fully understood. The Government need to state clearly their position on this most significant of matters. I look forward to other speakers and to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow two of the House’s acknowledged experts in this area of the impact of AI. I will speak to my own Amendment 323B and also note that I attach my name to Amendments 294 and 298 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes.

My Amendment 323B is quite a modest step. It calls for a review to be published within 12 months. In saying that, I thank the Ministers for having a meeting prior to the discussion of these amendments, which I very much appreciated. But I think the time for talk is over; the time for action is now. Twelve months is still too short, but it seemed the best timeframe I could reasonably give for this call for a review of the electronic monitoring of workers in the workplace. This picks up some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes. It also crucially points to the need to look around the world and see what else is happening and what we can learn from what has happened in other places. The companies selling these systems are global giant multinational companies. The companies deploying these systems are giant multinational companies in many cases. It is important that, rather than trying to pick this off ourselves, we look around the world and say that we want to be leaders in creating a different kind of model of how workers can be protected.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

103: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Prohibition of unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) “No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons participating in a scheme designed to provide work experience for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.””(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert—“41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking work experience (1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to a person undertaking work experience with the same employer for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months, beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking such work experience who has ceased to be of compulsory school age, but has not attained the age of 26, is eligible to receive the national minimum wage at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (Meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.), and also includes any organisation which provides an individual with work experience;“work experience” means observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation, industry or work-related activity.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that unpaid work experience cannot be used to avoid National Minimum Wage regulations.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 103 in my name. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill on Report, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register as a member of the global advisory board of Endeavour plc and of the science and technology advisory committee of the Crown Estate, and I had a speaking engagement with the FCSA earlier this year.

Amendment 103 is incredibly simple and extraordinarily important for all those young people who have the most appalling start to their career through finding themselves on the wrong end of an unpaid internship. This has been going for decades and it goes on in some of our smartest industries in the 21st century.

The amendment is a reincarnation of a Private Member’s Bill that I brought forward in 2017. I am delighted to say that when I brought that Bill, which is now Amendment 103 to this Bill, it received full-throated support from the Labour Opposition, whom I thank. It also received full-throated support from the TUC and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, whom I thank.

The amendment simply seeks to give young people the right to have a positive experience—often their first—of entering the labour market. Unpaid internships are already illegal under the National Minimum Wage Regulations, but this amendment further clarifies and specifies what work experience is and, crucially, what it is not. It stops work experience being used as a cover for unpaid internships.

When I drafted the amendment, my first inclination was to have work experience paid from day one. But after wide consultation with businesses and trade unions and across civil society, it was clear that four weeks was the right point to suggest that young people—indeed, any person—could do genuine work experience, overseeing, learning and replicating tasks. If that person is brought on board and is doing work from day one, they are protected by the National Minimum Wage Regulations and are entitled to pay. Work experience has a vital role to play in our society and, as the results of my consultation underpin, four weeks is the right point at which to set the limit.

When the amendment was debated in Committee, when sadly I could not be present, a number of views were put forward that suggested there were difficulties with it because unscrupulous employers could simply have numerous rounds of four-week or part-of-four-week periods, but that is not accurate. The wording describes it as a

“continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks”,

so the drafting already caters for employers who might seek to get around it by having continuous periods of unpaid work experience.

As one young person put it to me, you cannot pay the rent or pay for food with a glowing CV. Ultimately, it is just a question of talent. Why would we want businesses and organisations not to be able to take from the widest, broadest and most diverse talent pool to go into these roles? Some of these roles are at the classier end of the labour market, but it goes through all strata of the labour market. Surely these positions should be open to all on a fair and equitable basis. That is what this amendment would allow for.

We have the ideal opportunity with this Bill to put this right. It seems more than extraordinary, with so many of the other issues that are covered in this not unsizeable Bill, that there is nothing on unpaid internships, nothing to protect those people who find themselves being exploited at the beginning of their career. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, what Bill? If not this amendment, will the Government not bring forward some wording to end this pernicious practice, which still prevails in 21st-century Britain—a desperate, dispiriting, Dickensian practice that still goes on across our labour market? Why would the Government, alongside all their other measures, not take this opportunity to close this loophole? It would allow young people, or any person seeking to get their first foothold in the labour market, to have a positive, supportive work experience into paid employment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate. As he has pointed out, the challenge is to strike the right balance. We must protect individuals from being exploited or drawn into extended unpaid roles that are in effect jobs by another name, but we also must avoid placing undue burdens on organisations whose motives are benign and whose placements offer genuine social and developmental value. I welcome the debate that the amendment has prompted, and I hope that as the Bill progresses, the Government will engage closely with stakeholders to ensure that any future regulations achieve the twin goals of fairness for individuals and viability for those offering valuable early opportunities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have to hand the number of prosecutions that HMRC has taken under the NMW regulations in this instance? If he does not have that to hand, I would be very happy for him to write.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I do not have that information to hand. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail. I take the opportunity to point out that the fair work agency that we are creating in this legislation will be responsible for enforcing this aspect of employment rights regulation as well as others. We would expect that work to be taken forward by the fair work agency. I undertake to write to the noble Lord with that detail.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the hour is late, I will not run through them all by name. I am thankful to the Minister for his response. I very much look forward to the consultation tomorrow and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 103 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Holmes of Richmond]

110: Clause 34, page 61, line 2 at end insert—
“(A1) After section 5(1)(ec) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (general regulations), insert—“(f) requiring the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for employment businesses participating in employment arrangements to underpin recognised certifications and industry standards, particularly for businesses acting as payment intermediaries.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the regulations the Government intend to bring forward for Payment Intermediaries (also known as umbrella companies) make use of the compliant part of the market's existing industry led codes and accreditations. It does not involve the creation of a new body or the creation of a new framework.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I will be blessedly brief. I tabled a similar amendment on this issue in Committee to ask the Government, through the Bill, to introduce regulations to designate a body to bring clarity, consistency and fairness and, in effect, to level the playing field in this area of umbrella businesses, on which the Bill is curiously silent. These entities differ dramatically from other sectors of the employment market, the recruiter market and many other sectors of the economy in not having consistency and clarity of approach in how they are treated.

My amendment in Committee suggested the designation of a body to address this issue. At that stage, it was taken by the Government and others around the Committee that I was suggesting the creation of an additional body. Not a bit of it. It was about the designation of an existing body rather than the creation of a new one. With this amendment on Report, I have moved that on and seek to ask the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that existing codes of practice in good standing—ways of operating that all bona fide businesses in this sector of the market already adhere to—apply to all umbrella businesses.

This extraordinarily moderate amendment would bring fairness, clarity, consistency and a levelling of the playing field. I very much hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his Amendment 110. What this amendment does is simple but important. It encourages the Secretary of State to ensure that in bringing forward regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, they draw upon existing recognised certifications and industry standards. These standards, developed and refined by responsible actors within the market, offer a ready-made baseline for compliance which the Government can and should use.

There is consensus that regulation of umbrella companies is overdue, but as we take this opportunity, let us ensure that the regulation is done well and in a way that is pragmatic, proportionate and effective. This amendment helps point us in that direction, so I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance that the spirit of the amendment will be reflected in the Government’s approach to umbrella companies.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling Amendment 110, which covers the regulation of umbrella companies. The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to utilise pre-existing industry codes and accreditations as a basis for the regulation of umbrella companies.

We recognise the important role accreditation and trade bodies play in sharing information and best practice with their customers and members. The work of these bodies in the umbrella company industry has had some success in driving up standards. However, this success has been fairly limited, and we would not want to assume that an organisation that is a member of an accreditation or trade body is necessarily compliant with everything. We therefore believe that now is the right time for the Government to step in to protect businesses that already do the right thing and also protect workers.

Many in the umbrella company industry, and those who use umbrella companies, welcome regulation, especially as it will help to level the playing field. This includes public positions taken by the Freelancer & Contractor Services Association, Contractor Calculator, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and several other bodies’ responses to the consultation run under the previous Government.

We have been clear since Clause 34 was introduced to the Bill that the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 will be amended to apply to umbrella companies. The Government recognise that the regulations in their current form are not appropriate to regulate the activities of umbrella companies. That is because the regulations predominantly focus on entities providing work-finding services or supplying individuals to end clients, which, generally, umbrella companies do not do. Where umbrella companies do provide such services, they would indeed already be covered under the regulations.

The Government have a statutory requirement to consult before any changes are made to these regulations, and as referenced in the recent roadmap publication, the consultation on umbrella companies regulation will be published this autumn. As part of the consultation process, the Government are keen to get views from trade unions, workers and industry bodies in the umbrella company sector. This will enable the Government to better shape policy development. Following consultation, an appropriate and proportionate umbrella company regulatory regime will be introduced in 2027. Once those regulations come into force, they will be enforced by the Fair Work Agency, which will take a risk-led and intelligence-led approach to its compliance regime.

I hope this provides some of the reassurance that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, were seeking, and for that reason I ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to withdraw his Amendment 110.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to hear that the consultation is coming in the autumn, and we can only hope that is the early autumn and that following that, perhaps there can be some more pace, and it will not be put out to 2027. We also hope the Minister will consider what happens in the interim for all those businesses currently doing the right thing that are disadvantaged by being in a market where some others are perhaps not operating to the same standards and codes of practice. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 110 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Holmes of Richmond Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 111ZA seeks to introduce a requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This amendment is focused on addressing the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. There are many opportunities for its adoption but also risks and impacts. There is potentially massive job displacement. AI could displace 1 million to 3 million UK jobs overall. There are workplaces skills gaps; more than half the UK workforce lacks essential digital skills and the majority of the public has no AI education or training.

AI recruitment algorithms have resulted in race and sex discrimination. There are legal vulnerabilities. Companies risk facing costly lawsuits and settlements when unsuccessful job applicants claim unlawful discrimination by AI hiring systems. Meanwhile, AI adoption accelerates rapidly, and the UK’s regulatory framework is lagging behind.

Organisations such as the Trades Union Congress and the Institute for the Future of Work have consistently highlighted the critical need for robust regulation in this area. The TUC, through its artificial intelligence regulation and employment rights Bill, drafted with a multi-stakeholder task force, explicitly proposes workforce AI risk assessments and emphasises the need for worker consultation before AI systems are implemented. It also advocates for fundamental rights, such as a right to a human review for high-risk decisions. IFOW similarly calls for an accountability for algorithms Act that would mandate pre-emptive algorithmic impact assessments to identify and mitigate risks, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI at work. Both organisations stress that existing frameworks are insufficient to protect workers from the potential harms of AI.

When I spoke to a similar amendment—Amendment 149—in Committee, the Minister acknowledged this and said:

“The Government are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs and skills. We will promote best practice in safeguarding against the invasion of privacy through surveillance technology, spyware and discriminatory algorithmic decision-making … However, I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Institute for the Future of Work will be welcome to make an input into that piece of work and the consultation that is going forward. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and all noble Lords that this is an area that the Government are actively looking into, and we will consult on proposals in the make work pay plan in due course”.—[Official Report, 5/6/25; col. 878.]


This was all very reassuring, perhaps, but I have retabled this amendment precisely because we need more concrete specifics regarding this promised consultation.

The TUC and IFOW have been working on this for four years. Is it too much to ask the Government to take a clear position on what is proposed now? The Minister referred to the importance of proper consultation. This is a crucial area impacting the fundamental rights and well-being of workers right now, often without their knowledge, and AI systems are increasingly being introduced into the workforce, so the Government need to provide clarity on what kind of consultation is being undertaken, with whom they will engage beyond relevant stakeholders and what the precise timescale is for this consultation and any subsequent legislative action, particularly given the rapid introduction of AI into workplaces.

We cannot afford a wait-and-see approach. If comprehensive AI regulation cannot be addressed within this Bill as regards the workplace, we need an immediate and clear commitment to provision within dedicated AI legislation, perhaps coming down the track, to ensure that AI in the workplace truly benefits everyone. I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who, in his single Nelsonian amendment, has covered a lot of the material in my more spread-out set of amendments. I support his Amendment 111ZA and will speak to my Amendments 168 to 176. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board of Endava plc and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.

I will take one brief step backwards. From the outset, we have heard that the Government do not want to undertake cross-sector AI legislation and regulation. Rather, they want to take a domain-specific approach. That is fine; it is clearly the stated position, although it would not be my choice. But it is simultaneously interesting to ask how, if that choice is adopted, consistency across our economy and society is ensured so that, wherever an individual citizen comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach to the treatment of the challenges and opportunities of that AI. Similarly, what happens where there is no competent regulator or authority in that domain?

At the moment, largely, neither approach seems to be being adopted. Whenever I and colleagues have raised amendments around AI in what we might call domain-specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the data Bill and now the Employment Rights Bill, we are told, “This is not the legislation for AI”. I ask the Minister for clarity as to whether, if a cross-sector approach to AI is not being taken, a domain-specific approach is, as opportunities are not being taken up when appropriate legislation comes before your Lordships’ House.

I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers’ use of AI. Very good, if not excellent, principles were set out in the then Government’s White Paper of 2023. I have transposed many of these into my Amendment 168. Would it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute for the benefit of workers, in this instance, wherever they come across employers deploying AI in their workplace?

Amendment 169 lifts a clause largely from my Artificial Intelligence (Regulation) Private Member’s Bill and suggests that an AI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy and use AI would be a positive thing for workers, employees and employers alike. This would not be seen as burdensome, compliant or a mere question of audit but as a positive, vibrant, dynamic role, so that the benefits of AI could be felt by workers right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate and right touch, with reporting requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements set out for other obligations under the Companies Act. If we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic and beneficial for workers, employees, employers, our economy and wider society.

Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. It would put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP and copyrighted material, and the data used in that AI deployment, by which means there would be clarity not only on where that IP copyright and data had emanated from but that it had been got through informed consent and that all IP and copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to.

Amendments 171 and 172 similarly look at where workers’ data may be ingested right now by employers’ use of AI. These are such rich, useful and economically beneficial sources of data for employers and businesses. Amendment 171 simply suggests that there should be informed consent from those workers before any of their data can be used, ingested and deployed.

I would like to take a little time on Amendment 174, around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my points at the beginning of this speech: for recruitment, there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. If the Government continue with their domain-specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain-specific competent authority or regulator that could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector. If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making that decision. Even if they were aware, they would find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to.