Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

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

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Sadly, I have not got through my contribution in response to all the questions, so please give me a bit of time. I will certainly address that specific question when I get to it.

The general point on day-one rights that we are trying to make—my noble friend made it very adequately —is that they currently apply in certain circumstances, so they are not a novel, innovative thing, and they have been a demand for some time. On probation, most good employers have probationary periods that they use for a purpose. That purpose is ensuring that employers can retain an employee so that they can offer opportunities to improve and address issues of competency or capacity.

So probationary periods are not an opportunity to dismiss; they are an opportunity to continue employment. It is important to say that, and the point about a chilling effect is not correct, because all good employers have proper processes and procedures to address dismissal within the probationary period. This legislation tries to promote that and to ensure that it exists.

I was looking for a particular page, which I have now found. There was a particular issue in relation to offenders.

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

Ex-offenders.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Yes, it was on ex-offenders. I certainly saw a page on that and will hopefully get to it soon. I will repeat the point I am making: the probationary period is an opportunity to ensure that people can retain a job.

There we go; I knew I had the page somewhere and that I had read it. Currently, having a spent conviction is not a proper ground on which someone can be dismissed, unless it is from one of the roles listed in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 21 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 21A and 21B in lieu.

21A: After Clause 18, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of extent of right to time off for public duties
(1)The Secretary of State must, before the end of the relevant period—
(a)review the purposes for which employers are required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (right to time off for public duties), and
(b)publish a report setting out the findings of the review.
(2)In carrying out the review, the Secretary of State must, in particular, consider whether employers should be required to permit their employees to take time off in accordance with that section for the purposes of performing the functions of a special constable.
(3)In this section—
“the relevant period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
“special constable” means—
(a)a person appointed as a special constable for a police area in England and Wales,
(b) a person appointed as a special constable under section 25 of the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003 (special constables of the British Transport Police Force), or
(c) a person appointed as a special constable under section 9 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (asp 8) (special constables of the Police Service of Scotland).”

21B: Clause 156, page 150, line 13, at end insert—
“(za) section (Review of extent of right to time off for public duties)(review of extent of right to time off for public duties);”

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

My Lords, in moving Motion C, I will speak to Motions K, K1, N and N1. In this group, we will be debating amendments made in this House relating to special constables, heritage railway volunteers and the school support staff negotiating body. The Government have listened carefully and openly to the concerns raised by noble Lords and Members of the House of Commons who have engaged extensively on these issues.

I will speak first on special constables and to Motion C, relating to Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This amendment would give employees who are special constables the right to reasonable time off to carry out their police duties. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Paddick, and Sir Ashley Fox MP for their championing and advocacy on this important issue. I am pleased to say that the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu in the other place to address this matter.

This Government recognise and value the role that special constables play in keeping our communities safe—a role that has been highlighted by the campaign led by the Association of Special Constabulary Officers. The amendment makes a statutory commitment to undertake a full review of the list of duties captured under Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and to publish a summary of the findings of the review within 12 months of Royal Assent, with specific reference to special constables. The Government have existing powers to deliver any updates to the list as a result of the review via secondary legislation.

As my officials have discussed with the noble Lord, the review is already under way and will consider whether the current list of eligible roles remains fit for purpose and whether any changes should be made, including the case that noble Lords have put forward to add special constables to the list. The review will consider whether changes to the list will deliver the intended support for public services and assess the potential impact on businesses. I hope this provides reassurances to noble Lords about our commitment to review this legislation fully, including in relation to special constables, as we all want to see them supported in performing their important duties. I thank the noble Lord for championing this matter in earlier debates, and I ask for his support for this amendment in lieu.

I now turn to Motion K, relating to Amendment 60, and Motion K1, relating to an amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their continued engagement on this important subject. While we recognise the important contribution that these volunteers make, noble Lords will know that the Government could not accept the original amendment as it risked creating inconsistencies within the broader legislative framework governing young people and volunteer work.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling his amendment in lieu and seeking to find common ground. While we have concerns with the current drafting, the Government consider that targeted guidance for heritage railways can address his practical concerns, without the need for a legislative exemption, and support the intent of his amendment. This is why the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive have offered to work with the Heritage Railway Association to produce written guidance for heritage railways, which will support them in actively encouraging 14 to 16 year-olds to take up volunteer opportunities on their railways. We are grateful to the HRA for its prompt response in relation to this offer and look forward to working with it on the guidance.

This guidance will have an equivalent status to that of other similar material published by both the ORR and the HSE. It will provide an authoritative benchmark for heritage railways of what we consider to be reasonable activities for children to undertake. Importantly, this will provide a benchmark for regulatory inspectors when making enforcement decisions. We would make it clear in the published document that following the guidance would not be compulsory and railways would be free to take other action, but that if they followed the guidance then they would normally be doing enough to satisfy the law. The Government are committed to this guidance. Both the ORR and the HSE agree that this work is a priority. Our officials are ready to begin work with the HRA on preparing the guidance, with an intention to publish it by 31 March 2026.

As I mentioned, the noble Lord’s amendment has some drafting deficiencies. For example, it requires an instruction to be given to the ORR and the HSE on the day of Royal Assent, which would actually slow down the timeline agreed with the HRA. At this stage, there is little that divides us. We are keen to continue our discussions with relevant parties ahead of the Bill being further considered in the other place in order to resolve the matter. The Government will therefore not oppose this amendment today.

I now turn to Motion N, which addresses Amendment 121 on the school support staff negotiating body, or SSSNB, and Motion N1, relating to the amendment in lieu tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. The proposed amendment in lieu would allow employers to employ support staff on pay and other terms and conditions that are below statutory minimums agreed by the SSSNB provided that their overall package of terms and conditions of employment meets or exceeds collective statutory minimums on an aggregate basis.

I understand that this was a point the noble Baroness wished to make on Report, though her original amendment actually offered an alternative form of words to a provision that the Government brought forward for the purposes of clarification. This new amendment would require employers to assess the relative values of different terms and conditions on a case-by-case basis. Such an arrangement would result in uncertainty for employees and remove the protection offered by statutory minimums. Ensuring a consistent flow for all support staff terms and conditions is fundamental to the purpose of SSSNB.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the progress he has made on a very valid point he raised earlier in these debates. I also say to my noble friend Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: my goodness, they must be chuff-chuffed with the result. It has been a major step forward.

I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Barran on making some compelling points. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to them and rethink the approach that he outlined earlier. We were greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing his personal experience to bear on this problem.

If my noble friend wishes to test the opinion of the House, certainly, on these Benches, she will have our support.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to today’s debate. The debate has been wide ranging, from special constables and heritage railways to the SSSNB. I am grateful for everyone’s valuable insight. I will address the points raised by all noble Lords.

On Motion C, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for indicating his support for the Government’s proposed amendment in lieu.

On Motion K1, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on his new role within the Heritage Railway Association. I am grateful to him for working with the Government on this matter and look forward to continuing to work with him and my noble friend Lord Faulkner.

I will address Motion N1 and the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. First, I want to make one point absolutely clear: I can confirm that the Bill will not set a ceiling on pay. In fact, it sets a minimum standard—the floor—where all support staff are entitled to negotiated pay. When taken together, the SSSNB measures in the Employment Rights Bill, the teacher pay measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and subordinate legislation respectively will mean that teachers and support staff in all maintained schools and academies in England can rely on a minimum pay offer. All schools will be able to innovate with pay. No one is saying that they cannot pay more than the minimum pay offer; they can be innovative in their pay and conditions to attract and retain the very best workforce that they need for our children.

We are legislating for a new statutory body for school support staff rather than extending an existing system. School support staff have been without a school-specific national voice for far too long. It is right to establish a body where minimum terms are negotiated and agreed by school employer and employee representatives. As most noble Lords will know, roughly half of the 22,000 state-funded schools in England are now academies, and the body is being newly established, so it is right that academies are included in the statutory remit of the SSSNB in the same way as maintained schools.

As I said earlier, beyond the minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions. The SSSNB will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles and training, and no one is saying that staff cannot be accorded any training support and pay. It will be up to the SSSNB to agree how this is to be done and what the core offer will look like.

This can all be done by local arrangements. We want there to be a core offer that all support staff can expect to receive, with flexibility for employers to go beyond that in their respective local circumstances. Employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions than were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulation.

I hope I have answered some of noble Lords’ concerns. I urge all noble Lords to give due consideration to the Government’s amendments and trust that Members will feel able to lend support to our position.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

On the noble Lord’s last point about employers being able to retain their existing contracts, in the letter I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, on 1 September, she writes in relation to that specific point:

“As set out above, a term of an employee’s contract will only be altered by regulations where this is not detrimental to the employee. This allows employers to retain pay and conditions for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions … provided”—


and I stress this point—

“all terms are the same as or more favourable than statutory minimums”.

If an employer today has an employee whom it is paying well above the statutory minimum but is requiring them to work in more schools than would be in the standard role profile, that employer will no longer be able to continue the same contract. It will have to, I guess, reduce the scale of that employee’s work and reduce their salary. Does the Minister think that is a good outcome?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I must admit that I have not had a chance to look at my noble friend Lady Smith’s letter. As far as I know and have been told, employers will be able to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable terms and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB. Basically, if they are offering more than what is negotiated, they can keep the terms, but it should not be less than that.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene again on the Minister, but I asked this question specifically of the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Smith, because that is what employers are worried about: that their existing staff will suffer as a result of this. I think the noble Baroness’s letter is absolutely clear. It uses the same language that the noble Lord has in his speaking notes but with the additional detail that all terms are the same or as favourable. I believe that we will not vote on this Motion until a little later, so if the Minister is able to clarify things in the meantime, I would be grateful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that. I will make sure that I read the letter and will ask my officials to confirm in writing for her.

Motion C agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 60, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 60A.

60A: Because the existing legal framework does not prevent children from carrying out suitable voluntary work on heritage railways and tramways.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 121, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 121A.

121A: Because the Bill already enables employers to offer terms and conditions of employment that are more favourable than those determined by the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will confirm the policy in the letter sent by my noble friends Lady Smith and Lady Jones, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, referred.

The purpose of the SSSNB is to ensure that school support staff are entitled to at least a statutory minimum level of pay and conditions that has been negotiated by the school employer and employee representatives, and is appropriate for the roles that staff are undertaking in schools. The SSSNB’s remit will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles, training and pay, and it will be for the SSSNB to agree how this is done and what the core offer looks like. Beyond this minimum offer, school support staff will be able to benefit from more favourable pay and conditions where these are offered by the employer.

Furthermore, the SSSNB will receive a remit from the Secretary of State setting out what the body will focus on in a given year. In the first few years, the SSSNB will focus on terms and conditions that will most benefit school support staff, while giving the sector time to adjust to the new process. Where regulations make no provision in relation to particular terms and conditions of employment, the existing terms and conditions in the employee’s contract will remain unchanged, and schools continue to have flexibility to agree terms in local negotiations; for example, if a ratified agreement relates to minimum pay levels only, existing contractual provisions in relation to annual leave or another school that staff work in will remain unchanged.

I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.

Motion N1 (as an amendment to Motion N)

Moved by