Employment Rights Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

16: Clause 1, page 4, line 9, at end insert—
“(10A) In making regulations relating to the duty to offer guaranteed hours under this section, the Secretary of State must have regard to the nature of the work and operational characteristics of different sectors, including but not limited to sectors with irregular or seasonal work patterns.(10B) Specifically, in sectors where work schedules are inherently variable and unpredictable, such as the theatre sector, the Secretary of State shall consider the concept of Available Hours, which reflects the actual hours an employer can reasonably offer workers based on the known operational needs of the sector, without imposing undue rigidity on employers or creating unfair advantage or disadvantage for workers.(10C) The Secretary of State must by regulations issue specific guidance on how employers in sectors with variable work patterns may meet their obligations to offer guaranteed hours, while taking into account the fluctuating nature of work, the distribution of available hours, and the need for flexibility to accommodate the unique operational demands of the sector.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures the Secretary of State considers sector-specific work patterns, like those in the theatre industry, when regulating guaranteed hours.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 16 in my name, I offer my apologies for not being able to be present at Second Reading, although I followed the debate that your Lordships had then, as I have today’s debate, particularly the earlier group on zero-hours contracts.

I also offer my thanks to the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre, which represent some 500 of the UK’s leading theatre producers, venue owners, managers and performing arts centres, and with which I had the honour of working closely when I was Arts Minister, for raising the issue that underlies my amendment and for discussing it with me in some detail. I stress that those organisations welcome many of the measures in this Bill and share the Government’s ambition to eliminate exploitative practices, but they have flagged their concerns with the provisions relating to zero-hours contracts, which are integral to operations in theatre and other live performing arts, and which presently operate in a way that delivers fairness, flexibility and inclusion for the sector and the brilliant, creative people who sustain it.

I am sure, by the end of proceedings on the Bill, that the Minister will have tired of special pleading on behalf of every sector of the economy, but theatres operate under a unique set of pressures, including the stark new pressures that I saw them confront during my time in government—from the bleak months of Covid-19 to the rising costs of energy and materials following the inflationary effects of that pandemic and of the illegal invasion of Ukraine.

The effects of that turbulence—rising costs and falling real-terms income—mean that theatres must work harder than ever before to balance the necessity of making a profit with long-term investment and their sincere commitment to delivering social good. The arts hold a mirror up to our society and help us to understand the human condition—a value that cannot simply be measured in ticket sales and bottom lines, important though those are.

In particular, as major employers of a casual workforce, theatres have to manage highly irregular and unpredictable staffing needs while supporting and valuing their workers, without whom theatre simply could not happen. As one of the organisations which sprang up during the pandemic put it in its very well-chosen name, freelancers make theatre work.

The proposals in the Bill as currently drafted, regarding the right to guaranteed hours for casual workers, risk upsetting the delicate equilibrium by which the theatre sector operates, balancing commercial viability with social value, long-term investment with short-term realities, and the demands of an irregular calendar with a commitment to fairness for its workforce. Although I am glad to see that the Government have amended the Bill in the ways we have just debated in the previous group and will debate when we look at further government amendments which follow—particularly, in this instance, to allow collective agreements to override the new statutory right—the mechanism set out in new Section 27BW does not fully solve the problem and is unlikely in practice to provide the safeguards that this cherished sector needs.

Theatre’s operating model is inherently shaped by irregular programming, seasonal variation and periods of closure. Those aspects are baked into the way that theatre works and are part of what makes it so dynamic and diverse. Notwithstanding the well-known mantra that the show must go on, theatres do not operate continuously. Even long-running productions experience periods of closure, known as dark weeks, when no performances can be staged and no box office income is generated. The opening of a major new production might require up to 12 weeks to load in sets and equipment and to undergo technical rehearsals. These help productions to dazzle us with ever-more ambitious technical wizardry, and are rightly the stuff of separate award categories for lighting, sound, set design and more.

Short, planned closures, typically for at least a fortnight each year, are needed to carry out essential inspections and to ensure that buildings remain safe and compliant for those who enjoy visiting them. That is particularly important in heritage venues, which receive heavy footfall but only modest and irregular investment. I pay tribute to the work of the Theatres Trust and others who champion the value and plight of historic theatres, concert halls and other cultural buildings across the country, and acknowledge the pressing capital needs of our cultural estate, particularly at a time when many of the boilers, roofs and windows that were funded by the first wave of National Lottery funding some quarter of a century ago are all reaching or long passing the natural time for an upgrade.

Sometimes, of course, these periods of closure are needed without much warning at all, as I saw during my time as Minister, when I had occasion to learn, along with most of the rest of the country, what reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete was. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, from the Benches opposite, and I were both at a very enjoyable performance of “The Witches” at the National Theatre, which had to be halted midway because of a breakdown of the Olivier’s revolving stage. I am very pleased that the last Conservative Budget helped the theatre to fix that before its 60th birthday year was over.

The sad fact is that performances can be cancelled at short notice for a variety of reasons, most of which are beyond the control of the theatre operator and staff. I have mentioned two egregious examples already—the pandemic and the need for health and safety in the face of things such as RAAC—but many other external challenges beset theatres from time to time: severe weather causing leaks or other damage which requires repairs, external events such as power cuts, or industrial grievances from other sectors having a knock-on effect. I am sure it is not betraying any state secrets to say that one of the few COBRA meetings I was called to attend as Arts Minister was to discuss the effects of the train strikes on our theatres and other parts of our night-time economy, which lost audiences and vital income as a result.

Of course, there are those unforeseen incidents which come like the theatrical deus ex machina. Last year, for example, a touring production of “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang” was brought to a halt when the eponymous vehicle, “our fine four-fendered friend”, was damaged during the get-out at one of its venues. The repairs to the vehicle took several weeks, leading to the cancellation of all performances during that period. That meant that other venues which had booked the production received no income and were unable to programme another show at such short notice.

During times such as these, there is, quite simply and unavoidably, no front-of-house work available. Guaranteeing hours during periods like that, as the Bill requires, would mean paying staff when no work exists, placing enormous pressure on theatres’ and other arts venues’ already very tight operating budgets. That is the reason for my Amendment 16.

The proposed right to guaranteed hours assumes that organisations operate with consistent demand and regular staffing patterns. That is not the case in theatres or, as we heard in previous debates, in many other businesses and organisations. Theatres’ scheduling requirements and therefore their staffing needs shift weekly—sometimes daily. Guaranteeing fixed hours based on short-term patterns of work, as the Bill proposes, would introduce a level of rigidity that threatens their entire staffing model.

The aim of my Amendment 16 is to urge the Government to acknowledge the unique dynamics of theatre and of the arts sector more broadly, and to adopt a more realistic framework, which will be beneficial to many sectors beyond theatre and the performing arts. UK Theatre has suggested the concept of “available hours”, which I have reflected in my Amendment 16, referring to the actual hours that an employer can collectively offer workers in a given period. This approach would allow for the equitable allocation of work while remaining responsive to the volatile nature of theatre operations.

It would also reflect the desires of the staff who value the flexibility that theatre work currently affords them. Many of those who work front of house do so to support other careers or responsibilities; as noble Lords noted in our debates in relation to other sectors, people have many family or caring burdens. But theatres particularly attract front-of-house staff who want a flexible job, perhaps because they are creative freelancers balancing work with auditions, because they are students are still learning their trade, or because they are retirees and theatre lovers seeking fulfilling part-time work or seeking sociable evening, but not night-time, working hours—rather unlike your Lordships’ House.

The theatre sector’s sincere understanding of its workforce is rooted in over a century of constructive and collaborative industrial relations with the trade unions in the sector, whose names are almost as well-known as those of some of their famous members: Equity, BECTU, the Musicians’ Union and the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. Their symbiotic relationships have produced agreements which are highly tailored to this unique sector. These strong union relationships and robust collective agreements already guarantee protections such as minimum calls, notice periods and compensation for cancelled shifts.

The recent amendments to the Bill include a provision under new Section 27BW which allows certain rights, such as the proposed right to guaranteed hours, to be excluded through a relevant collective agreement. But such an agreement must explicitly exclude the statutory right and include clear replacement provisions. Retaining this flexibility would now depend on being able to negotiate its exclusion.

Without that flexibility, the Bill before us risks creating structural unfairness, entrenching advantage for a small number of workers at the expense of wider opportunity, undermining long-standing and vitally cherished industrial relations, and damaging the ability of theatres to take creative risks, maintain their heritage buildings and serve the community. What is intended as a protection could in practice become a barrier to access and inclusion. I am sure that is not what the Government want to see, so I hope the Minister will agree to look at this carefully and to discuss it with me, with UK Theatre, the Society of London Theatre and many others from the world of the arts to make sure that the Bill delivers for those cherished sectors. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, this amendment points up the need for a nuanced approach tailored to industry requirements. This is the first particular instance we have in the Bill of its potential effect on the creative industries, which will crop up again—I assure the Minister—as the Bill progresses. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, on introducing this amendment. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the SOLT/UK Theatre briefing, which is highly informative and measured and demonstrates well the wide degree of flexibility required for the employment of, for instance, front-of-house staff in theatres.

We often take front-of-house staff in theatres and cinema workers for granted, but they are the backbone of these organisations. They could not run without them. In my experience, they are unfailingly polite and helpful and often highly knowledgeable. A fair number, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, have jobs in other areas of the creative industries, which highlights the complexities of working relationships in this sector.

The briefing from SOLT/UK Theatre is, of course, the view from the employers, and the solution has to have the support of all stakeholders, including the workers themselves. According to The Stage,

“actor Nicola Hurst, who is also a duty manager … at Southwark Playhouse, said … she had turned down permanent contracts multiple times … as they could never offer her the flexibility she needed to pursue her creative work”.

She speaks for many in this sector when she says:

“I have colleagues and friends working at all levels in the theatre industry, from fringe to the West End, and for all of them, zero-hours contracts are essential to support themselves between creative jobs, and often, to bolster fees from a tragically underfunded sector”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We have previously had a debate on the nature of reference periods, and that is something that we are going to consult further upon. If we are going to have a discussion, let us have a discussion on that as well, and I will see if I can reassure noble Lords on that matter.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the willingness she has just indicated to continue discussions. SOLT and UK Theatre updated their briefing on the Bill in the light of the amendments that the Government have brought but they retain some concerns about the amendments in this area, so I am sure that they and others across the arts sector will be glad to continue to discuss it with the Government as they continue to write the Bill as it is before us.

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, at this late hour; their championing of the arts knows no temporal limit. I am grateful to them for staying to express support for this amendment. I should say that I am much attracted to many of the amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have tabled later in the Bill on the need to consider its differential impacts on certain sectors. I look forward to the debates we will have those.

I am grateful too to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for his generous remarks. I am happy to say that the UK’s theatres have indeed bounced back well from the pandemic. Last year, more than 17 million theatregoers attended a show in the West End alone—an 11% increase on pre-pandemic levels. In fact, the West End outperformed the Premier League, attracting 2.5 million more attendees. As we have just finished a long Bill on football, perhaps we ought to spend a bit more time on the things that people go to in greater numbers.

However, the sector remains precarious. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, the people who are that smiling welcome at front of house are often taken for granted. During the pandemic, we saw how challenging it was for them, especially when enforcing some of the Covid restrictions. They deal with exuberant, sometimes well-oiled audiences, and during that time they had to explain to people why they had to sit two metres apart or wear face masks, or why the show had been cancelled or much delayed. They perform a vital role in welcoming people to theatrical productions, orchestral recitals and much more. As the noble Earl said, that relates just as much to cinemas and many other cultural venues. The UK Cinema Association has provided a helpful briefing on the Bill and its impacts on our cinemas.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important prelude to the other debates that we will have on the creative industries and the cultural sector, and I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to continue to discuss these matters with those organisations. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th June 2025 Lords Chamber

The present position is unacceptable and leaves young people, particularly those between 14 and 16, unable to enjoy and benefit from the experience of working on a steam railway. The railways are thus unable to engage their enthusiasm at a crucial time in their development, and the opportunity to encourage enthusiastic recruits to the rail industry is being lost. Enactment of this amendment would be a boost for the heritage railway sector, which has had a difficult time since Covid, with many cost increases, particularly for coal needed for steam locomotives. It would increase the number of young people, which would enable them to be given opportunities that previous generations have enjoyed. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to offer some comfort that the Government are prepared to accept this. I beg to move.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to add my support to Amendment 201, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to which I have added my name in an expression of cross-party support for this very sensible endeavour. In doing so, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for his tenacity on this issue, as well as to the hard work over many years by the Heritage Railway Association and the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Heritage Rail, of which I am a member.

As the noble Lord outlined, he has been campaigning on this issue, along with those colleagues, for a number of years, including through the Private Member’s Bill that he brought in the previous Parliament. It was debated in this House when I was Heritage Minister but was responded to for the then Government by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She, and indeed all the noble Lords who spoke in the Second Reading debate on that Private Member’s Bill, spoke very sympathetically about it. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott spoke also with fondness of the Kent and East Sussex Railway, which passes very close to where she lives. Speaking from the Labour Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox of Newport, who also mentioned the Talyllyn Railway and the Pontypool and Blaenavon Railway, said in her remarks from the Opposition Front Bench then:

“I have little doubt that achieving and delivering the desired objectives will eventually be managed, whether it is through this Bill or by the Government’s hand”.—[Official Report, 15/7/22; col. 1724.]


Sadly, that “eventually” is still outstanding, and I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of this Bill to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and others have been campaigning for so long.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, set out very clearly the legal position as it stands, as well as very powerfully the beneficial impact that heritage railways have in communities up and down the country: the social skills that they provide to young volunteers; the employment that they offer in rural areas; the linchpin that they often are to the visitor economy in their parts of the United Kingdom.

It is very welcome that, as the noble Lord highlighted, both the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road have made clear that they would not seek to enforce the 1920 Act to prevent children, women or young people volunteering on heritage railways. But the point, as the noble Lord rightly said, is that this confusing provision remains on the statute book. That has a potentially chilling effect for the voluntary organisations that look after our heritage railways. They are dependent on volunteers, not just for restoring and running locomotives, welcoming the many visitors from around the world who come to this country to enjoy them, but also the volunteer trustees and custodians who have to get their heads around the legal and regulatory position in which those organisations are operating. They take their duties in relation to the safety of the staff and visitors to heritage rail very seriously indeed, and the Heritage Railway Association does excellent work in providing advice and guidance to its member railways. But we should do our bit as legislators to make the job of all those volunteers easier by making sure that the law is up to date and clearly understood.

Amendment 201 does not seek to repeal the 1920 Act but to amend it, to put beyond doubt that it does not prohibit women, young persons and children from volunteering on our heritage railways and heritage tramways. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred in the previous exchanges he has had with many Governments that one of the arguments against doing this is “unintended consequences”. I have seen that many times myself in the briefings that I was given as a Minister at the government Dispatch Box. Often unintended consequences are also unspecified ones. It is hard to think what the unintended consequences might be, but the noble Lord has very sensibly drawn Amendment 201 very tightly in order to obviate that problem, so I hope the Government will look favourably upon it.

We all want to encourage volunteering, not just to help these cherished organisations to continue to bounce back from the pandemic and the challenging time that they had during Covid-19 and the challenges they face in relation to the supply of coal; their very purpose is to pass on to future generations an appreciation of our industrial past, the vital role that the railways played in the history of our nation, and to use the scientific and engineering advances of the past to inspire new generations to come up with world-changing advances of their own. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, said, some 22,000 volunteers are involved in keeping our heritage railways going, but too few of them are women or young people. The sector very much wants to welcome volunteers from an ever-wider background, and this piece of more than 100 year-old legislation stands in the way of their valiant efforts.

This is the year in which we are celebrating Railway 200, the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington, in my native north-east. I am very pleased to see my noble friend Lord Mendoza in his place. Historic England, which he chairs, is among the many organisations that are supporting Railway 200 with great enthusiasm to inspire new generations to get involved in our heritage railways but also to inspire them in the exploits of the future.

So, as we mark that important 200th anniversary, I hope we can finally take the opportunity to amend this law, which is already more than 100 years old and which has caused confusion for too long. I know that the Minister has a background in rail, and I hope he will look favourably on this amendment from his noble friend and agree to discuss with both of us how we might take this opportunity, finally, to solve the problem that he has been seeking to address for so long.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I certainly do not have the expertise that he has in heritage railways, but steam railways are an important part of this country’s heritage and, as each year passes, that importance surely grows. We are getting closer to a time when there will be no one with a personal memory of such trains in their working life. As well as being an enjoyable activity for interested and enthusiastic children and young people, this is also an educational opportunity for the next generation, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, says, in supporting our heritage—and support for our heritage is something that this Government have pledged to give. This is an instance that shows the world of work in all its manifestations as a very varied one, including voluntary work undertaken by young people. I hope that the Government show some flexibility in this regard and accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st July 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay]

126: 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 Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 126 stands in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The amendment is identical to one which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and I proposed in Committee, although noble Lords may have noticed that we have swapped round: whereas he served as the driver in Committee and I took on the role of fireman, shovelling extra fuel into the firebox, we have now swapped places, and a more diligent and experienced secondman I could not hope for. We are very glad to have support from the Liberal Democrat Benches and the Cross Benches as well, from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The Minister very kindly arranged a helpful meeting with us following the debate we had in Committee, and we are very grateful to him and to his officials, as well as to colleagues from the Health and Safety Executive and the Office of Rail and Road, for the time they gave us.

Our helpful discussion highlighted the very good relationship that the heritage railway sector has with its regulators. The Heritage Railway Association, for instance, works closely with the ORR to produce guidance and examples of best practice for its members across the country. As we set out in Committee, this is a sector that takes its responsibilities to its staff, its volunteers and its visitors very seriously, and which is scrupulous in following the laws and regulations that govern it. That brings us to the problem that our amendment seeks to remedy. While there have been helpful assurances from the regulators that they would not rely on outdated legislation as the basis for a prosecution regarding the use of young volunteers, the statute book says otherwise, thanks to a law passed more than a century ago seeking to protect women and children in the decimated workforce that the country found in the aftermath of the First World War.

Let me briefly restate the problem. The Employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children Act 1920 makes it unlawful to employ young people under the age of 16 on the railways. That 1920 Act was passed more than 30 years before the first preserved railway started operation with the aid of volunteers, but by slightly confused extension through later legislation, the work the Act prohibits includes unpaid work by volunteers—far from what the original Act envisaged. This has had a chilling effect on the responsible law-abiding businesses and charitable organisations that look after this important part of our national heritage. So concerned were they that in 2015, the Heritage Railway Association 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 voluntary work on a heritage railway or tramway.

For the past decade, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has been seeking to put that right. The Private Member’s Bill that he brought in during the last Parliament passed all its stages in your Lordships’ House without amendment, but was regrettably not taken up in another place, so did not become law. It did, however, win some important and helpful reassurances from the regulators, but these do not have statutory force and do not cover the threat of civil action or of prosecution by other public authorities. I stress that nobody in the sector wants to be accused of misapplying the law. If the law is unclear, it is our duty to clarify it, rather than asking voluntary organisations to spend many hours and many thousands of pounds trying to disentangle the confusion that legislators have caused.

The amendment that the noble Lords and I have brought is deliberately very narrowly framed. It seeks to make it clear that voluntary work on a heritage railway or tramway is not to be considered

“employment in an industrial undertaking”

for the purposes of the 1920 Act. It leaves that Act on the statute book. The Minister mentioned in Committee a case some 16 years ago in which the Act was used in connection with the illegal employment of a child in a factory. We can see its importance in such cases, but these are a world away from the volunteering that we want to encourage in young people in our heritage sector. The benefits of such volunteering are manifold. It helps young people to gain valuable experience and life skills, which will help them in their future employment. It brings people together across the generations and from diverse backgrounds to celebrate our shared heritage and to keep it alive for the benefit of future generations. It is an essential boost to the organisations that look after that shared heritage, which operate on very tight margins and in the face of many other challenges.

On Friday, I had the great pleasure of visiting, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, the touring exhibition “Inspiration”, which is travelling the length and breadth of Britain by rail throughout this anniversary year, when we mark the bicentenary of the first passenger rail journey. Over two days at Waterloo this weekend alone, it welcomed more than 1,400 people, not just telling them the proud story of our industrial past but showing how they can get involved in the future of our railways, as coders, camera operators, ecologists, weather analysts and so much more, and how they can help to write the next exciting chapter of our railways. The exhibition in those carriages is brilliantly targeted at schoolchildren in school years 7 to 9—the time when they are choosing the subjects that will steer them towards their future careers. These are exactly the young people whose passion our heritage railways want to ignite, to help them in whatever direction life takes them.

The unintended consequence of this Act of Parliament, passed more than a century ago, stands in the way of unleashing that potential. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has campaigned long and hard for it to be remedied. I do hope that his noble friend the Minister is able to help do that today. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short but important debate, particularly to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who spoke with great clarity and authority about the legal problem that we are trying to fix. No responsible director or trustee wants to be put in the position of breaking the law, even if regulators or Ministers say that they will look the other way.

The Minister shares the passion of all noble Lords who spoke for the heritage rail sector. We saw that in our helpful meeting and in the first part of his speech today. He suggested in his closing remarks that it is for organisations such as the Heritage Railway Association to do the work: provide the guidance, take the risk and tell their members what to do. But the statutory problem remains. I stress that the Heritage Railway Association has a very good working relationship with the regulators. They have met since the letter that the Minister mentioned and they provide guidance. However, leaving this untidy situation on the statute book leaves them open to risk by civil action and prosecution by other local authorities, and in the invidious position of having to break the law, or appear to do so.

The Minister rightly mentioned other pieces of legislation which it may be important to look at, and said that we need a thorough cross-government review. This problem has been looked at for a decade by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the Heritage Railway Association and others, and there have been efforts to get that thorough cross-government review—under successive Governments, I admit. So I suggest that we put the noble Lord’s very modest amendment in the Bill and seek to expedite that work. I know that, with his great interest and passion in this area, the Minister can help us reach a happy solution. However, it is important that we get started and I would like to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 23rd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others who have tabled amendments, and I congratulate them on persevering to Report on this important issue. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I think it is regrettable that it has come so late, towards the end of term, but this is an important issue.

I welcome what the Government have done in appointing a freelance champion and look forward to the impact that that will have. However, as noble Lords on the Cross Benches have said, the proof will be in the pudding about this person’s clout and purchase, and their authority to speak across Whitehall.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, spoke about the anonymity of many freelancers in the creative industries and the arts, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, talked about the way that they lose out in terms of their employment rights, including in some very serious ways that affect their safety. I will add a few words about my perspective, having been a Minister at DCMS, to note how they also lose out in the conversations that are had in Whitehall. When ministerial round tables are assembled, it is very easy for officials to gather the employers or the heads of trade unions who can speak on behalf of large numbers of workers. However, it is very difficult to find somebody who can speak on behalf of all freelancers; they are a more nebulous and disparate group of people, and they lose out in the conversations that are sometimes had.

There needs to be the understanding, which noble Lords have expressed, that, in parts of the performing arts and the creative industries, people work as freelancers not because it is a career choice but because it is a structural necessity of having a career in these rewarding sectors. It is also the case, when we ask people to help advise the Government, to sit on advisory panels or to take part in government commissions, that, if they do not have the safety net of a regular employer, they are not able to give as much time as those who are in more structured forms of employment can. They are therefore also losing out in terms of feeding into the policy-making conversations there.

It is important that the voices of freelancers, particularly in the creative industries and the arts, are heard. The questions about the clout and purchase that the new champion will have—particularly about whether this person will be paid and have some authority—are important. I congratulate the noble Lords on continuing with this important set of amendments.