Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

279ZZZA: Clause 144, page 144, line 19, leave out paragraph (b)
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment to understand Parliament’s role as an employer itself and the role of over 600 other employers on the site.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 279ZZZA—it somewhat reminds me of ZZ Top. This is, again, a bit of a niche amendment. The reason I say that is because many people—not your Lordships, I am certain—may think that “the Crown” in Clause 144 applies just to the King and the Royal Family. In fact, UK Ministers are of the Crown, and “Crown premises” means any government building and any land that it has, and so on. So the reality of what this clause refers to is much broader. I am sure that Ministers are thrilled that subsection (3) applies to them, so they will never be found criminally liable in that regard.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness wish to move her amendment?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thought I started by saying I would move it, but yes, I certainly do want to move it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for her amendment, which raises an important topic: how the enforcement provisions in Part 5 would apply to Parliament and MPs as employers.

Parliament must of course comply with employment legislation. However, the Bill provides that the powers of entry in Part 5 cannot be exercised in relation to

“premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament”;

otherwise, Part 5 would apply to both Houses of Parliament and to MPs as employers. We are in danger of having something similar to—but slightly less than—a deep constitutional crisis, because the approach was agreed on the advice of the House authorities. It is therefore not a government decision; it is a decision made by the House authorities. They are more powerful, as far as I can see, and they can therefore overrule what the Government may think about all this.

This approach is not unusual. It aligns with recent precedents, such as Section 165(1)(a) of the Building Safety Act 2022, to respect parliamentary privilege. In this case, Parliament has to comply with employment legislation. The only issue raised here is about the power of entry not applying to the Parliamentary Estate. The noble Baroness might understand why we want to make sure that the Parliamentary Estate is secure from that challenge, and there is probably another place where she could raise her concerns about employment in the Parliamentary Estate. I have some sympathy with some of the cases that she argued about, but I suggest that she sees the House authorities about them. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I certainly will withdraw it. I did not mean to put the Minister in a difficult place, and her answer was very gracious. My amendment was based on the expectation that this is a royal palace, where things such as licensing laws and health and safety rules do not technically apply. However, that aside, we still need to consider how we act. If nothing else, I hope that this short debate has contributed to reminding ourselves of the obligations that we all share. With that, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 279ZZZA withdrawn.