Lords Chamber

Tuesday 3rd June 2025

(began 4 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:39
None Portrait Introduction(s): Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson OBE
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion, in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do, by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and Eleanor Shawcross Wilson.

-- Officer of our most excellent order of the British Empire. To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baroness. To have and to hold for life. Willing and by these presence granting, for us, our heirs and successors that may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom, amongst the Barons.

And also that may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baroness, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at made patent, witness ourself at On the 28th day of May. In On the 28th day of May. In the On the 28th day of May.

In the third year of our reign. By warrant under

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the King's sign-manual. I do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
None Portrait Oral questions: Harms associated with ultra-processed food
-

Second Oral Question.
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
Earl of Minto Portrait The Earl of Minto (Conservative)
-
-
future sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory. May I begin by expressing my disappointment with the government's handling of the timing of this announcement? This is timing of this announcement? This is a matter of national security and territorial integrity. This decision territorial integrity. This decision affects directly our country is perceived on the international stage. To slip in an unscheduled statement moments before these statement moments before these houses rose for recess shows a disregard for members in this House disregard for members in this House and the other place.

Matters of this significance deserve to be discussed and the actions of the government scrutinised in good time and it is scrutinised in good time and it is my view that the government timed the announcement to disrupt that duty despite efforts made by the Official Opposition to raise this question on parliamentary time on question on parliamentary time on the Thursday before recess. I hope the noble Lord can start his response by addressing this question. The statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place was effusive in highlighting the importance of the Diego Garcia base.

He said " for more than 50 years, the joint UK-US military bases Diego Garcia has been a launch pad to defeat terrorists, prevent threats to our nation, and protect economic security. This base keeps Britain secure at home and strong abroad ". Candy noble Lord explain why, given that this is the government's assessment, the government is surrendering British sovereign territory to a foreign power that has only recently agreed to deepen maritime cooperation with Russia? Once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never be regained.

Not only that. But the text of the treaty includes the text of the treaty includes the following provision, that the UK must expeditiously inform Mauritius of any armed attack on 1/3 state directly emanating from the base on Diego Garcia. Does the noble Lord believe it is in the interest of our national security to share advance information on military operations with other countries? Can he promise asked that this information which we are now obliged to share will never be shared with China, Iran or Russia, with whom the Mauritians are becoming increasingly friendly? I like many other noble lords and honourable members and the other players took exception to the comments from the Prime Minister during his press conference when he said those of us who oppose this deal are on the same side as Russia and China.

That is not only deeply offensive but also false. Last week we saw news reports of the Chinese ambassador to Mauritius hailing the deal as a massive achievement for Mauritius and then confirming China would welcome them into the initiative. It is vividly apparent that contrary to the government claims, Mauritius is becoming ever more under the influence of China. It is no surprise China welcomes the deal. It plays into their strategy of weakening Western democracies and hobbling our ability to operate internationally.

Over the weekend, noble Lord will also have considered the renewed US views on China's attention to Taiwan as context. I wonder if the noble Lord has considered how this treaty makes us look on the world stage. The Prime Minister signed an agreement which will surrender a strategically vital resource to a foreign government. He has also apparently committed asked to sharing military information with the same government, who show increasing signs of support for our enemies. The Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary have both argued that this agreement is necessary to safeguard our ability to operate from the Diego Garcia military base in the face of legal challenges.

But the legal case is entirely opaque. Noble lords know that this all stems from a non-binding advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. Which counts among its number, a Chinese judge was a member of the Chinese Communist Party, and who voted against condemning Russia for the illegal invasion of Ukraine. We also know that the International telecommunications Union does not have the power to issue binding rulings against the UK in respect of the base on Diego Garcia and it is not clear whether a case would be brought against us in the international tribunal for the law of the sea.

If it had done so it would have been a case that we could have opposed and appealed. I say again and everyone seems to agree that the British Indian Ocean Territory is a critical and important asset not just to the UK, but by direct or indirect association to all of our allies. My lords, to crown it all we are paying for the privilege of surrendering our own territory. The government, to the incredulity of members across both houses and people throughout the country has hailed this as a success.

In reality I can find no positive report of this chosen route in any media or any other channel not linked to China. Does the noble Lord the Minister believed that this is a good deal which benefits the United Kingdom? When he stands up in a moment to respond, can he say with hand on heart that handing the Mauritians £30 billion over 99 years to lose one of our vitally strategic assets is something we should assets is something we should welcome and be proud of? Does the noble Lord know that these payments are frontloaded? The agreement laid before Parliament states for the first three years of the agreement, the UK will pay Mauritius £165 million per year and then pay 120 million for each of the next 10 years, and an additional 45 million every year from year one for infrastructure improvements in infrastructure improvements in Mauritius.

For the next 25 years. My lords, that means over the next five years, we will pay Mauritius £1 billion. Let me put that into defence context. £1 billion could pay for 10 new F 35 lightnings. 30 Apache helicopters. 125 boxes of armoured fighting vehicles or a whole type 26 private. Something which must rankle with the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

At a time when the Chancellor is warning of spending cuts, does the warning of spending cuts, does the Minister not agree that a far better use could be found for this money? I use could be found for this money? I wonder if the Minister could tell us exactly how this will be funded? Can exactly how this will be funded? Can the Minister help the House to understand how it is fulfilling its obligations to the British people by obligations to the British people by pursuing this particular deal at the expense of the taxpayer? Or importantly, and this is a simple importantly, and this is a simple question, can the Minister tell us if this money will be paid out of if this money will be paid out of the defence budget? Of so, how can he justify that given the government he justify that given the government has spent the last few months attempting to talk up their increase in the defence budget, this in the defence budget, this agreement must make the kingdom less secure, weaker on the global stage and more at risk than the current status quo.

My Lords, there are good deals and not so good deals. One of the key skills in deciding whether to complete a deal or not is when it is wiser to withdraw than continue, and that is exactly what the previous government did. We should be mindful of this critical fact again that once sovereignty has been relinquished, it can never, ever be regained. It is also somewhat ironic, my Lords, that as the government announces it Strategic Defence Review, it is wilfully disposing with the sovereignty of the British Indian Ocean Territory on the other.

This is with significant amounts of taxpayers cash. Just as importantly, what of the Chagos community, already widely displace? Are one of payment of £40 million to assist resettlement and readjustment to an unknown and distant sovereign power? It seems almost derisory. Can the Minister advise the house how this sum is to be allocated, tracked and insured to be allocated, tracked and insured to aid all to go since -- Chagossians? This arrangement poses such harm to our nation and indeed international our nation and indeed international security.

It's such a fragrant violation of the Chagos people. We feel a duty to bring this motion to the house. We hope noble Lords across the house will weigh the agreement carefully and support our motion. My Lords, this deal cannot, it cannot be the right thing for our country to do.
15:49
15:50
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
very similar things. On most issues, we find ourselves saying how vital we find ourselves saying how vital defence of the realm is, and we are broadly on the same page with a few broadly on the same page with a few minor differences. On this issue, there seems to be such a clear difference of opinion between the difference of opinion between the official opposition and the official opposition and the government benches that I'm really only going to ask a few questions for clarification for those of us for clarification for those of us who are not privy councillors who have not been briefed and who are have not been briefed and who are therefore unable to express the effusive views of the importance of effusive views of the importance of Diego Garcia that the noble Lord mentioned the Secretary of State had mentioned the Secretary of State had used.

Because for anyone who has read the statement that was read in the other place just before recess, the Secretary of State was indeed absolutely crystal clear about the importance of Diego Garcia to the security of the United Kingdom. And he particularly made the point that the deal was vital because we retain control of Diego Garcia. But then he pointed out how important it was because actually, it is a joint US- UK military base. So, what role does the United States play on Diego Garcia? I realise the Minister may Garcia? I realise the Minister may feel this is privileged information he is not able to articulate an open session.

But I do think we need to understand what is going on in terms of our relationship with the US in this regard. And in particular, the noble Lord said that the only people who are really in favour of this are the Chinese, and yet the Secretary of State pointed out that none other than Pete had south -- Hegseth, Secretary of State Rubio and President Trump said this was a very strong deal. So whose interest is this bill in question is it in the U.K.'s interest or is it primarily about the US's interest? And finally, this deal has apparently been 2.5 years in the making.

His Majesty's Government has only been in office for 11 months. That means that over a year and half ago, negotiations were under the Conservative government. What has changed between the two governments to make one party might think this is a vital deal and the other to be opposed? opposed?
15:52
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Can I first of all thank the noble Earl for his comments and the articulate way in which he presented an opinion which I don't agree with, but the point is that that is the point of scrutiny and that is the point that I make about elemental -- about the noble Earl. I think it is an important point of the democracy and the way in which our country works. Can I also thank Baroness Smith for her comments. The government decision is quite clear.

None of us disagree with the fact that Diego Garcia is of huge significance and of huge importance to the geopolitical security of ourselves and our allies, in particular the United States. The discussion is about what is the best way of securing that race for the future. The opposition point out wrong with the opposition .2 -- the opposition's point of view is that we can ignore the fact that we may reach a point where we have a binding judgement made.

The point then becomes do we ignore binding agreements if we get to those? That was clearly what the last government was wrestling with. In answer to Baroness Smith's point, this is why ministers and officials decided that they needed to negotiate and discuss what the future should be with Mauritius about the future of the Diego Garcia base. Others, what was the point of those negotiations? Just a tactic that we negotiate and pretend we are discussing something. I can see my noble friend shaking his head.

The consequence of what the noble Lord site is that the last government were negotiation -- negotiating with another country with no intention of coming to an agreement. I don't believe that. As much as I don't believe... As much as I don't agree with most of what the last government did. I don't believe that no integrity of ministers and officials was such that they would do that. I believe there were negotiations about what the best forward was. There is judicial, legal jeopardy with allowing the situation to continue.

We negotiated an agreement, a treaty which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny when it comes before Parliament, where people can debate it. We negotiated a treaty which guarantees, with many conditions, the security of Diego conditions, the security of Diego Garcia. And far from it making us that our international partners disagree... Let me read what secretary Hegseth said. And yes, the US is an important ally and for us. We work closely with them and we make no secret of working closely with them.

Pete Hegseth. -- Diego Garcia Is a vital base for us. Secretary Rubio: the United States welcomes the historic agreement with -- between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius. Canada welcomes the signing of the Chagos Archipelago Sovereignty Agreement. Australia says, welcomes the signing of the historic agreement. And if I was China, I would say it is a brilliant agreement to sow confusion and to upset people and create disagreement. I want this country and our allies to determine what we're going to do until China what we consider to be in our own interest.

New Zealand, as a strong supporter of the system, New Zealand welcomes the agreement. India welcomes the signing of the treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Mauritius. So far from us actually being an international pariah because we have signed this agreement, many of the most important countries who are in that particular region have welcomed the deal because it confirms the security of that particular base. We are worried about the law of the sea. The noble Lord asked about the situation.

I can say to the noble Lord we do not have to share information about actions taken from a Diego Garcia in advance of us taking any action. We do not. I can say this on the record. The noble Lord specifically asked me that. I can say that we do not have to in advance let Mauritius know about it and potentially share it. The government actuary says the cost is £3.4 billion over the lifetime of the treaty. That is the government actuary figure.

If the noble Lord and others want to take out -- take issue, let them argue with the government actuary. The government actuary is how all the government of the last few decades have costed government projects in this sense. We are not actually changing or moving any of the goalposts. Let me just say. The noble Lord talks about Chagosians. This was a UK- Mauritius discussion. But the Chagos community is not united on the matter. Left me read.

To prominent groups, the Chagos Refugees Group said they regretted the legal action which aims to halt what could be a landmark agreement, one that serves the long-term interests of Chagossians as a whole. Chagossians Themselves commented on this. The government is far from undermining the sovereignty of the base in terms of its operational independence. Far from undermining the ability of us to use the Garcia in the way we would all want to protect our national security, to defend our global interest.

We have negotiated a treaty, subject to parliamentary approval, which gives it the scrutiny the noble Lord would make. Far from undermining it, we have strengthened it and ensured we protect our national interests and that of our allies.
15:59
16:00
16:00
16:01
16:02
16:03
16:04
16:05
16:05
16:07
16:08
16:08
16:09
16:09
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Let me say to the noble Baroness first of all that I will copy the letter directly to her and I shall send the same letter to her. Again, Diego Garcia has been regarded as something that Mauritius has links to. It is recognised through the international order. So as part of that and as part of the negotiations which have taken place, we have negotiated with that government to come to an agreement around the future of Diego Garcia.

The noble Baroness will know from all of the interest she takes in security matters that it is a really important point for the government to ensure the future of the Diego Garcia base. That is protected under this treaty. That is the hard and difficult position sometimes in decisions governments have to make. But the alternative would be that we would be in a situation of judicial jeopardy. There is a situation where the future of the base would be on third certain.

-- Uncertain. People would be able to oppose that deal. The position it takes them to is let us continue with the situation which is uncertain. Let's continue with a situation whether it is in judicial jeopardy and let's continue where there is uncertainty. We thought, think and believe that an agreement protecting the future of one of the most important bases in the world for our geopolitical security, that Is, if we can and we believe we have, that is worth agreeing because it protects that base.

That for us it protects that base. That for us is the important principle to which we have adhered.
16:11
16:11
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
Well, thank you very much for that. That means there is two of us in this chamber. Just for any journalist reporting this, that is a joke. Just to make sure that we have clarity. Seriously, can I thank the clarity. Seriously, can I thank the At the end of the day, and this is the point about scrutiny, the noble Lord has done nothing but shake his head all of the debate. There is a legitimate debate and discussion to take place.

The noble Lord articulated a point of view which says this is essentially a sell-out. Whereas I take the view that on the contrary, it is nothing like that. It is a government that is taking its responsibilities seriously. Trying to come to an agreement in what is a difficult set of circumstances as we have heard from some of the questions. To negotiate with the Mauritian government to protect a base which is of huge strategic significance. The noble Lord does not agree with the vital strategic significance.

But we have tried to protect that in a treaty that we believe helps to guarantee that and will guarantee that. For those in opposition to it, I will repeat that there is judicial jeopardy, there is no certainty that base could be protected, and the idea that we can just ignore international opinion, ignore international judicial opinion, not worry about whether that will take us astray, I do not think that is the right way forward. Let me say again to all of the noble Lords in here that the challenge the noble Lord makes and the challenge I have heard time and time again is that nobody supports this and it makes us something that internationally, it makes us a pariah.

I read out statements from many of the most significant partners and allies that we have. The United States, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India. All of those countries, all of them said that they supported the arrangement and deal that we had come to. Lord Callanan may propose a fatal motion. But he will propose a fatal motion in the face of, and he is entitled to do it, and I'm not saying he shouldn't, and he will do it anyway, but the point that I am making is those who oppose it will making is those who oppose it will have to say why secretary Pete XS, Marco Rubio, the Indian government, Japanese government, Australian government, New Zealand government and many others, why they are opposed to something supported by all of those.

They will say because China is the real voice. Let me say this. China can say what it likes. This government knows the malign influence, as the last government did, about China. None of us need lectures about standing up to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Chinese and we will. Could I take the noble Lord back to the questions of the noble Lord to the questions of the noble Lord Grocott and Baroness Butler-Sloss, namely the wrong done to the Chagossians? And the will of the
16:15
16:15
16:17
16:17
16:18
16:18
16:20
16:20
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
I declare an interest as a freelance TV producer. I'm afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, whose amendment this is, has waited and waited to be able to amend this -- debate this amendment but now that the moment has arrived, he has been prevented from attending. This is an attempt to address the exploitative workplace face by far too many people wanting to enter work. It attempts to create a new definition of work experience, which will ensure participate participants are not exploited as they attempt to join the workforce.

I'm sure many noble Lords would agree that it is noble Lords would agree that it is valuable for new employees to spend time in the industry. Much energy has been spent focusing on how to get young people and people who are returning to employment back into the workplace. I'm glad there has been reform and improvement to mentorship schemes. That is for those who want training in a specific sector. However, there are many people who don't know what they want to do.

For them, internships have been a way to discover whether they can engage with a particular end -- industry. Unfortunately, so many of these have turned out to be exploitative. I have worked in the creative industries for my entire career so I have experience of young people expected to work for either no pay or below the minimum wage. This is happening not just in the creative industries, but across the economy. I've been told of the story of a strengthening coach working for a major professional sporting body who was initially on a short-term internship which then became a two- year daily commitment.

During all that time, he was not paid. He loved what he was doing so was afraid to ask for payment and was forced to take a second job to sustain himself. Internships are essential but they are covered by the national wage act so workers should be paid. A new survey by the Broadcasting Union shows that workers have been pressurised to work for free. Desperation to get into this -- in the desperation to get into this industry, many succumb.

The 61% of internships undertaken by recent graduates were other -- either underpaid or unpaid. A large percentage of these jobs is in the South East where accommodation is notoriously expensive. It means those people from the regions and nations or from more socially disadvantaged families who can't afford the accommodation are prevented from taking up these places. For a government which is determined and dedicated to getting people back into work and well-paid jobs, this must be a failure which needs rectified. Social mobility realises the talent of the whole population.

It is the only way to ensure our nation succeeds economically. The body charged with enforcing the Minimum Wage Act is the HMRC post-operative the problem is that if the intern is not paid, they don't appear on the HMRC's radar. Even when they do, they have an HR Department and surveys show -- and even if they do have a nature department, surveys show they are not informed about the law. Amendment 129 is an attempt to sort out the complicated and often exploitative system for those trying to get into the job market.

I think it is crucial to ensure there is a difference in law between interns who should be paid in those undertaking work experience who should not. Subsection 4 of the amendment sets out a new legal concept of work experience defined by observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular work lays, organisation or work-related activity. The most important criterion for what constitutes work experience is that it is voluntary and participants are not under the control of anyone else.

It has to be a learning experience and ensure that participants are shadowing and not actually doing the job. Work actually doing the job. Work experience is already part of many T-Level courses for young people. Some young people take on work experience but not nearly enough of these spaces are available. At a crucial pathway into worklife at a time when we are hearing of so many people out of the workforce. It is important at this stage of this career for things to be clearly established and legally defined.

A maximum of four weeks seems like a good duration. It allows the participant have sufficient time to get a grip of what happens in a specific base and allows them to decide whether they want to embark on a career there. In my view, it is not enough time for them to become established as an unpaid intern. So many unpaid or underpaid internships carry on for many more than four weeks. This amendment would ensure this does not happen. The Sutton Trust says that this is central obstacle to social mobility.

I ask the noble Lady the Minister to examine this as part of a possible solution to the crisis facing new entrants to the creative and other industries. I hope your Lordships will discuss this further when the house gets to my noble friend's amendments 286 and 287 on establishing a commissioner. Meanwhile, this amendment is focused on thousands of young people who want to get to work but don't know what they want to do. It will give those people a taste of the work piece which is crucial to engaging them in crucial to getting them engaged in the job market.

A big to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, after clause 26, insert the new clause as printer 26, insert the new clause as printer of the Marshalled List.
16:27
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

of the Marshalled List. My Lords, as somebody with long experience of campaigning against experience of campaigning against unpaid internships, I have a huge amount of sympathy with the motivation behind this amendment. Certainly, it is true that a key reflection of the reversal of social mobility in this country has been the growth of unpaid internships. It started with the creative industries, were in the past a young person from a working-class background used to be able to start as a runner in broadcasting or a cub reporter on their local newspaper and then found their path to national newspapers or progression within broadcasting blocked by the parachuting in of very often young people from wealthy backgrounds often in senior positions but on an unpaid internship, which nobody from a working-class background could afford to take.

It cost thousands of pounds, particularly if it is located in London and you don't live in London. That lock on young working class people's progression, I absolutely agree unpaid internships have been a major barrier. My concern is that from my perspective, the problem is not the law, but the problem is enforcement of the law. As trade unions have campaigned to get HMRC to take this seriously and there was a flurry of action around cracking down on unpaid internships but then since the pandemic in particular there has been an uptake and you only have to scan any recruitment agency website and you will see that they are brazenly advertising unpaid internships that long that -- that internships that long that -- that lock young working class people out of industries.

Sadly, I cannot support this amendment because I support this amendment because I fear it would create rolling unpaid internships, shivering young people through a revolving door of not getting payment for the productive work that they do and are entitled to, and should get paid at least the national minimum wage for. What I would support as the proposed Fair Or Agency launching a major crack down -- Fair Work Agency. down -- Fair Work Agency.
16:30
16:31
16:33
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords who have kept the opportunity to keep this short but very focused and interesting debate. I also regret that Lord Holmes of Richmond was unable to attend. Perhaps if we had made better progress by now we would have made better progress in earlier days of the committee we would be able to hear from him directly. But I pay tribute to him for replacing 129 which seeks to prohibit unpaid work experience and indeed I thank Viscount Colville for stepping into the breach and making a more than worthy understanding in moving the amendment.

I would also like to thank my Noble Friend Baroness O'Grady, Lord Goddard, Lord Sharpe of Epsom for contributing to this debate. This is an important issue and, again, Lord Holmes is right to raise it. And I also want to pay tribute and put on record the tribute to Lord Holmes of Richmond for his work previously campaigning on the issue, not least in his private members bill in the 2017 to 19 session. This Government made the commitment to deliver the biggest greater workers rights in the generation and it includes tackling unfair work practices and as we heard from Viscount Colville the examples are not simply in the creative sector, but that is an area of the economy where it is rife.

But also, as he said, it goes beyond that sector. It is worth reflecting that this Government is one that stands by the National Minimum Wage and first of all it was this Government that was given an increase in do the 18 to 20 national increase in do the 18 to 20 national wage rate of 60 wage rate of 60.3% to £10 an hour, record amount in both cash and percentage terms, indeed making progress on closing the gap with the National living wage. This is an increase from two and half thousand pounds earlier for a full-time worker.

It was the first step when the government's plans to remove the age band and ensuring that all adults benefit from a genuine wage, making a real difference to young people. I think it is worth seeing in policy that is welcome on this side of the House, it is the Conservative party is recent conversion in recent years that is important to support the minimum which, but as the party that introduced it in the first place, and I would reflect on that position at the time, I can assure the noble Lords that this Labour Government is absolutely committed to support it and making sure that it applies in all cases where it should.

Work experience and internships can offer individuals, especially younger people are valuable opportunities. We do not want to close the door on these opportunities, but we do want to ensure that they are fair. Most importantly, where workers are due payment, they should be paid the wages that they are entitled to and I have to say that the current legislation already protects them. As my Noble Friend Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway, and I note, I would like to pay tribute to her campaigning through the TUC in this area for a number of years, there is respect of this amendment very well-intentioned and these consequences in raising that spectrum of she put it raising internships for weeks on end.

As we know, according to the Department of education to school survey 2022, 5% of employers offered internships paid or unpaid in the previous 12 months and there were around 12 12,000 people on internships, the vast majority of these, 88% were on board duration and nearly 30% were over six months. It is only right that these people should be paid the national to which they are entitled. As we have heard, the national which legislation provides a number of exceptions that recognise the importance of gaining work experience and it is important to recognise these examples have a strong and firm place in the economy.

Things like students on placements up to one year as part of the UK costs of further or higher education, people below the compulsory school age, participants in certain programs to provide training, work experience or temporary work and, indeed, as Lord Goddard made the point workers employed by charity or voluntary organisations avoiding receiving monetary payments, except for expenses. The Government has committed to ban unpaid internships unless they are part of an educational training course. Indeed, because of the way that legislation is drafted there largely packed.

For National Minimum Wage purposes, crucial factors where someone has considered work due to the work that they do employers simply cannot call someone an intern while saying doing work experience and not pay them. What matters is the range that they have in what makes for minimal wage purposes. What I would add is where individuals are observing others perform tasks and not performing any work themselves. There is a risk that we could create loopholes, even leaving them open to abuse.

We where they are calling out to us, there a worker, and therefore they are entitled to the National Minimum Wage. Accepting these proposals could be the result of a short-term loan and lose their entitlement to the minimum wage even before work. The Government, my Lords, will be conditioning consulting for those conditioning consulting for those that carried internships or work expense for so this is to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and I would add that we have heard both from Viscount Colville and Baroness O'Grady.

That we, enforcement is the issue here. Viscount Colville asked about the prosecutions and I am afraid I do not have that number to hand, but I will certainly undertake to write to the Noble Lord, but enforcement of any law is important, and I would say that part of the consultation, I sure, will cover issues of enforcement. Creating more laws but not solving the problem of enforcement does not actually really get to the heart of the issue which is making sure that when people do worker paid the national minimum to which they are entitled, so in that vein I hope that the issues that the Noble Lord has raised in the amendment and essentially I could see I hope we can deal with the issues that he wishes to address most effectively outside of the bill and I therefore ask the noble Viscount to withdraw amendment 125.
16:39
Viscount Colville of Culross Portrait Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-
-
This has been an informative debate. I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed. I listened very hard to both the Ministers and the Baroness O'Grady's comments about making sure that we enforce the national minimum wage. That has now been in force since 1998 or something. That is a long time and that is time when there has been a Labour Government, it has not been enforced. I hope very much that this will be an extra nudge to making sure that this enforced nature of HMRC is given really very direct instructions to make sure this does not happen as the noble Baroness noted very deleterious to getting working-class people into work.

In response to the Baroness Hunter Ministers concern by creating a revolving door, surely can't be beyond the wit of us to work out that after you have done your four weeks of work experience you aren't allowed to go back, or to stay. But is why we have got a four-week block. I do think it is useful to be able to carve out a particular role for people who are just there for educational bike experience reasons which is quite separate from being an intern.

And I hope very much that the Noble Lord and the Government will take this amendment and these thoughts on board as they contribute to the Government efforts to stamp

**** Possible New Speaker ****

out unfair practices, and on that note I would like to beg leave to withdraw this amendment. Is at your budget proposal that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your budget proposal that this amendment is withdrawn? Amendment, pilot, withdrawn. Amendment been debated on occasions, Amendment been debated on occasions, not moved. That brings us onto the next substantive group which is next substantive group which is amendment 131, Lord Hunt of the Wirral will take this one.
16:42
16:44
None Portrait AMDT: 131 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

being asked to carry out work that
16:44
16:44
None Portrait AMDT: 131 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

result in the sale of inaccessible goods or services. It also establishes a route for reporting such an event to Equality and Human such an event to Equality and Human Rights Commission. And we can Rights Commission. And we can certainly see the intent here to empower those on the front lines of design and delivery, to raise concerns and to prevent regressions concerns and to prevent regressions in accessibility. There are, of in accessibility. There are, of course, many questions about how this would operate in practice, particularly in terms of the definitions scope and the safeguards needed to ensure clarity and fairness for both workers and employers.

These are not reasons to dismiss the amendment, but they do suggest that further discussion may be needed on implementation enforcement and supporting mechanisms that would then make a meaningful and workable. We all have a role to play in embedding accessibility into our systems and structures. I hope, therefore, that the noble minister will engage with the substance of the proposal and give thought to how the principle behind it might be taken forward. Whether through this amendment or through other means.

Turning to amendment 297, and I recall many speeches about this in the 70s and 80s, when we regretted that persistent low employment rate for the blind and sight impaired people, that is, surely, one of the most entrenched and troubling inequalities in the labour market. It is not a new problem, it has been evident for decades, and yet progress has been slow, fragmented, and insufficient. Blind people do have two encounter and they continue to face systemic barriers at every to face systemic barriers at every From recruitment processes but accessible.

Gaps in training and support. Whether or not it is the tool, the principal kind my noble friend amendment is clear. We just need a cross government, cross sector effort, to tackle this properly. Surely it is about time that we did. I hope the Government will respond with the seriousness I believe this issue deserves. Turning to amendment 134, this amendment addresses an issue that is a long- standing, measurable and deeply concerning. The disability pay gap.

In Act 2023, that gap stood at 12 point 7%. A figure that has remained stubbornly high, year after year. This is not, this is not a marginal issue. We are talking about millions of people with a disability who are on average earning significantly less than their peers. Who are not disabled. Not because they are less skilled, less motivated, or less capable, but because the system, within which they operate does not provide fair access to opportunity, recognition and progression.

We must be clear eyed about what lies behind us. It is not just a matter of disabled people being in different kinds of work. It is about career development being so much more difficult to access. It is about workplace culture. Often, unintentionally, making it more difficult for disabled people to thrive. And my Lords, I suppose it is about assumptions. Assumptions about what disabled people can do. Assumptions that quietly lower expectations. Assumptions that make it harder for people to be heard.

Promoted, or properly valued. This is simply asks that the Secretary of State sets out a clear program to develop an action plan, to close that gap. That is not a radical demand. It is surely a basic step towards accountability and change. We just can't go on publishing, every year, the same figures, year after year. Noting the disparity but doing so little about it. Disabled people have waited long enough. They deserve a labour market that works for them, as well.

Not one that recognises their contributions last, or least, which the figures would appear to show. This is not only a moral imperative, it is surely also an economic one. We are under using talent, excluding people from progress. And embedding inequality into the very structure of the workforce. That benefits no one. So, I do strongly support the intention, behind this amendment. I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, on behalf of the government will take the opportunity that this debate presents, to turn awareness into action and disparity into progress.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 26 is that the clause set out in the
16:50
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I arise to speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I arise to speak to amendments 101 297 and three one four in the name of the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond. Thank you. Each of these Richmond. Thank you. Each of these amendments are seeks to address amendments are seeks to address long-standing inequalities that disabled people continue to face, particularly in the context of work and access to goods and services. Amendment 131 raises the important Amendment 131 raises the important principle that workers should not be compelled to contribute to the development or sale of products that development or sale of products that are knowingly inaccessible and those were his words.

I would hope that the government, through the Department of business and trade can Department of business and trade can publish clear guidance on what constitutes inaccessible products and services. Such guidance is needed. It would be valuable, informing decision-making, for businesses and helping workers recognise when they may be asked to contribute to the creation, or goods that have failed to meet accessibility standards. Amendment 297 meanwhile calls for a more commissioned, what the noble Lord said, I the towards saying yes, I think we do need something formal, like a law commission to investigate the low employment levels of blind and a sight impaired people.

The disparity and serious attention. I believe the questions these amendments arrays are valued and Program and timeline to develop an action plan, aimed at closing this. Recent research from the TUC revealed that the disability gap stood at a current, staggering 17 point two current, staggering 17 point 2% in 2024, which was an increase in the figures quoted by Lord Hunt who was quoted in Act 2023. The same figures do not re- occur every year. They are going up.

These figures show that. The amendment represents a measured and practical approach, reflecting a growing consensus of the need for greater transparency and accountability in tackling workplace inequality. Even if the government, not unsurprisingly is minded to accept the amendments, in the current form, I hope Ministers will consider how its intent may be taking forward, for alternative means. There can be alternative means. These are not radical demands. They are thoughtful suggestions that achieving progress in areas which is long overdue.

I would hope the government heart will be in favour of the reasoning behind these amendments. That we all work together and to work towards ringing the legislation in line with what we hear our consciences save.
16:54
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank my noble friend, Lord Holmes of Richmond for his amendment in this group and also my noble friend, Lord Hunt of Wirral. The moving them, on his behalf. Also I would like to thank the noble Lord Palmer for his contribution. There is no doubt that those with disabilities, including blind and partially sighted people face different challenges in the workplace. And the more we can do to increase awareness and representation, in the workplace, for these people, and these groups, the better.

We must also recognise that many disabled people the challenges begin long before job interview. The structural barriers in education and training to transport technology can compound over time. And create a labour market that is harder to enter and therefore harder to stay in step if legislation cannot remove those barriers and create conditions for more equitable access to work, it is our responsibility to act. It is also important that employees are supported, not penalising legislation should provide clarity and encourage inclusive practices should offer the right incentives, should not raise the perceived risk of hiring someone who may already face a disadvantage.

As it stands some elements of current legislation do just that. I hope that the government and the noble of the Minister will listen to the concerns and will articulate, by the noble Lords, these are not radical demands, as Lord Palmer has pointed out. I hope the Government will address them.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I particularly want to thank the
16:55
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
noble Lord, Lord Hunt for moving the amendment, 121 and speak to 297, tabled by a Lord Holmes of Richmond. Of course Lord Hunt and I go back a long, long way. Of course, I was in the TNG, I was frequently instructed by my union to defend workers. I appreciate he is absolutely on the right side of this agenda. I just wanted to mention, of course, this is an issue we have been debating for a very, very long time.

I particularly want to pay tribute to the late Lord Alf Morris, who absolutely focused on this agenda and was responsible for the disability discrimination act, which has been the foundation of all the other changes, since then. I want to pay tribute to that. In speaking to 131, I think it is important to be clear that the equality act of 2010 already places the providers of goods, services and facilities and persons exercising public functions, to make reasonable adjustments, for disabled service users.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission of a great Britain's national quality, the human rights body its safeguards and enforces the laws of that protects people's rights to fairness, dignity and respect. Of course in this context, of the debate, it monitors and have powers to enforce the equality act which prohibits harassment and in a variety of settings of course including work. The commission has been active in monitoring and including as part of its regular comprehensive reviews as he Britain is performing on the Equality and Human Rights Commission as it is monitoring compliance with the UN convention of the to the persons with disabilities.

The commission's powers do not coincide with the development of services and was so not be able to respond with the suggested in this clause. Therefore the Government is unable to support this. Turning to amendment 297. Again, I would like to thank the noble Lord for speaking to this amendment and drawing attention to this important issue and I have cause to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes who has been absolutely strong voice on this. And recognise his contribution, in championing the rights of the blind and sighted people.

Again, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt can go back to the days when certainly my union was supporting the National League for blind and disabled people. A union that was representing blind and disabled workers for, nearly 100 years, certainly. I think it is, I agree that addressing the level of employment for blind and partially sighted people is still an important issue, which is why we have a range of existing specialist initiatives in place, to support individuals, including those who are blind and sighted who are getting back to work.

Or existing measures provide tailored support to disabled people, more broadly and are designed to be flexible to meet the range of these, including the needs of those who are blind and the sight impaired. Of course existing measures and I repeat the point that the noble Lord shop has made. They include work countries and disability employment rights, working with employers is absolutely right. An access to work. Again to facilitate and support employees in doing this, as well as adjoining up health and employment support, around individual employment advisers, in the NHS, talking therapies, individual placement and supported primary care as well as work.

The building on these existing initiatives and backed by the £240 million investment, this government's get Britain working white paper launched on 22 November. This will drive forward approaches to tackling economic inactivity and work towards our long-term ambition of an 80% employment rate. Our 240 million Our £240 million investment package includes eight trailblazers in local areas to bring together extreme line work, health and skill support for disabled people. And those were long-term sick. As part of these trailblazers, three Integrated Care Boards will receive a share of £45 million, total funding to launch million, total funding to launch I can assure all noble Lords that ensuring the voice of disabled people is properly heard is a priority for this Government.

Our current approach is underpinned by regular engagement with stakeholders both, including those trade unions but accept workers with disabilities. In addition to the Great Britain working white paper also announced that the Department for Work and Pensions will establish a panel to consult disabled people as part of our wider work to ensure that the views and voices of disabled people are at the heart of the design and delivery of reforms set out in that white paper.

And another key commitment in the white paper was of the independent review led by Sir Charlie Mayfield and this review will consider how to support and enable employers to promote healthy workplaces and to support people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. I hope the Noble Lord is reassured that the Government recognises the importance of this issue and is already working to support disabled people and people with health conditions to stay in or get back to work.

Finally, turning to amendment 314, we are already taking action in this space, to inform the development of the equality race and disability bill, we are consulting on how best to introduce mandatory disability pay gap reporting for large employers. This consultation further includes questions regarding the gender pay gap plans in the employment rights will to disability via the equality race and disability bill, recognising that employers are best placed to address issues within their own organisation.

We are also currently consulting on the future of access to work and how workplaces can be made more accessible for disabled people. They are then pathways to the Green Papers that will inform the Government led efforts to increase disability inclusion in the workplace. Therefore, such an amendment is unnecessary at this point, as significant action is already under way to progress and support disabled people. I hope the Noble Lord is satisfied that Government is already taking many steps in support of disabled people, both inside and outside work, outside the workplace.

And I therefore ask the Noble Lord, my dear friend, to withdraw amendment 131.
17:04
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I am very grateful to the Noble Lord who always responds positively to any suggestions I may, particularly in the corridors of this House. And I should have declared of course not only my long-standing work with not only the National in the blind but the much appreciated instructions to receive insubstantial form from the trade workers union and I was delighted when I was Secretary of State for employment to be invited to the retirement party of Mr Albert Whyte who was much cherished by those that worked so hard for him, so I do thank the Minister and also we disagreed a little about Royal commissions.

I just recall being told that they took minutes, but wasted years. And I think that was previously a Prime Minister who quoted that. There is a problem, that is soon you set up some point you are postponing the opportunity to make the decisions that are necessary, and I think I would guess the Noble Lord the Minister did recognise that in his response. We do need to move on and the statistics have been at a seriously low level for a long time, and in many ways we have to find a way to break through, so that people with disability are much more widely recognised as people of great talent who can contribute to the growth and competitiveness that we all so desperately want to see, so I do recognise that the Government has taken a number of initiatives.

And I will consult with my Noble Friend Lord Holmes of Richmond as we consider how to approach this issue at the report stage, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by Lee, withdrawn
17:07
17:07
None Portrait AMDT: 132 Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Labour)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to move amendment to hundred and 32, which I tabled as a probing amendment to highlight some of my concerns from highlight some of my concerns from the perspective of small as Mrs and by association amendment 137 proposed by the Noble Lord, of Church Hill also in this group which may, perhaps, be a different side of the same coin. I referred the House to my register of interest. The intention behind this amendment is to explore the scope of possible actions for better supporting both employees and employers.

And particularly smaller employers who often lack access to in-house HR support, legal expertise, or representation from the trade union. This legislation is rightly seeking to strengthen place protections and come up with that, comes the need to ensure that small employers are equipped to meet their responsibilities fairly and confidently. Without being overwhelmed. A one size fits all approach risks overlooking the structural disadvantages that many small businesses face in navigating employment disputes or resolving workplace issues. One concern in this context is the potential for so-called ambulance cheques.

I use the phrase cautiously, but it reflects a genuine anxiety among small employers. In the absence of good advice or provide guidance, a small employer may feel compelled to settle a claim not based on merit but because the cost, stress, and complexity of the legal process makes fighting it feel simply unreliable. That can undermine confidence in the system for everyone. The aim behind this amendment is to consider how we might increase the availability of qualified independent advisers, professionals who can support employees and entering into settlement agreements with full confidence and understanding but in a way that is accessible, affordable, and proportionate for small businesses also.

This could help reduce the number of cases that are necessary escalated to formal litigation. The presence of a well- informed independent adviser can give both parties clarity and give both parties clarity and reassurance. In such circumstances, access to credible professions of the kind of organisations like CRPD can recommend or help ring forward would see both helpful and sensible. I fully acknowledged the concerns raised by colleagues of these amendments, particularly around the risk of diluting the role of unions, especially in larger workplaces were collective representation plays such an essential role.

And I valued constructive conversations with colleagues and recognise the importance of safeguarding that voice and that function. At the same time, I believe it is important that the voice of business, particularly small business, is heard clearly from these benches. Too often, the debate around employment rights can polarise into assumptions of employer versus employee, or big business versus organised labour. Many of us bring experience from the frontlines of our businesses that are small, community-based, and deeply invested in treating their staff fairly.

And it is essential that these perspectives are represented, not to dilute, but to ensure that they are designed in a way that is practical, sustainable, and supports good employment outcomes for all. I also welcome the government's broader commitment to improving the enforcement system, including the proposals of the Fair Work Agency and reforms to the tribunal process. These are important developments, and I hope they will lead to a more accessible and efficient workplace and landscape for all parties. Nevertheless, I believe that specific issues raised here, particularly as they affect small and micro businesses merit further reflection.

We know that many small employers genuinely want to do the right thing, but without access to the right structures or advice they may find themselves exposed and that can have an effect not just on the dismissed owner but employees also who may not get the resolution they deserve. Just as we rightly ensured that employees feel heard and protected, those of us with business experience also want to ensure that employers concerns are reflected. Especially when they lack the infrastructure to manage complex processes alone.

I would be happy to withdraw the amendments following the debate and the Minister's response, but I hope that the reflections it prompts will help shape the implementation of this bill in ways that are proportionate, inclusive, and fair to businesses of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all sizes, as well as the people. I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 26, insert the new clause is printed on the Marshall list.
17:13
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshall list. My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment 137 which, as Lord amendment 137 which, as Lord Keighley said, it is a different side of the same coin. My amendment seeks to expand the statutory right to be cut at a disciplinary and grievance hearing. As it stands, the law only allows workers to be accompanied by fellow employees or a trade union representative. My amendment, 137, the other side of the coin, would broaden that right to include individuals certified by a recognised professional body as having relevant experience in training, in supporting workers through such processes.

It also provides the Secretary of State to regulate which organisations may be authorised as professional bodies for this purpose, ensuring a proper standard is maintained. At the heart of any disciplinary process is the need for transparency, fairness, and due process. This is especially true in the workplace. The livelihood of professional reputations of individuals is at stake. Workers should never have to undergo the difficult procedures of disciplinary or grievance hearings alone. The presence of a colleague, union representative, or other chosen companion, ensures that employees are not only supported but also have safeguards against any unfair safeguards against any unfair treatment or on misunderstandings.

Not every individual is able to cope with this on their own. Some may well do so, some may need some help. In fact, those that are properly trained, professional companions is often the difference between the employee being able to make the case or being denied a fair hearing. The law currently goes some way towards recognising this, but I am afraid it is increasingly inadequate for the 21st-century. Currently, only a self certified trade union representative or colleague has the statutory right to accompany an employee to a hearing.

Trade unions provide excellent support of their members to accompaniment and consistently draw attention to this through the passage of this bill, however it is also true that the law unnecessarily restricts the right of the vast majority of the U.K.'s employees, almost 78%, who have chosen not to be members of a trade union. These workers are usually left to navigate proceedings alone or there colleagues who may cause more damage Consider one example, the case of a vulnerable worker, a small business who is not a member.

He or she wishes to raise a grievance against a colleague, but is daunted by the prospect, not surprised nowadays. Perhaps does not even know where to begin. Not surprised either. Why shouldn't he/she have the right to bring a trade companion, from a charity along with her and guide her during this process. This would ultimately be for the benefit of both parties insofar as it clarifies the process. Gives confidence to raise at the grievance. Allows a small business to withdraw and continue to draw upon the resources of a trained professional, from a charitable model.

This is a practical and proportionate change. Too often early-stage employment needs escalate simply because individuals lack the right kind of support and representation. By allowing access to trained, certified companions, amendment 137 in my name help resolve matters more effectively and reduce the number of cases progressing, unnecessarily to tribunal. That not only benefit workers and employers, but also helps to ease the strain on the tribunal system. I hope the Government will consider this amendment, in the constructive and merit pragmatic spirit.

I met member of the Inst chartered accountants, doesn't recognise as such. It is so often daunting for the worker who is already morally undermined to go to a tribunal, without some form of assistance and from a number of sources, which I've outlined and the noble Lord, on your benches, mine as well. I believe that these amendments should go forward in some stage, in the future.
17:18
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I rise, with the soothing balm of cross-party collaboration to support the very excellent amendments put forward by the noble Lord, pick Keith of Camden Town and another. I declare at the outset a interest as a member of the chartered Inst of personal development. More, which is a estimable professional body, I've been a member for 20 years. More importantly I'd been made redundant twice. My experience of redundancy is that it is a very difficult and traumatic, often a very difficult and traumatic experience.

If you are working for a small company, or you are relatively new to the company and you are being made redundant. For my own experience, I certainly had a great deal of sustenance and support from my trade union representative, in securing, for me, and expediting a reasonably successful outcome, in what could have been a very difficult period of time financially, for me, in that situation, many years ago. I think the benefit of both of these amendments is that they look from the perspective both of the small employer, in the case of Lord picky for a and his example and Lord Palmer's example, from the employee.

Who have, for various reasons chosen not to join a trade union. It is important that a professional body, not anyone, not just at their mate from the pub, but a professional, accredited person, can accompany them to support this. The reason I would normally not want to put another amendment, on the face of the bill. Unnecessarily. I do not genuinely think that it is administratively and financially onerous for these amendments to be added to the bill. I do believe they would in fact improve the bill and they would, I would not say there are cost free, but they would be very important in saving, potentially significant amounts of money, if, as the noble Lord picky has said, they alleviate or ameliorate the possibility of an escalation to expensive litigation and employment tribunal.

Having an expert in the room with you can sometimes dissipate the anger, the frustration and the sense of a battle between two sides and I do think in that respect it is a very sensible. For those reasons, with the proviso that I have experienced these issues myself. I do think they are sensible amendments and I would like the moon noble Lord the Minister to give them due consideration because they will not add to the burden for businesses.

In the long term they will save significant amounts of money. significant amounts of money.
17:21
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
I rise to express my opposition to these amendments, one three two, one three seven. Both of these amendments seek to expand the list of organisations recognised, in law, to represent workers. 132 this relates to representation in reaching a settlement agreements, 137 which refers to representation in hearings and workplace disciplinary and grievance hearings. At present of course, the law specifies that individuals can be supported by trade unions fellow workers and also in respect of settlement agreements, lawyers or other qualified people from for example a respected network of citizens advice bureau.

Both amendments refer to representatives, the right representation of the extended to professional bodies, specified by the Secretary of State and in 132, this particularly refers to CIPD members. I have to say I am genuinely puzzled on which other professional bodies would wish to take on this new role. In short, My Lords, the law should rest where it stands, workers should be represented where they are present, by workers, organisations, trade unions. Where appropriate can provide legal representation.

The CIPD is widely respected as an organisation of HR professionals. They essentially represent employer's interests and would surely be conflicted if they were to seek to take on this very different role. I know that my noble friend, Lord Pitkeathley, motivated by a wish to ensure that people working in small and medium-sized businesses, without trade union representation should have relevant expertise available, to help resolve difficult workplace issues. I support that aspiration. At ACAS, which I chaired for six years, I declare an interest, has the responsibility and the independent responsibility and the independent impartial expertise, to consolidate in such matters.

A considerable track record of success, in doing so. Far better, to ensure that it has increased resources, to provide this vital service, in the interests of both parties, in any such dispute. Rather than muddying the water, on the issue of who is competent and appropriate to represent workers. I hope that both these amendments will be withdrawn.
17:25
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
It seems that letter again Lord Barber and I am not again to agree. I rise to support these amendments, in the name of the noble Lord. When an employee finds themselves, we heard my noble friend, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It signifies a profound breakdown in the relationship. A moment fraught with stress and uncertainty and fear. One where an individual may feel their professional life is unravelling before them. They may question how they will continue to support their family.

Whether they can afford to remain in their home and what their future will hold. Large corporations had the benefit of HR departments. Like the one I work for. To guide them through such proceedings, ensuring that their position is well organised and profoundly represented. I have had the dubious pleasure of making people redundant and it is not fun. Even with HR beside you. In smaller companies, personal relationships between employer and employee can add an additional layer of complexity to the situation. In either case, the individual facing is often isolated, struggling to present their case clearly.

These amendments, particularly 137 referred to a proposed practical decision. The right to have the assistance of the certified individual, someone equipped to review the facts. Organise events in a logical sequence, providing the employee with much needed sense of reassurance. As we have heard, the trade unions already fulfil this role, particularly in large companies. However many employees, myself included chose not to join a union, for a variety of personal reasons. The absence of union membership should not be the matter at such critical moments.

This ensures that any employee regardless of union affiliation has access to a certified individual who may define guidance when facing disciplinary processes or foster a fair and more balanced process. For this reason I support these amendments, to uphold the right of fairness in our
17:28
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank all noble Lord for their contributions to this debate, in particular the noble Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town and the Pitkeathley of Camden Town and the noble Lord Palma for introducing the amendments 132 and 137. As has been amendments 132 and 137. As has been said not all workers have access, or want access to a union representative. In fact the latest statistics that I have from the statistics that I have from the Department of business and trade suggest that only 22%, of all employees, are in fact unionised.

Not all workers have access, or can afford legal advice. Particularly, afford legal advice. Particularly, as Lord Pitkeathley pointed out, in as Lord Pitkeathley pointed out, in Or indeed those performing in precarious roles. Allowing a trained, certified HR professionals to provide advice, could ensure that more employees are supported when making decisions about their rights. It is important to recognise the invaluable support already available through organisations such as ACAS, mentioned by the number Lord Barber. This, the citizens advice bureau and others.

Free and impartial advice. This complements those services by Of advisers accessible to workers. The principle of widening access to competent support is a reasonable one, especially where safeguards are in place, through certification by recognised professional bodies. As my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, if nothing else that ought to seek to ease pressure unemployment rights tribunals, which as we have discussed, are stretched to breaking point. I would have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Barber of Ainsdale, that was a classic case of the TUC advocating for a closed shop.

I applaud him for that. However, the fact is that so many, not so many, not so many employees and our members of the trade unions as I pointed out. Of course, the majority of trade union members are in the private sector. I would be interested to hear the Minister's response on that. Perhaps the noble Lord Palma of Charles Hill, without wanting to quibble too much. I do think it is currently written and gives the Secretary of State rather too much discretion in determining him as a professional body.

I'm

**** Possible New Speaker ****

available for a chat. I thank all noble Lords we have spoken. Before I turn to those spoken. Before I turn to those amendments, may I wish the noble Lord, Lord Fox a speedy recovery. I Lord, Lord Fox a speedy recovery. I am sorry that he wasn't cast in the next mission impossible. I also wish
17:30
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
next mission impossible. I also wish him a speedy recovery, we are missing here as well. I turned to amendments 132 and 137. 132 tabled by Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town seeks to expand the scope of independent advisers, who can advise individuals entering into a settlement agreement. Settlement agreements, in this context are a way in which employers and workers can settle claims. I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough had subject and experience with the trade union rep, who got a really route fair settlement.

I hope he was pleased with that experience. However, it is important that individuals understand the terms and effect of the proposed agreement. The effect on their ability to pursue claims in an employment tribunal. That is why legislature in requires them to receive advice from a relevant independent adviser. Legislation outlines a range of advisers they can be used, including qualified lawyers and authorised officers of My Noble Friends amendment would expand the list to include the certified members of the chartered personal and Association of human resource professionals.

This amendment will also give the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to include other professional bodies whose members would also be capable of giving advice. While I understand that my Noble Friend has put forward this amendment on behalf of of CIP D, we believe current arrangements are working well and strike the right balance. I appreciate my Noble Friends passion and thank him for his contribution in this debate. We are happy to engage further on this issue at another time, but we do not think this amendment is required.

I now therefore turned to amendment 137 tabled by the Noble Lord of Charles Hill who seeks to expand the rights to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary hearings as supported by the Noble Lord. The law already provides that when workers are invited to intend a disciplinary hearing they're entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by trade union, or a workplace trade union representative, then the union has reasonably certified this received training in acting as the workers companion and disciplinary hearings.

Employers can now allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed earlier. For instance, the professional support to a partner, a spouse, or a legal representative. The current lot seeks to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces, even though they are one of the initial steps in resolving tensions in a worker/employer relationship. Expanding the times of organisations that are involved representing workers discipline and grievance meetings would lead to these hearings requiring legal representation for both the worker and the employer.

This would therefore raise across the hearings and reduce the chances of an equitable outcome. In addition to introducing legal expertise at these hearings it would also reduce the likelihood of conciliation of remediation as next step to resolve, as legal arguments have already been made during an internal hearing. These could increase the likelihood of a tribunal claim being made, and allocable solution is, therefore, the fastest way to justice as set out by my Noble Friend Lord Barber. It is unclear whether demand for expanding this right is coming from, and which workplace would benefit, there are, of course, certain organisations such as the that provide casework and legal services that would benefit.

But as I have already set out should an employer wish to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers, they can set this out in the terms and conditions of their workplace, I therefore ask the Noble Lord to withdraw amendment 132. withdraw amendment 132.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important debate. I appreciate that my amendment may I appreciate that my amendment may seem controversial to some, not to mention a bit long, but I believe it is vital that the voices of all the is vital that the voices of all the workplace are heard like they have been today. My emphasise that small employers are just as committed to their workforce as larger firms, and their workforce as larger firms, and they want to attract and retain the best people to them.

This bill is,
17:36
17:37
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 133 standing in my name, and I have to standing in my name, and I have to start by saying that the family farms tax introduced by this Government is a disastrous policy. According to the NFU, it has put 200,000 jobs at risk. A staggering number that should have stopped Ministers in their tracks, I am delighted to see noble Lords laughing at the number. A recent economic report on the combined effect of these measures lays the fact there, it estimated direct cost to the Treasury of £1.9 billion by 2030 stopped sending from lost tax revenue and increased benefit claims due to job losses and increased productivity.

More than 60% of farmers are expected to cut investment by over 20%, shaking of future growth and innovation, and the cost to the wider economy will be staggering. A staggering 14.8 billion gross value added and all for the sake of a political posturing manufacturing is reform. The effect on food security alone would be catastrophic. I must also highlight a concern that has been ported by recent tragic events and official sponsors, and that is the case of a farmer who took his own life just before the government's budget which is a heartbreaking example of the immense pressures our rural communities face, and these pressures are exacerbated by the looming inheritance tax changes that threaten the very future of family farms.

Despite the seriousness of this issue, the official statistics on farmer, landowner, and family business owner suicides are woefully inadequate. There is a significant delay of often years before accurate data is published. This delay means we will not see reliable figures until suicides in 2026 until 2028 or later. And that is simply unacceptable, my Lords. We need timely data broken down and without it they cannot understand the human cost of these policies. With the Minister acknowledge the urgent need and commit to working with the office for National statistics and other relevant bodies to improve their frequency and detail of suicide data by occupation, particularly for farmers and rural workers? So they can properly address and understand this crisis without delay.

Turning to this legislation it represents a further devastating blow to British agriculture, this bill introduces unfair dismissal rights in employment and it does so without a shred of evidence in sectors like farming. The extension of unfair dismissals protection from two years to one has been put forward as Nokia guidance, no clear transitional image movement and no defined promotion every period. There is only speculation and, my Lords, speculation is not a legal framework. The Minister will say that this is currently being consulted on, but in the meantime farms are being exposed and every financial decision becomes a gamble and if work tends out to be unsuitable which can happen quickly and physically in safety critical environments the employer may be already too late to risk this.

In farming where work is seasonal, strenuous, and sometimes requires immediate action, farms cannot afford to spend months navigating H operas. They cannot afford legal exposure every time a higher does not work out and that is exactly what is sets out. And there is the matter of zero hours contracts. This Government in its detachment from rural lives believes these contracts are exploitative and essential. Harvests do not run on clocks. Weather does not obey timetables. Labour demands its wings sharply. One week it is quiet, next week it is all hands on deck, and therefore flexible.

Without zero hours contracts, many farm simply cannot function, so replacing them with rigid guarantees hours contract is not just unrealistic, it is destructive. This bill would force destructive. This bill would force Months -- my guess months and advise how many workers they would need or pay the price when they do not. Rural employers, particularly farms and estates rely on zero hours staff to work in the time sensitive demands. That is not a loophole, it is a necessity and a reality. At this bill, however, introduces a new legal obligation to take account of how agriculture works.

Under the proposals in part one, if a casual worker ends up working a regular pattern, say 20 hours a week over if humans, the employer would be legally required to about guaranteed hours contract reflecting that pattern, and that will, pattern, and that will, fundamentally, altered the nature of seasonal hiring. Instead of its ability, farmers would be lumped into fixed commitments and that means guaranteed pay, even if the work disappears. In farming, it often does. Crops cannot be harvested in a thunderstorm. Livestock routines change.

Machinery Livestock routines change. Machinery breaks down. Labour needs fluctuate by the day and employers have to adapt. This bill removes that option, forcing them to guarantee wages based on past patterns, not future or present and the result of that, inevitably, will be higher cost, less flexibility and legal risk. Farms will no longer be able to adjust hours on a week to week based on workload and instead may reduce them based on the workload or simply hire few Abacus to avoid triggering these new obligations.

That is not security for workers, that is lost opportunity. Then we come to flexible working and other ideological insertion into where it cannot apply. This bill increases the burden to justify denying flexible working requests but who in this House honestly believes that lambing can be done from home was met or that dairy herds can be milked on a four-day week? Farming needs people physically present, on time, and able to adapt to sudden changes. This measure will destroy farms and open the floodgates to legal claims to not improve their working conditions.

I turned out to another deeply flawed proposal in this bill and that is the changes to Statutory Sick Pay that have immediate and sustained costs and under the current system employers are only entitled to SSP after three consecutive days and services, that allows employers, especially those of elephants, to absorb those absences without being sprained. Without warning. This bill proposes to remove the protection entirely in Statutory Sick Pay becoming payable from day one of absence. And for most of our farms, this is not just a technical change, it is a fundamental shift in financial exposure.

Agricultural workers physically demanding, often outdoors and highly seasoned. Casual absences are common and often unavoidable, but under this bill every single one of those absences now comes with an automatic cost from the very first shift. If a farmhand calls in sick on Monday and is back by Wednesday the farm, under control, please nothing. Under the new rules, the employer must pay Statutory Sick Pay from day one. Modify that by three or four casual workers each with intermittent absences through lambing or harvest, and you have a significant, unpredictable cost for a form that would already raise thin margins.

The bill also proposes to lower the earnings limit, meaning that even fewer workers on these seasonal contracts would now be eligible for sick pay. These are precisely the workers who farms higher during these harvests and likely working flexibly as needed. Under that system a farm might be required to pay sick pay to a casual labourer who only worked a handful of hours and not be scheduled for any in the week ahead. That is not financial protection. Farmers are also now expected to put in place formal absence, tracking and management systems.

That means logging each absence of sickness, reviewing intendant histories, review meetings, drafting improvement lands try things do not improve, potentially going through a formal dismissal process. If that were not enough, we now face the proposed cancellation payments. Yes, farmers will be penalised for calling shifts as short notice of, even when there is pouring rain and frost. These changes would force employers to choose between operating at a loss or paying people not to work, and in what rational universe is that considered progress? This bill and particularly part one is not reform, it is sabotaged.

Amendment 133 is, therefore, essential. It does not block the ill or impel any of its measures, it simply demands the Government that they have ultimately failed to deliver a detailed impact assessment of how these changes would affect UK farm businesses because if these consequences would not be theoretical, more farms will close, more jobs will disappear and rural economies will contract. And the very people the Government claims to support working families, small businesses, and so on, would be left to pick up the pieces, so I reiterate my point about the necessity of food security in troubled times as well.

If the Government has nothing to hide, it should have no objection to the impact of this legislation on farmers and it should accept

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 26 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I hope that the Minister will
17:46
Lord Deben Portrait Lord Deben (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hope that the Minister will listen very carefully to what my noble friend has said. I declare an interest as a partner in a small farm. I was walking the fields, only yesterday. To clean up the disastrous effects of the fact that we have had practically no rain. It is not much more than a year ago when I had to do with the disastrous effects of so much rain. We are an organic farm and we look after the soil very carefully.

We suffered less than others, during that period. But there were many farmers who neither were able to get a harvest, all plant. Because the weather was so bad and therefore lost two years. I believe that we have a real problem here of diversity. If we talk about diversity as if it is a thing about race, or ethnic minority in the House. What is so interesting there is no member of the current cabinet who represents a rural constituency, or as far as I can discover a country person at all.

There are 9 million people who live in the countryside who were actually hardly represented at all. And just to be perfectly fair, I can find out, there isn't a shadow cabinet body who is also a country person. This is something that has happened to our society. Our country people find this extremely difficult. Therefore I want to say to the noble Lord who is known for his generosity. It is crucially important for this government to show that it is actually listening to and thinking about this section of the community.

The seat that I once represented is now represented by a Labour member. She must find it very difficult to appeal to many of the people who voted for her, because it doesn't appear that the government of which she supports has really understood where the countryside works. In other words, what agriculture is. What I want to say to the noble Lord I could of course make a great statement about the terrible situation of the IHT changes, which I think were rather peculiar, given that no previous Labour Chancellor has ever thought this a good idea.

I could make all of those arguments. But I want to tone down what I might have said, to one single concept. Governments can only get support of the nation, if the nation feels that the government understands them. And not just bits of them, but the whole of them. And the previous Speaker, I was going to be like about the last Amendment, but the previous introducer, from the other side of the last Amendment, very rightly talked about this bill having to be something that represents both sides of industry.

I want to ask this bill to represent different parts of industry. And one of those parts is the rule agricultural scene. And my concern is that this is not been looked at through the eyes of the countryside. Now it may be that when the government does, it doesn't want to make any changes. It doesn't seem to me to be possible for the government to convince people that those changes aren't necessary, unless it has done what Amendment 133 actually asks it to do.

All we are asking for is that the Government should look, in detail, as to the effect of this bill, on the agricultural industry. And, in ending I want to say something which is a true and really serious. We are entering a period in which food security will be absolutely crucial. Climate change is a meaning that we are going to have less and less opportunity to import from live areas of the world. I remember when I was a Minister of agriculture, by the cleverest man in Europe, Peter J.

Who said we do not need a Minister of agriculture, because we will always be able to import food from somewhere else. How madly wrong that was. Climate change will mean that we are going to find it more and more difficult to feel at home. I say to the government nothing undermines a government more than two or three days, when people cannot eat what they want to eat. Therefore I say to the government, I hope that this is a helpful amendment and if the government says that it will not do that, that says some thing, to the 9 million people who live in the countryside.

And even more to the many, many people who keep food on our plates. No farmers, no food. If farmers are to do the job properly, they have to recognise whether they deal with, which has always been the thing that is different about agriculture, compared with any other industry. There is now going to be a difference which will be very much worse. We have worse and worse examples of more extreme weather. So do us the government, which in general terms has been extremely good on climate change.

Unlike other parliaments, but is extremely good, not to let itself down on this, but to say yes, we will look and see exactly what this will do for agriculture. And if we find that it needs alteration, then we will be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

able to come back with the facts. I rise to speak in support of my noble friend, Lord Sharpe's Amendment 133. It is a great Amendment 133. It is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend. In doing so I also draw attention to
17:53
Lord Robathan Portrait Lord Robathan (Conservative)
-
-
In doing so I also draw attention to my register of interests, particularly as a dairy and livestock farmer. I'm most grateful to my noble friends, for their supportive comments for British farmers. I have asked in written questions and in debates, if the government would commit to keeping a detailed and timely data on the number of farmers and family business owners are taking their own lives, in the run-up to the introduction of the reduced inheritance tax reliefs, due in April next year. So far these requests been denied, or ignored.

We know this number has increased. The risk is it will only rise. It would be callous that the government refused to take responsibility for this tragic human cost of this budget decision. Will the noble of the Minister now commit to keeping the publishing the data in a timely manner. Bombing has unique employment challenges, as others have already mentioned in the short debate. The country is now aware thanks to the popularity of The Clarkson's Farm. When they are ready to harvest, this leads to high- pressure operations, at short notice and often antisocial hours.

It is not unusual to see wagons operating well into the night to reduce. If staff are not available to operate that equipment at the ultimate time it can lead to reduce yields, higher dry cause, or even failure to harvest crop at all. The livestock and daily sectors, staff are always required to be able to work flexibly. In livestock this can be available for callouts to inspect the health of animals, existing in lambing and calving and recapturing escaped animals was up in dairy cows need to be milked at regular intervals from one to 3 times a day, depending on the system being employed.

If this regular schedule is not followed, then animal health can be threatened and milk yield will suffer. In the fruit and vegetable growing industry, fruit needs to be picked when right and when the market demands it, contract governing supply of these goods, retailers and processes can be onerous and punitive when conditions are not met. It is essential for this industry that they can employ workers to meet these needs and Unfortunately, agricultural employers need to have staff who are committed to working flexibly.

An access to staff who are willing to work when the work is available. This bill makes it more difficult for employers to refuse employee submissions for flexible working request. While the submissions can already be made from day one, employers can refuse on the grounds of inability to build a gap from reduced hours, or the detrimental impact on performance or customer demand. Higher bar set by this bill is likely to make it harder to protect business. The Employment Rights Bill replies unfair dismissal Rights Bill replies unfair dismissal rights from day one employment vs the two years currently in law.

We are yet to see a timetable to be proposed creating significant uncertainty. I have first hand experience of unsatisfactory work by an employee, even without. Being unable to remove them at short notice is critical. Due to the nature dairy farming, took over a year, for poor performers to come to light. Why disperse spread industry reliance is threatened by restrictions on zero and low hours contracts. The potential for those to obtain the right to guaranteed hours contracts. Paying fees for cancellations of shifts at short notice is also practical.

While it is easy to see why the government may want to penalised employees for potentially capricious and harmful decisions around shifts, the timing of working and farming is often not predictable. Therefore it is not make sense at penalised farmers, even any more than they are for changing weather. This bill is a massive threat to the viability of British farming. The extent of that threat will only be known when the government has decided when employers probation period will end, when a casual employee gained permanent employee rights, were notice had to be given the shift cancellation.

I ask the navel of the Minister why this work hasn't done already? Why are we debating when the extent of this impact is unknowable. The UK farming industry has been targeted by this, drastic reductions in payment, the abrupt cancellation of SFI applications. The imposition of inheritance tax the withdrawal of the Royal services delivery grants. We are now read in the papers the spending review is likely to slash the farming mode budget. Farmers are now faced greater competition from farmers overseas with little or no environmental obligations.

On top of that, as Lord highlighted, arable farmers are struggling with extremely dry weather damaging yields. Let us at least accept this amendment to the bill to allow an open appraisal of the impact on the sector, after a full annual cycle, when the terms of the bill are fixed and enforced. And ensure that the information is available to make changes that might prove necessary. This government has a claim to be pro-business, pro-growth. Some support for this business. I hope the noble of them in a stubble listen to this debate, and offer ...

To comment ... To comment on ... To comment on farming businesses. I'm not a farmer. I've never been on a farm. I can say that there are lots of people who support the farmers and who support the culture and the steadfastness of an industry that is so reliant on the
18:00
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
weather. Every industry has to try and run a business and make a and run a business and make a living. With the weather this country has an unfortunately I cannot blame the weather of any cannot blame the weather of any government. It is literally a force government. It is literally a force of nature. Considering the implications of this bill, it is implications of this bill, it is important that we do pay close attention to the circumstances of the UK farming sector.

The agricultural businesses are complex agricultural businesses are complex and fragile environments. Changes to employment markets, however well intentioned can have disproportionate effects. Recently the family farm tax, highlighting concerns about the pressure on concerns about the pressure on farmers. A careful assessment of a New Burdens placed in that sector. This amendment proposes a structured approach, to understand the impact of a formal assessment, within a defined timeframe. Views may differ on whether such new provision needs to be set up under legislation.

My concern is legitimate and should be supported. We should ensure that policy changes do not place any strain in any sector, or challenges. Our farming communities are vital to the economic and social fabric of rural areas. Yet they are overlooked by national policymakers, several members have made speeches today There are not this Government has adopted the current form, I have no idea, but I hope they will recognise the value of the legislation that farm businesses will commit to engaging with the sector in a meaningful manner because the goal should be appalled the employment protection without undermining the viability of those who produce our food and Stuart our countryside.

And food and Stuart our countryside. And I think that Lord Sharpe's amendment is the very minimum the Government should do because this is a step into the unknown, and if the Government gets this wrong, any damage that people perceive has happened to farmers will be tenfold. The Government should, before they bring legislation forward to us might give us the information we need from the unintended consequences. We should refer the opposition not for anybody else to say if they have abused the policy over time, it should be built into the bill.

That they gave us those answers and this is the frustrating part for us on these benches that we have endless debates, time and time again, about the blindingly obvious which is they have actually set out the reason for your actions before you implement those actions that they would have to be a reaction to it. And I think the last debate we have had, so demoralising because I thought this bill was called the employment bill, but clearly the Government, it is an appointment bill unless it is done that way and people in trade unions should have representation, this Government is big enough to acknowledge that, and I think that we would support this amendment and hope the Government at least commits to giving us a measurement, a review, to see what

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is going on. I thank all noble Lords who have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I have to say we have listened to every noble Lords concerns, and, to be fair to the concerns, and, to be fair to the Secretary of State for DEFRA and my fellow ministerial colleagues at fellow ministerial colleagues at DEFRA, they are in very regular contact with the farming community and farmers and the Secretary of and farmers and the Secretary of State has recently spoken to the union of farmers conference and union of farmers conference and Noble Friend Baroness Hayman actually comes from a farming community and she understands the community and she understands the problems that noble Lords have raised.

I turned to amendment 133 tabled by the Noble Lord shop of Epsom. As I have repeated multiple times across the debate in this place, we have already published a comprehensive set of assessments based on the best available evidence, and the work is likely to be affected by these measures. This includes an assessment of the economic impact of the bill, including impacts on workers, businesses, sectors and regions. We already intend to publish further
18:04
18:05
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
And I think that Noble Lord the Minister for his response? And for all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate, in particular like Noble Friends for their expertise, which I think noble Lords around the House will agree shed a great deal of light on this particularly tricky subject. I also greatly appreciate Lord God adds support for what is a very distant memory and I and therefore of course disappointed with the Minister's response, although pleased that he will consult a DEFRA further.

But on the subject of inheritance tax, the Noble Lord asserted that DEFRA had been steadfast in the support for the farming community, but it is not clear that the farming community has perhaps recognised that steadfastness, because over a dozen leading farming organisations including the National is union and the Country Land and Business Association condemned the Government for a lack of transparency. These groups have written directly to the Treasury were demanding the release of modelling and evidence behind the policy. One press to explain why they rejected the fair clawback option for inheritance tax reforms, Treasury Ministers offered nothing more than vague assertions, no consultation, no published impact assessment, and when challenged under the Freedom of Information laws, the Treasury responded by saying that it was, quote, not in the public interest to disclose this analysis.

But how can the Government possibly claim this is not in the public interest? Are they really arguing that the means of food production and all that pertains to it is not in the public interest? We are talking about reforms that could through the foundations and multigenerational funds, false land sales and strip the viability of a small rural businesses, and if this Government approach so far was not regulated enough, the environment for rural affairs committee has now given more weight to the call for caution and transparency.

The cross-party group of MPs has urged the Government to delay its proposed reforms to Agricultural Property Relief Business Property Relief for two years, pushing back the implemented day from April 2026 April the implemented day from April 2026 April 2027, with any final decisions postponed until October 2026. That is because the reforms are intended to tie inheritance tax relief on farms and agricultural businesses and were introduced without consultation or any formal impact assessment. The Government, the committee highlighted this without proper analysis and risk serious consequences, including impact on land values, tenant farmers, family farms and food production.

They warned this could food supply change, potentially driving up supermarket prices and hitting consumers across the UK. You should take my Noble Friends point very seriously about food shortages and what it does to Government popularity. What is particularly striking is the committee citation of March 2025 survey that found that 70% of farmers were optimistic about their businesses before the Autumn Budget and that figure plummeted to just 12% afterwards. That collapsed in confidence speaks volumes about the uncertainty and fear these policies have created within rural communities, and the same attitude is now in the employment rights Bill.

Once again, we are seeing major legislative changes with found economic impacts pushed through without proper consultation, without proper impact assessments and without any serious recognition of the realities facing British farmers and that is precisely why the modest amendment is so important, and the bear minimum before further damages done we should demand an independent published assessment of how the employment law changes to perfect the UK formed businesses. Months after the, not hidden behind opaque Treasury memos, it is in the public interest, so should be within 12 months of this passing.

That is a modest proportionate and entirely reasonable request. I will withdraw the amendment on this occasion and we reserve the right to return to it. And, again, I refer to my noble friend's suggestion, or perhaps one, 9 million people are watching.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that someone would be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 144, Baroness Thompson, Amendment 144, Baroness Thompson, not moved. Amendment 135 to 136, 137, 138, Lord Palmer of Childs 137, 138, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, not moved. Amendment 139, Baroness Taylor, not moved. Close 26, amendment 240.
18:10
Lord Lucas Portrait Lord Lucas (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

26, amendment 240. A move amendment 140. Thank you for drawing your attention to this for drawing your attention to this proposal. Standard in the UK when a person already has a job that contracts for a new one, is that he or she has to serve a three month notice period. In the United States the notice periods are typically two weeks. There is no legal requirement on that convention and any longer is considered unreasonable. So, it is quite clear looking at things that three months is not necessary to run a dynamic and effective economy, this is inefficient.

Shifting the notice period down a bit, the contribution to productivity and a benefit to workers. Most people get a pay rise when they move jobs. a pay rise when they move jobs. Getting a hey rise is a direct rise in that income and also rising GDP and also tax revenues would rise, so all around economic benefit and the most important effect is indirect. If notice periods are short, the dynamic company can skill more quickly and easily done is currently possible.

Knowing they can get that stuff in time to follow that contract, if an entrepreneur has a good idea they can make it happen and respond more easily, making it easier for dynamic firms is definitely an economic value. Finally, knowing employees can leave more quickly would give firms an incentive to think more carefully about it, if their leaving is a big nuisance firms would call to stay, and have an incentive to think more about pay rises and other things that make the employee feel that his current job is worth having.

In contrast, allowing firms to set long notice periods helps particularly those firms that are not seeking to respond to growth opportunities, that is not a productivity enhancing strategy. So, my amendment suggests a gentle way of seeking to change the current practice in the UK to incentivise a change without requiring anything. If the Government can see a better way of getting this, I should be delighted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to support them. The clause printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshall list. This amendment raises questions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This amendment raises questions about notice periods and I make no about notice periods and I make no particular case for or against it, but does draw attention to the more pressing issue, the more complex by this view in those notice periods and many employers, particularly and many employers, particularly those with legal support, understanding this new requirement would not be straightforward and I appreciate that the amendment seeks
18:13
18:14
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
what Lord Goddard of Stockport has rightly reminded us is becoming a hugely complicated employment situation, with so many differing complex and contradictory requirements, it could be said, and it is being said by a number of H are departments, that this is just the sort of bill that will give an enormous boost to human resources as a profession. And there are already queues of people lining up to join those H are departments. So, what my Noble Friend has done in seeking a simple aid to incentivise shorter notice periods, and really to try and avoid situations where individuals are financially disadvantaged from moving jobs, especially when their employers insist on enforcing long notice There is of course a potential small business angle worth reflecting here.

Smaller employers arguably give longer notice periods that are sometimes necessary, due to limited staffing flexibility. For them, losing a team member, without sufficient time to recruit, or handle their duties can be disruptive. On the other hand, smaller businesses also often struggle to compete on salary and benefits. A degree of flexibility in managing exits can help them attract and retain staff. From that perspective my noble friends amendment could arguably encourage more equitable practices, around exit arrangements.

Without preventing employers from enforcing notice periods, altogether. So, my lords. I think this amendment raises a legitimate question, around how notice periods are used and whether current arrangements strike the right balance, between the needs of the employee, their mobility, the needs of the businesses that employ them. I therefore look forward to the noble Baroness, the Minister's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

response. Can I thank all noble Lords for
18:17
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank all noble Lords for this short debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas for tabling noble Lord, Lord Lucas for tabling , we were clear in our ambition to establish a fair deal, that balances employees rights and protections, alongside employers confidence to hire the talent, skills and expertise they require to grow their business. And notice period is a period of time put in place to ensure a smooth transition, that allows for the employer to manage a minimum destruction of the business requirements, also allowing for the employee to hand over their responsibilities.

I have to say, therefore to the noble Lord that we therefore feel that our proposals, in the round are a benefit to employers. It is a fair set of proposals, which many employers do proposals, which many employers do not want their employees to leave quickly, that fairness is built into it. Although the statutory minimum notice period an employer is currently after one month, no less than one week. Often a longer contractual notice period is agreed between the employer and their employees.

And although I have to say to the noble Lord, that I do not recognise the three months as a standard, for many, many workers it This is all about fairness and balance. In practice employers and employees recognise that both parties require flexibility and certainty to maintain a fair agreement. Of course, if an employment contract specifies a notice period, longer than the statutory minimum, an employee is entitled to receive that longer period of notice. That is something that the employer sets in the contract at the outset.

Current minimum notice period legislation entitles the employee to their normal contractual pay rate during a notice or. As you would expect. This measure would require an enforcement mechanism of employees rights to increase the notice. Which would result in more disputes being taken to Employment Tribunal's, and the agencies. It would require a nerve requirement for employees current and future employer to confirm that their salary offer. This adds an additional process in the process of boarding an employee. It also presents a possibility of an increased financial burden.

On employers. My government, my lords, the government feel it is not necessary to make further assessments of this. They haven't made an assessment of the cost and the impact of making this change to employee rights to do so, it would require careful consultation, with employers and employee representatives. I have to say that we haven't received a lobbying, or any suggestion from employers that they are particularly wanting the sort of proposal that the noble Lord is putting forward. The bill is delivering, the bill is delivering a commitment made by the government to improve rights in the Plan to Make Work Pay.

I've listened to the noble Lord and I absolutely agree with all And Lord Hunt, that we want a simple process. We think our process is simple. It is also fair. Fair to both sides, fed the employer, fed to the employee. And if those arrangements need to change, by and large they can be done, within the workplace, based on the negotiations. We do not feel the pressure to make the changes. I thanked Lord Lucas and nevertheless for the suggestion.
18:21
18:23
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
some she wishes to express our thanks to the noble Lady the Minister for arranging a meeting to discuss at this and later amendments. The dialogue that followed. This, this amendment speaks for itself. I would like to describe a case where it would be applicable. It is that of a 19- year-old Ellen Revels, from Glasgow who worked a five-hour shift in a restaurant. She told the BBC, around Food & Drink to customers, clean the tables, set up the tables, swept the floor, took them to and to their seats.

If you payments on the card machine. For that shift she had to buy trousers as uniform, costing £20. She got paid nothing and she did not get a job out of it. The Department for Business and Trade's guidance on wage eligibility, includes a section on unpaid work trial periods, which discusses, to what extent the National Minimum Wage applies to work trial is undertaken. As part of the recruitment process. He says work trials help employees to decide whether the individual has the skills and qualities for the job.

Unpaid work trials can be a legitimate practice, so long as they are not used to obtain work or services, for which, at least the minimum wage should be paid. That, I believe is an invitation for abuse. The kind of abuse the ill and suffered. Being expected to work for nothing. Not to get less than the minimum wage, but not to get anything at all. We hear reports of employees that do this are to a succession of workers. For those who would like to explore this issue in more depth, I have time for today, I am debating in Westminster Hall on the 20 ninth, 2023 secured by Stuart Malcolm MacDonald MP.

That followed the same introduction of the Private Members' Bill seeking to achieve the same outcome as at this amendment, in 2017. The Scottish trades Union Congress and the National Union of students, among others. The MP reintroduced it last year. It has been an issue that has been around a long time, but still has no solution. If the Minister feels that the amendment is not properly drafted, I have been assured by the noble friend that she is in no way attached to the detail of how this is written.

Although she does and thank the bill offers for its safeguard. The point is to act. And actually create a solution, for an abuse. That is enacted on people who can least afford it. Now, I have heard some very familiar faces in the past few groups, about we need more information, this is not the right time. There is legislation elsewhere that deals with this. If not now, in employment rights, then when? And how? We have to protect workers like Ellen.

There are often young, sometimes English isn't their first language and they are vulnerable workers. Surely, the point of in the Employment Rights Bill is to protect people from exploitation, like unpaid work.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed... Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed... Amendment proposed, after clause 23 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List. I am sympathetic on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sympathetic on the intentions driven by this amendment. It does, there are risks of It does, there are risks of exploitation, which the noble Lady has just sit out. Where I am a has just sit out. Where I am a somewhat more concerned and have more sympathy with the amendment
18:26
18:28
18:29
18:31
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I thank those who contributed to this short debate, thanking Baroness Jones stepping in very ably. I very much appreciate her stepping in and putting the amendment in place of Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. This repeats the debate we had on this afternoon on amendment 129, amendment 141 seeks to ensure people are paid for trial shifts in lieu of potentially being offered a position. How do you make sure people are not exploited when they are in a position that they need to be flexible to gain work and that is the objective of the government to make sure we can get more people working, but we must also make workfare and make fair work pay and that is the intention underlying the amendment which Baroness Jones has moved and in the that light I thank her for raising the issue of Alan to outline how vulnerable situations can be exploited.

-- Ellen. Let me assure you that is not the intention of the bill or our attitude towards the amendment but I will go into detail of why we are on this amendment. We are committed to making work pay and we have delivered on this through actions we have taken since the government came into office last year. At risk of repeating myself, when you look at our actions on the National Minimum Wage, we delivered an increase by 6.7%, £12.21 in our four eligible workers over 21 and we also delivered a huge uplift of 16.3% on the lower 18-20 National Minimum Wage rate which is a record amount in cash percentage terms and it closes the gap with the national living way.

The fair day of work deserves a fair pay. It is about deciding if a job is right for the candidate and if they are right for a job. Government guidance sets out practical information on how the National Minimum Wage applies in unpaid work trials. The guidance is clear that employers can only ask people to carry out tasks or shifts without paying if it is a genuine part of the recruitment process. Genuine work trials whether paid or unpaid give employers and individuals and opportunity to check if it is right for them and empowers individuals to test if the role is suited to them and their needs and allows employers to test if a candidate can do the job and reduces the risk of taking on someone who might not have the right skills.

It is about finding the right balance. Unpaid work trials provide a steppingstone for individuals who have been out of work for a long period of time but might want to get back into the workplace as Lord Sharpe said. There are schemes where individuals receive benefits from an unpaid work trial and the flexibility of genuine work trials can benefit workers up and down the country. The government feels that they see these opportunities for individuals diminish. I would like to repeat the point that it is worth to repeat the point that it is worth emphasising that employers cannot rely on unpaid frock trial shifts for free labour.

If someone is carrying out work that goes beyond their demonstration of suitability for the role, they are entitled to the National Minimum Wage. We are committed to protecting workers and will monitor this closely. If changes are needed in the future it will be dealt with outside of the bill so the national minimum wage legislation will be in place to ensure workers are protected. HM Revenue and Customs will be aware of the responsibility for enforcing National Minimum Wage legislation and ensuring that employers meet the obligation.

Any concerned that they have been part of a shift that is not part of an employment process would go to the arbitration service for advice. In light of the safeguards that exist in legislation safeguards that exist in legislation and despite the fact we have put ourselves behind the amendment, we asked the noble Baroness to withdraw amendment 141. amendment 141.
18:35
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I thank him for his answer. I was not here for amendment 129. 129 was not grouped with it which is a thought perhaps. The Minister talked about genuine work trials and I would argue the work word genuine is doing a lot of heavy lifting because how do you judge that if you are not monitoring extremely closely? Also, a short demonstration? How long is a short demonstration? Is it to ours? Ellen worked for four hours.

A fair amount of continuous time to work and I influenced by the fact we cannot take any unpaid work at all and no unpaid interns and this influence is my attitude towards anyone working for nothing if they are not intending to do it in a voluntary way. Lord Sharpe said there might be fewer opportunities but workers are still needed and they cannot afford to pay the national minimum wage for someone on a work trial, they ought to go out of business.

I have no sympathy for employers who do not pay for work. Lord Goddard I think was given conditional support but I'm not really sure. Perhaps at report stage. Baroness, and amendment can be made to cover such schemes as a government scheme. It does not necessarily exclude paying someone for genuinely working for five hours continually. -- Baroness Coffey. This is a good amendment and I hope my noble friend will bring it back

**** Possible New Speaker ****

at report stage. I beg to withdraw. The amendment is by leave

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 141 a, not withdrawn. Amendment 141 a, not
18:38
None Portrait AMDT: 141B Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

moved. Amendment 141 141B, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb. I rise again on behalf of Baroness Bennett to move amendment 141 b which is I think a no-brainer. I forgot, did you actually swear? Blindingly obvious. It gives workers Blindingly obvious. It gives workers the right to disconnect. It was seen to be world leading at the time and available to French workers. I am sure many rich workers expected to have the same right as a result of the bill given widely covered the bill given widely covered promises made over recent years.

I am going to quote from the Green Paper on employment rights in 2022. It is unequivocal. "Labour will bring in the right to switch off so working from home does not come home is turning into 24-7 offices. Workers have a right to disconnect from work outside of working hours and not be contacted by their employer outside of working hours. That is very clear. By June 2024. The party fleshed out that with an explanation in the document as they plan to make work pay.

The pandemic led to a step change in flexible and remote working practices which inadvertently blurred the lines between work and home life and that is worrying. The headline says the right to switch off in the 2024 text. Backtracking is already evident, but the promise to the electorate is more equivocal. We will follow similar ones to those in place in Ireland and Belgium giving workers and employers to be able to have constructive conversations and have despite workplace policies as they benefit both parties.

The headline of the right to switch off as most people would have read that and hope for a more balanced and less harassed life. I think the Green Party is always keen to help any government and what we would like to do here is help the government live up to its promises. The promises it made to an exhausted, overstretched group of workers who find themselves trapped with a boss as they answer emails from the sideline of a child's netball match or speak to a client on holiday.

The government intends to introduce a statutory Code of Practice instead. It does not mean that such contract will be legal or prohibitive, but if they can prove they are routinely being contacted out of contracted hours, it is in a tribunal payout. And it is mentioned it is possible to make complaints, and most people do not do that. They don't have the expertise to do it and they may not have the energy to do it. Fair enough, tribunal cases are possible, but extraordinarily rare and slow.

We have a health crisis in the UK, and overwork crisis, and an imbalance in the relationship to employers and employees as many other parts of the bill point out. In the Green Party, we are always constructive and what this does, this amendment provides the government with a chance to live up to the promise of the electorate, empower workers, help them remain healthy and engage in family, community lives and not forever distracted by having to check their phone. We know the economy is there to serve people and not people serve the economy.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Insert the new clause is printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on the Marshall list. I would like to clarify the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to clarify the situation. We are not in coalition with the Green Party. But Baroness with the Green Party. But Baroness Jones made a valid point. The reason it is valid is because societal it is valid is because societal change post Covid where the number change post Covid where the number of people working from home now is exponential to what it was pre- exponential to what it was pre- Covid. I go back to my days as a British Gas engineer when I had a bleeper and you would get a dreaded bleak when you were on call.

That bleak when you were on call. That was then and this is now. I know of so many people working from home that cannot switch off. The email alerts come through on the mobilephone and some recognition of that within the legislation which is clearly that there are some organisations that need to contact people, but that should be via pre- arrangement, and something that can be supported by other parties. If you look at the cowboy society and unscrupulous company director got a small business from a small number of people and deals are made tonight and at 10 or 11 o'clock at night and children are in bed and the phone goes and you got to do it and if you don't face the consequences, it is difficult to resist doing that.

It is a never-ending circle. I would like them to understand the importance of considering the framework set out in the amendment to provide a fair and practical approach that looks after the worker and protects the legitimate need of the employees. We come back to this reasonable proportionality of the threat that runs through the legislation. If it is reasonable and proportional, it is acceptable, but you have the scrupulous person from either side and I have known people and I have seen it where they are on and I have seen it where they are on call and should be on-call and haven't replied and they are disciplined.

That is correct and right. You have an agreement, you are on call and if you don't want to do it, there is a price to pay. The pendulum swings slowly one-way but fast the other way to all of those people working from home now and have no rejection from an scrupulous employer that just once results 24 hours a day, because we do live in a 24 hour society. There is no escape from it. Ministers and spokespeople and I also have friends and I have and I also have friends and I have to turn my phone off.

At 9 o'clock I switched it off and tell the morning and I get messages, why didn't you answer me? It is 12:45 in the morning and I am fast asleep. These friends, these are colleagues, in the context of work environment where it is your livelihood and your marriage and your children, then it comes more into focus. I want the government to look at this and think there must be a way of striking balance between the needs of an employer and the rights of the
18:46
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
employer and the rights of the There is a bright future for them and their families and Labour will deliver on it. It appears all is not And that strategy but however one thing I think is important in the legislation which has been carefully legislation which has been carefully written by the noble Lady Baroness Bennett, it sits in place that the Bennett, it sits in place that the right to disconnect does not apply.

I think by trying to get into the debate, which I think is fair to have, the legislation already addresses the majority of situations where this has already happened and all that will happen if this was to become law is that contracts would be written in such a way that in effect, if necessary, everybody would be on call on that would not be a desirable outcome. Building on that, Lord Goddard has referred to a variety of anecdotes and his personal experience Cash personal experience matters in considering how employer can act and in my Parliamentary office I used to have the 'do not disturb' settings on and if somebody really is to get a hold of you, they can get there eventually but even if you do not have your phone on.

If there are those conversations, they can be addressed. One of the things I think the bill is trying to do overall is to get balance back but it is fair to say that everything needs to be put into registration and it's about having a relationship which is positive and there are different things instead of guidance and by trying to micromanage every relationship that millions of workers have, it risks complicating, over complicating and I think the fear that I have on legislation like this, given it is in the manifesto, it'll be interesting to see how they want to make this happen and I think it would make for tricky legislation and there might be instances but it comes down to the employment tribunal and so, for what it is worth, we have God and evolving variety of workplaces.

A lot of people now come back to the office and can leave their job in the office as opposed to just thinking they would open this up or whatever it is. I look forward to how the Minister will set out how it is looking forward to fulfilling the manifesto commitment while making sure it does not micromanage every element of how the job can be done in the workplace. in the workplace.
18:49
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to follow on from what the Baroness has said because I think it is about fairness and making sure that life works and there are a lot of companies where I think, to a great extent, what has been proposed is already working and I think that there are a number of instances and when you work somewhere like I do, I do not think it applies. I will give you one quick example. I work in insurance for a huge company.

I have a client in the US and by 5 PM they had not decided whether to renew the contract in London or not. He would have had no insurance on that specific part of business. A member of my team kindly stayed online, for want of a better word. He probably had his phone in his pocket but the call came through at some time after 9 PM and the way that the clause is drafted, is that considered enough To get a member of staff out of bed, so to speak.

I'm not sure about the way that this is drafted and I think that equally that company may have had to stop working and that is a fact and we had to find the contract and it was all ready to go there was a number of emails to say it was done and I think there are huge swathes of the country where it will affect this already and in some of the big city environments where you are working, it is extremely difficult to do that and I think, difficult to do that and I think, just talking about talking about it, we all talked about it and I loathed it and I had members of staff and they know how to turn it off when they do not want to talk to us anymore and they are good at it but if you really need them, you can always find them.

There is the final comment to make. You can turn the comment to make. You can turn the machines of, whatever it is, an iPad, there is an off button and when I was a child we were told never to kill anybody after 9pm and that was friends and family and there are some written rules. there are some written rules.
18:53
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
We are very grateful to the noble Baroness and thank her for introducing us to a fascinating debate. Lord Goddard of STPO port put us in touch with the real world and then of course -- of Stockport and then we were reminded about what happens. I just... I suppose I have to declare my interest as a practising solicitor and my phrase, which I always used to share, was that I was available 168/ 52, so that I was available 168/ 52, so that is 24 times seven, and so you appreciate that as a solicitor you have to be available all the time and saw when I won the contract to represent cricket with the England And Wales Cricket Board they wanted to know if I would be available on Sunday evening when there was an incident at a Sunday league match and I said I would.

It is very much up to the individual to make themselves available and I think when I was asked to join the Frontbench in the House of Commons in 1977, I don't think anybody expected that I would refuse to answer an adjournment debate, even though it might have been out 3 AM, and it was, on one occasion. And therefore you set the working parameter in the way that you develop your own workaholic tendencies and you should not expect it of everyone and I think that is what the amendment is all about.

Do you have the right to disconnect? And although I am sympathetic to the idea that she should be able to switch off, which Lord Goddard put in context, when this bill is introducing considerable uncertainty for employers around the shift notice period, payment for council shifts, wider questions of how flexible working is to be managed in practice, I think we have to be very cautious about layering another rigid and potentially burdensome obligation. I saw the noble Baroness may have put forward what appears to be a straightforward proposal to give workers the right not to respond to emails or calls outside of contracted hours but in reality, us the government has quickly realised, despite what it may have said in advance of the election, this whole proposal raises serious practical and legal questions.

What does 'working hours' mean in a world of flexible, hybrid and self-managed work? How do we define an emergency? What happens in small teams, customer-facing sectors, which my noble friend Lord Ashcombe highlighted? Businesses operating across time zones, employers, especially small businesses, already face growing compliance costs and this would add yet another administrative requirement and there would have to be a written policy on the right to disconnect and there would have to be a consultation process and enforcement procedures and, of course, exposure to tribunal claims and so we must ask if this is the rate moment to introduce such sweeping regulation.

The bill already pre-empts new rights and obligations will take time to bed in and there is uncertainty around shift scheduling, compensation for cancellations, and the cumulative compliance burden. I have to say to the noble Baroness that I believe the effectiveness would be to increase the uncertainty further and risk undermining flexibility for both sides. Most workers and employers already navigate these boundaries reasonably and sensibly Risks making day-to-day communications feel legally fraught and especially in smaller organisations where roles are not so rigidly defined.

rigidly defined.
18:58
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I thank Baroness Bennett for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank Baroness Bennett for tabling amendments 141 b. We firmly recognise the vital importance of recognise the vital importance of achieving healthy work-life balance and the noble Baroness and the noble and the noble Baroness and the noble Lord can be confident we will introduce the right to switch off introduce the right to switch off and we understand that in today's fast paced world, it's more fast paced world, it's more important than ever to ensure individuals and families can manage the demands of work alongside responsibilities and needs at home.

Our close consultation with businesses and civil society since businesses and civil society since the election has shown how important the election has shown how important it is that we developed this policy in collaboration with those who will be affected. Workers and firms will employ them. The right to switch off must account for full diversity in types of employment and sectors that exist in the modern economy. It represents a substantial shift in the way some businesses operate. This amendment does not account for the diversity and the need for collaboration.

That is why we have decided to take a careful and considered approach to introducing the right to switch off, as alluded to by Baroness coffee and Lord Ashcombe. The focus for now is the Employment Rights Bill which contains decisive and immediate action such as reforms to flexible working that will make it easier to strike a better balance between work and life and these are not just policies but practical steps to support everyday lives and help people draw clear boundaries between their work and personal lives.

To add this amendment onto the bill add this amendment onto the bill today would not do the right to switch off any justice. As drafted, it could create unnecessary burdens on businesses, particularly small businesses, as stated by Lord Hunt. Significant new requirements would force all employers, no matter the size, to produce written disconnection policies, specify new technological and organisational measures and protocols and establish reporting systems for any reporting systems for any Rules are owners and inflexible.

This amendment is thorough and has admirable aims. It is premature and too prescriptive. It does not account for different sizes of businesses, the different types of jobs they will do and the different practices they have across time practices they have across time zones. Flexibility must be paramount. We will introduce the right to switch off only once we have consulted thoroughly with workers, businesses, trade unions and other key stakeholders. This is the right approach to ensure it works effectively and affects the needs of both workers and businesses.

We are committed to delivering the right to switch off. It will mark another significant milestone in the mission to make work fairer, healthier and more sustainable. But we are taking things one step at a time. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw amendment 141b. withdraw amendment 141b.
19:02
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Portrait Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (Green Party)
-
-
I thank those who contributed and I am deeply disappointed in the opposition. I am trying to hold the government to account, but bringing a measure that was promised and giving them an Easy Rider, I would say. The noble Lady is being far too kind to the government in my view and I am sure they are very grateful. -- easy ride. Lord Goddard was supportive and I would like to thank him very much. We are as Lord Hunt pointed out in a very privileged position.

You sound like a very kind man and you are properly a very nice employer and your employee would be free to say no I cannot do that if they had to pick up a child from school or something like that, but this is to protect those people who do not have that sort of privilege, who feel obliged to do things their employer tells them or supposedly asks them to do. This is to protect the most vulnerable and the people who are not in our sort of position.

I don't want to be here now quite honestly. It is 7 o'clock and I'd rather go home and have something to eat and I did not want to be here at 10:35 last night. I would have rather been home in. I do it out of a sense of duty, I do it willingly and there are people that what not be able to do it and cannot deny the boss that work. Lord Hunt, I'm always very dubious when people start talking about real life.

I do wonder how much real life they actually have. I grew up in a working-class family, very poor, and I still have a lot of friends from my childhood who are not in a privileged position like I am now. I do get a taste of real life when I'm at home and I would say in real-life are people who would not be able to deny their employer this sort of overtime or whatever. The minister, thank you for the response.

I'm glad to hear the government will introduce it. If it is too prescriptive and premature, why did the Labour Party commit itself to that? Why does it not just do what it promised? This is something I struggle with when we see government. Before they are in government they promise all sorts of things and then they scrap it. It is just not right. It betrays the voters and I don't understand why. Consulting by all means, but do it in a sensible and fast way and just get it done.

There is nothing that I've said in the last few minutes relating to Lady Bennett, so do not blame her. I hope she will bring this back at report stage and if you promise it you should do it. I withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is clause 26 withdrawn. The question is clause 26 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion will say, "Content". Of the contrary, "not content". The Of the contrary, "not content". The contents have it. Clause 27, Lord
19:06
None Portrait AMDT: 141BA Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

contents have it. Clause 27, Lord Sharpe. I rise to speak to amendment 141 b-f, 142, 142a and b standing in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Collective redundancy often occurs in the context of the insolvency. The increasing the penalty for failure to inform and consult will exacerbate difficulties for insolvency practitioners, but under the Insolvency Act 1986, administrators are required to act in the best interest of creditors as a whole.

Keeping employees beyond the 14 day window affording administrators they adopt the contract in order to carry out information and consultation process, effectively makes those employees super priority creditors. This would elevate their claims of those of other creditors and reduce the funds available for ordinary creditors. In some cases, resulting in employment costs could make administrators reluctance to take on their role. This may lead to contracts being productive with those liabilities that fall on the national insurance fund.

The national insurance fund. The amendment, 141 b-a, gives insolvency practitioners legal guidance to apply a single establishment during consultations. This makes faster decisions without complex, entity wide assessments reducing delays and protecting insolvency process. Supports rescuing businesses and maximises creditor return. Amendment 141 c and e, clause 27 significantly expands the duty to consult on collective redundancy. It requires employers to start with 24 more redundancies proposed in total across multiple establishments even when those redundancies are unrelated.

This overreach is because simultaneous job cuts can result in distinct decisions of automation in a warehouse, reduced demand in customer service or restructuring at head office affecting different people in different locations. Yet under clause 27, those decisions could be swept into a single mandatory consultation process simply because the total number of affected crosses the arbitrary threshold. This means HR and management teams would have to delay necessary action while they coordinate across unrelated departments. This means representatives and employees were dragged into consultations about matters with no relevance at all to them and risks undermining the quality of consultation itself by overloading it with conflicting priorities and timelines.

I believe that would introduce legal uncertainty, particularly for mid- sized employers who may not have the resources to second-guess if redundancy in different divisions are connected enough to trigger a combine consultation. If they get it wrong, they will face a protective reward and the risk averse approach is to consult everyone about everything all at once. These amendments make it clear when a redundancy across different standards meant -- establishments come from a defined business reason or a connected series of events then a combine consultation is required, but if they are unconnected, they independently and for distinct reason, the employer may conduct separate consultations at the level where the impact is actually felt.

Moving to amendment 141 d, we have made the point that the one size approach is not appropriate. Many sectors rely heavily on seasonal or fixed to workers, agriculture, hospitality, logistics, retail. Businesses in these areas scale up and down predictably year in and out, taking on workers for peak periods, the summer season, the Christmas rush, the harvest, and release them at the end of the contract. These are not sudden decisions. They are built into the business model and clearly understood by all parties.

Let me just give an example. A national employer may let 12 seasonal workers go at the distribution hub in the North in July and a month later it might make seven short-term registered contracts in the Midlands and then in September it might have six fixed to roles at a retail unit in the south. They are unconnected, expected and localised decisions, expected and localised decisions, and yet under clause 27 as drafted, the 25 redundancies must be aggregated, triggering a full collective consultation process across all three events as if they were part of a coordinated business strategy.

I ask the Minister if that is the policy intention. Turning to amendment 141 F, the specific issue that this tackles is the risk of retroactive liability, the possibility to employers who have already commenced consultation in good faith could be told after-the- fact that their earlier actions were invalid or insufficient simply because the later redundancies pushed the total over the threshold. This problem arises from the way the 90 day window is measured by a forward and backwards process from any given proposal.

That means an employer making a set of redundancies today must ask did I make others, 30, 60 or 89 days ago? If so, they now must be bundled into a new retroactive consultation process. You might have a situation where an employer consults properly with the team and five redundancies, full process representatives informed and then some weeks later it identifies the need to make redundancies in another part of the business, the total crosses the threshold and suddenly it faces legal uncertainty, was the earlier consultation valid? It creates a legal trap for employers acting in good faith and penalising those who communicate early and openly and begin consultations promptly, the very behaviours the law should be encouraging.

This amendment I believe is a commonsense process and it says were meaningful consultation on a proposed dismissal has already begun whether individually or collectively, they are not to be recounted towards a later threshold. It prevents the law from demanding the impossible that employers retroactively reconvene consultations that were lawfully and properly carried out before the threshold was even triggered. We know that the government is consulting on changes and rules around collective redundancy consultation. Which is welcome in principle, but it is only meaningful if it is only listen to and at this stage the only thing that is a certainty is uncertainty itself.

What this misses have said is the removal of the one establishment is removal of the one establishment is Previously, I employ a new where they stood and if it was proposing 20 or more at one establishment, collective consent was required. If they were spread across to put the Britons, different divisions, then it would limit separate consultation taking place. That was a manageable and proportionate approach. This is most concerning for large employers when unconnected successive batches of redundancies across different sites are aggregated, those employers, often with headcount of 10,000 or more, confine themselves in and near-constant cycle of consultation and that that skill the threshold of 20 proposed redundancies is 0.2% of the workforce and that means even modest changes to state restructure, team consolidation, seasonal role adjustments, will trigger formal consultation.

The consequences go beyond the employer. Trade union representatives will find the time taken up travelling up and down the country to participate in consultations that often have no relation to each other and that is not a good use of time or resources and ultimately it undermines the seriousness and focus that collective consultation should command. This is not just a question of process but of capacity and practicality and employers are not only consultation machines with HR departments, line managers, union representatives, they all have finite time and resources and so if you place them in a permanent state of collective consultation, the quality will deteriorate.

Turning to amendment 142 a, is not about imposing policy but delivering it with clarity and legal certainty and there is nothing, unless the Minister can correct me, that prevents redundancy numbers from being aggregated internationally and that leads to the frankly absurd question that if a company in Texas makes redundancies, does the same company have two trigger this under UK law? It stands as it stands. The amendment simply aligns with what we are trying to do and it excludes this and ensures it is rooted and my plea is we must fix this now and not wait for calls to do it later.

And finally, 142b, this would remove the maximum protection award from 90 days to 140 days. We all agree the meaningful consultation during the redundancy process is essential but doubling the financial cap on the award is unlikely to achieve the desired effect and risks creating a range of unintended consequences, particularly for employees and most employees faced with an uncertain and potentially open-ended liability will air on the side of caution and that means launching consultations but it is not strictly necessary and only surface that might seem like a good thing but in practice it can mean weeks or months of sustained uncertainty for staff and employees may find themselves under threat of redundancy for extended periods and not knowing if they are at risk and if they take control by seeking other employment, they might forfeit redundancy pay entirely and so they end up stuck and that is not employee protection but paralysis and there is no clear evidence that this will deter non-compliant employers and the kind of businesses that disregard the obligations are unlikely to be swayed by the prospect of a few extra weeks of pay and those who make mistakes navigating complex requirements with limited capacity will still make them and I conclude by saying the net benefit to employees is regarded as minimal but the cost to certainty and proportionality is high and the protective award is an important tool but must remain proportionate, tool but must remain proportionate, targeted, fair, with a cap of 90 days representing significant financial consequences in Dublin it will not double the benefit but only

**** Possible New Speaker ****

double the risk. -- Doubling it. I would like to insert the words
19:22
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to insert the words

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to insert the words I rise in support of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise in support of the amendments and it is a pleasure to amendments and it is a pleasure to support Lord Hunt on these amendments and I declare an interest as a businessman and we want to see the wheels of commerce moving smoothly and not unnecessarily and as far as insolvency goes, this is an opportunity and one that I urge the government that it can still grasp to make insolvency more efficient and less destructive of the economy.

The law says that in most cases where workers are to be made redundant, the consultation is required regardless of insolvency or not and if a company is insolvent, consultation is necessarily spurious and they have lost their jobs, period. The receivers have to move towards this instantly, not wait for 90 days, to realise the asset and because of this rule, they break the law because they have been required to give 90 days and saw the two laws are in conflict with each other and one has to be broken.

The swifter the assets, the more likely it is that the productive activity can be continued for these assets and in the US, where these things are done much better, a study some time ago found that only 4% of assets were lost in bankruptcy and 96% went on to be productive assets under a new organisation. And anyway, now that the law has been broken necessarily, in these cases because the receivers in these cases because the receivers are doing their duty to achieve speedy liquidation.

And because the law has been broken, the lawyers move in. The noble Lord, who I'm delighted to see as in his place, referred to earlier to ambulance chasers. There are many lawyers in the House and every one of them is honourable and valuable but we are honourable and valuable but we are talking about no-win, non-fee lawyers who can be pernicious in practice. These lawyers advise all affected employees that they have a case that they can take to the employment tribunal because they have not been consulted.

And they will certainly win that case and will certainly win that case and these lawyers refer to this as free money, you have got free money because you have not been consulted This period of 90 days. These employees already get redundancy money, statutory sick pay, holiday pay and so forth and getting more ahead of other creditors and are not disadvantaged. This 90-day money that they get by going to the employment tribunal is three months on top of everything else and I don't think that can be intended but it is the outcome and who pays for this? There is no such thing as a free lunch.

The company was insolvent, there won't be enough money for everybody and so there will be losers when the money is paid to the employees and there are HMRC, also known as the taxpayer, of course, and they will lose more as those workers get 90 days pay. I refer to one of many examples, a Glasgow-based call centre that suddenly went bankrupt on December 19, 2022, losing 600 employees just before Christmas. There is a story behind that that we could delegate but the receiver is faced with a fine, 600 employees laid off immediately, and these receivers are honourable people and it is important economic activity for the important economic activity for the economy.

Enter lawyers to this Goal Centric situation and what they wrote in the letter to employees, free money and the employers responded to it and they went to the tribunal and the money was obtained for 200 workers who had received statutory redundancy limits. I don't think this can have been intended when the legislation was written but it was and so now we have a wonderful opportunity in this bill to rectify this most likely unintended clash of legislation by removing the consultation requirement of 90 days in an insolvency since, as we know, consultation is inevitable in the The fiscal prudence.

It is not and it is now presumed to increase the 90 days to 180 days and a full six months on top of statutory money. It takes precedence over HMRC. It makes it more likely that their claims A large company and themselves going bankrupt. This provision makes that more likely. There is no free lunch of 480 days. We have a further problem which may not have been discovered in putting the bill forward and that is if these payments fall short, which they will in many cases, the redundancy fund is called upon to pay money to Marcus and the redundancy fund reports to HMRC and that reports to the Treasury.

The Secretary of State and the Minister have informed the Chancellor that they are legislating to increase the outgoings and that is by a significant amount in future years and not to mention increasing the welfare bill of the nation, which the government actually has equipment to reduce. I suggest that the government speak to this and have a discussion about it. All of these concerns, and the same concerns apply to the extension of the 20-employee limit that was referred to across the organisation and to encompass the businesses, that is to say businesses that are in distress and calling for financial advice because we have not gone to immediate insolvency.

The opportunity has been missed to sort that out. In short, I strongly urge the government to reconsider the wording in clause 27 and recognise the impossibility of consultation in the circumstances and recognise that they need to provide for statutory redundancy pay for employees is already fully taken care of in Awards through employment Tribunal with failure to consult when requiring an extra three months pay, 90 days, or six months, 180 days, will double up or more on these payments and will in many circumstances remove money owed to suppliers and the taxpayer.

suppliers and the taxpayer.
19:31
19:33
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
I thank Lord Sharpe...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to this important clause and I'm trying to understand having read Hansard carefully in the having read Hansard carefully in the other place in what is really... And I am concerned the Minister the other end spoke in his comments of other end spoke in his comments of how you consult on location and deal how you consult on location and deal with trade union representatives and these get sorted in a legal debate in the courts. It is not good enough in the courts.

It is not good enough when we write primary legislation. when we write primary legislation. Thinking this through, I think it is important for the House to consider what happened here and why it is what happened here and why it is needed. It is because of the pressure of vulnerability. Let's take the example of the estates and decided they reduced the number of hours that could be a consequence of what is happening, and it starts to think about what it is prepared to do of how many people it employs.

It may not want to do that straightaway. They may want to think about it in different sections and leave discretion to local managers. I think the regular person would see I think the regular person would see that as sensible. It is the worry of businesses that gave oral evidence and written evidence to the Select Committee at the other end, not Select Committee, Bill Committee, which the Minister recognised saying they should not worry about it. The reason they are worrying about it and that is what the legislation is saying it will have to do.

You will be in a situation where you are undertaking consultation with huge expense right across the country recognising that some of the situation could be very localised. There are measures in place that are sensible that we have with significant redundancy across the country and it is a requirement. It comes to ministers who prepare department of business in trade or department of work and pensions of how they mobilise local Job Centres and the like in order to prepare for significant redundancies.

Imagine going back to the business that when you are considering what can be quite localised operations what the impact of that is. The Explanatory Notes are silent and that is why I took to reading Hansard from the Commons. I am concerned and I'm grateful to hear from the Minister why this is the right approach, how despite the uncertainty left in legislation it wants it to put in place, but instead it accepts the amendments put forward by Lord Hunt in order to try and make sure these sorts of situations are well considered and we do not end up with primary legislation with a situation where we end up at employment tribunal again and again and again.

For that reason, I hope the Minister will accept the amendments. will accept the amendments.
19:37
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I thank you for these amendments and we have been listening to feedback which required collective consultation whenever 20 or more redundancies were proposed across an employees organisation. Businesses told us that this would have put them in a constant state of consultation. That is why we tabled the amendment under clause 27. It aims to limit the burden of employers while expending protection for employees, by ensuring collective consultation is triggered when the threshold number of employees are proposed to be made redundant across an entire organisation.

The purpose is to strengthen collective redundancy rights and the government worked with stakeholders and businesses to address concerns and not counting employees already being consulted on redundancy. We will set them an appropriate threshold number in due course by secondary legislation following further engagement with stakeholders and public consultation. We will look to balance the interest on employers and employees when setting thresholds. Business stakeholders welcomed the government engagement on this clause and the opportunity to input the threshold number via to input the threshold number via public consultation.

Amendment 141 b.a seeks to remove employers going through consultancy through the scope of a trigger of collective consultation. I refer to Lord Moynihan of Chelsea and his point about how does one expect an employer going insolvent to consult employees across the entire organisation? The government believes elective consultation is an important part of ensuring fairness, transparency between employers and employees, and the benefit of consultation being felt by both. I have heard what the noble Lord said and I must say employees are an important part of an organisation as our suppliers at the supply chain and whatever is due should be paid as the same as other creditors.

The law recognises that consultation is not always fully practical in insolvency situations and that is why section 1187 of the consolidation act 1992 includes a special circumstances event for employers to depart from the collective redundancy obligations when it is genuinely justified and they have shown they have taken practical steps to comply. But that flexibility should be applied on a case-by-case situation and not by removing that duty altogether. Turning to amendment 141 c which seeks to ensure obligations are triggered when redundancies are linked to a collective reason.

We recognise collective consultation will be most productive when workers and employers are focused on a common issue, however employers and unions have told us that they believe it is not possible to define what is connected in common reasons in a suitable, clear way that this could lead to more litigation. They told us they are attempting to restrict these rights to connected redundancy in this way creating further burdens rather than leaving further burdens rather than leaving them.

Amendment 141d seeks to exclude seasonal workers or fixed term contracts from the scope of collective redundancy measures in the bill. Firstly it may reassure the noble Lord to know the expiry of a fixed term contract at the end of this term does not trigger collective consultation obligations. Therefore, any fixed contract expiring at the end of the term will not add to the running total for the new threshold of collective redundancy. We will consider how employees and fixed contracts will be counted before the purposes of calculation of an employee workforce that might be needed of the national trigger of redundancies.

Amendment 141 aims to avoid the obligation of combined consultation that inserts a subsection, 188 1882 a of the Labour consultation act that strikes the right balance here. Employers will be well placed to determine how to appropriately divide consultation where the national interest has been where the national interest has been met, the national threshold has been met. We believe each group should receive meaningful collective consultation and attempt to set up guidance on this point in a new Code of Practice.

Amendment 141 F is already the case where collective consultation of redundancies has already begun. Those redundancies will not be counted when determining what subsequent new redundancies reach a threshold for collective consultation. We do not believe that this should be extended to include employees who are consulted in individual redundancy consultations who have a different character and purpose from collective consultations. Amendment 142 and we agree the threshold number that triggers collective consultation should be proportionate and not overly or unnecessarily burdensome and this amendment is unnecessary and disproportionate to address the issue.

Turning to amendment 142a the term establishment has already been settled and it is well understood in employment law. It works in practice. So we can consider the changing of the definition will create more confusion and lead to more litigation with very few clear benefits in return. Finally amendment 142b to undo the government protection of the period of 180 days and this follows a full public consultation in October 2024 and has been carefully considered and it makes it harder for unscrupulous employers to price in non-compliance with a collective consultation obligation as we saw in the case of the P&O Ferries.

The government is strengthening rights in this landmark legislation and I asked the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

He did start off by saying referring to government amendments. referring to government amendments. I wondered the amendments to which he is referring because I'm not he is referring because I'm not aware. Are there any plans on clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

57? It is under clause 27.
19:45
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is under clause 27. I think this has been a valuable debate on a very important clause. I am a grateful to Lord Moynihan of Chelsea and Baroness Lawlor and Baroness Coffey who gave practical examples of previous legislation, but a lot of questions are to be raised by the Minister and I do not want to prolong this debate now. May I summarise that there are many questions we want to be asked and this will be at report stage, but we beg leave to withdraw the amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will dispose of the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will dispose of the other

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We will dispose of the other Not move. 142, Lord Sharpe. The Not move. 142, Lord Sharpe. The question is that 27 stand part of the bill. As many as of that the bill. As many as of that opinion, say, "Content." not moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion, say, "Content." not moved. My Lords, I beg to move that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move that the House be resumed and will not return to the bill before 2026.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to the bill before 2026. The question is that the House be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that the House be now resumed. As many as have that opinion, say, "Content," and to the contrary, "Not content." The contents have it. We will take a pause to allow those who wish to On On the On the statement On the statement made On the statement made in On the statement made in the On the statement made in the House. On the statement made in the House. Questions on a statement made in the Questions on a statement made in the House of Commons yesterday on the Strategic Defence Review.

Strategic Defence Review.
19:48
Earl of Minto Portrait The Earl of Minto (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, may I add to widespread praise that Lord Robinson has lately received for leading and delivering this comprehensive and thorough document. It is transformational and genuine and goes into great depth as to the purpose, intention and delivery of the defence of the nation and the interests abroad in the wider sense. The emphasis that, as a nation, and a proud one at that, read the entire people of the islands to share, comprehend, is supportive of defence and Dolby expect of the armed forces is a point extremely well made.

I would like to thank the noble Lord, the minister, for taking the time to meet me yesterday prior to publication of the review. It was much appreciated. It is absolutely right that the entire support and has a broad understanding that if you proposes some 60 recommendations, all accepted by the government and a number have been in progress from the previous administration. As the secretary of defence made clear in the other place, the world we live in now includes more dangerous threats than beef -- we have ever had before.

We cannot take pleas for granted. The case for transformation is compelling and immediate. In that vein, we welcome the contents of the review and the commit to continuing the AUKUS program. These are positive steps. I have a number of concerns. There has been much consolation as to the level of funding required but it is evident that Defence spending is shifting rapidly. From these benches, we welcome the government announcement they will increase the budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 but the recommendations all come with a pricetag and this plan is only really affordable if and when the government commits.

As of yet, that messaging appears rather mixed, to put it lightly. There were comments made by the Defence Secretary this morning that the government has an ambition and he was 100% confident that 3% would be achieved by the next Parliament. By reaching 3% was predicated on economic growth. It appears that all the government have given our vague statements that, in the fullness of Cain, in due course, and pain conditions allow, they may raise the Defence spending to 3%. Can the Minister confirm all the recommendations in the review can be paid for in full within the current spending limits? This becomes even more important when we consider recent overtures from NATO.

We have seen today the Secretary-General will be pushing member states to bolster the budget to 3.5% annually and 1.5% for Defence infrastructure. The Danish Prime Minister has stated waiting until the 2030s will be too late and that the former chief of general staff has said he is worried that the government is not working fast enough One Defence. Can the Minister confirm if the UK will follow the new targets when they are follow the new targets when they are set at the Hague? There appears to be on notice on capabilities in terms of amphibious and there are only three mentions and Dibben we have rapped HMS 'bill' and 'Albion', which are ageing rapidly, can be Minister provide clarity on the future of amphibious abilities? Secondly, I would have hoped for further measures on the reform of the structures and there is no doubt in my mind and from the albeit limited time I served, that there is considerable scope for streamlining, updating, commercialising large components of the overall modus operandi.

In my view, the MoD has outdated views and practices, particularly in terms of risk management, the concept of change, commercial imperatives that restrict the productivity and effectiveness of such critical and large organisations. Page 65 of the document mentions the increasing use of AI in the MoD to enable the Department to redeploy staff currently working in finance, HR, commercial function, aiming to reduce the cost of the civil service by 10%. This is a positive step if a little unambitious and instead the focus should be on productivity rather than headcount.

Given that the headcount was 61,706 as of April 1, 2025, almost the size of the army itself, if you're not a compelling case for looking at streamlining the civil service radically within the MoD? Further to that point, the review calls for the creation of formatted bodies including the advisory group and a research and evaluation organisation and my concern is that these new bodies could add to the web of overlapping organisations and confuse the structure rather than enhancing it.

As the Minister knows well, many additions are made for valid reasons but rarely are existing structures dismantled to make way for innovation. For example, we have the Defence, Science and Technology apartment which was split in 2001. With responsibilities for advanced technological research. And how well do they fit in with the STL? -- DSTL. We must make sure there are no overlaps. The absolutely critically These as much freedom as possible to flourish.

I will end by asking a final question of the Minister. Given the importance of the review and the significance of the recommendations, I hope the government will provide time for a full debate on this to allow the House to fully consider the vitally important new strategy for defence. The challenge is how to fund it in fuel to fulfil the hopes of the reviewers and contributors to the limit. limit.
19:56
Baroness Smith of Newnham Portrait Baroness Smith of Newnham (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
If I could start where the noble Lord finished, in suggesting that it would be extremely welcome for the House to have a full debate on the review and it is very full, thorough, detailed view and one that merits a detailed reading and clearly Lord Robertson and his team have put in a huge amount of work and would be able to explore at least some of the 62 recommendations least some of the 62 recommendations in full.

The report of the review gives many recommendations which have been trialled and some bits have not and which are sometimes much more complicated than we might imagine. There are commit its to the Armed Forces, recruitment, retention, and reducing the number of reserves. That is the headline. When you get into the detail of the recommendations, we should increase the size of the reserves when funding allows and that gets back to the fundamental question. 2.5% is not going to take us far enough.

What plans does the government have to enable us to implement the recommendations, assuming that the other place and the House agree with the government that all 62 recommendations should be implemented. I think that there is clearly a need for a lot of detailed scrutiny. There are so many issues raised in the review and starting obviously with the essential context, the world has changed so much since the start of the post- Cold War era and the start of the review.

And so there are many issues which need to be thought about and some of them we have had the opportunity to think about over months and years and as was pointed out earlier, the commitment to the deterrent is important and I was expecting to see Lord West looking at the future of the transformation of carriers and that is presumably something in which she could run a short debate by himself. There are many detailed issues about the questions of capabilities, procurement, and also some transition and also the upgraded Typhoons, are we sending them back for an upgrade or procuring more and keeping the production of the-going? I think -- production of the Typhoon going? There are questions about not just the headline figures of 2.5% of spending but the question about savings.

On page 5, there is a suggestion that £6 billion of new savings will be found. Then there is talk of spending £11 billion. Does the £11 billion includes £6 billion that has been found from savings and has been recycled or is it new money? I think there are quite a lot of issues that would merit longer than the noble Lord will have in response this evening. Just one welcome point in terms of recruitment, I think it is very welcome and is a little bit of recommendation 16 to suggest medical requirements with differ from role to role because that is clearly part of the recruitment difficulty and so that is very welcome, as are the commitments to improving accommodation and the industrial base.

There are many questions that I do not have time to ask the Minister does not have time to
20:01
Lord Coaker Portrait Lord Coaker, The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Labour)
-
-
answer but we welcome the review and look forward to working with the government over the next decade and government over the next decade and I thank the noble Baroness for their contributions and the overall general welcome for the review and general welcome for the review and with that general welcome for the review I turned to Lord Robertson review I turned to Lord Robertson and say how fantastic the report is and the professional way he has and the professional way he has conducted himself, the experience he conducted himself, the experience he has brought on this and let me say has brought on this and let me say the contribution made is not only to the report, but also the overall effectiveness of the security of our nation, security and have allies and pursuance of the goals we hold dear and that is what Baroness Smith pointed out is shared across the House.

I would also say I take on board the points that Baroness Smith said. In terms of a debate or whatever, but I would ensure the point that is made to Lord Kennedy, the Chief Whip and I'm sure the usual channels can consider that so we may get the opportunity for us to discuss this in more detail. I would like to talk about a few more detailed points. What is important is why we perhaps need different members of the House to have different points they wish to make with respect of the report and review.

Let me say what I think is important. I think there is a debate about funding, but the overall direction of travel that this sets direction of travel that this sets out for us is something I think this place and the country can get behind, setting out a direction of travel as we face the new geopolitical challenges, state on state throughout, and we are in a new age. We need to reconfigure our Armed Forces in a way that meets that challenge, looking at homeland defence, the reserve, the way new threats like underwater threat and underwater cables and underwater technology.

We need to look at the threat cyber presents to us and how we protect the critical national infrastructure of our country, looking at the alliances we can build not only in Europe but across the globe. I would like to start by mentioning what was laid out in the review. It is an important statement, but it sets out that this is a NATO first policy and it sees Europe as the priority for the defence and security of our nation, but it is important that it is not a NATO only policy, by recognising the political and geopolitical context in other parts of the world where we have a responsibility as well.

I say to Lord Robinson and those that contributed to the report, I think it is the direction of travel that is the really important thing for us to discuss and there are particular points many of us could make. Addressing some of those points, it is quite right for the noble Lord to point out the development of AUKUS including the nuclear powered submarines as part of the submarines as part of the development and treaty. The GCAT, I was asked how much we are committed to that and that is maintained and that.

The munitions stockpile. Time and time again, many of us wonder and think about how Ukraine, which has been a wake-up call for us, led to the situation where we don't have sufficient stockpiles. The report lays out £6 billion for that and 1.5 billion will contribute to six new munitions factories. We will have discussions with those in private industry and all of that is taking place. On the issue of funding, there will be debates and question after question will be that it is not sufficient.

You will demand 3.5% at NATO. If some other noble Lords were here, they would demand 4%. And what about what they want from Donald Trump? The government policy is well-known in this House. It is 2.5% by April 27 and the commitment to 3% is the ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament. All of the things within the report from Lord Robertson and others that have brought about with the understanding of that being the financial envelope of that being the financial envelope of how that works.

On some of the other questions, the amphibious point that was committed to the amphibious capability. We know we have got the Royal Fleet auxiliary ships that provide that and at the moment he will know the support ships that will be built in Belfast that supports with that and he will also know the new seal will ensure with his background that there is no shortage of that for this capability which will be important as well. The noble Lord talks about reform within the Ministry of defence and he will know alongside defence reform seeing the creation of a military arm and all of the service chiefs and the Department of State and the new national armaments objective that will deliver procurement savings as the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out.

The use of AI is another area that the report mentioned and the use of that in the research available to it. The noble Baroness talked about it and I'm sure he will welcome the carriers which I think is a really good suggestion as they will adapt to the hybrid platform that provides not only jets to take off but autonomous capability above and below the sea to operate with that. It is a use of the carriers. There was discussion about those and I think it is a really good suggestion.

The many noble Lords talked about the secretary of state and our ambition is to increase it to 76,000, but let me say this which is important. We cannot as it stands get the number of regular soldiers and we have just over 17 17,500 with the target figure being 73,600. The recruitment and retention points that the noble Baroness points to is crucial if we are going to deliver that. Some of the changes we brought about, pay, accommodation, childcare, all of these seek to address that point.

There are so many particular issues about reserves and all of that will be questioned, but let me finish by saying that this House can unite around the fact we have had an excellent report and it sex out the direction of travel. There will be discussion within the report of what the correct balance is, what should be funded, what perhaps should be given greater priority. We accepted those recommendations and we are delighted in the report whether it sets out a sense of where this country can go in terms of establishing Armed Forces which is fighting the battles of today and the future and we can defend our democracy, defend our continent and stand up for our interests globally stand up for our interests globally

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and we should unite behind him. There is significant interest in this statement and can I urge this statement and can I urge brevity for noble Lords and from the Minister in order to get in as many colleagues as possible.
20:10
20:11
20:12
20:13
20:14
20:16
20:17
20:18
20:20
20:22
20:23
20:24
20:25
20:26
20:27
20:29
20:29
20:29
20:30
20:31
20:32
Lord Henley Portrait Lord Henley (Conservative)
-
-
amendment 143, Lord Hendy.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment 143 is intended to provide a tougher remedy for breach of the obligation, which is a very modest one, to consult in cases of collective redundancy. At present the remedy is an award of loss of earnings limited at a maximum 90 days which the bill proposes to days which the bill proposes to days which the bill proposes to increase to 180 days. My amendment is not concerned with that. It proposes judicial intervention to prevent the breach, or at least restore the position prior to the restore the position prior to the breach.

So where a declaration made by an employment tribunal, the union should be entitled to go to the High Court to obtain an order to enforce that declaration. The Employment Tribunal does not itself have the jurisdiction to make such an order, jurisdiction to make such an order, indeed it doesn't have power to enforce its own orders. That's the reason why it is necessary for workers to issue further proceedings in the County Court if their employer fails to pay a tribunal award. The amendment makes clear that any dismissal which should have been subject to section 188 of the 1992 act but was not will be void and of no effect.

So the obligation to continue to pay wages and honour the other incidents of employment will continue until the employers fulfilled its legal duty. I should add in case any of your Lordships doubted it at the High Court does indeed have power to restrain dismissal and declare a purported dismissal void and of no effect. The court has often done so whether dismissal was unlawful because in breach of contract the power is still more appetite where the unlawfulness is in breach of a statutory duty.

Finally the amendment puts beyond doubt that the normal consequences of non- compliance with an order of the High Court will apply, namely that the company and any officer personally frustrating the order may be subject to proceedings for contempt of court, including fines on a sequestration and in the most egregious cases imprisonment. The rationale my amendment is obvious. We are talking about situation in which an employer has broken or proposes to break the law by throwing a significant number of people out of work without properly consulting on measures which might have avoided that situation.

A very limited financial penalty is plainly not enough to dissuade lawbreakers. As I think Lord Hunt recognised. What is required is not just a more decisive remedy, but one which prevents the unlawful situation or at least restores the situation to lawfulness so far as it can be restored only the High Court has the power to do that. There is another reason, that is the need to comply with the international law which the UK has voluntarily ratified.

Conventions 87 and 98 at the International Labour organisation will need more detailed consideration in later amendments. For current purposes it is enough to note that together they require member states, not just ratifying states, to respect and protect freedom of association and the right to bargain collectively. Compliance with international law is the eighth of Lord Bingham's principles of the Lord -- rule of law, the importance of compliance with international law was emphasised by the Attorney- General in a speech to the United services Inst last week.

It matters not whether the provision in question relates to trade, the environment, security, labour or any other matter, and compliance is not just restricted to the black letter of the treaty, it is also required of the decisions of the bodies appointed by the treaty to supervise compliance with it. One such constitutional body of the ILO is the tripartite committee on Association consisting of wrapped -- rubs instance of government, employers and workers. On 8 November, 2023 it published its decision on a complaint brought against the United Kingdom by Nautilus International RMT, the TUC and a number of International Trade Union Confederation's.

It rose out of the P&O Ferries scandal which was mentioned earlier this evening. It will be recalled that there, at 7 AM on St Patrick's Day 2022, the employer summarily dismissed 786 seafarers with security guards escorting them from the ships passed waiting coachloads of agency staff from Third World cheap labour countries recruited to replace them. I read from the report. The committee notes that the complainants, indication that while breaches of UK law entitled claims to be made in an employment tribunal, such claims are subject to statutory fixed and very modest maximums.

For this reason the company was able to quantify with precision what the cost of the dismissals would be and to assess how long it would be before that cost could be recouped from future
20:39
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
profits generated by the poverty profits generated by the poverty wages and diminish terms and conditions of the new cruise. The complainant thus alleged that the complainant thus alleged that the special of 786 seafarers to replace them with nonunionised agency work constitutes an act of antiunion constitutes an act of antiunion discrimination. The complainants further allege that the existing legislations is insufficient to deter antiunion discrimination as in deter antiunion discrimination as in practice employers can, on condition they pay the compensation, prescribed by the lawful cases of prescribed by the lawful cases of unfair dismissal, dismiss any worker for being a trade union member with for being a trade union member with better terms and conditions under a collective agreement.

The committee recalls in this respect that recalls in this respect that protection against acts of antiunion discrimination would appear to be inadequate if an employer can resort to subcontracting as a means of evading in practice the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining. The committee considers that it would not appear that sufficient protection against acts of antiunion discrimination as set out in convention number 98 is granted by legislation in cases where employers can in practice on condition that they pay the compensation prescribed by law for cases of unjustified dismissal dismiss any worker if the true reason is the workers trade union membership or activities.

Mitty recalls that the government must ensure an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of antiunion discrimination which should include sufficiently decisive sanctions and prompt means of redress emphasising reinstatement as an effective means of redress. Furthermore the compensation should be adequate, taking into account both the damaging occurred and that might damage incurred and the need to prevent repetition of such situations in the future. The committee therefore requests the government to ensure that an adequate and efficient system of protection against acts of antiunion discrimination which should include sufficiently decisive sanctions and prompt means of redress emphasising reinstatement as an effective means of redress.

". Of course there the committee considered that the collective dismissals were in order to avoid long-standing collective agreements which provided for notice of dismissal and consultation over proposed redundancies. That they regarded as antiunion discrimination. That situation of course will not occur in every collective redundancy, of course that is the case. But it will be true in many, though not all, collective redundancy situations. I should add that what we are looking at here is really bad employers, the remedy that I am proposing will not be used against good employers that do their best to deal with a do their best to deal with a The committee considered very The committee considered very modest were not just for failure to consult over collected dismissal but included compensation for unfair dismissal as well.

Here we are considering the even more modest statutorily capped compensation for failure to consult. As the committee held, what is needed is quote, sufficiently decisive sanctions and prompt means of redress, emphasising reinstatement as an effective means of redress. Only an injunction will achieve that outcome, that would have stopped P&O Ferries in its tracks. I have to say to my noble friend the Minister that I can see no reason not to add this remedy to those available to restrain such unlawful activity, and whilst the increase in award from 90 to 180 days, the maximum award I should say, because the tribunal has to assess compensation as what is just and equitable up to that limit, is not sufficient in itself.

Since injunctions are available for breach of contract, I ask why not for breach of statutory -- statute as well. I beg to move.
20:43
20:45
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I appreciate the intent behind this amendment and after all we are all amendment and after all we are all familiar with the high profile cases like P&O Ferries to which the noble Lord Lord Henley referred in his introduction to his amendment 143. I can't pretend I'm as au fait with can't pretend I'm as au fait with the case details the noble Lord explained, but we do have some concerns about the practical and concerns about the practical and legal consequences of what is being proposed here.

It seems to us that the amendment would allow Employment the amendment would allow Employment Tribunal to declare dismissals void and of no effect and therefore effectively reinstating employees effectively reinstating employees regardless of circumstances. That is a major departure from the current a major departure from the current legal framework where the remedy for breach is compensation not nullification. That raises serious questions, what happens if a questions, what happens if a dismissal has declared void months later, is the employee reinstated? Are they entitled to backpay? What is the role no longer exists or has been filled, and for many businesses and for many workers that would create uncertainty and not protection.

There is also the issue of enforcement, giving tribunal's decision is the force of the High Court and allowing contempt proceedings for breach risks confusing to fundamentally different judicial systems. Tribunal's are meant to be accessible and the High I would also question whether this would deter bad faith employs. Factoring broke the law makes it big list. They could face disproportionate legal exposure for administrative or technical errors. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
20:46
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy tabling amendments and 143. The government agrees that employers should not be able to deliberately ignore their obligations. This would be a disproportionate response to the issue. Employment Tribunal's have jurisdiction over the majority, including the enforcement of protective awards in the cases of collective redundancy. It would not be appropriate to amend this jurisdiction solely for collective redundancy cases and will lead to a disparity within their legal structure and their enforcement.

Furthermore section 15 of the Employment Tribunals Act, 1996 already offers routes, for affected individuals to pursue unpaid. Employment Tribunal, via the county court, the England and Wales and a share of court for Scotland. Finally the amendment and may have the unintended consequence of an increase in scenarios, where employers are forced to become insolvent, in response to both paying the protective award and requiring the reinstatement of affected employees. Responsible employers, across the country already go further than the current obligations to collectively consult.

They agree with the government of that collective consultation, with the force is a valuable tool in finding solutions, to some of the challenging situations that employers find themselves in. Clause employers find themselves in. Clause 29, causes a loophole in collective redundancy legislation. -- that P&O ferries cannot be prosecuted when it dismissed people, without warning. Including those, including because they worked abroad. A foreign registered ship. This goes some way to addressing the ILO concerns, about the lack of anxiety, effective remedy.

Our measure to confer powers, one a Minister is to create a mandatory Seafarers' Charter will help to agree a quality in the sector. A couple of amendments, in the following groups will address that particular issue. Doubling of the protected period means that employees who are not afforded any consultation, when it being made redundant will now be able to be rewarded up to 180 days pay. Employment Tribunal's can award a further uplift of up to 25%, where an employer unreasonably fails to comply with the call code of Taken together, these measures increase the potential statutory payout, per person, far beyond that which P&O Ferries offered to dismissed employees.

This clause will provide a balanced proportionate certainty to employers, employees and tribunals and will provide an increased determinant against deliberate redundancy requirements, without disproportionately penalising employers who attempt to comply with their obligations. I hope this provides some assurance for my noble friend and I therefore ask that this amendment be withdrawn. amendment be withdrawn.
20:49
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
I am grateful to Lord Davies for his support and Lord Sharpe for his contribution. Can I just that, in relation to that, that the proposal is not that the Employment Tribunal should make a declaration and a dismissal that is void and of no effect. The idea is that the High Court will make a declaration, based on a declaration already made, by the Employment Tribunal, that the employer has breached the law, by failing to consult, or failed to consult properly.

The remedy that I am proposing, since it is going to be in the hands of a High Court judge, will not be granted for technical or administrative errors. It is only going to be a remedy, for the most egregious breaches and in relation to the point that the injunction might be granted, months later. That can't be so, because the delay will always defeat injunctions. Injunctions are only ever granted if the application is brought in a timely fashion and, whatever it is that is ordered by the court can be fulfilled.

And to the noble Lord, the Minister. I am so very grateful for his very full I am not sure that the measure that I propose is disproportionate. As I say it is only intended for the most egregious breaches of the duty to consult and I am not sure that it does distort the remedies available for employment matters. Because, as my noble friend pointed out, Employment Tribunal's awards already have to be enforced in the civil courts and not by tribunals of themselves.

I'm not sure about the unintended consequences. I note everything he says about the Seafarers' Charter. My concern is with those on land. I have heard everything he says and heard it with sympathy and on that basis I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause is 28 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not
20:52
None Portrait AMDT: 143A Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-

"Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. 143 I start by asking noble Lords to cast their minds back three years, to 23 March, 2022, this is when the P&O Ferries, chief Executive officer, Peter Hebblethwaite made it clear to the House of Commons Select Committee that he knew that his decision to sack 786 British seafarers broke the law. He went on to explain that he knew there would be penalties to pay, but these were simply, in his view a cost a business.

He even had the audacity to say he would make the same decision again. My noble friend, Lord Hendy has already dealt with it, but it is a crucial issue that has raised important questions of how industrial relations operate, in this country. The gross premedication of companies action was evident to the whole country as private security guards, boarded ferries, to physically force that include out of work, to be replaced by cheaper, agency crew, recruited, internationally and oblivious to the circumstances.

The amendments that I have proposed here and I think I have been relatively modest in taking them all as a single group, given the extent of the D grouping going from this bill. There are three issues of being adults with here. First of all, there needed to widen the scope of the Seafarers' Charter, mentioned by my noble friend, the Minister. To reduce the threshold for the application of the Seafarers' Charter, in terms of the visits by ships to UK ports.

And thirdly, to ensure that this is a monitoring of the effectiveness of the legislation. First there is the need to increase flexibility in this Seafarers' Charter. The key one here is 200 A.D., the rest are consequential. These amendments provide flexibility to strengthen provide flexibility to strengthen the mind of Airey the mandatory. In addition. They are constructive in spirit and look to explore the government's position on mandatory employment standards, for seafarers that work today and in the future.

Back in 2023, on the first anniversary of the scandal, Labour's shallow employment and transport Ministers committed the party to a mandatory Seafarers' Charter -- shadowing employment. In a joint article, in the independent they wrote, "The P&O scandal was supposed to draw a line in this sand for seafarers rights. But for too many low-cost operators, their business model is based on exploitation. That is why we will introduce a strong and legally binding Seafarers' Charter that smashes the business Charter that smashes the business model, dependent on the cruel manipulation of vulnerable workers, from around the world.

This will mandate an agreement between unions, government and employers, on a minimum protections for pay, roster patterns, crewing levels, pensions, taxation and training. End of quote. The unions together with many MPs and peers continue to support that explicit aim for the charter, sent out by the Labour Party. I also understand that the RMT has given a ministerial assurances, only last December, that there would be flexibility to add employment conditions, to the mandatory charter. Regrettably, the EFT and DBT officials now tell us there will be no flexibility, citing difficulties around compliance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

We are told that it prevents the government from adding other employment conditions, such as sick pay, holiday pensions. This is hard to understand and I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain. Even the voluntary seafarers welfare charter introduced by the last government, in July 2023 includes sick pay and pension rights, as does the French government legally binding Seafarers' Charter, introduced on ferry routes in the UK in June 2024. I begged the Minister to help us understand why a national legislation or pay and hours and work for seafarers and interfaith international routes ports is among compliant.

Other areas of employment, including areas of renumeration, such as sick pay, holiday and pensions are not compliant. If the Minister cannot do so in reply to this debate, a summary of the comments position should be circulated before report stage. I asked the Minister to meet with the unions, to explain why we have ended up in this situation. I reiterate the public promise was made by the then Shadow Secretary of State for Transport and that then Shadow Minister for the future work that the charter would cover not just pay and rosters, but also other issues, including sick pay, pensions and training.

The second group of amendments, 200 A A, 200 A C. And amendments, 200 A A, 200 A C. And 200 A D. Covered in Article 5. We welcome it, but its effectiveness is set by the criteria that apply, in terms of the rate at which the ships concern visit UK ports. And clearly, a larger figure, the number of visits required, the greater the proportion of seafarers you will have the necessary protection. In simple terms, the amendments proposed here, bring ships that call weekly in UK ports within the scope as compared to the bill, which requires more than twice weekly visits.

I make no secret of my desire to see as many seafarers covered and not in effect limited to those who worked on Bol on, bowl of ferries. Most ships that regular work in UK waters are not that type of vessel. According to DfT statistics, there are over 160,000 seafarers employed in the UK shipping industry and where shipping industry and where possible, we must use this bill for future legislation, to equalise their employment rights, with a plan based workers.

The previous government introduced a threshold of 120 calls per year, in section 3 of the seafarers' wages that. When that legislation was going through the Lords, the then Minister, the noble Lady, Baroness Vere, responded to an amendment from my noble friend, Lord Tunnicliffe on this matter, stating that, " 52 calls per year would catch too many vessels that we did not intend to catch and would be overreach in terms of the current settlement, the international shipping community. " I asked my noble friend two things on my amendments in this group.

First, did the previous government reach a figure of 120 calls, per year, as a settlement with international shipowners? As suggested by the Minister's comments, following the P&O Ferries scandal? Secondly, will the government agree to monitor the record over an annual period the number of merchant ships that call number of merchant ships that call I suggest that the government worked jointly on this monitoring with industry, unions and other stakeholders and agree to publish annual reports or something similar so we can have full transparency as to the suitability of the threshold and whether it needs to be and whether it needs to be strengthened.

Amendments 143 and 122 a also address the threshold and seek to further probe the government thinking. Of course the government is to be applauded bringing clause 29 forward, as it strengthens the specific law broken by P&O Ferries at section 193 a and 285 of Tokoroa 1992. However inserting the 122, 120 calls per year criterion because 29 restricts protections for seafarers and raises wider concerns about the jurisdiction of the bill for seafarers, especially those working on foreign flagships from UK ports.

The third and final group of amendments, subgroup of amendments in this group provide for enhanced monitoring of the measures in the bill. They provide the government trade unions, progressive employers and seafarers with transparent and statutory mechanisms to monitor the impact of the bills measures on all seafarers working regularly from UK ports and in UK waters. Whether on a ferry or heavy lift vessel, wind turbines and the North Sea. Amendment 204 a requires an annual report to be produced in the post P&O measures and clauses 29 and 53, and the related measures in clause 59 on international agreements relating to maritime employment.

Including the Maritime Labour Convention. The first report we had to be produced within three months of the date on which this legislation passes. 204B requires an annual report on part one of the bill including measures clause 26 on fire and rehire. Amendment 323 a also requires an annual report on the impact of the broader provisions in part four including trade union access and trade union recognition and part five of the bill. The other amendments in the subgroup of consequential amendments to these requiring requirements for seafarers and ensure that they come into force two months after the date of commencement of the act.

To conclude, as stated unions are concerned that not enough seafarers will have the full protection that they deserve. For example, the question for the Minister, are seafarers working on a Cyprus registered ferry between the UK and a non-UK port covered by clause 26? I would like a response on this specific question. In writing if necessary. This is all about what we are doing after the P&O Ferries scandal. I asked the government can make available a summary of its advice on the circumstances in which seafarers working on ferries regularly calling at UK ports from non-UK ports will be covered with clause 26 which is the fire and rehire clause.

To conclude, we welcome the seafarers charter, we welcome the steps that are being made to address the scandal exposed by the piano, the action of P&O Ferries, but more needs to be done. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Clause 29 page 51, line 11, leave
21:05
Baroness Whitaker Portrait Baroness Whitaker (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

out 120 and insert 52. I support all the amendments in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I support all the amendments in this group and I shall speak to amendment 200 ABA in my name. Our amendment 200 ABA in my name. Our seafarers are the engine, a vital part of our trading economy. Their conditions of work are often out of sight and out of mind. Among other problems set out by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, the gender imbalance and isolation on most chips is has resulted sadly in risks for women which need clear measures of protection.

Of the 23,700 United Kingdom seafarers counted in 2024 only 16% were female. These were mainly among ratings and among certificated officers those with least authority and power. I've heard of a nasty case of rape on a cruise ship where the victim significantly said she had no help from the HR Department because she was too shocked to report it immediately. She was advised that our only recourse was to leave the ship because the perpetrator was needed on board, a not uncommon reaction.

Some privately owned super yachts require applicants for a job to submit photographs and I quote, be comfortable with nudity, which gives a flavour of what the work environment is like. Research from the seafarers international research centre at Cardiff University shows how fearful women seafarers on cargo ships are of sexual assault and how lonely they can feel in their workplace. We have now of course the seafarers charter by the government last December. This provides the vehicle for vastly improved standards for seafarers working conditions but it needs to clarify that it will specify protection against sexual harassment and bullying, hence my amendment.

In conclusion our shipping force is declining, not least with retention of women, and there are skills gaps. This will put pressure on workplace standards with the result that seafarers in general have had a higher rate of sickness and accidents than onshore work people. There are industry initiatives to encourage recruitment, but little thought on making workplaces safe, convenient and welcoming to women. We can attract more people into it We can attract more people into it
21:08
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I'm very grateful to Lord Davies of Brixton for so clearly setting out Brixton for so clearly setting out the case for a range of amendments. As he made clear to the House, the As he made clear to the House, the matters under discussion go to the heart of how we uphold standards for those who work at sea. An essential those who work at sea. An essential part of our economy and infrastructure, and of course we are infrastructure, and of course we are all well aware of the extent to all well aware of the extent to which the events surrounding P&O Ferries in 2022 were a stark Ferries in 2022 were a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities faced by seafarers operating in and around UK waters.

I'm very grateful to the noble Baroness Whitaker for reminding us of some stark situations faced by people who work in this environment. I was very pleased and proud when the Conservative government to and concrete steps to improve protections, most notably through the seafarers wages act, the introduction of the voluntary seafarers charter and a broader nine-point plan aimed at promoting fairer treatment and higher standards across the sector. I believe these reforms represent a record of action, one that reflects the seriousness with which we take the obligations owed to maritime workers and our determination that's what happened that unacceptable prat this that we all saw -- practice that we all saw and are so concerned about, must never ever happen again.

So today's amendments reflect continued concern for the welfare and rights of seafarers. They do raise though a number of detailed questions about scope, enforcement, and the role of harbour authorities which is why I am so pleased to see Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill here to reply to this debate as I understand. Delighted that he is replying to this debate because we want to hear from him how the government see these provisions fitting alongside the reforms already undertaken, so we await with bated breath his reply to this important debate.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will first speak to government amendments to hundred B and 200 C. These amendments relate to clause 54 These amendments relate to clause 54 which amends the Merchant shipping
21:11
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
act 1995 to provide powers to make regulations within effect to international agreements relating to maritime employment. Amendment 200 B provides that such regulations cannot be used to bring into force international agreement or amendment an international agreement which Before the UK has ratified it. By application the effects of this amendment is that such regulations, the effect of this amendment is that such regulations can be made ahead of ratification of the agreement or amendment. In order for the UK to ratify an international agreement it is usual for any necessary implement in legislation to be passed or made in advance of ratification, so this amendment helps ensure that the UK can fill its international obligations.

Amendment 200 C simply a consequential drafting amendment. I will now respond to amendments 143 a and 143 AA table by Lord Davies of Brixton which seek to amend requirements of collective redundancy notification provisions to apply to services calling at a port in Great Britain at least 52 times a year rather than 120 times per year. We are as my noble friend related yet again dealing with the P&O Ferries dispute in March 2022. As with the seafarers' wages on condition that the frequency requirement of this measure was designed to ensure the measure apply to those services with a close enough connection to United Kingdom to justify the requirement.

Any broadening of the scope would require further consider that my consideration of the impact that bringing further vessels into that The scope of the seafarers' wages and working conditions act in the moment but we do not accept the proposal to amend the scope of these measures, we will apply consistent approach to the proposed changes to the scope of the collective redundancy requirements which has the same frequency requirement. Any change would require stakeholder engagement and full consideration of the impacts on industry. However having listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, we will agree to meet the trade unions as he suggests, where a number of the issues raised tonight can be discussed including the requirement for a summary of the government's position before report stage.

I will now respond to amendments tabled by Lord Davies of Brixton beginning 200 AA through 200 AC which seek to apply the measures under the seafarers' wages and working conditions act 2023 as amended by this bill, weekly services rather than those calling 120 times a year drafted. The existing minimum frequency requirement for the new remuneration safe working declarations is consistent with the requirements under the existing Seafarers' Wages Act 2023 which was brought into force on 1 December, 2024.

It's important that this measure be limited to services for the close enough connection to the UK to justify intervention, the current requirements in the existing seafarers wages act and in the act amended, as amended this bill have been designed with this, in the scope of this measure would require careful consideration of the international law imprecations are bringing into scope less frequent services to the UK, as well as the impacts on the market. With these considerations in mind we consider the existing scope strikes the correct balance.

It would also not be right to accept this amendment without undertaking for public consultation which cannot be done in the timescales required to make this change as part of this bill. Amendment 200 A.D. And the consequential amendments to hundred 83 200 AK would go beyond the existing powers of the bill to make safe working and remuneration It would provide further powers to specify conditions relating to sick pay, holiday pay, pensions and other training and to require harbour authorities to request the associated declarations from operators following the approach taken by the government in relation to the remuneration safe working regulations.

The government is committed to strengthening workers rights at sea and considered how carefully how best to provide meaningful improvements protections that support A-level playing field in the sector whilst doing so in a in the sector whilst doing so in a We consider the approach we have taken strike the right balance. As we continue to develop into Will consider further opportunities to take account of the points raised and of course continue to work with partners, in the UK and internationally to improve seafarer working conditions.

My noble friend Baroness Whitaker who is a tabled amendment 200 and A B A, save working regulations to address sexual harassment. Seafarers are absolutely entitled to a working environment that is safe including being free from violence, harassment, including sexual harassment and sexual assault. The government recognises that there is a need for action to address this problem and we are taking action. My department has been working closely with international counterparts and representatives of seafarers and shipowners, to address this issue.

In April, special committee of the Maritime Labour Convention met in Geneva and agreed amendments for the convention, co-sponsored by a developmental partnership with the UK, to do exactly that. The new requirements will require states to adopt laws, regulations and other measures to prevent shipboard violence and an arrest warrant including sexual harassment, bullying and sexual assault. These provisions will require shipowners to adopt and implement policies and procedures, to address violence and harassment and require seafarers and others to comply with those others to comply with those policies.

The government will support the formal adoption of these amendments, this week. Tomorrow in fact, I believe. The International Labour conference. We will then expect the amendments are subject to some further processes to come into force internationally at the end of 2027. We consider that these new provisions will have a meaningful impact in addressing sexual harassment, in the sector and given the nature of the shipping industry and adopting internationally agreed standards as the most effective way of facing this issue. The significant broader application. Whilst the provisions for the mandatory Seafarers' Charter fell on some services and regularly intervene reports.

It will monitor a broader range of shipping, including ships which the Baroness referred to, I would expect it to be implemented by 110 states that have ratified the convention. We will of course keep the effectiveness of these measures under review. Amendments of 204 A, three two three A, 330 a or seek to introduce annual reporting requirements related to seafarers employment rights. The first report within three months of the act. Many of the powers in this act including the new powers of the seafarers wages and working Act 2023 require secondary legislation to provide detailed requirements.

This means that the first three months of the act, there would be very little to report. It will be a process and consulting on these regulations. Our view is that sub- reporting requirements are unnecessary, given that the measures in the acting secondary legislation made under the powers and the act will undergo the usual post-legislative scrutiny, as a matter of course. This will give Parliament sufficient opportunity to review the impacts of the changes are made, within a timeframe that will allow them to come up with measures.

Should any operators break the rules, there will be subject to enforcement action reinstatement which will provide useful information on how well the motivations working, without the need for additional report. I therefore ask that my noble friend removes one -- 143 A. removes one -- 143 A.
21:19
21:21
21:21
None Portrait AMDT: 143B Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-

Scotland and Northern Ireland. Universities, like other employers are preparing for the enactment of the bill that will be adapting to the legislative expectations of workers rights. And I want to stress, from the outset that universities wholeheartedly support the bill subject gives to ensure fair employment practices for workers. They do however have some technical concerns about clause 30. I hope, through amendment one 143 B to provide a probing amendment. Clause 30 of the bill outlines expectations that contracting authorities must treat any employee transferred from a contracted body, no less favourably than terms offered to court employees.

Many universities consider themselves to fall within the definition of contracting authorities, winning the may inadvertently be caught in this clause of the legislation. This is of great concern to our education sector and so far as I am aware, doesn't appear to have been scrutinised in the bill so far, at all. The enormous financial challenges facing universities are well documented. And I know it is of grave concern to many members of this House. The potential imposition of further costs, for universities from clause 30 should therefore be of concern.

For the many universities that constitute as contracting authorities, there are likely to be both significant and cost implications, as well as increased difficulty, in finding contract terms, as a result of this clause. Crucially, unlike public bodies, these additional costs for universities won't be met, by the government. In addition to the government. In addition to the financial implications, there is also the implication of a policy divergence that cost the UK. Given Scotland and Wales will be able to set their own regulations and code of practice, there may be inconsistency, and arrangements which could discourage agreements with suppliers.

This would have a particular impact in the complex environment of the higher education sector operates in and could have a significant impact on their rates and efficiency. I would appreciate assurances from my noble friend, to assurances from my noble friend, to 3 questions. Whether and in what circumstances universities will be considered to be contracting authorities, for the purposes of this legislation? As a noble friends depart, the Department of education made an assessment of the likely impact of clause 30, on the University sector.

Are the outsourcing measures defined in clause 30 applicable to pension provision? Where employees have transferred to another organisation, although pension arrangements form part of the requirement? Would they be treated no less favourably? And thirdly, what considerations have been given to the impact on shared services, many providers, including across UK nations, will work with the same body as a key driver of efficiency efforts. If my noble friend is unable to provide assurances from the Dispatch Box received. I urge my noble friend and her department to engage closely with the higher education sector, to ensure that the implementation of clause 30 doesn't inadvertently undermine the financial sustainability, operational flexibility of our universities.

Well of course we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to fair employment, we must also ensure that legislation takes full account of the distinct nature of the higher education sector and supports our universities to continue their vital

**** Possible New Speaker ****

work. Men propose, clause 30, page 53, line 7, insert the words printed on
21:25
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

the marshalled List. I'm pleased to speak in support of my noble friend, Baroness Warwick and on an issue that has not appeared, as far as I'm aware, anywhere else. This one is of some importance. Because there is growing unease in the higher education sector, about potential implications of clause 30, of the bill. There is growing unease that the University themselves have said that they are frustrated that their letters to both officials and Ministers, the same thing, I imagine.

Remain unanswered. I think are probably being a bit polite to say they're frustrated. I would suggest it is unacceptable for a UK wide organisation not to receive a response. If nothing else, I hope my noble friend will be able to give her assurance that she will ensuring that University UK do receive a considerable response to the legitimate concerns. As one of the front and said, the education sector is concerned at the potential impact of measures proposed in clause 30 of the bill.

Which later outsourcing the potential impact within the sector and the viability of steps universities have to take our applying to take to stabilise their financial position. Many universities consider themselves falling in the definition of contracting authorities. They therefore may be regrettably caught in this clause of the legislation. As originally introduced the public sector outsourcing provisions, contracting authorities in England only. However they introduced an amendment, during the committee stage of the bill and the other place and it now applies to contracting authorities, in the Scotland and Wales.

Again, as my noble friend said, a major point at which clarification is essential is whether and in what circumstances, the universities will be considered to be contracting authorities, for the purposes of this legislation. And finally, whether the plan to outsource rules for UK nations, you might create complex rules for universities. For example unit institutions working across the UK. That could mean subject to 2 or more sets of outsourcing rules, providing conflicting code of practice. I hope my honourable friend will be able to clarify how she envisages outsourcing rules will operate? In doing so she will provide reassurance to many in the sector who, as my noble Fran said.

A very supportive but I fear that universities could become victims of
21:29
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I thank both the noble Lords for their contribution for that noble Lady, Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe her introduction to her Undercliffe her introduction to her amendment, 143 B. We think it is important to recognise the unique position of higher education, providers, when considering a worker protection and public sector outsourcing. As universities and outsourcing. As universities and similar institutions operate outside the traditional public sector framework. They possess A-level of autonomy that sets them apart from government bodies. So applying the same regulatory requirements to these institutions, clearly with these institutions, clearly with imposing unnecessary burdens that could affect their ability to focus on their core missions of education on their core missions of education and research.

So this amendment seems to us to thoughtfully knowledge the difference by excluding higher education excluding higher education providers, from the scope of the specific worker protection provisions. Such an approach allows the focus of these protections to remain on core public sector organisations, where procurement processes are more standardised and tightly tied to government accountability. At the same time it respects the operational independence of universities. Fair treatment of workers remains an essential principle, across all sectors, including higher education. Encouraging good employment practices within universities to consider through other means.

This amendment recognises the practical realities faced by those, these institutions. I look forward to
21:31
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour)
-
-
institutions. I look forward to Can I thank my noble friend, Baroness Warwick for her thoughtful contribution to this debate, an amendment 143 B. We fully recognise amendment 143 B. We fully recognise that the not imposed disproportionate burdens on a smaller curing organisations, such smaller curing organisations, such as universities to stop however, it is important that we consider fairness and equality of treatment, for all workers, providing key outsource services to higher outsource services to higher education providers.

For example cleaning and catering services, so that they receive a fair and equitable employment conditions, comparable to both those transferred from the public sector and those from the public sector and those working for local authorities, or departments that provide the same departments that provide the same As a result they would need to be compelling arguments to exempt higher education providers. Secondly it is essential that we first consult with key stakeholders to seek their views with -- before deciding on the ultimate content of the reinstated code, and to which certain public authorities, including higher education providers, are required to follow its provisions.

I can assure my Baroness Warwick that we will carefully consider the particular issues relating to higher education providers and the difficulties they might experience during this might experience during this process. However our view is that to carve out higher education providers completely on the face of this bill My noble friend highlighted the particular financial challenges being experienced by universities at the current time. We are committed to creating a secure future for our world leading universities so they can deliver for students, taxpayers, workers and the economy.

The Office for Students will continue dedicating significant resources to ensuring the sector's financial sustainability, the DfE have appointed Professor Edward Peck as a substantive chair of the ONS where he will play a key role in strengthening this commitment. Whilst also expanding opportunities in higher education. And we make the tough decisions to increase tuition fees limits in line with inflation, as a result the maximum fee for a standard full-time undergraduate course in the 2025/26 academic year
21:33
21:34
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-
I thank my noble friend for her reply and her attempt to reassure me and other members of the House and I'm grateful for his strong support, his staunch support for what I'm trying to do here. And also I thank Lord Sharpe of Epsom for his support as well, thoughtfully put and I appreciate it. I do understand that the Minister is seeking to reassure me that in fact she is very aware of the need to support the future of our universities I don't think she really addressed though the issues around the impact of the different nations and the way in which that could affect the competitive advantage of universities and the way in which they're seeking to increase efficiencies, and I hope that in writing to me she will also undertake to meet the higher education sector once they have digestive the detail of her response, I do appreciate my questions are technical.

But I hope she will undertake to do that because I think that would be enormously helpful and I think it would be the most reassuring thing she she could do. Having said that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to withdraw my amendment. Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment is withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 30 stand part of the bill. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. In clause 31 amendment 144 already debated Lord amendment 144 already debated Lord Palmer not moved. The question is that clause 3 stand part of the bill. Baroness Fox of Buckley.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill. Baroness Fox of Buckley. I am rising to move, that we remove clause 31 from the bill. That is remove the power of the Secretary of State to require largely private sector employers of more than 250 staff to publish equality action plans showing what steps they are
21:36
None Portrait AMDT: CL31S/P Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-

taking in relation to the gender pay gap and supporting employees going through the menopause. Can I thank the noble Baronesses notes, she is not in a place sadly, but also Baroness Lawlor who is in her place and thank them for their support. This is a probing amendment because I'm not at all clear exactly why this clause is deemed necessary or indeed exactly what it entails. On the latter point I note with some dismay that much of the details to be left to regulations in terms of content of an action plan, the form of an action plan, what manner the action plan will take, even its frequency.

There is no details at all on what sanctions employers face if they do not comply with the not detailed regulations. It's very difficult to scrutinise such vagaries and I fear it reduces the issue to nothing more than virtue signalling clause claim that something positive is being done. Action is being taken, but what action, we don't know. What we do know is that here is another clause that requires workplaces to create more paperwork, and I fear the noble cause of women's equality is being reduced to bureaucracy.

I'm a tad cynical because since 2017, employers have already, are already required to publish gender pay gap data annually now the demand is for actionable steps, and yet what is the problem that we are trying to solve here? The implication is that more needs to be done crackdown on gender discrimination in the workplace, but I'm not convinced that that is such a major problem today as inferred. Surely which actions would be dealt -- deemed acceptable might help us understand what this clause is trying to do, but it is never considered.

For example, we are frequently given a reference of a statistic that men earn roughly 20% more than women. But such figures are misleading, as this is an average figure reached through combining part-time and full-time earnings and takes no account of age, or employment sector. But are women continually disadvantaged in the workplace in 2025? When we compare how much women and men are paid for doing the same number of hours each week, there is virtually no pay gap.

Of course it would be illegal to pay men more than women. To illustrate the complexities of age and occupation and hours worked it's worth noting that women in their 20s and more wages than men of the same age, not just for like-for-like but also on average. Even for women under 40, working full-time the pay gap is negligible. As indeed it was acknowledged by the now noble Baroness Morgan when she was a government minister bringing in the pay gap notices, she said then, we are virtually eliminated the gap for full-time workers under 40 and the gap for over 40s is shrinking as well.

If we only look at these issues in a technocratic way we miss nuances? You could say that a decline in jobs traditionally associated with men earning more is actually a decline in old industries, because yes there has been a decline since 1979 from when 40% of GDP was those old industries in which men and more. But I'm not sure that something to celebrate. In other words, equality if you only view it through gender pay gap, then actually you could actually end up arguing for the suppression of men's pay or celebrating its decrease.

More to the point, what are employers being asked to action here? When many of the changes are broad social and cultural shifts rather than sexist employment practices. It's true in the past that the labour market was rigidly segregated according to sex, as a consequence men and women in their 50s and older today and to the labour market in which often meant that women were not treated fairly. And the cultural and situation then... In which women were more likely to take considerable time out of work to raise family and this alone has explained pay differentials that are now still being felt today.

As I say, as young women are earning more, these things are less of a problem. I'm just not keen if we end up thinking that the reason why the pay gap exists is because of older women and those differentials, that for example we end up dumping older female employees so that on paper the gap has narrowed. I'm not suggesting anyone is saying that, what I'm saying is we should not deal with this in a technical fashion. I now arrive at something which I have more expertise.

Older women. We arrive at the menopause part of the clause. My concern here is that the bill may end up amplifying the problems caused by the menopause for female employees, unintentionally presenting menopausal women as victims unable to cope, and that this could re-stigmatise the menopause, the opposite of what is intended. And we should remember that menopause is a natural life stage that all women go through and experience. They all experience it differently in terms of duration and symptoms.

I worry that some of this has led to awareness raising that can mystify the menopause, and turn it into an imagined horror story. I remember talking to a group of young students some years ago and I made equip about being menopausal and they all said, oh no, how awful, that's grim how are you coping, are you feeling alright? They seemed terrified at the prospect, and the menopause suddenly appeared to be an insurmountable series of anguish is that they would never cope with. Inevitably they had been on a well- being because -- course the big giving them training on the menopausal stop doing want such attitudes are being embedded to attitudes to female staff in the workplace? The association that if you are menopausal your delicate flower he needs to be worked around.

What exactly will employers be required to do to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the specific needs of menopausal women? I have read activist demands that include widespread availability of cooling fans, menopause champions and ambassadors in every work place and department to encourage anti stigma dialogue across the workforce. Therapist sessions including the availability of therapy dogs. Training courses for HR and management to look at everything from thermostat levels to developing menopause sensitive language codes. To be honest lots of these ideas stray dangerously close to condescending women stop it might well be that this is not what the government has got in mind at all.

But we've got no idea if that is true, because there are no details in the bill, in fact the details are all deferred until after the bill is passed. Don't get me wrong, I've been a vocal supporter of improving access to HRT on the NHS and as a woman of a certain age I'm rather too familiar with some of the debilitating symptoms. But we should be wary of the calls for example for menopause leave and time off no questions asked, by using the word menopause it's enough to mean that without any evidence based on lived experience employers are just meant to accept that there is a problem because there is a danger of green lighting a mission creep not dissimilar to the crisis of so many not in work citing mental health problems.

An issue which I have been really pleased to see the House -- Health Secretary Wes Streeting has raised. This is a new social problem I don't want the menopause to become another one. Again possibly none of this is what the government intends and yet we are using legislation to demand that employers must take steps to support employers -- employees going through the menopause and it seems completely inappropriate and unjustified and bound to lead to mission creep if this legislation is allowed, is used to this end with this clause in it.

Two quick PSS. Can the government please be careful with its language. Usually it's the government lecturing people like me in the Backbench about watching our words and what language we use. But whether we like it or not the word gender has been corrupted by ideology. The pay gap that government seeks to tackle is between the two sexes, a fear that biological women may be discriminated against as women. I'm not just being pedantic or culture was here, I've been at a number of official corporate events over recent years where businesses were patted on the back for helping women break through the grass ceiling -- glass ceiling and for the work on the pay gap only for the examples of success being given of trans women, that is men who identify as women, on corporate boards.

I want to avoid that con happening. Number two, I wish I had added clause 32 to this amendment to be removed, which is consequential in relation to pay gap and menopause reporting and expand this to employers needing to name which companies they outsource from and can be held accountable for gaps that exist in those organisations and it sounds like a labyrinth bureaucracy mess and is a far cry from any original aspiration to Perhaps the Minister can write to explain the particular what the point, the outsourcing point.

In general I want them to have a fair shot in the workplace and this clause is doing nothing to help them.
21:46
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
I am against clause 31, stand part of the bill. The 2010 act protects against gender and other types of discrimination, under the act. It replaces the earlier act as your Lordships will know, including the sex discrimination axe of 1975, the race relaxants that 1976 and the disability discrimination act 1995. The principles of equality of commonly supported. The aims of those in which people agree and under which employers are bound. Section 70 Section 78 of that act stipulates that regulations require employers to publish information, relating to the pay of employees, for the purpose of showing, whether by factors of such description, there are differences in the pay of a male and female employees.

We have an act which is commonly agreed and which is obeyed and which is known To add as clause 31 proposes, after section 78. A new section 78 A which stipulates, "Regulations may require employers to develop and publish an equality action plan, in respect of gender and equality, showing the steps of the employers are taking in relation to their employees and with regard to prescribed matters, related to gender equality. And be published prescribed information, related to the plan.

" This will oblige more compliance, more bureaucracy and higher costs on employers. And it is unnecessary, because we have them all. We have just, by the way been listening to the discussion of the strategic defence review. We are going to have to spend a lot of money on defence. There are going to be lots of demands on the public purse. Two apply more compliance and more bureaucracy on employees, at a time when things are tight, will not be a great help to the other demands on the public purse.

It is not only compliance and bureaucracy. Much worse, it leads to something beyond the principles of the equality act. Because it prompts institutions, in practice, to devise and interpret action plans, which result in a 50- 50 balance between men and women and steps are taken to achieve this level playing field. And discriminate positively. Take the example of academic shortlisting, where in order to achieve a 50-50 balance, things can be so ordained, in order to appoint.

As they are so ordained, discrimination takes place, against men and appointments are made not on merit, but on gender. This results in action plans under which men are discriminated against. It is also unfair for women, because once positive discrimination comes into play, women to suffer. The women who are appointed are perceived as being appointed, not because they came first on merit, and a fair competition, but on account of their gender. And I would like to comment briefly on a section 78, that sets it down that matters or equating to gender equality, addressing the gender pay gap, supporting employees going through the menopause.

The ferry is too broad, take the case of a male and female employee appointed at entry level to similar positions. With the same salary, but one may do far better than the other and be given a far more responsibility and promoted eventually to a higher role. How is the gender pay gap to be addressed, when the talent and resourcefulness and ability of one naturally results in responsibility naturally results in responsibility and higher payment. Awful B and the noble Baroness, Baroness Fox has already mentioned some of this.

Four B has no place in the workplace. It is discriminatory in the assumption that women need special help at certain times of their life. It also violates the professions of a good workplace, in treating its public, the personal and it puts the employer into a discriminatory role, in requiring special support, for a select group of employees. Rather than acting, as a dispassionate employer, who treats all employees fairly. fairly.
21:52
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
I also rise to support this clause 31 on equality action plan and stand part of the bill. We meet tonight with the college that the OECD has downgraded the U.K.'s GDP, for this year and next year. Less than an hour ago, the Minister said you might say that the noble Baroness the Minister that it was not the intention of the government to impose any onerous obligations on businesses as a result of this bill. This is an example of exactly that.

And I'm very concerned about this particular clause, because it is very widely drawn as a clause. And relies disproportionately on regulations that will be tabled or laid before the House, once the bill becomes an act. And I pay tribute to the very powerful intervention of the noble Baroness Fox of Buckley and the thoughtful comments of my noble friend, Baroness Lawler. Is it really the duty and the responsibility of a Minister, and the sixth biggest economy of the world, the mature economy of 68 world, the mature economy of 68 million people, to be ministerial fiat in primary legislation, imposing the menu shy, the weeds of, "The content of the plan, for every business that has more than 250 employees.

" To form and manner in which a plan of information is to be published. When and how that plan is published and five D, may be being obtuse. Requirements for senior approval, before a plan or information is published, what does that even mean? Does that mean the chief Executive, the managing director, or whatever. It would be much better if the government were to use its energy and goodwill. Behind significant parts of this bill, to work with people, such as the chartered Inst, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, ACAS and others, to develop professional timely briefings, for employers.

They are not doing that, they are instead insisting, on the face of this bill that they will direct these equality action plans. Irrespective of what type of business is being transacted, whether it is 251 25,000 250,000 workforce. It doesn't even, in this clause define what an employee is, what an employer is, or descriptions of information. It says that those particular details will be reserved for regulations to be made after the bill gets Royal Assent. And the drafting is very opaque, in a seven.

It is says that the regulations may make provision for a favour to comply with the regulations to be enforced, otherwise then as an effect. Such as are prescribed. Again and that is very loosely drawn. We do not know what the sanctions will be, in place and available, for Ministers to lay down in regulations. And in a six, regulations may not require an employer, after the first application of information to publish information, more frequently. It doesn't say must not. And therefore Ministers can still use regulations to enforce periodic publications and changes and Visa regulations.

So for all those reasons I do think that this is an unnecessary clause, in the bill. This will add course, administrative burdens, it will take money, it will certainly take a significant amount of time, too, for instance, get a specialist in human resources, as consultants to draw up these plans. Perhaps the 12 monthly basis. It will take a lot of administrative will take a lot of administrative time. It will take away from employing people, the bottom line of profit and that will impact on employability.

That reason, my Lords, I feel it is appropriate to add my support for this particular amendment. This particular clause and not stand part of the bill. and not stand part of the bill.
21:57
Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Labour)
-
-
I rise to express a view, I do not think I would be express in your Lordships' House. I'm utterly appalled by this amendment. I am utterly appalled by the speech from the noble Baroness, Fox, who left with any doubt has given the clearest indication possible that her political journey from the extreme left, to the extreme right is therefore deceived. I think it is an absolute disgrace, to suggest that to seek to help women, in the workplace, gave equality, is somehow to treat them as hymns.

I did my university dissertation, in 1974 on the equal pay act, when the gap between men and women was 25%. Half a century later it is down to something like 17%. We do not push any further, because it is going to burden industry with cars. Women are burdened with wages less than they are entitled to get the job that they do, on a day-to-day basis. It is well known that it includes increases the levels of production, problem solving.

It enhances job retention and I'm not just talking about gender issues, but in a wider diversity issues. The speech that the Baroness Fox has made and others have echoed will be cheered to the rafters, by Nigel Faraj and Donald Trump, because it is exactly the sort of thing that they have been saying and I think it is a very dangerous align for members of this House to push. It is a perfectly legitimate expectation a bill such as we are discussing and an equality action plan should be something that employees are expected to do.

I think that many employers already do. Good employers have in place already and because of the standard of output they're getting from employees that are not satisfied with a better value. To suggest that we just leave it there is absolute nonsense. I'm not gonna talk about the menopause, but I could not believe what I heard. And somehow again people are women are being painted as victims. It is difficult for me to comment, as a man. I do know there is a broad spread over opinion that it has to be dealt with by some employers.

Let's be perfectly fair, others don't. There should be opportunity for women who want to be able to take advantage and try and slam the door in absolute disgrace.
22:00
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
What a relief to hear from the noble Lord Watson, because I thought I was going to be on my own, with the comments from the noble Baroness, Baroness Fox, Baroness Lawler and Lord Jackson. Prophets of doom, profits of living in another I rise to oppose what was described as a priming amendment that seeks to remove -- probing, a clause contained in the bill on equality action plans. This clause represents a measured and practical step towards advancing gender equality in the workplace.

It does not impose a direct requirement on employers to develop plans, but instead enables regulations that may require such action in the future. This allows for a more balanced and proportionate approach which we have not heard from the first three speeches. And one that reflects the importance of tackling inequality while remaining sensitive to the practicalities faced by employers. It encourages those with a capacity to lead to change to reflect on gender -related issues such as the pay gap which is still there, and support for employees experiencing the menopause which we have heard a lot about.

And to take meaningful steps where appropriate. Removing this clause would risk depriving many employers of a useful and necessary framework for understanding the inequality dynamics within their own workforce. Data without action achieves little, equality action plans help translate information into strategy, encouraging employers not just aim -- to measure the problem but to engage with it. You've got to have the data before you can actually deal with that. At a time when many organisations are seeking to do more to build inclusive and equitable workforces, workplaces, this bill offers structure and accountability, I urge noble Lords to resist the amendment to remove this clause and support this considered and bill.
22:03
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to thank my noble friend Baroness Fox of Buckley and also Baroness Lawlor and Lord Jackson of Peterborough, because they rightly question whether or not this clause is necessary in order to establish what we all agree should be the vital place for equality of opportunity. It is vital in the workplace that merit should win the day, but that there should also be equality of opportunity. Women and men should have equal opportunities, fair treatment and the freedom to thrive regardless of their background.

So I hope all those who have spoken, including Lord Watson and Lord Palmer would agree that we all support equality of opportunity, not just in principle but in practice. Therefore it is right that every time there is another step particularly when it creates, as Baroness Fox of Buckley put it, more paperwork and more bureaucracy, it's important that we just question whether this is the right way to proceed, particularly as Lord Jackson of Peterborough pointed out, this is really giving the government power to do whatever it wants to do whenever it wishes to do it by regulation.

We do not know what it is the government will do, because they haven't yet consulted on the power that we are about to give them. It is exactly what this House has always preached long and hard against, we should not give Henry VIII powers to government to do whatever they would like to do by Statutory Instrument. I would have thought my successor as chair of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee Lord Watson would know that more than anyone else.

But I demonstrate that to give the government this power has to be justified and I would hope that justified and I would hope that although he did... Baroness Fox of Buckley needs nobody like me to defend her against Lord Watson as he saw her move across the political spectrum, but I think she is quite right to select -- question in the way she has in her speech, as Baroness Lawlor put it, we are in a way promoting positive discrimination which undermines achievement on merit.

I just hope the noble Lord the Minister will give very serious thought to explain exactly what is proposed. Rather than wait for the secondary legislation. Let's know straight away what additional equality action away what additional equality action plan is proposed in detail. I just think that we have to pause for a moment to worry about the serious and often unintended consequences that policies like these can have, particularly for women on the margins of the labour market.

The principal behind the measure is commendable, to close the gender gap, to support women through challenges like the menopause and to shine a light on structural inequalities. But in practice these kinds of top-down mandates too often result in box ticking compliance, statistical quotas and public relations targets. And never real relations targets. And never real Try what gets managed. When employers are judged by headline figures, gender pay gap's, representation in senior roles, there is an inevitable temptation for them to focus their efforts where the optics are best improved, on high status, high visibility roles.

As a result employers might feel pressured to hire or promote individuals with certain characteristics into elite positions just to improve those diversity statistics rather than genuinely supporting a larger number of supporting a larger number of people, often the minority who hold lower paid insecure or part-time roles and who would benefit most from a meaningful reform. Regardless of sex, ethnicity or sexual orientation, merit should always be the basis for the advancement of an individual.

I just worry that we risk a situation where the beneficiaries of the quality policy are disproportionately those who are already relatively privileged. Whilst those in cleaning jobs, care work, warehouses, food processing and service are pushed further to the margins. Even worse, if statistical appearances become the basis of legal or reputational risk, employers may become reluctant to hire minority women at all into lower paying roles for fear of what the data might suggest. That is not progress, it is perverse.

So I warmly applaud the fact that this debate is taking place. Equality is not achieved by engineering the statistics. It is achieved when every person, regardless of sex, class, race or role has access to fair work, safe conditions, proper pay and genuine opportunity to get on in life. So I just ask colleagues to consider, well these equality action plans bring meaningful change for working-class young men, people from ethnic minorities, women on zero hours contract, or will they largely serve the HR departments of large organisations, helping to polish their diversity reports while little changes on the ground.

We cannot affect equality by appearance, we must demand equality by substance. by substance.
22:10
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
Can I start by saying I am grateful to Baroness Fox for initiating this probing debate on clause 31. I think it's been, as the noble Lord I like to call him my noble brother after all these years of working together. It enables us to put a very strong case. I think actually of course one can always be concerned about Henry VIII powers of secondary legislation, especially when employers are not consulted and the objective is to undermine good industrial relations.

Of course I will remind my noble brother about the debates we had on the Strikes Bill which was about precisely those issues about unintended consequences. But can I just say that ensuring that women can remain and progress in work is crucial to economic growth. It's vital to economic growth. Yet the national gender pay gap remains at 13.1% and we know that women often face barriers in the workplace that impact their pay, progression and economic participation. I would point out that eight in 10 menopausal women say that their workplace has no basic support in place.

This lack of support is a barrier and can lead to significant loss of talent and most and just as importantly, productivity. It's not new, as a trade unionist and my noble brother opposite knows full well that actually the progress over many years we have heard about all the legislation that has been brought in, but real progress has been affected in the workplace by supporting that legislation, amplifying it, giving people the tools to actually ensure that legislation has an impact.

I know as a trade unionist, I have seen many initiatives that have started that have delivered better facilities, ensure that women can remain active in the workplace. I remember a campaign in the '70s and 80s about breast-cancer. Many women wouldn't even dare could talk about it. But the trade union movement actually launched the campaign for workplace screening. And actually opened up a debate so that people could acknowledge the risk and address them. Rather than live in isolation and fear.

I think it's quite important that women are able to talk about the menopause openly, can actually address I don't think it makes them a victim at all. Breast- cancer doesn't make women a victim. We should be focused on how we can deliver for women and I think that is really important. There are many examples. Many examples. Since 2017 large employers have been required to publish gender pay gap data, the additional publication of an action plan is precisely to do what the noble Lord opposite has said.

How do we see and assess the impact? The additional publication of an action plan has been encouraged but it's voluntary. However analysis in 2019 discovered that only half of employers reporting data were voluntary -- voluntarily producing a plan on how they can improve it. So what the noble Lord described is actually what is happening to produce the data and do nothing. That's why this legislation is so important and that's why the next step for improvements for women in the workplace is to make that mandatory.

Of course we recognise, and many noble Lords have actually address that, we recognise and applaud the best employers who already recognise the value of supporting women to thrive and that already taking action. Following their lead large employers will be required to detail the actions they are taking to improve gender equality and support employees during the menopause. The intention is to motivate employers to take meaningful action, to breakdown the barriers and help all women to thrive.

Let me say to Lord Jackson, and to my noble brother opposite, we are taking delegated powers mirroring the approach taken for mirroring the approach taken for To show as much flexibility. Which is essential to good employment practices. We are aware that most employers think of equality and inclusion, as a whole stock that is why we are aiming to reflect how employers already work by proposing a single plan covering both the gender pay gap and the menopause. And it is for these reasons that we believe equality action plans will benefit women in the workplace.

This clause is vital, vital to strengthening the opportunities available and I therefore bow to read that the clause 31 stand part of the bill. of the bill.
22:17
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Thank you very much to all noble Lords who spoke, some more sympathetically than others to what I was trying to raise. I actually thought that the Lord Palmer of Childs Hill had a very important point when he talked about the importance of accurate data. And I agree, data and statistics are not flatlined. They are not complicated and I tried to indicate without boring you with lots of statistics. The gender pay gap, in relation to statistics and that number is to do with age, the past, and so on and so forth.

In fact there are books written and I've got papers I've read them all, and I won't bore you now. I would suggest that this is not the key issue facing women at work today. I thought that the points that have been made, in relation. The Nova Lord Collins, who came back multiple points in terms of the aspirations. I agree with of the aspirations. I agree with him. I think however that the government is over complacent about the problems of delegated powers the legislative oversight, which also raised a substantial part of my complaint, I have supported the now government, when they were in opposition who constantly raised these issues and I went along with them and supported them.

Because despite what the noble Lord Watson suggested, I thought this was a modest proposal and somehow I have managed to be accused of fuelling Donald Trump Nigel Faraj and it is an illustration of my political journey from far left of our right. I won't Duluth do a full critique of the attack on me which was very personal, which was very personalised. I would like to point out something, which is I was and am a member of the left and the fact that the Labour Party and the left moved in a different direction to the one that I am in is not necessarily mean that I am the one that is moved to the right.

I spend a lot of time talking to ordinary working class people who are tearing their hair out, women and men and the attacks on the living standards that they are going through, under this particular government. And therefore to be lectured about not understanding and fight against inequality and the idea that anybody who stands and challenges orthodoxy, on a potentially bureaucratic plan, which by the way I never mentioned employers and cost, I said it was an insult to women. Statistics on pieces of paper.

A different point. I think it is absolutely crucial that we should challenge the orthodoxy is on agenda equality, when they are presented in this way, without being treated as though one is a far right parietal. Unworthy of the nature of this House, which is to debate and scrutinise, in my opinion. I simply tried to do that. I still want to push this, more so now than before, at report, but for now I will draw.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't withdraw, no. Oh I see. The question is that clause 31 stand part of the bill. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that clause 32 stand part of the bill? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 32, amendment 145, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I rise to speak to a member to 145, standing in my name and that of
22:21
None Portrait AMDT: 145 Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-

my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. This amendment introduces a mechanism for public sector workers, who reasonably believe that they who reasonably believe that they have been subjected to detriment, as a result of their employees use of positive action, under sections 158, 169 of the equality act of 2010. It does not seek to outlaw, nor does it obstruct efforts to promote fairness. Rather it seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only those whom the state or the employer happens to deem under representative.

We must therefore confront the uncomfortable truth that some public bodies have begun to apply the positive action in ways that no longer reflected the careful balance envisaged, by Parliament, when the equality act was passed. We have now entered a territory where positive action shaves into positive discrimination. The scales of justice of not merely been tipped but turned. For example let's consider the example of the West Yorkshire police, a forces conduct in this area raises serious concern. Come to light through both medium investigation and internal wisdom lowers that recruitment Practices have been excluding applications from white British candidates.

Candidates from certain minority ethnic backgrounds were allowed to apply early and in some cases mentored through the process by dedicated positive action teams. Meanwhile white British applicants were told to wait until a general window opens, often for as little as 48 hours. This we are assured is not discriminatory but rather the fair operation of the law. I do not agree, this is not the spirit or arguably even the letter of the equality act. This is a distortion of the law and it demands address.

What makes this all the more troubling is that these actions being taken on private corporations, not by private corporations but the status of all corporations that at another funded by the public purse. The taxpayer in this case is being forced to subsidise policies that they themselves may find discriminatory and for which they themselves may be excluded. The do seem to be something especially perverse almost Orwellian about that. This is not merely an abstract concern, West Yorkshire police for example reportedly spent over £1.4 million in recent years and quality Diversity & Inclusion staff.

More Diversity & Inclusion staff. More than any other force in the country. That is public money. It is the money earned by early ordinary citizens, some of whom may find themselves effectively barred by entry and public service, not because they lack ability but because of their ethnic background does not satisfy an internal diversity target. When questions are raised, when whistleblows, within the forces speak up, what happens? We hear of them being silenced, reprimanded, or warned not to interfere. We hear a secret job listings hidden in the system, visible only to certain candidates.

We hear of hugs and reassurances that there interviews are merely a formality. That is not a quality that is manipulation. The amendment before your Lordship seeks to restore a measure of transparency and accountability. They propose a system by which a public sector worker who reasonably believes that they have been harmed can submit a full question anonymously to the full question anonymously to the employer. The the employee in turn must respond. Moreover employers will be required to publish data on such queries allowing Parliament and the public to monitor the use of potential abuse under these provisions.

This is not a punitive or burdensome requirements. It is the most basic form of procedural fairness. Let us be clear, by laws. This amendment does not challenge the principle of inclusion. It does not deny that discrimination as existed. It does say unequivocally that the answer to past unfairness is not the imposition of new unfairness. The pursuit of diversity must not come at the expense of justice and that inclusion must include everybody. Equality, before the law is not a suggestion, it is not a secondary consideration to ideological preferences.

It is constitutional principle that underpins this very chamber. We allow it to be weakened, quietly, gradually by well-meaning policies that turn into archaic practices we Harm justice. They may be that the Minister will rise and tell me that everything I have described, the delays, the exclusion of applicants, the unequal mentoring, the hidden vacancies, is perfectly lawful. This is precisely how the government intends positive action operate in the public sector. I sincerely hope that is not going to be advanced. Alternatively the Minister may offer reassurance to the House and to the public that existing, not already contains sufficient safeguards what we have heard from places like W.

Yorkshire Pl and Thames Valley police and others would not and should not be polluted under any reasonable interpretation of the Equality Act. If that is the case I would welcome that clarification. I would also welcome assurance that there is already a functioning system of redress for individuals who believe they have been mistreated on the basis of how positive action has been applied. If the Minister agrees with the points I have made and that West Yorkshire should and have discriminated against white applicants, and there is no such mechanism to stop this, I very much look forward to the government accepting this amendment.

I therefore big move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is me now. Amendments are proposed, after clause 32, insert the following new clause, as printed
22:26
22:30
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
amendment. I think what we have just amendment. I think what we have just heard and I would have gently advised the noble Lord actually read the amendment before he pontificates the amendment before he pontificates into memory lane of his great campaigns for a quality of the past. Because this amendment is about Because this amendment is about fairness. I have got to say it ill fairness. I have got to say it ill fairness. I have got to say it ill behoves his party, when they needed the Supreme Court to tell what a woman was.

A party that has failed woman was. A party that has failed to be institutionally racist. If noble Lord read this amendment it is an amendment which speaks of fairness. All it says, very simply is anyone who construes a situation where they have felt themselves personally discriminated against. That person should have a proper legal, transparent opportunity, to question decision of a person who is taking a big decision in their life, whether to appoint them to a post or It is not Draconian, it doesn't include fines, it's merely an occasion for that person to challenge a decision taken by authority in a fair, open and transparent way.

I think it's a reasonable amendment and if I may refer to Lord Watson, it is not far right or trump Ian -- trump like to give working people the opportunity to challenge a decision about themselves. It is a very fair amendment and I think members across all sides of the House he read it can see that. On that basis I think the Minister should at least engage with the arguments rather than the strawman arguments we've had the last hour from the Labour Party whose own record on equality is actually not that good.

I would say finally, it was a Conservative government 70 -- seven years ago in 2017 who brought in the regulations on the gender pay gap under that famously trump right-winger Baroness May of Maidenhead and its our proud record having created for instance the national living wage in 2015 and other progressive policies for working people. We all have done well for working people over the years, and the Labour Party does not in any sense have any kind of monopoly on that.
22:32
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
I hardly know where to start. Certainly I believe that everybody at work whatever background they come from, whatever class, whatever sex or gender, sexuality, everybody should have the right to be treated fairly and I believe that our legal system, our Equality Act precisely provides that protection for people. But that we can build on that through equality action plans and so through equality action plans and so on. I have to say I think that maybe some of the noble Lords opposite also need to consider people's real experience.

I was elected as the first ever woman general secretary first ever woman general secretary of the TUC. Clearly we were not a movement that rushed things because it took an awful long time to get to that point. I have enough self- awareness to know that it wasn't because there weren't talented women, black or white you could have been elected to had the talent, who had the skill, you had the ability. There was something else going on and I hope that there would be enough honesty in this House to recognise that black people and women face real barriers that won't be overcome unless we take positive action.

The other point I would just like to reflect on is that whenever I spoke about seeing more women playing active roles in not just the trade union movement, but in public life including by the way, lending my support to women who are arguing that we meet -- needed more women in the boardroom. I supported that principle, I was always fascinated that whenever I raise those issues that people, largely men I have to say, would start talking about merits.

When I have to say when I look at the upper echelons I don't always see in those male dominated ranks, those white dominated ranks, people who got there on the basis of merit. I've never seen an advert for a position on a board, I've never known any board member to go through an open recruitment process to get that position, it's very often been a case of a tap on the shoulder, and frankly if we look, and we are talking specifically around race and sex and gender here, if we look at sex and gender here, if we look at how many judges we have, how many newspaper editors we have, yes the picture has progressed.

But we still have a very long way to go. Therefore I think it's a little bit disingenuous this amendment, in trying to suggest that somehow people who have been held back because of their class background, because of their race, because of their gender for years, that if they get a helping hand and a bit of encouragement to go for it that somehow we are going to have a meltdown as a society by achieving what quite rightly my noble friend said, that is part of my history, it's part of our history, I hope it's part of our progress as a country, that we value equality.

We know that ultimately that is good for all of us and long may we keep struggling to achieve that goal.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My noble friends on the side of
22:36
22:37
22:38
22:39
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Lords Spokesperson (Equalities) (Labour)
-
-
I think this has been an interesting debate on positive action but can I... I'm grateful for Lord Sharpe of Epsom for initiating it. I think it raises important issues. But when Lord Jackson spoke of strawman debates I thought he was a good example of it actually in terms of the issues he raised. Because we are not talking about positive discrimination here. And actually as Lord Sharpe acknowledged, all governments have supported positive action for very good reasons.

Of course the positive action provisions in the Equality action provisions in the Equality Act 2010 enable in a work context both public and private sector employers to prioritise the Equally Equally qualified Equally qualified for Equally qualified for the Equally qualified for the particular role. In other words it's a tiebreak based on workforce diversity. So therefore we do not accept the premise of the new clause that another employee has suffered an unjustified detriment. By not being selected. Of course we are absolutely clear it is illegal to positively discriminate.

I will give reasons but Lord Sharpe raised, I think it was where I read in the Tele Telegraph about West -- daily Telegraph about West Yorkshire. One of the things that sadly many of our newspapers failed to do is to issue the full statement. West Yorkshire police I thought issued a very commendable statement. It said in West Yorkshire police we are committed to improving equality, diversity and inclusion within the organisation and strive to be more representative of the community we representative of the community we serve.

I -- our diversity in quality and inclusion team supports and consults with those with different protected characteristics such as sex, disability, sexual orientation and race to ensure their views can influence and improve the service the force delivers. They also work to improve the well-being of everybody in the organisation and inclusivity overall. The most recent census found that 23% of the people in West Yorkshire identified as being from an ethnic minority background. Our current police officer representation for ethnic minority backgrounds is around nine%.

To address this underrepresentation we used positive action under the Equality Act of 2010. Our use of this was recently reviewed by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary. And fire and rescue services in activism and impartiality inspection. And no issues were identified. Positive action allows people from underrepresented groups who express an interest in joining the force to complete an application which is then held on file until a recruitment window is opened. No interviews are held until the window is officially opened to all candidates.

Enabling people from underrepresented groups to apply early does not give them an advantage in the application process. It simply provides us with more opportunity to attract talent from this pool of applicants. I think that is what my noble friend Baroness O'Grady was absolutely making. It's a pity the daily Telegraph didn't report the full statement from the police because I think it sets this whole thing in really perfect context. The detriment arises where someone is treated unfairly by their employer.

For example where someone is promoted over them who is clearly a weaker candidates. If the reason for that was based on protected characteristics this would be unlawful positive discrimination under the 2010 act. And would be rightly challengeable. But this is not the situation under positive action and I think that has been extremely well illustrated by the West Yorkshire police in terms of how they adopted that policy. We also have doubts as to whether the processes envisaged could be truly confidential and this could have undesirable implications for both the successful candidate and the complainant.

Lawful recruitment decisions are confidential for good reason, and by opening these up to this kind of probing risks creating into employee bad feeling particularly in small departments where identification of people by inference or guesswork is easier. The bill is about improving employment rights, not creating new and unnecessary conflicts. Positive action can only work effectively as part of a confidential recruitment process where transparency is often good for equality, what is proposed would I fear work against it and as such, the government cannot support Just avoid any sorted out.

The noble Lord was asking me to be very clear. Lord was asking me to be very clear. Positive action is not positive discrimination is unlawful under the 2010 act, except in limited ways in relation to disability. Positive discrimination implies an organisation is recruiting, or promoting someone because of their protected characteristic, rather than on the merit. Examples of positive action of the 2010 act generally involves a removing barriers and improving access to underrepresented groups to help address inequalities and promotion across the workplace, more widely.

And I do think, actually that statement from West Yorkshire police is a really good example. A police force that is representing, should represent and look like the community it is seeking to police. I think their actions are extremely valuable and their explanation is extremely valuable. I would ask the noble Lord and I would ask that he and his colleagues. One thing I would agree with, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson is that I do actually think that there were many occasions under, particularly Prime Minister May where actions were taken and I certainly admire her continued work to address exploited workers, under modern slavery.

I think it is important that we recognise that. I hope, after the noble Lord has heard some of these arguments and the reinsurance is I have given. I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.
22:47
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
-I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that a very competitive answer and thank all noble Lords were spoken in this quite lively debate. I have to set was very disappointed that the greatest lady of them all, who did not need a helping hand getting mentioned, Margaret Thatcher. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Liddle that we are not seeking to undermine anything I was very clear about that. I want to make it very clear about that. When I said in my opening remarks.

This does not seek to outlaw such action, nor does it obstruct actions to rely fairness. It seeks to ensure that fairness extends to all employees, not only to those who instate what the employer deems as unrepresented. I'm grateful to the Minister for his extended quote from the Yorkshire case. I also mentioned the case in Thames Valley and the case there. There was a tribunal that the three white police officers who wrote a claim after they were passed over for promotion, the tribunal ruled that the officers were overlooked by Thames Valley police because of their race and at an ethnic minority site it was promoted.

Without any competitive process in place. Not the spirit of the laws we have been discussing. That is why we were asking these and laying this amendment. It is very good to have it out in the open. This amendment sought not litigation but clarity. It doesn't seek courtroom battles, a simple mechanism for transparency and accountability. It is a roof asking questions. A structure for reporting. It is a reminder that positive action must remain within the bounds of the law of fairness and not become a euphemism for sanction discrimination.

I have heard the arguments at the noble of the Minister and I intend to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw my amendment. The lateness of the hour. Is it your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it your Lordships pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is by leave withdrawn. The question is that clause 33 stand question is that clause 33 stand part of the bill. As many of that opinion was so content Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Speak to move that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Speak to move that the House did now resume. The question is the House be resumed? As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The To move the House do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page