Lords Chamber

Monday 14th July 2025

(began 4 months, 2 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:47
14:47
None Portrait Oral questions: Increasing rail freight by 75 per cent by 2050
-

Second Oral Question. standing in my name on the Order Paper. Paper.
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:49
14:50
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Potential benefits of a tourism levy to alleviate funding pressures facing seaside and coastal communities
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is determined to allow that to happen. Third Oral Question.
14:58
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:21
None Portrait Business of the House
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Message Message from Message from the Message from the Commons Message from the Commons that they have passed the rare cancers bill, the secure 16 to 19 academy spell and the Unauthorised Entry To Football Matches Bill, to which they desire the agreement of your

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lordships. -- Rare Cancers Bill. I beg to move that this Bill now

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this Bill now be read a first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, say, "Content". Of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Not content". The contents have it. 16 to 19 academies Bill, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

first time. Question is that this Bill now be read a first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Unauthorised Entry To Football Matches Bill, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a first time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this Bill now be read a first time. The question is that this Bill now be read a first time. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Of the contrary, "Not content". Amivantamab. Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons... Questions on an House of Commons... Questions on an answer to an urgent question asked in the House of Commons on Wednesday
15:22
None Portrait Urgent Question Repeat: Plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown Court Bench Division and related sentencing changes
-

in the House of Commons on Wednesday ninth July, on the restriction of trial by jury through the creation of a Crown Court bench division and related sentencing changes.
15:22
15:23
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I I welcome I welcome the I welcome the opportunity I welcome the opportunity to I welcome the opportunity to open this debate in the group and I intend to be brief as its report intend to be brief as its report stage. Let me begin by saying it's a clear cross party agreement that zero hours contracts must come to an zero hours contracts must come to an end. We in these benches unequivocally believe in the need to address the exploitive nature of address the exploitive nature of zero hours contracts which leads to many workers in precarious employment circumstances.

Our amendment reflects that shared objective while offering more objective while offering more practical and balanced view. The amendment changes legislation from an obligation to offer guaranteed hours to a right to request them. hours to a right to request them. Furthermore it maintains that when Furthermore it maintains that when it's made -- a request is made, the employer must granted. This allows employer must granted. This allows them to have guaranteed hours if they wish whilst enabling them to make the personal choice. At the same time it reduces the same time it reduces the administrative burden on employees, especially a sector which allows for flexibility.

Whilst we recognise flexibility. Whilst we recognise some hours do not want precarious zero hours contracts, they should not come at the expense of sectors were flexibility is essential. Many workers are content with those arrangements. This balances security for workers with necessary flexibility for employees in sectors which rely on flexibility. These include seasonal, tourist related workers, agricultural workers, hospitality, retail, theatre and other industries where work is inherently dynamic and demands fluctuate. The amendment ensures the new provisions are adaptable enough to function effectively across all those employment settings.

At Committee stage, members of the House raised concerns about what would happen if a request for guarantees are denied. Let me be clear, if this amendment, if the worker makes a formal request, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer. It shows that all workers who want greater certainty are in power to secure it. At the same time, it avoids placing universal obligation on all employers to offer guaranteed hours in every instance which could place undue strain on the sectors that rely on that flexible staffing model.

In doing so it delivers a fair workable solution that reflects the rights of workers while acknowledging these industries. We also recognise the government made atonement -- its own amendment since Committee stage. In particular how new obligations will provide... These changes will help in the framework is clear, it is consistent and better understood by all lords affected. That said, the government is asking for industry and business who supports is vital for this to prepare for ultimately to comply with these provisions for the wider act without providing any details such as guaranteed hours or other key elements.

This is a lack of clarity that seems to run throughout this bill which makes it challenging for employers and workers to understand the rights and obligations that they have. Hindering effective implementation and planning is not acceptable. Such clarification particularly for reference. For guaranteed hours are critical if the industry is expected to prepare. We in these benches have raised concerns about the bill about the uncertainty caused by leaving key details. While we agree that some flexibility is needed, it is how it's implemented.

We believe clearer rules in the bill itself on the face will help worker and employer better prepare for the challenge. I wish to reiterate as I said at the beginning, we fully recognise the damage exploitative hours can cause, however addressing this issue must not cause --, at the effect... Our amendment seeks a fair balance protecting workers from balance protecting workers from being exploited while preserving the flexibility for crucial industries to function. I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister's response and I beg to move. Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 2, line 9, at the beginning insert if requested by an employee.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert if requested by an employee. I would just like to make a very brief comment on the First Amendment which replaces the right to have
15:39
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill Portrait Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Labour)
-
-
guaranteed hours with the right to request. I very much fear that it undermines the purpose of the bill which is trying to deal with the problem of zero hours contracts for employees do not have predictability in their hours. I appreciate that the desire of the amendment is to reduce the burden of employers in working out the guaranteed hours would be only to find that an employee declines the offer. However, I don't think that is something that is likely to happen very often.

Obviously it is impossible to know what proportion of employees would turn down such an offer, but what we do know from surveys and most recently from a pole that TUC did last year, is that the majority of workers on zero hours contracts, consistently say that they would prefer to have guaranteed hours. It is very unlikely that large numbers of them would turn down an offer once it has been made. Perhaps more seriously, what the amendment doesn't take account of is the imbalance of power in workplaces.

And the characteristics of employees who are working on zero hours contracts. The latest figures from LNS tell us the zero hours contract workers are much more likely to be young, they are much more likely to be working in elementary occupations, they are much more likely to be working part-time and they are much more likely to be working in low-paid sectors. These are the least empowered workers in the workforce. They are unlikely to understand their rights, even if the employer has complied with the requirement to find information.

They are the least likely to be represented by a union and they are the least likely to know how to exercise their rights. The right to request guaranteed hours in those circumstances is not a real right at all. How many of those workers, vulnerable as they are, might come under pressure not to press for guaranteed hours? The vast majority of employers do right by their employees, but many do not. This formulation of the amendment leaves open the path some of those worst employers to ensure they don't end up offering guaranteed hours to workers on zero hours contracts.

So I don't think that the amendment does the intention to serve these workers any favours at all.
15:42
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
I rise to support all the amendments in this group, but actually especially amendment one. As we start report stage and also the first of several groups focusing on zero hours contracts, I just want to emphasise why getting the wording in balance in this part of the bill is important for both proportionality and to avoid unintended consequences. Many of us were originally supportive of this bill's commitment to tackle the rise and rise of zero hours contracts, especially in retail or hospitality.

Certainly tackling the way these have been used in an exploitative way is welcome. In the course of committee, the government acknowledged that they needs to be the offer of some flexibility and that is what certain cohorts of workers want. Relating to amendment one, the TUC's briefing on this bill complains that the vast majority who ask for guaranteed hours are turned it down. Surely the point of amendment one is the requirement that they will not be turned down that they will not be turned down and that actually the -- what is actually happening here is that there is a shift of the right to request guaranteed hours on the rights of the employee.

I thought what will be in the bill. I'm not sure how helpful it is that some in trade union circles and government circles I raise recently that this is on the side of bad bosses on zero hours contracts in fire, rehire. We are here to make law, not headlines. Law means accepting that the devil is indeed in the detail. The government knows there are lots of worries about unresolved aspects of this bill, indeed, Jonathan Reynolds, the Business Secretary, cited in the FT recently, assures us he is absolutely certain of addressing businesses concerns and he says either over statutory probation.

For this group of amendments that there is more than enough room to reach an amendment on guaranteed hours. To quote, he says, I have to have the bill passed before we go into implementation. I suggest that is the wrong way around. If there is more than enough room to reach agreement on things like guaranteed hours, then let's put this on the face of the bill. In other words, the amendments in this group are trying to pin down how a new right to guaranteed hours should be framed and regulations.

I think it brings clarity that these amendments are meant to help the government because I am worried that too many important details are being kicked down the road, hence avoiding democratic debates and scrutiny. But also creating a real mood of uncertainty amongst employers, and we have had warnings from business
15:48
15:51
15:56
16:07
16:11
16:14
16:26
16:28
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-

16:28
None Portrait
-

16:29
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – report stage Amendment 1: Division.
-

16:40
16:41
None Portrait Amendment:10 Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-

16:43
16:45
16:52
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

16:56
16:58
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Viscount Colville of Culross (Crossbench)
-

16:59
None Portrait Legislation: Employment Rights Bill – report stage :Amendment 10: Division.
-

Questionnaires Questionnaires Amendment Questionnaires Amendment 10 Questionnaires Amendment 10 is screechy. -- The question is. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The Contents will go to the right by the throne, the Not-

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that Amendment The question is that Amendment 10 They They have They have voted They have voted content, They have voted content, 267. They have voted content, 267. Not- contents, 153.

The "Not Contents" have it. -- The "Contents" have it. The "Not Contents" have it. -- The I I understand I understand it's I understand it's been I understand it's been agreed I understand it's been agreed that amendment 11 is consequential upon Amendment 10. The question therefore is that amendment 11 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. In schedule one, amendments 12 through 20 inclusive which have all been previously debated, Baroness Jones moved formally.

The question is that amendment 12 through 20 are agree to unblock. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. Amendment 21 Baroness Jones moved formally. Amendment proposed, in schedule one insert the words as printed on the marshalled List. As an amendment to 120 amendment 121 Baroness Noakes. Not moved. The question is that amendment 21 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content".

The "Contents" have it. Amendment 23 Baroness Jones moved formally. The question is that amendment 23 is agree to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The "Contents" have it. In clause 5 amendment 24 Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
17:10
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to speak to members 24 and 25 standing in my name and that of Lord Hunt. Amendment 24 ensures that for the purposes of this chapter agreements made with independent Employer Representative Bodies or stop associations where they are formally constituted and operate independently may be treated as equivalent to collective agreements. As we highlighted during committee, the government appears to hold an implicit bias in favour of trade unions as though they are the only legitimate body is capable of making rational decisions on behalf of workers.

This is clearly not the case one needs only to look at the chaos of the Birmingham bin strikes see that unions are not always acting the best interests of employees nor are they always representative of them. During the committee stage Baroness O'Grady remarked during the debate on clause 5 that and I quote, the whole point of trade union is that it is a democratic organisation of working people. If that is so then surely workers should be free to choose whether to be represented by union or by another independent body, because that's the essence of workplace democracy, choice.

If the noble Baroness and the government were committed to democratic representation I wonder whether she also supports government proposals to remove the 50% ballot threshold for strike action, a move which clearly undermines democratic standards rather than upholding them. On amendment 25 the law must have no gaps, no shadows and no hiding places. Where the old habits of industrial bullying can take root and flourish. Every loophole we leave open becomes a wound in the body politic of free employment. Every ambiguity we permit becomes a tool for those who return the noble art of collective bargaining into a weapon of exclusion.

That's why rights to speak in support of this amendment and wired to government not to dismiss it on the tired grounds that closed shops are already unlawful. Yes clothes chops are illegal on paper but were not here to legislate for the perfect world the statutory textbooks, we are to legislate the real world. In the real world pressure to join a union can exist. This amendment Sibley state what most of us would regard as common sense. That no worker should be treated differently under a collective agreement based It prohibits making membership a condition for the agreement terms to apply, it bans imposing any disadvantage on nonmembers and prevents contract terms being automatically imported purely because someone happens to hold a union card.

In other words it restores balance. It ensures the collective agreements function as they ought to as a negotiated protection to the workforce, not as a gatekeeping tool for union organisers. It doesn't therefore we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

can unions, it strengthens fairness. Amendment proposed clause 5 page 31 line 36 at the end insert the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

31 line 36 at the end insert the words printed on the marshalled List. I rise to briefly speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to briefly speak to amendment 25 in the name of Lord amendment 25 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I like to reiterate Sharpe of Epsom. I like to reiterate the key point he raised which is
17:14
Lord Jackson of Peterborough Portrait Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Conservative)
-
-
that the imperative is to make it clear that closed shop is not coming back. And that the government is committed to free bargaining but fair bargaining. Let's remember that closed shop has never actually been that popular. In United States the Taft Hartley act 1947 outlawed the closed shop and in the UK even before I was born in 1964 the rooks vs barnyard case involving British overseas aircraft Corporation became -- began the fightback against the close shop when that organisation sacked worker refused to join a trade union.

As noble Lords will know the trade unions the clothes chops was made illegal effectively by the 1990 employment in the 1992 trade union labour relations Consolidation act. I think the fact that we accept that the closed shop is damaging and an anachronism is as much as anything a reflection of the different working regimes that the 30 million or 40 million people in this country who are working people potentially working people existing, because the closed shop was very much of a time when manufacturing and heavy manufacturing, manual labour, heavily unionised workforce was very prevalent and that is now very different, we live in a working environment, particularly young people we have a much more modern, diverse, dynamic and disaggregated labour market where the closed shop is a throwback and an anachronism.

There are good reasons why is important to put on the face of primary legislation that even this government, which is legislating in a very negative way which will cost jobs and opportunities and force people not to hire workers, even they will not go back to the bad old days of the 1970s and institute a closed shop. There were good reasons. Labour market flexibility is reduced by the close shop, the capacity of employers to employ the best qualified candidates regardless of union membership, that inevitably leads to misallocation of labour resources, hire business costs higher prices and therefore ipso Also is an offence of court against freedom of conscience.

And that has been established over many years. But we are getting into the issue of compelled speech and the rights of association and my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe did allude to that and I am not saying this is common and I not saying this is universal, but, of course, there are examples of bullying, abuse, by union officials. And actually with a closed shop you have a much more restrictive and exclusionary regime in terms of people in the workplace and the workforce.

That it means that those union officials would be less responsive if they know that everyone has to be a member and people do not have a free choice to join a union. And I actually speak going back to amendment 24 I spoke with someone that was it member of the staff union which is a small staff association doing a fantastic job for me in somewhat tricky circumstances many years ago. And the point being that you do not have to be a big union like Unite, Prospect, or any of those other unions in order to deliver demonstrable benefits for your membership.

Obviously, also, with the closed shop potentially having an impact on innovation. And I not saying that collective solidarity is not important. Because it is. And it is important that we continue to move forward, but that cannot be at the expense of individual rights and individual performance and merit- based advancement and, I believe, that closed shopping is against that, so I will finish by saying that the German example, Germany exists very successfully on not having a closed shop system, and having a system of works councils of collaborative work between employers and employees and a number of voluntary unions, and therefore overall of those reasons I think it is absolutely vital that we explicitly, emphatically, throughout the closed shop.

This is the next amendment and I do hope that in the spirit we have seen this afternoon of collaboration and support across parties that our friends on the Liberal Democrats bench may support us as well because closed shop is not popular with any of filters, actually, and certainly not popular with Liberal Democrat voters, so I hope that they could see, perhaps, a way to support this amendment which is very sensible, does not undermine the bill, and that I believe stands up to the scrutiny and IM happy to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

support amendment 24 and 25. I rise briefly to support amendment 25 particularly, that I amendment 25 particularly, that I support 24 as well. And this is about the freedom to be represented
17:20
Baroness Lawlor Portrait Baroness Lawlor (Conservative)
-
-
about the freedom to be represented by people who represent you and who are representative of your stance. 22% of employees in this country, only 22%, belong to a trade union, so surely it is right as my Noble Friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt proposed that a relative collective agreement for the purposes of clause 5 will be invalid unless it is open to being struck with a body which is independent of a trade union and which is not just a trade union.

Given that many workplaces, particularly small businesses, do not have a trade union representative, that people themselves are, 80% of our workers, themselves are, 80% of our workers, our employees, 80% of them do not belong to a trade union. There really is not any case in terms of freedom to restrict who should condone the collective bargaining and I think it is very important to send a signal that we believe in a free workforce and we respect the freedom of working people to join or not to join a trade union.

And I particularly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I put assistance to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I put assistance to the Noble Lord shop and his explanation for a man mince 24 and 25. And I note that these are similar to the note that these are similar to the amendments he tabled at Committee stage but with some of the safeguards and requirements removed. Whilst I respect the noble Lords views in these areas, I do feel this is going in the wrong direction. Staff associations and employee Staff associations and employee representative bodies can of course be a very positive move for staff and employers to engage, however we are not convinced the other suitable vehicle for deciding whether to modify or opt out of statutory employment rights.

While many maintain a good balance between positive engagement and constructive challenge, we are not persuaded that there will, in all cases, argue as there will, in all cases, argue as requested on behalf of of as a trade union ward and in addition without a trade union representative workers will not have as many protections if will not have as many protections if their employer does not deliver on this benefit and I have to say that this benefit and I have to say that this is nothing to do with the closed shop or industrial bullying but under the proposals that but under the proposals that employees will continue to have the right to be a member of a trade
17:22
17:22
17:23
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
made by trade unions that have been And certified as independent. And I would encourage any staff associations or employee representative body that wants to negotiate on behalf of its members negotiate on behalf of its members to register as a trade union and go through the steps to obtain a certificate of independence from the Certification Officer. The second part of the noble Lords amendment sets out to relevant collective agreement shall not be treated as valid if it meets condition such as imposing detriment or disadvantaged imposing detriment or disadvantaged on the worker who is not a member of on the worker who is not a member of a trade union and terms being corporate into workers contract corporate into workers contract solely by reason of union membership status.

We believe that these provisions are unnecessary, the trade union and relations Consolidation act 1992 already Consolidation act 1992 already provide sufficient protection by ensuring that workers cannot be ensuring that workers cannot be subject to detriment for the purpose of compelling them to join a trade union. Furthermore, the application union. Furthermore, the application of the terms of collective agreement to work generally depends on that willing cooperation of those into the workers contracts, either expressly or by implication, in line with well established contract law, rather than on the basis of trade union membership.

If I now turn to in my name amendments 26 and 27, currently when the terms of the collective agreements is to be incorporated the workers initial reference period and initial information. Recommences the next day, however in some cases there could be quite a gap between these and the work on XP employed by the employer to work. We had the strength of feeling around business burden and committee and where it is possible to make tweaks we will do so.

In this case, we believe it makes more sense for the reference. To start and extend the worker is employed by the employer. This avoids businesses having to consider making a guaranteed before it is sensible and necessary to do so. We are also tabling a minor technical amendment to section 27 before it is are also tabling a minor technical amendment to section 20 7DY8 before it is sensible and necessary to do so. We are also tabling a minor technical amendment to section 20 7DY82 reflect that the duty relating to the information right in the existing provisions will be on agencies to inform potential eligible agency holders about the writer guaranteed hours in any relevant information..

Turning finally to amendment 27, this amendment ensures that the zero hours measures in the bill apply as appropriate to special categories. This file is a long-standing precedent that these workers should be treated as distinct as they do not have atypical employment relationship or undertaking any type of work. In line with this precedent, the amendment ensures that the House of Commons and all that the House of Commons and all staff grant employees benefit from the protections the bill provides on zero hours.

It also ensures that duties made under the provisions of the bill do not apply where this would not be appropriate, merely in relation to service personnel at the Armed Forces and police officers, I'd ever ask the Noble Lord to withdraw amendment 24 and big to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move amendment 26 and 27. Firstly, I would like to thank my
17:26
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Firstly, I would like to thank my Noble Friend is Lord Jackson and Baroness Lawlor for their comments. Employee representation must be plural and not monopolised by trade unions. There are many places where independent staff associations are trusted and effective. These organisations are not less than the support unions, in fact there often less politicised and more flexible in resolving workplace issues and yet, disappointingly, the Noble Lady the Minister says they are not suitable. The idea that only the union can be trusted in negotiating terms is a fiction and we just have to look at Birmingham to see the results of that belief.

This amendment simply recognises reality that employee voices come in many forms of shutting out a judgement associations and secondly and just as crucially we cannot allow this legislation to leave space for any form of closed shop, not in the name of practice. It is true of course that compulsory union membership is already unlawful, as the noble Baroness the Minister pointed out, but this amendment ensures there are no backdoors also do not think the law should have any ambiguity on this, no agreement should've imposing detriment on the workers simply because they choose not to join a union and as my Noble Friend pointed out, that Georgie choose not to join the union, in fact the private sector at think the number is 87.7% that choose not to join a union.

No term should be granted only by virtue of membership. That is not freedom, that is coercion. So, we see again, collective farming should not become collective exclusion. These amendments uphold freedom of association in both directions, the right to join and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the right not to but for now I beg leave to withdraw. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. 25, Lord Sharpe, not withdrawn. 25, Lord Sharpe, not moved. Amendment 26 and 27. moved. Amendment 26 and 27. Amendment 26 in clause 5. Baroness Jones, moved formally. The question Jones, moved formally. The question is that amendment 20 6B agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", to the contrary Of the contrary, "Not content", in schedule contrary, "Not content", in schedule contrary, "Not content", in schedule two, amendment 27, Baroness Jones, moved formally.

The question is that amendment 20 7B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the Of the contrary,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

"Content", of the Of the contrary, "No", Lord Sharpe. My Lords, amendment 28 simply

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, amendment 28 simply asks for a degree of common sense. asks for a degree of common sense. It preserves a minimum one day waiting period for Statutory Sick
17:28
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
waiting period for Statutory Sick Pay by lowering the qualifying threshold from four days to two rather than removing the threshold entirely, as the Government now proposes. Well, we have heard a great deal from the benches opposite about employers and, indeed, there are some, but the Government must also acknowledge the other side of the coin. Just as some employers abuse the system, so to do some employees. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous and undermines the credibility of the entire framework.

In fact, before the Governments recent and embarrassing U-turn on the benefits reform, Ministers rightly spoke about the perverse incentives created by aspects of the welfare system. The logic there was sound and the same logic applies here. If you remove all barriers to claiming Statutory Sick Pay, even for a single day, you do so without checks or balances, you are creating a system that is not only vulnerable to abuse, but one that risks becoming a disincentive to return to work.

Let me be absolutely clear, work. Let me be absolutely clear, this is not about people that are genuinely unwell, it is about preserving the integrity of Statutory Sick Pay. So that it remains sustainable, trusted, and workable for businesses, particularly small ones. One day waiting period is a modest safeguard. Not a punishment. It would discourage spurious claims and uphold personal responsibility and give smaller employers a fighting chance in a tight and unpredictable I also want to raise a specific concern regarding agency work and Statutory Sick Pay abuse.

Which was addressed to some extent in a recent letter from the noble Baroness the Minister for which we are very grateful indeed. Whilst we appreciate the clarification of it, the current drafting of the bill and indeed of paragraph 2F of schedule 11 to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 does not fully address the issue. Let me clarify. The problem is not with legitimate Statutory Sick Pay claims from individuals working multiple jobs, it is with the lack of safeguards that would allow a worker to first go off sick with one employer and begin receiving Statutory Sick Pay.

Then start working for another employer while still drawing Statutory Sick Pay. And then potentially repeat this behaviour with others. There is no proper oversight mechanism. No way to cross-reference national insurance numbers across employers might no effective way to prevent simultaneous claims for Statutory Sick Pay. This is I believe a serious loophole, and one with real financial implications, particularly for the agency sector and for smaller businesses already struggling to absorb rising costs. Even retaining short waiting period, specifically for agency work, would be a minimal step that helps reduce opportunity for abuse whilst ensuring the system remains targeted at genuine need.

Turning now to amendment 29 which stands in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seeks to introduce a very simple principle. Where an employer, already provides a contractual sick pay scheme that
17:33
None Portrait Amendment:28 Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-

pays at least 80% of normal weekly earnings, they should be exempt from the Statutory Sick Pay provisions introduced by this bill. The reason for this is straightforward. We must acknowledge that the costs of these new sick pay provisions will fall disproportionately on small and micro businesses. Those least equipped to absorb them. Yet paradoxically the bill would also apply these requirements to employers who already go above and beyond voluntarily and supporting their staff through illness.

According to the latest figures, 27% According to the latest figures, 27% of businesses already offer generous contractual sick pay arrangements, contractual sick pay arrangements, many of them paying far more than the statutory minimum. These are overwhelmingly medium and large businesses who provide such schemes in response to competition. And there is huge competition for talent, for attention and for reputation. That's how good employment standards should develop. Through innovation and market competition. Yet what this bill proposes is a levelling down, sweeping in companies already providing 90% or even 100 sent pay -- 100% pay and subjecting them to unnecessary bureaucracy as though the government knows better than the employer and employee what is fair and workable.

I feel it is deeply ironic that in its eagerness to legislate for protection, the government is undermining precisely the competitive mechanisms that have driven better employment practices in the first place. Competition raises standards, compulsion often
17:36
17:36
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 28 which has been so well moved by Lord which has been so well moved by Lord Hunt of Wirral. My main problem with the statutory sick pay clauses in this bill is that the government are proceeding without a reliable evidence-based. The government do not collect data on sick leave taken by employees. Instead they relied on some modelling by that apartment for working and that modelling in turn rests on some surveys which are carried out by the DWP.

Those surveys have some problems which the DWP themselves own up to in terms of statistical quality. The Office for National Statistics also published some data on sickness absence, these data are labelled statistics in the course of development. We all know that the ONS currently has major problems with its labour market statistics. Nevertheless the government have used these data and made some challengeable assumptions of their own such as there will be no increase in sickness days taken off if the changes in clauses 10 to 14 go ahead.

They come up with an additional cost to business of £420 million. For which they then calculate as £50 per employee. I do not think that £15 -- £15. That passes the commonsense test, it implies that employers will bear the cost of not much more than an extra half a day of Statutory Sick Pay at the rate that specified in this bill. Part of the problem is that the government's calculations average those costs over 24 million employees which is roughly the size of the hole arrive at sector workforce.

Within that nearly one half of employees are employed in large businesses, many of which have their own sick pay arrangements and do not rely on the Statutory Sick Pay arrangements which Lord Hunt outlined. I tried to find the complete set of costs for small and complete set of costs for small and micro businesses. It looks as if the smaller end of the scale of businesses are roughly double the amount per employee, but it's very difficult to type down because there is an incomplete dataset that is available in public.

The government's own assessment as my noble friend has orally pointed out has owned up to the fact these costs will disproportionately bear on small and micro businesses. Even if we double the £15 per employee to £30 per employee I'm not sure even that sounds like a realistic estimate of the costs that will fall on individual businesses. Because it amounts to just a bit over a day of Statutory Sick Pay at this new rate in the bill and that does not seem to me to make any sense at all.

I believe that the government should have done studies of current sickness patterns costs for the various businesses that are affected by these clauses before going ahead, in particular I believe that the cost to small and micro businesses should have been evaluated before the clauses were proceeded with. Because the only thing for sure that Because the only thing for sure that we know about these clauses is the impact on small and micro businesses will be disproportionately large. I do recognise however that the government would probably have gone ahead with it, with these provisions even if they had gold standard data and analysis and even if that analysis showed that the cost was 10 times the amount that the government currently had and that's the reason I support my noble friend's amendment 28 with A1 day waiting period and a qualifying threshold of two days.

Because that would go some way to reducing the impact on smaller firms. Survey data shows that nearly 60% of sickness absences are accounted for by one or two days. This small change in my noble friend's amendment could have a major impact both in the financial impact on the businesses, but also in the bureaucratic burdens that they would have to bear. I also support amendment 30 which would reintroduce a Statutory Sick Pay scheme. I would have confined it to small and micro businesses because I think that's where the greatest harm is, but in this uncertain economic environment with costs being piled on businesses in all directions businesses deserve protection from the government's policies and for that reason I also support amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

30. I rise to support amendment 30

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendment 30 which was tabled by Lord Goddard of Stockport and it builds on something Stockport and it builds on something I raised in committee. I've been asked to do a statement for the asked to do a statement for the COVID enquiry regarding economic response so I started going through a variety of notes from five years a variety of notes from five years ago and one of the most successful things we did was to try and make things we did was to try and make sure that Statutory Sick Pay that we supported employers in that deployment of it by making sure deployment of it by making sure people could stay-at-home and not be spreading coronavirus at work.

For spreading coronavirus at work. For me that reinforced something that was obviously made sense of the country as a whole in terms of public health but also that it was public health but also that it was fair. It was fair to businesses that while the country was being asked to do something they were being asked do something they were being asked to do something as employers it was fair that the government helped with the cost of doing that. One of the the cost of doing that.

One of the things in this entire debate is all about the Fair Work Agency, about about the Fair Work Agency, about this is fairer for employees, apparently it will be fairer for employers, but actually I do recall, I don't want to repeat exactly what I said before on this, I do recall when they used to be in debate to try and recognise that this was the bare minimum by the way of course many employers pay a lot more than Statutory Sick Pay rates. It was that co-working in terms of recognising the people do believe they should be continue to pay when they are off ill but also that the government has an interest in that as well.

That's why I was particularly keen to sign the amendment of 30, unconscious some of the details could be worked out fine a point, but also amendment 28 in the name of my noble friend on the frontbench. Of the variety of changes that are happening through this bill which I remind the House could have been done through Statutory Instrument, the move to Statutory Instrument, the move to one of these when it comes to Statutory Sick Pay for one day, from Statutory Sick Pay for one day, from day one really has come up time and time again with most of the employers that I have met or have employers that I have met or have heard from.

The impact is really worrying to kilolitre people in the hospitality sector and the retail hospitality sector and the retail sector and so on, I just feel this is a step backwards too far in terms of going straight to day one that's of going straight to day one that's why I'm supporting my friends in the frontbench.
17:44
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
In the evidence and analysis document the government very helpfully gave out to us last week, it notes that up to 1.3 million employees will get a new entitlement Statutory Sick Pay and that will increase the amount of sick pay workers received by around 400 million year and in many ways face value you can think this is very positive step forward. But actually in that same document brought up some cultural issues which I would just like the Minister to reflect on whether day one will help tackle them.

It notes that employers, sorry that stress and depression and anxiety accounted for 17.5 accounted for 17.5 million working days lost in 22/23, the equivalent of the loss of 5.2 billion in output per year. And I did wonder whether there is a danger that one of the unintended consequences of this move that the amendments are trying to counter day one sickness would be to encourage people to to easily see themselves as not fit for work and I wondered whether the Minister could answer that.

In the same document it says that measures to improve workers well-being will result in happier, healthier and more productive workers, that could be worth billions of pounds per year which seems rather far-fetched. One of the things it might mean is that people actually just more easily go on the sick. I don't mean because they are in any way shirkers, but because we are creating a culture where that is are creating a culture where that is Following on from the noble Baroness I thought that the points about lockdown was actually that we encouraged particularly young people to think that if they got the slightest hint of being ill that they should not go in to work and we somehow have created a situation in which whereby we have made it OK for people to not go to work and I just thought that one of the shocking statistics that came out recently in a different context.

Last year 63,000 students went straight from university onto long-term sickness benefit, and that number of 24 to 34-year-olds in capacity benefits has risen by 69% in five years. My concern is that young people are now being almost incorporated into imagining that they can't cope with going to work. I know the Government knows this because I have listened to both the debate on welfare reforms, I have listened to the Health Secretary who said very similar things. My question to the noble Baroness the Minister is say the Government is successful in encouraging those young people that are waiting and have potential, the encourage them, they get a job, they turn up at work and on day one they go back on the sea, so you get them off the sick and then you put them into a position where you say OK, you can go on the sick again.

It does not seem to me to be a rejoined upset of thinking. I just wondered if the Minister might comment on some of the unintended cultural consequences of something that looks like a good idea, but actually might be disastrous. be disastrous.
17:48
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I would like to speak on the important topic of Statutory Sick Pay, particularly relating to amendments in this group and I thank the Baroness Coffey for signing the amendment. And I did listen to her very closely at committee stage and again to get a flavour of what I am about to say now because she does have an excellent overview on these matters and I think the House would listen and burn as noble thought her forensic examination that this should never be undermined, these are emotional but there are costs to anything that anybody does and it is important that we understand where that balance lies, so I will speak predominantly to amendment 30 in my name which is a probing amendment.

We recognise that there are challenges available to those with different obligations depending on business sizes, and for that reason we will intend to press on this amendment for a division, however this amendment highlights the importance of recognising the potential impact that this might have on small and medium-sized enterprises with the costs they incur through Statutory Sick Pay. SMEs from the backbone of our economy and it is essential the Government policy takes full account of the financial pressures the businesses face expanding Statutory Sick Pay is an important and welcome goal and must be done with careful consideration about the additional costs and how they look at the prospects of SMEs, that is why meaningful consultation with these businesses throughout the implementation process is critical.

The Government should act actively with SMEs to ensure their concerns are understood and addressed so that any changes to Statutory Sick Pay are substantial and do not inadvertently place unburdened dues on a very common business the very people that are trying to drive them. I would ask that minister to confirm that as the Government continues to conduct its thorough consultation as part of the implementation of this bill, it does so directly and in close alignment with small and medium-sized businesses, not during the passage of the bill but throughout its full implementation.

Could the Minister provide reassurance that SMEs voices will be heard and their concerns will be addressed as the policy is ruled out because it is only through partnership with the SME community that we can ensure the statutory sick basis is fair for workers as a for business and I look forward to the Minister's response. the Minister's response.
17:50
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this, so if we start with amendment 28 which looks at retaining the waiting period, the Government believes that removing the waiting period is essential in ensuring that all eligible employees get the time of work to recover that they require 106. That is what they committed to in the manifesto. This is particularly true for employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions that should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition or to prevent it from worsening.

And I have to say that the Noble Lord hunt said that the one day waiting period that he was proposing should not be the punishment but I have to say that is exactly what it would be under the proposals before us here. It is also worth saying that on the 25% of all employees work receiving only Statutory Sick Pay and many are forced to choose between their health and a genuine financial hardship during the first three days of sickness while they are not paid.

And make a tangible difference in ensuring the safety of sick pay is available to those that need it most. I understand that the Noble Lord is concerned about the wider impact on the business in these changes but without the amendments in the waiting period many employees will be forced to continue to come into the workforce when, in the workplace, when they are sick. The pandemic exposed how damaging this can be for businesses for individuals with WPI Economics modelling telling us that this can lead up to 12% of the work was becoming sick from the illness of a single employee.

While businesses may benefit from the overall productivity which can also contribute to a positive work culture that helps recruit and maintain staff. Of course, as we debated before, employers will need to manage sickness absence as they do at the moment. And I did listen to the Noble Lady Baroness Fox on the cultural issues and I would say that yes, some of those things that she identifies are real issues and these are things we are addressing across Government and providing ministerial colleagues plan to do that, but that does not alter that in this bill at the time this makes good sense to the lowest paid and I would remind noble Lords that the additional cost of the business of Statutory Sick Pay performing annually, air £15 per employer, by the DWP and the do have a reasonable track record and I do not think that those figures should be dismissed.

Turning to amendment 29 which seeks to exempt employers from having to pay the rate outlined if there already provided contractual schemes based on 80% of normal weekly earnings. The rate of Statutory Sick Pay is set out in this bill is the lower of 80% for employers on weekly earnings or £118.75. This already means that no employer will have to pay more than 80% for the employees normal weekly earnings, therefore an employer already befitting 80% of employees weekly earnings would be compliant with the statutory minimum set out in this bill.

As such, I am unclear on the intended impact of unclear on the intended impact of this amendment on employers as the entitlement but if we now turn in the probing amendment as I mentioned the changes we are making to Statutory Sick Pay will cost businesses around £15 per employee cost of this relatively modest amount with the costs of up to 600 million per yer for the sick pay at SMEs. And I accept the amendments that it this will depend on the complexity of the scheme.

However, we do have experience with these schemes and we previously delivered sick pay to those such as the percentage thresholds in the scheme and a review found that employers under used it and found it was complex and time-consuming to administer. Any system that maximises opportunity which I envisage would be that noble Lords intent of this amendment would collectively be costly for the taxpayer as well. Whereas the cost saving for individual employers is small and new administrative burden would be placed on them.

Previously schemes did not incentivise employers to support their employees back to work or invest in their employers health and well-being. This, in turn, can affect overall productivity and staff retention and we know that employers have responsibility for paying six pay and that maintains a strong link between the workplace and employee with workers encouraged to return to work when they are able and this I would also like to add that the Government have asked them to lead the keep Britain working review which will consider additions and how employers and the Government can work together to promote healthy workplaces and a final report with recommendations is expected in the autumn.

I therefore do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time and in response to the Noble Lord Goddard of course we are continuing to hand dial with SMEs and take their concerns very seriously at this time, I therefore ask the Noble Lord shop and Lord Goddard to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw their amendment. I would like to thank all noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. And I am particularly this debate. And I am particularly grateful to my Noble Friend for reminding us all that one of the reminding us all that one of the great difficulties we have in great difficulties we have in debating a subject like this is the lack of a reliable space and that is lack of a reliable space and that is particularly relevant to the debate on these amendments.

And I also on these amendments. And I also found that the local baroness, quite found that the local baroness, quite rightly, drew our attention to the rightly, drew our attention to the unintended cultural issues which have poured so much into the noble Baroness the Minister having just Baroness the Minister having just referred to. But I do remain wholly unconvinced by the noble Baroness the Minister's response when the Minister's response when debating the removal of the waiting period for Statutory Sick Pay.

I just think that to remove any waiting period at all to introduce a day one entitlement without qualification is not just a step too far but an unnecessary one, having at least one waiting day does not undermine the government's stated intentions to support those who are genuinely unwell. It is a modest safeguard and one that reflects the balance they claim to seek. It's removal creates perverse incentives at a time when we should be doing all that we can to encourage people back into work.

And on the issue of agency work and Statutory Sick Pay I must say the Ministers response is equally unconvincing, and I did try to outline the scenario where individuals go off sick and then begin new assignments on continuing to receive sick pay from another employer and I do not believe the noble Baroness to minister could quickly address that point. And may I suggest to her that we ought to put our heads together and try and find another solution.

And I just think having listened carefully to the systemwide mechanism possibly administered by HMRC to cross check
17:59
18:01
18:01
18:02
18:02
None Portrait Amendment:31 Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-

protections for kinship carers. It is long overdue that we legally recognise and reward the grandparents, the aunts, the uncles grandparents, the aunts, the uncles and other relatives who step in as and other relatives who step in as carers. Over 130,000 children in the carers. Over 130,000 children in the UK are in kinship care amazingly, three times the number that are in foster care. When family crises occur and they do occur, it is often kinship carers who step up to the plate preventing from being swept up into the formal care system.

The amendment 31 and 32 would allow families a breathing space in order to adjust and most importantly support the well-being of the child. Supported kinship care is cost- effective by reducing on an over tasked care system for is time to be compassionate for everyone's long- term benefit. I may well ask vote on this at the end. I would also like in this group to look at the government's amendment 34 which extends bereavement to include pregnancy loss. This amendment I will commend to the House.

Amendment 97 which we are not debating, not voting on now because has been the group in the name of Baroness Grey- Thompson gives a statutory right for paid leave for working parents who are forced to stop working to care for critically ill child over 28 days old. And described as Hughes law of the one he suffered in this way. I commend this amendment which will get you when it gets to its place in the grouping but it was originally in the section.

I now turn to to another amendments in my name, amendment 104, which is statutory carers leave. We are a great deal to unpaid carers who are the backbone of our society. Their support is worth a staggering £184 million a year to older, ill or disabled relatives or friends, support without which society would collapse. The reality is however this comes at a cost to them, around 600 per day give up work to care. 1.2 million face poverty and financial hardship research shows that the majority do not have a choice about caring because there are no terraces available.

Employers are losing skill labour every day because of caring. And the cost to their productivity. Some small employers which we spent a lot of time talking about losing skill workers can have an even bigger impact this amendment in my name provides the government to -- requires the government to publish data for employers particularly small employers. There is insufficient social care to plug the gap. Supporting carers sustain employment is cost-effective and many carers have told Carers UK they want to stay in work.

Polling carried out by Carers UK found that 80 8% of unpaid carers of working age said they needed paid carers leave the amendment we brought forward at committee has been refined for the better. Having received comments from the Minister that the original drafting old -- aligned the entitlements with statutory carers leave pay with other similar statutory entitlements. However very modest and would reflect critical step forward for unpaid carers. The modest entitlement would normally only be up to five days of paid leave, described as a week and a week may be described as up to five days.

Which is what is set out in the carers leave government can set the statutory rate of pay, the rate of statutory pay which again it could decide at what rate this assert. The estimated cost of statutory power carers leave based on Carers UK estimates are between £5,000,000.30 £2 million per annum and this is based on actual take-up rates of carers leave with employers. Centrica has two weeks of paid carers leave full pay but a further two weeks of matched leave. In Carers UK report, just 3.4 days are taken on average by employees as carers leave.

Government estimate of the cost of carers inability to work the cost of carers inability to work is £37 billion, the personal cost is even greater if carers have to give up work as they do in order to care. In advance of this bill Carers UK have been talking to carers about what paid carers leave would mean. One carer who is a bus driver has not had a holiday in seven years because of caring. He takes annual leave first because it's paid, then unpaid leave if he has to.

Work is extremely important to him and he says it keeps him going but he says it's hard caring for two people without a break. He has been to his counsel and he doesn't get much support. He is still waiting because the more trained care workers his son needs are not available. Another carer who works in the NHS is struggling to work in care, but he doesn't have paid carers leave. This leaves her burnt out and exhausted and she has to take her annual leave.

We cannot afford to lose valuable NHS staff as a result of providing unpaid carers. Paid carers leave is vital for those who cannot afford to take unpaid leave. What hope can the government give to people like this who juggle every day who need to support -- support like paid carers leave to care and keep working. Will the government go one step further to commit to building on the Carers Leave Act 2023 and introduce paid carers leave? Given that parental leave review has been published for consultation and engagement, can the Minister tell, and the House, what is the government message to unpaid carers and review of carers leave? Well the objectives and timetable be published, will the report and engagement be published? The carers are a valuable resource, they are not appreciated and it's time we in this House started appreciating
18:09
None Portrait Deputy Lord Speaker. Baroness Bull (Crossbench)
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

them. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, article 17
18:09
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, article 17 insert the new clause is printed on the marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to the two amendments I have tabled and I will amendments I have tabled and I will start by saying the loss of Eddie's potential child is a massive grief I understand entirely why this bill has been brought forward. It was the Mr Wright honourable friend Jeremy Hunt to commission the independent review into pregnancy loss several years ago in a variety of actions have taken place including particularly thinking people with miscarriages because by law a stillbirth is anything from 24 weeks onwards, being able to register and effectively have a birth certificate in the same way for people who lose their foetus after 24 weeks was a good thing to do.

The reason for me standing today is to try and get some clarity from the government on what it is they are actually proposing. If this specific mentioned miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy or polar pregnancy I would not be standing up today although I would like to get some understanding for a amendment 35. Perhaps I will start with that first. I would be very grateful to the Minister to explain on amendment 34 what three AB is. The employee satisfies specified conditions as to relationship with a person who has suffered a pregnancy loss or child expected to be born had a pregnancy loss specified kind not occurred.

It would be useful to understand from the Minister why it's not been put on the face of the bill who this is expected to extend to, I don't know if it's the father, I don't know if it's a donor, I don't know if it's a sibling, I don't know if it's a grandmother, grandfather and so on. It would be useful to get a sense from the government that in this difficult time I completely understand why we want, they want to extend the bereavement for this very difficult moment and it isn't just the mother but it would be useful to get a sense from the government on that.

Probably the main reason I stood up today is my Amendment paragraph... Amendment 41. In particular this is defining the pregnancy loss to mean the end of a pregnancy less than 24 weeks of pregnancy anyway other than live birth will be the failure of an embryo to become implanted following a transfer carried out in the course of providing treatment services within the HFEA 1990. It feels genuinely want to understand from the government, unconscious it was a women and equality Select Committee report that made these recommendations, but to really understand what is in the mind of the government today.

It's quite a moment to in effect use an Employment Rights Bill to define in effect what a pregnancy is. The particular on the IVF, I know many people who have been through IVF and of course have disappointment when it doesn't work that month or that year and they will try again, but if I think about the fact that, I shed the statistics, it's roughly about 30% of IVF treatments are successful and so this leaves a whole range of other situations where this transplant hasn't happened and as I say, I'm somewhat concerned that almost the redefinition of pregnancy in this regard when we are considering the body of all women.

Furthermore when it comes to the ending of her pregnancy in anyway other than live birth, the last statistics published by the pardon for health and social care for 2022 stated that there were basically 1/4 of a million abortions in this country. Was up 17% from the before. Meanwhile specifically referred to, and again I can understand entirely aspects of fatal anomaly or risks to the health of the mother, according to Department of Health & Social Care statistics published and referenced in the common Select Committee report that was 3,300 abortions.

3,300 compared to 1/4 of a million is a very significant difference. As it stands today anyone who had an abortion, a legal abortion, would be counted in that statistic. Also I'm not aware the Department of Health & Social Care has yet decided how it is going to count in it statistics the number of abortions for pills through the post at the moment it doesn't count the number of pills even issued. I'm trying to get clarity from the government, is it really its intention that the person who had the abortion up to 1/4 million per year, would be entitled to bereavement? -- Leave.

Because that is what this primary legislation is saying. On other issues in this bill all sorts of things are being put in Henry VIII powers or regulations or other conditions, I'm seeking to understand why the government feels that this should be on the face of the bill. Obviously every loss undoubtedly brings horrific grief, I know I've had to care for people in that situation and similar and I understand why this is going ahead and despite the potential for sickness leave being open, recognising under the Equality Act any discrimination would be against the law, so I understand the steps the government is taking I be grateful for genuine huge level of detail on what is this setting out today in primary legislation.

I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to move my moment. I just speak in support of Amendment 104 to which I added my name, I don't intend to repeat the name, I don't intend to repeat the case of paid carers leaving committee unless has been put by committee unless has been put by committee unless has been put by Still unclear as to why the Government in effect questions this, having made a commitment on a number of occasions to paid leave to of occasions to paid leave to demonstrate by various quotes about Frontbench books people that I and Lord Young of Cookham presented in Lord Young of Cookham presented in committee.

My Noble Friend rejected
18:16
Baroness Lister of Burtersett Portrait Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Labour)
-
-
committee. My Noble Friend rejected an earlier amendment that occurred on the grounds of business, especially small business, and as we would create a situation of differential treatment. Current amendments, though detailed, as I understand it, commits the Government to the principal of paid carers leave, the principle that had, previously, been accepted, and that leave to regulations the details of how paid leave would be designed. And as regards to the cost of business, as I said in the committee, many employers are very supportive and the consultation of its members found the support among SMEs was not much lower than among large employers.

While it is welcome that the Government are reviewing carers leave to see whether further support is needed, surely there is more than enough evidence already that to be effective in supporting carers leave needs to be paid. Does any review need to focus on how that is best done rather than whether it is needed. That said, cut my Noble Friend tell us more about this and to echo the Noble Lord Palma and, in particular, what are his terms of reference and objectives, what was the timeline? Will the outcome be published and debated in Parliament? The porosity of information about the review is appalling with the recent statement about parental leave review.

So, in conclusion, if my Noble Friend is unable to accept the amendment, and I cannot graduate, will he at least put on the record government's commitment to paid carers leave as set out in the New Deal and will he provide us with a request for information about the review of the carers leave act?
18:18
Baroness Tyler of Enfield Portrait Baroness Tyler of Enfield (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I rise to speak to amendment 104 as well in the name of my Noble Friend Lord Palmer to which I have also added my name and I apologise I have been unable to speak in earlier stages of the bill. I would also like to express my very strong support for immanence 31 and 32 regarding kinship carers. I have spent a lot of time in the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill and we spend a lot of time talking about the importance of kinship carers.

I think that we need to see joint between that bill and this bill so that kinship carers that play such a critical role get the support they need. On amendment 104, the proposal for paid carers leave, which I thought was set out admirably by my Noble Friend Lord Palmer, it is, I think it is clear, it is both a modest proposition but it is also incredibly important to unpaid carers trying to juggle this as we have heard during the current provision which is under five days of leave which are set out in the carers act, so it is already a clearly defined right into a statutory pay.

If you have supported a relative that needs care and worked at the same time, many of us, myself included have, you know how time important it is, how it is an incredible juggling act, and also how the paid carers leave can make a real difference. I have spoken to those directly that do not have paid leave in the workplace and that they see it is both exhausting, they never get a proper holiday, and whilst unpaid leave it is a useful step forward, it is important, the unpaid nature can be challenging.

But, as we have heard, a number of employers who already voluntarily embrace paid carers leave because they understand the beneficial impact it has particularly on productivity and staff retention. And there are also some examples of good practice and we have already heard, I would just mention very briefly offering to week so paid leave and recently added five days more leave, days of unpaid leave, 6% of colleagues took the offer and an average rate of 2.64 days, we are not talking an open cheque here.

We have, as the group said, the employer said, we have extremely positive feedback from our colleagues and there have only been benefits to the business as a whole. And it quite rightly would support workers, young carers, all the workers, it would be positive for all ages and gender policy, but the reality is that women are more likely to be carers and more likely to be at risk of working part-time with lower incomes in retirement, so, paid carers leave is a positive equality policy.

The final point I wanted to make is about what is happening internationally. There is a move to deliver more paid carers work support, recognising the ageing societies the greater proportion of retirement to workers and the imperative for people actually to be working for longer. Australia and Germany have 10 days of paid carers leave and Germany has longer provisions as well. And it is seen in those countries as an important strand of reducing economic inactivity, something that we badly need to do here as the Treasury, quite rightly, reminds us, but with a shortage of social care and carers taking on more hours of care, there is a huge need to ensure that unpaid carers are supported to work to juggle, are supported to juggle work and care and responsibilities.

It is not nice to have, it is absolutely essential. So, I will finish with that word, and it is a real-world example of Michelle White from the TSB who is happy to have her name quoted, and she says. Carers leave provides a vital lifeline in my ability to care for my sister, often at short notice, and we would both struggle without it. This important measure allows me to provide support during an emergency and to be there when it matters with peace of mind that my career will not be jeopardised simply because I am a carer.

I cannot speak highly enough about paid carers leave and the need for all carers to be supported in this way, working with a businesslike TSB that recognises carers and offers this type of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions in this debate, in particular the Noble Lord Palma for his very thoughtful introduction. And these amendments introduction. And these amendments do raise of cause and issue of great clarity, that is kinship carers, family members that step up, often at short notice and with immense at short notice and with immense personal sacrifice to care for a child that cannot remain with their parents. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that kinship carers
18:24
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
anyone's mind that kinship carers perform a vital role and those fostering for adoption. These proposals seem to address that gap for the creation of a statutory kinship carers leave, mirroring, in some respects, entitlement such as maternity or adoption leave. It is a seriously thoughtful contradiction to how we support informal family networks, caring for them. And this is, of course, with the of respect for that consideration but while we see this as important we must also take account and we have concerns, as others have expressed, about the cumulative burdens being placed on businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises by the Government and we are debating this in the context in which the Government has already proposed or is proposing to propose the costly new limitations on employers and we were talking in the last group about Statutory Sick Pay, cancelled shifts with undefined notice periods, and now potentially a new category that may extend up to 22 weeks with full employment protections and return to work guarantees.

Each of these measures in isolation may be defensible and even commendable, but when taken together they were present heavy financial and administrative load, especially for small businesses and particularly in the retail hospitality and service sectors, many of which are still struggling with the pandemic and ongoing and increasing cost pressures. And in the case of kinship carers leave the details are vague and leave employers in the dark as to how it will work in practice. What counts as evidence of an eligible arrangement will be paid and if so, by whom? What safeguards exist to prevent abuse? And these are all questions that must be asked before we can impose another legal obligation.

We have to also be honest about Tim timing, even though the time it remains fragile and many small businesses operate in just a few % and for a family run Cornershop or a cafe with small staff that loss of one employee for several months can be devastating, particularly if there is no clear mechanism for support, or indeed to backfill that position, so while we respect and indeed my at the intent behind these amendment we must with them up against the real world pressures, this is not the return to impose potentially costly and poorly defined statutory requirements, especially if they are unclear and how they will be implemented.

We need to supported your character let's be doing so in a way that is fair to employers as well as families. Government amendment 34, my Noble Friend Baroness Coffey has raised some very important questions and I very much look forward to the answers. What I would like to know is does the amendment just cover termination on the grounds of faecal anomaly or medical reasons or does the rest of the subject get taken in by that rather catch all phrase pregnancy loss of the specified kind.

Could the Government Noble Lord the Minister please some information as to what he thinks is behind the meaning of the specified kind. And, finally, I note that the Noble Lady the Baroness Minister has asked for details about the review and I have to tell the Noble Lady having been present third all of the debates positive information is a recurring theme of the bill but I am also keen to hear what the Noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

course. I am grateful to all noble Lords

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am grateful to all noble Lords that have spoken, Baroness Lister and Baroness Tyler and also the and Baroness Tyler and also the Noble Lord Sharpe of Epsom. Let me
18:27
18:28
18:28
None Portrait Government Spokes. Lord Leong (Labour)
-

begin by giving my thanks to the returnable Sir Davey head of the Liberal Democrats who has so Liberal Democrats who has so powerfully shared his personal experiences of kinship care and of experiences of kinship care and of being a carer himself. This is, has brought much-needed attention to the importance of control care and supporting caregivers across the United Kingdom and I think it is United Kingdom and I think it is important for me to address that. The Government really appreciate the role that kinship carers play in offering learning for children that cannot live with their parents.

And I sure that your Lordships has I sure that your Lordships has shares this sentiment. We also note that the system needs improvement because it does not support working because it does not support working families as well as it could. This is why we have already begun work to improve the system of kinship carers, starting with the government's Children's Wellbeing government's Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill as alluded to by the burners that will create a legal the burners that will create a legal definition of kinship care to ensure consistency in how local authorities identify and support kinship and families and that is why we have to work across Government in this area.

I am pleased to say that the Government has announced £40 million package to pilot a new kinship allowance which is due to commence later this year. This is the single biggest investment made by Government on kinship carers today. The Government recently launched parental leave review which also represents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to all systems of parental leave and pay and Baroness Lister and I think Baroness Tyler also discussed about the terms of reference and how long the review will be.

The terms of reference is published online and this review is expected to last 18 months. So that we can speak to stakeholders and various charities and come to some form of decision at a much later stage. All current and upcoming parental care will be within the scope of the curriculum and also will consider the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers. Creating an entitlement for kinship carers would pre-empt that review before they have a chance to consider support for kinship carers within the context of wider parental leave and pay landscaping.

Let me now turn to the Noble Lord Palma amendment 14 which would introduce the statutory entitlement for unpaid carers to receive a fixed and earnings -related amount of pay whilst taking carers leave. The Noble Lord Palma spoke with passion on the contributions paid by millions of unpaid carers during debates on this bill and we recognise the tireless work by him, the MPs, and the Liberal Democrats to keep the supported issue on the agenda. I am clear that the covenant is committed to providing vital support to their working lives.

Whilst we recognise the changes to this amendment, since it was previously brought forward in committee, there remains significant concerns. Firstly, it gives no consideration to the eligibility of who would be entitled to paid carers leave which may need to defer from current eligibility or unpaid carers leave and what evidence may need to be supplied to justify that There is also a lack of clarity regarding who shall the cast, whether it will beat businesses. In its current form the proposal appears to suggest that businesses will need to cover this paid entitlement.

Considering the lack of clarity regarding eligibility and evidence, the cost of business is unclear. We need to ensure attentional impacts, particularly on small businesses, are carefully considered. The work also needs to be done to establish what forms of support and what is an official to help unpaid carers balance care and work. We know from engaging in carers and carers charities that unpaid carers are not a group that made the same support. During a series of roundtables we heard about carer breaks, paid leave and improved awareness.

We have seen improved awareness. We have seen specific tasks on support of those caring for seriously ill children and end-of-life care. Different carers have different needs and we must work out which interventions would be most effective before we legislate. Whilst the government cannot support this amendment for this reason, we are fully committed this reason, we are fully committed to ensuring that unpaid carers can combine work with their caring responsibilities. That is why we are reviewing the implementation of carer's leave in considering whether further support is needed, including potential options for paid leave whilst being mindful of the impact of any change small employers.

We must allow this review to run its course in order to ensure that we make a considered evidence-based decision about what further support would most benefit unpaid carers. However, we appreciate the depth and strength of feeling on this issue in your Lordships House, as demonstrated by the contributions made by several noble lords this evening. We have listened carefully to these debates and understand that this is an issue on which carers and employers want further clarity. As a result of the powerful and persuasive arguments made in this House, I can say now that we will take steps to formalise and enhance transparency and information available regarding the review by setting out a clear timeline for the remainder of the review in autumn this year.

We will also run a public consultation in 2026 on employment support for carers balancing work with care. This will provide the public, including carers, charities and businesses, the opportunity to directly share their views on how employers should best support carers in the workplace. I hope this assurance to the House demonstrate our willingness to engage openly and honestly with all stakeholders honestly with all stakeholders throughout this review. I would also reiterate once again that this government is wholly committed to supporting unpaid carers and as such has offered new opportunities to ensure that all views on that support are carefully considered.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very sorry to into stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm very sorry to into stop before my noble friend sits down, I welcome what he says about being more transparent. Did he say that more transparent. Did he say that clear terms of reference be set out and the review will be published and we will be able to debated in Parliament?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lady for that point. I said earlier that the terms of reference is available and also the review will last for 18 months. the review will last for 18 months. Anyone who wants to contribute to the review can do so and hopefully

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the review can do so and hopefully we will publish the review in due course. That is the parental leave review, I'm talking about the review, I'm talking about the carer's leave review. He said he would be more transparent about it would be more transparent about it at the end of his speech. If he could elaborate on that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry about that. We will address this as and when this legislation has got Royal Assent. We will formalise the terms of reference, too, and we will ensure that too, and we will ensure that information is made public so that everyone can have a look at this review. So, my lords, however this amendment poses challenges and presupposes the conclusion of the ongoing review. I now turn to the exceptionally important topic of bereavement leave for the loss of a pregnancy.

The amendments the government have made has extended protected time of degree the loss of a pregnancy over 24 weeks. The important work has highlighted the gap of support in those experiencing pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. I pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. I pay tribute to my colleague who shared her personal experiences. The loss of a baby at any stage is incredibly difficult and tragic. The government recognises that pregnancy loss is a bereavement.

These amendments will ensure that all employees can have time away from work to grieve and recover when they need it most. In line with bereavement leave the amendments provide for a minimum of one week's leave, a minimum of 856 day window to take the leave and protections around redundancy and dismissal. The amendments allow for the pregnancy laws that will be in scope to be explored at consultation. IVF and embryo transfer loss is specifically referenced to ensure that there is the power to include this in secondary legislation if decided after consultation.

In regards to amendment 104, removing the definition of pregnancy laws entirely would mean we would not be able to consider providing for certain areas such as IVF and transfer loss and to properly consult with all those affected. No definition on the face of the bill would lead to uncertainty or what be captured in regulations and that includes abortion. It will limit our ability to look at the full scope of scenarios. The government cannot accept this amendment. It's vital we consider the full range of scenarios that could be in scope in partnership with those impacted.

Other details of entitlement including eligibility, total duration of leave and the type of pregnancy loss in scope will be defined in secondary legislation. Due to the sensitive and personal nature of bereavement for pregnancy loss, it is important to consult stakeholders on the specifics of the entitlement to ensure the policy properly reflects and is sensitive to the needs of employers and employees. Regarding eligibility the government amendments include provisions to ensure there is the ability for entitlement to also apply to partners or surrogacy arrangements if found to be appropriate after consultation.

Baroness Coffey's amendment would remove this definition which would narrow possible eligibility to any those who have directly suffered the pregnancy loss. We know from the testament to -- we know the devastating effect that pregnancy loss can have on fathers, partners and families. Grief is not confined just to the woman carrying the baby. Therefore we cannot accept this amendment as it is only right that it is considered at consultation in conversation with those affected. By defining details such as eligibility in secondary legislation following consultation rather than on the face of this bill we can ensure that an entitlement considers those impacted in a wide range of views and has the flexibility to be updated over time as a legislative landscape society evolves.

The government amendments recognise a profound impact and heartbreak that can accompany and see loss whilst also addressing the stigma that accompanies it. The government is ensuring all employees have the right to bereavement leave. Bereavement is not an illness or a holiday and it needs its own special category of treatment and with that I must ask that the noble Lord Lord Palmer withdrawals amendment 31 and I beg to move amendments 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Minister was helpful in saying who he felt the in the scope saying who he felt the in the scope of other people to be specified. He has not really talked about what he thinks would be the scope of the abortions. Is he looking to make this 1/4 of a million, or are we this 1/4 of a million, or are we talking about 3,300 where there is a talking about 3,300 where there is a feat or a loamy -- weather is a full

**** Possible New Speaker ****

-- where there is a fee to anomaly? Hopefully we have looked at that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hopefully we have looked at that. I beg to move amendments 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

39 and 40. I thank the Minister of the government benches, particularly for the kind words and true words about the kind words and true words about the activities of certain Davey and highlighting that carers have a
18:42
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
highlighting that carers have a value in society. I thank Baroness Tyler who explained better than I about kinship carers and paid carer's leave. I would like to thank Baroness Coffey for asking for clarity from the government because I don't think there really is clarity. And as usual, thanking Baroness Lister. Stressing that we need the principles of carer's leave to be very practical and asking for the terms of reference, which I think are not clear. Lord Sharpe in his contribution really focused on the cost of these amendments.

I think on unpaid carers leave the amendment requires employers to pay but they can be recompense via HMRC and the government. This could lead to a happier workforce and people will gain very much more from it. When we talk about kinship care or paid carer's leave, it is not just in isolation. The NHS is under considerable stress. It's under considerable stress and if you don't have the input from carers who have given -- you are given some recompense for that caring, the NHS will collapse even more than it is collapsing now.

It is not just something that is being generous, it is practical to make the NHS better, to make caring better and to make the work of grandparents, uncles, aunts and others who do this work to be appreciated in some way. I thank the Minister for saying that there is a review and things are going to change and I hope this debate will focus the government's mind on it. On that basis wish to test the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

feelings of the House. The question is that the amendment 30 1B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The question will be
18:44
None Portrait Division
-

content". The question will be decided by a division. I will advise Voting Voting is Voting is now Voting is now open. Voting is now open. Clear Voting is now open. Clear the Voting is now open. Clear the bar.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 31

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to, As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to the left

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment The question is that amendment 31

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They They have They have voted They have voted content They have voted content 65,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted content 65, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

They have voted content 65, not content 170. The not contents have Amendment Amendment 32, Amendment 32, Lord Amendment 32, Lord Palmer. Amendment 32, Lord Palmer. Not Amendment 32, Lord Palmer. Not moved. Amendment 33, Baroness Jones moved. Amendment 33, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. Move formally? The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

Amendment 34, move contents have it. Amendment 34, move formally? Amendment 35 as an formally? Amendment 35 as an amendment to 34, Baroness Coffey. Not moved. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. As many amendment 34 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendments 36 through 39 move formally on block? The question is that amendments 36 through 39 be moved formally on block, as many of that opinion -- As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content".

Of the contrary, "Not content". Amendment 40, moved formally? Amendment 41 as an amendment to amendment 40, not moved. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. We now come to amendment 42, Lord Hogan-Howe.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this amendment in my name and that of Lord Evans who support I and that of Lord Evans who support I appreciate. This amendment seeks to extend a group of people in the extend a group of people in the criminal justice system who have the right to time off to fulfil their right to time off to fulfil their duties as a special constable. I
18:57
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
duties as a special constable. I should've waited. In 2018, section 50 of the Employment Bill was amended to include lay observers in prisons, immigration visiting committees for immigration centres and short-term holding facilities. This added to the right of magistrates and justices of the peace to take time off from their employment. Each of these volunteering groups are essential to the effective functioning of the criminal justice system. But so are the special constables who have existence have been created by the special constables act of 1831, although today's version was created by the police act of 1964.

In my view, special constables are special by name and special by nature. They are unpaid volunteers, they have all the powers of regular constables to arrest, to search and do many more things constable has the power to do. And they take all the risk that their colleagues take of being stabbed, assaulted, people abusing them and basically they put their lives on the line in the same way that people like the RNLI do on our behalf too. They aren't paid, they are paid expenses, but this covers their outgoings, they make no profit.

After being trained, they are usually expected to be on duty for at least four hours a month, but most do very much more than this. Some work every weekend, some during breaks in employment and at that time, they often work almost full- time hours. They were designed to be contingency for war, backfilling the police officers who would be expected to join the armed forces. We might think that at the moment this is particularly at the site given the situation in Ukraine and the general threat from Russia.

Only last week the government published a resilience plan to prepare our emergency and civil defence response for a high level of threat from multiple risks that exist. Specials are part of that national contingency when we deploy our armed forces. They are the most visible representation of community policing. Giving of themselves without payment to stop crime and keep order. For me they have always been away to have the community and the police station. Holding the regular colleagues to account and not captured by the prevalent police culture.

Almost 8 pre-body one video. The government has a commitment to neighbourhood policing with the promise to deliver more in the next few years. This comprises regulars, community support officers and specials constabulary. If they can't recruit or contain three special constables, they will need larger funding for police officers and police community support officers. And yet presently their numbers are dropping dramatically. In September 2023, there were 6330. By September of the following year they gone down to 5818, but 10 years ago there were around 15,000.

In the Met at that time there were around 5,000. A very significant drop in their numbers. As far as I can determine, I can't find another police force in the world that has a sort of arrangement. You talk to Americans and New Zealanders, they think it's amazing people will go and be a police officer and take all They have achieved an awful lot as they have done all the things that we need them to do over the years.

So in this context on the grounds of equity with other volunteers in the criminal justice system surely we need to enhance the volunteer need to enhance the volunteer offered to encourage the recruitment retention and diversity of those in the special Constabulary. Some say this will be a burden on small businesses, I don't accept that. Section 50 in the act gives the right to leave for volunteering for Criminal Justice Bill and it has a reasonableness clause. So a business of the people may struggle to give any time of where as a business of 10,000 people will have more flexibility.

It's not reasonable for an employee to take time off when the business needs them or they don't have sufficient people to backfill. But they do get back a better trained, more confident individual who has a few more experiences of life which might benefit them in their employment and our society as general. The government may say that if we do this for this group of volunteers we may have to do it for others and I understand that. We do have to consider it, but in the end I do not accept it.

This reform is overdue. It is supported by the National Police Chiefs Council and the own body of the specials. There is a gap in recruitment and retention and the time to do something about it is now. Michael for members of this House to support this amendment and therefore pack the special Constabulary after the over 100

**** Possible New Speaker ****

years they have been backing us. After clause 18 insert the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

After clause 18 insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

List. I rise to support the noble Lords amendment. It is my opportunity to pay tribute to him and the public pay tribute to him and the public service he gave as police
19:03
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park Portrait Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Conservative)
-
-
Commissioner and also in the Merseyside police, but also given the opportunity to mention my colleague Lord Sharpe and his service in the Hong Kong police back in the day. I also declare I was a special constable in the 1980s. In those days we had a number one uniform and that was it, so it was rather hot a hot sunny day. We also used to have capes which were quite handy. Nobody knew what we had our hands on.

It could be a truncheon, torch or fishing trips or fish and chips. We used to run towards danger with nothing more than a truncheon. It was a contingency of war special constables came to be in the First World War. Many police officers joined the army to fight in France and elsewhere. They had all the legal powers. The new criminal act meant they could not do what they did previously, but for us boys and girls it was interesting and we embrace the change in the spirit it was meant.

We were all unpaid volunteers serving our local communities. I served in the Cheshire Constabulary. I worked at an aircraft factory working on the nuclear deterrent at the time. I work during the day and then I used to go out at night and do a full shift, 6-10 and perhaps later. If there was a road traffic accident or someone who have gone missing, it ended up going into the early hours. I still got up and went to work. I was proud to do it, I was young, fit and healthy.

However in the strategic defence review, it does mention the importance of home defence, resilience, whole of society approach, as my noble friend the excellent point. Now is the time to consider the threats that come to our country and the role that civil defence does make and indeed the role of special constables. The whole of society approach, protecting critical national is important. The wider point is we are reliant on reservists more so than ever. If you are in the army, navy Royal Air Force, there is provision to serve the nation, but that doesn't apply to special constables, so I agree with the noble Lord.

It's the right place and right time to give the same treatment to special constables as we do to our Armed Forces reservists.
19:06
Lord Harries of Pentregarth Portrait Lord Harries of Pentregarth (Crossbench)
-
-
I would just very briefly like to say I think the principle in Lord Hogan-Howe's amendment is absolutely right. He has made a very cogent case for why special constables are indeed special and the contribution they make. 25 years ago when I was chairing the Metropolitan Police authority in London we actually reversed a situation in which the number of special constables was declining and started to increase the number. Both because of the ability to put more people on the streets, but also in terms of public engagement with the process.

I want to pick up the point that Lord Evans made, though probably use it in a different direction. He has referred to the strategic defence review. If you look at that document, if you look at the National Security Strategy, if you look at the resilience action plan published last week, all of them are talking about a new mechanism of homeland defence. Homeland Security and the importance of using more people, more of the civil resources to protect the community. It is quite clear that we are facing a world in which we are being confronted with more and more perils.

Some of them organised by hostile states, others simply by the nature of the world in which we are living. And therefore whilst I think that the principle that Lord Hogan-Howe is setting out here is extremely laudable and that people should be encouraged and given the opportunities to have time off if they are doing this sort of public service, what I would like to understand is what is the context in which this is going to happen? Are we going to be able to say in the year or two's time we have identified how we are going to use volunteers, use the public in the defence of our nation in terms of supporting the police, supporting our armed services in a much more proactive way.

I suspect that is probably something that should be done holistically rather than simply in terms of the single amendment to this bill. But having said that the principle is absolutely right. Those people who give service should be encouraged to do so and should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given the opportunity of time off. I draw noble Lords attention to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I draw noble Lords attention to my registered interest as a paid non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police Service. I fully Metropolitan Police Service. I fully support Lord Hogan-Howe's amendment. Special constables have all the Special constables have all the powers of regular officers and some are even trained in public order,
19:09
Lord Paddick Portrait Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)
-
-
are even trained in public order, able to engage policing marches and demonstrations finances feared, reducing extractions of regular community officers from their beads, to give one example. In answer to Lord Harries's comment about whether they should be part of a broader look at the issues, at a time where there is cross-party consensus that there should be more visible community policing and cross-party consensus there is not enough money to fund a number of police officers we should ideally have, to place special constables time off on the statutory footing at the cost of only expenses is something I believe deserves cross-party support.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support this amendment in the name of the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe of the noble Lord Lord Hogan-Howe and I noble friend Lord Evans. In and I noble friend Lord Evans. In doing so I feel that I am following doing so I feel that I am following modestly in a family tradition. The noble Lord I suspect is not aware that my great grandfather in the that my great grandfather in the other place introduced successfully but against much opposition a bill guaranteeing members of the police.

guaranteeing members of the police. Day of rest of duty in every week until that date someone hundred and until that date someone hundred and 15 years ago the police had no such entitlement. This amendment is less momentous than the bill but is a momentous than the bill but is a proportionate suggestion which gives proportionate suggestion which gives Employed should be able to fulfil
19:11
19:12
19:13
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
bringing forward this amendment. I'd like to thank Lord Evans for his very kind words. I rise to speak in strong support of the amendment which will provide clear statutory right for special constables to take time off for their regular employment in order to fulfil their duties under the direction of the chief officer of police. This amendment provides a modest but crucial right, protected time off to serve. It brings special constables in line with other categories of public service recognised under section 50 of the Employment Rights Act of 1996, such as magistrates and school governors.

At a time when police forces are under sustained pressure and where public trust in law enforcement depends on visible presence, supporting this is the right thing to do and is essential. We rely on these volunteers to keep our communities safe, the least we can do is to make sure they are not penalised in their day jobs. All speakers I think spoke favourably about this particular amendment. In particular I thought Lord Paddick, Lord Bailey and Lord Remick made excellent points. I would say to Lord Harries, he asked a good question and I'm keen to hear the answer, although I'm not sure the context is necessary in terms of the specials that they operate in their own context already.

However, I am interested in the homelands aspect of it all, not least because I might even volunteer.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I sent the noble Lord for tabling amendment 42 which seeks to permit a amendment 42 which seeks to permit a special constable to seek permission
19:15
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
special constable to seek permission for time off. I'd like to pay tribute to him for his services and also to many noble Lords, services we were aware of and those we were not so aware of. Lord Paddick and Lord Harries with interesting tales of his truncheon. Also Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The government recognises and values the role that special constables play in keeping our community safe. Lord Evans spoke about civic defence and this sits well alongside the commitment that the details the Prime Minister announced earlier this year of the neighbourhood policing guarantee which commits to recruiting thousands of extra officers, boosting visible policing and strengthening community engagement.

£200 million is being made available to all forces in England and Wells to fund additional policing personnel. Delivery plans have already been confirmed with all police forces across England and with up to 3,000 more labelled offices expected to be imposed by the end of the year, including 300 The contributions we have heard during this have been highly valuable. It was helpful to hear from my noble friend about the role of specials when he was chairing the Metropolitan Police authority.

I would add that outside this place we have greatly appreciated conversations with them on this matter. Furthermore, they have done a great service to this House by highlighting a broader question about the duties that employers are able to request in terms of unpaid time off work under section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The list of qualifying public duties was introduced almost 50 years ago with only minor changes made since then. It has not been comprehensively reviewed despite significant changes in the public service landscape.

To pick up on the comments of my noble friend, there is a wider context we must consider including the changing and evolving role of public duties both in terms of civic defence and other activity. As a result of the able championing and advocacy of the noble lords, I am very pleased to say the government has listened on this matter and has already commenced internal official led review into the list of duties entitled to reasonable time off work. This review is considering whether the current list of roles remain fit for purpose including the case the noble lords have put forward to add special constables to the list and indeed whether any further changes should be made.

We need to consider whether any changes to this list will deliver the intended support of public services and understand the nature of impact on businesses. A holistic review is the best route for assessing this proposal. We believe any changes the entitlement to time off for public duties should be made holistically not on a piecemeal role by role basis. Especially as we haven't undertaken such review for around half a century and that is why we are undertaking the review. The review will consider the case for special constables including alongside other roles such as on- call firefighters and Coast Guard rescue officers.

It will also look at bodies which no longer exists in the aforementioned legislation such as the education workforce Council since 2015 currently included on the list of qualifying public duties. I understand the noble Lord is concerned about the speed at which action can be taken on this. We have listened and I can confirm that officials are undertaking the review at pace. The review will be undertaken over the next six months and intend to publish a summary of the review's findings in the first half of 2026.

If changes to the list of roles are needed following the review, the government has powers to make these two secondary legislation, therefore primary legislation is not necessary. I hope this is reassuring to the noble Lord and that should the review deem the action necessary, the government can take action quickly through Statutory Instruments. Given the action the government has taken, given that we have listened to those who have made the case for special constables, but the importance of taking a holistic approach to reviewing the list of public duties, I would hope and asked the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord to withdraw amendment 42. Thank you two people are spoken, particularly thanks to the Minister, particularly thanks to the Minister, Baroness Jones and Lord Katz for all the time they've given us during the time they've given us during what is a very long bill and as needed many amendments. To provide that time, I and the other people that time, I and the other people involved to appreciate because I know it's not straightforward. Lord know it's not straightforward. Lord Evans mentioned the Cape.

I thought it was only me in the room he remembered that, but clearly not. More importantly he mentioned the
19:21
Lord Hogan-Howe Portrait Lord Hogan-Howe (Crossbench)
-
-
More importantly he mentioned the equivalence to the Armed Forces. That is a good point to make. It's a slightly different position but one to be drawn back to as a matter of conscience as we are considering this. Lord Harris made a good point about strategic defence review, but did not want the flushing out of the role. I agree with that, but I'm not sure that should stop us making progress on this particular point. Lord Paddick drew attention to the fact it's not just general patrol.

We have traffic officers, public order specialist, very good forensic accountant to professionally every day do their job and then come and help the police at the weekend to recover criminal assets, a great public service for which probably the police couldn't afford to pay. Lord Bailey mentioned about the diversity and community and one of the things in London that is relevant is that one in four of the specials are from minority communities, far better representation than the Met. Two thirds of the people the Met recruits from outside London, so there's always a challenge about getting that representation, but specials live and work in the community they serve.

When the police are paid and they can't afford to travel to an adjacent county, so you always get a special constabulary that represents better the community that they serve. Another Lord mentioned about his father, which I didn't know, and I was grateful about that day off, but I was not aware of that and that was a good thing to make sure. Many officers go through their careers with extended periods of working to the point where they can't get the days off.

That very much would be appreciated. Lord Goddard said one of the best things I like to hear witches is blindingly obvious, isn't it? Of course I would agree with that. And Lord Sharpe with his professional background supported it and I appreciate that support. Particularly on today, but generally, I suppose what my final comments would be is that the Minister was kind enough to offer a review, but we'll know in this place that reviews can be a bit vague, they can go on a while, I think it's a second one we have heard in the last hour that's being offered.

I've lost count in my short time in this place of the number of reviews were somebody said where did that get to? Has it been delivered? Has anything happened? Not as a personal matter, but I'm not entirely convinced by reviews. I go back to the spirit of what Lord Goddard said, witches that you can spend at those words sometimes trying to change something or you could simply do something. I would say that the doing here is that the regulation can be changed in the special constables can be brought into a group that already exists and for that reason I would

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like to divide the House. The questions that this amendment be agreed to. As many as are of that be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". I think The contrary, "Not content". I think The contents have it. The question will be decided by a division, I will
19:24
19:35
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-
year ago the Chancellor promised to, "Turn the page for British pubs". Rachel Reeves said Labour would revive this important institution. I think we can all agree that pubs are important institutions. Yet no sooner had she said this then she raise National Insurance contribution for employers and lower the threshold at which they are paid from 9,000 a year to 5,000. At the same time she announced the business rates relief or hospitality brought in during COVID would be cut, whilst the minimum wage would rise by 6.7%.

UK hospitality which represents parts, bars and restaurants have estimated the extra costs from the estimated the extra costs from the budget measures announced will be 3.4 billion a year. This impact is already being felt with 69,000 hospitality jobs lost since last autumn. According to the British beer and pub Association roughly one pub is set to close everyday this year. The campaign for real ill is even more gloomy. And if the forecast comes to pass, it will take the number of pubs in Britain to its lowest level in a century.

What is the government doing to save what it itself calls an important institution? Earlier this year Gareth Thomas the business minister said we are determined to make the UK the best place in the world for businesses to start and succeed, including our pubs. We are working with industry to/ red tape and to help pubs grow as part of our plan for change. Yet far from slashing red tape, clause 20, which is what we are debating here, will add a whole new ream of red tape.

As a sure my noble Lords are aware, clause 20 MNC Equality Act and make employers liable for the harassment of their employees by third parties, e.g. Customers and members of the public. Not third-party sexual harassment mind you. Employers are already liable for third-party sexual harassment, thanks to the Worker Protection Act, but nonsexual third-party harassment. I have called this the banter ban because I believe it will mean employers will be liable for jokes, remarks, ex- boss collations overheard by their employees, banter that they find offensive or upsetting by virtue of their protected characteristics.

Why do I say this? Because we know from the way the definition of harassment has constantly been expanded by the Employment Tribunal that it now encompasses overheard conversations. You can now sue your employer for failing to protect you for overhearing something uttered by another employee. The noble Lady the Minister will argue that clause 20 only requires employers to take reasonable steps to protect their employees from harassment and expecting employers to protect their employees from overhearing remarks made by customers and members of the public is not reasonable.

In short the government will argue the tribunal will not hold employers liable for indirect nonsexual harassment of their employees by third parties. This is a full salam, falls outrage. I wish I shared the noble Lady the Minister's confidence about that. I note that hospitality about that. I note that hospitality UK is not so sanguine which is why it supports amendment 43, which would absolve employers of liability for indirect third-party harassment. But if the noble Lady the Minister really believes indirect third-party harassment, overheard remarks, banter, would be out of scope, why not except my amendment? This would be a huge relief to believe Republicans who won't have to worry about employing banter bouncers and help reduce the increased insurance premiums which clause 20 will inevitably mean.

The noble Lady the Minister will say that plenty of service providers and businesses already asked customers to treat their employees with respect and do their employees with respect and do not say or do anything that could be construed as harassment, and the vast majority of customers follow this advice. I agree, but the fact that these guidelines are being voluntarily observed is a reason to not make mandatory. Isn't it preferable that customers should observe good manners out of consideration for workers not fear of being penalised for non- compliance.

If noble Earls cannot bring themselves to support my bring themselves to support my On indirect harassment, I hope they will consider seriously amendment 44, which will create a carveout for conversations or speech involving the expression of opinion on a political, moral religious or social matter, providing the opinion isn't indecent or grossly offensive. How could any noble Lord object to that? Do we want people in pubs to be constantly looking over their shoulders and lowering their voices if they express some unfashionable or contentious point of view, or do we want them to enjoy the same right to speak openly and freely on political, moral or social matters that we enjoy in this House? Every pub is a Parliament.

Let's not turn every pub into a library and accelerate the disappearance of this beloved institution. Let's remember what Samuel Johnson said about the great riches pub. As soon entered the door of a tavern, I experience oblivion of care and freedom from solicitude. There is nothing that has yet been contrived by man by which so much happiness is produced as by tavern or in. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 20, page 43, inserted as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry. In the Mirror newspaper last
19:41
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
week, clause 20 hit the headlines. Deputy Prime Minister Angela Reyna claimed that protecting employees from third-party harassment would not stop free speech and she rubbished claims that innocent workplace banter is the target. "Never should be abuse whilst doing their job but we have seen a rise in violent abuse and harassment of shopworkers and other staff." She went on to talk about those worrying about this clause as spreading made up nonsense. I feel the need to counter this misinformation because I fear Angela Rayner herself might be influenced by misinformation about what is in her own bill.

I was then especially alarmed when the TUC general secretary told the newspaper that those of us opposing clause 20 are "Insulting people's intelligence by pretending they are protecting workers from harassment is the same as banter." It is. It's not my decision, it's present in the way the equality law has been interpreted in Employment Tribunal is as has just been described that associates harassment with banter. Whatever the government or Angela Rayner or the TUC thinks is in the bill, it does not set out, this Bill, what constitutes harassment, Bill, what constitutes harassment, or rather what does not.

And so at committee we were directed by the Minister to the definitions of harassment used in equality legislation. That is then interpreted in Employment Tribunal is. It is important to note that under the Equality Act as interpreted, harassment includes indirect harassment and as the EHRC guidance includes the following descriptions of spoken words, jokes, written words and posts on social media, physical expressions and gestures and yes, banter. And indeed as we have heard, Employment Tribunal is here many cases relating to workplace banter.

57 in 2024. If you look at human resources literature it is full of advice to employers on managing banter in the workplace between their employees. One horrendous suggestion put out to employers was maybe monitor conversations and attempt to pick up or pre-empt any problems. Another was sending people on, wait for it, appropriate conversation training sessions. I have just been sent the details of a consultant, there is always a consultant behind all of this stuff. He is an inclusive language and banter specialist.

He is running workshops at £495 a shot and one of his first ones is, what does the term transgender mean to you? I won't say out loud otherwise I might done by the banter police. SAS gender shouldn't be put into the hands of the banter police and that's why we are raising it, it's not too cause a farce, it's the not too cause a farce, it's the issue of it. I think it's problematic this undermines free speech, but as I have made that case many times in this as an actually at committee, I also want to emphasise think it risks trivialising genuine cases of harassment and dilating the impact of genuine anti-harassment policies.

They require serious attention. I do believe that what has driven the government to introduce clause 20 is it wants to deal with serious issues of harassment, but it has not drawn the conclusion that by looking at the way Employment Tribunal is understand harassment under the Equality Act that in fact banter is part of it. So whether the government or Deputy Prime Minister likes it or not, clause 20 does mean that casual remarks made by third parties are in scope as indirect harassment.

I do hope the government will welcome with open arms Lord Young's amendment 43 that simply clarifies that clause 20 will not apply to indirect harassment or overheard conversations and therefore in that instance Angela Rayner can concentrate on the nasty abuse staff and not have this picked And employers can focus on protecting employees from harassment directly harming them. If I take this at face value which I am prepared to do, there is absolutely no intention of undermining free- speech in public facing workplaces in this clause, that it's not about policing informal conversations and members of the public in workplaces and that some employers -- employees could say are offensive.

If I take that at face value, then please can I say to the Minister except amendment 44 because this meets the definition of harassment will not and cannot include conversation or speech involving the expression of an opinion, political moral, religious or any other social matter. While these are useful, I strongly support amendment 45, that is that we leave out clause 20 entirely. In addition to arguments previously argued in committee, we should note that the Law Society is now got involved.

It has identified that employers must take all reasonable steps to prevent their staff from experiencing harassment by third parties. The Law Society, not me, but the Law Society, knows that while employers will be familiar with the notion of taking reasonable steps, inclusion of the word all runs the risk of setting an unreasonably high bar for employees to meet. An employer might design policies that action plans to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment of third parties put together what appears to be a comprehensive package of measures, although I note how much energy even reading that is, never mind doing it, but nonetheless regardless, if the employee can point at any single additional reasonable means that the employers could have taken but didn't, then the claim could be upheld.

Even if the employer is attempting to do all they could to comply. Talk about making workplaces jump through hoops. Clause 20 could be a recipe for spiralling law fair. This seems to contradict one of the aims of the bill as stated in the government's evidence and analysis paper, that is to reduce workplace conflict which we are told cost 30 billion a year. Clause 20 will mean employment tribunals will go up, they will become a source of tension and more conflict. For me, one of the dangers is that it sets up another conflict, a toxic relationship between public facing workplaces and the public.

Employers will be forced to treat the public as a source of potential problems, to be managed, to be shushed in case they say the wrong thing, and to encourage their employees to see customers, often their fellow workers, as the enemy. In sectors where customer relationships are crucial, like retail and hospitality, this could strain interactions between staff and patrons. Customers often appreciate friendly personable service, which includes lighthearted conversations and jokes and banter. And if they perceive that such casual conversations are being policed, then that is going to diminish the social interaction between both sides.

If employees are restricted from engaging in exchanges due to fear of violating policies, that could lead to a sterile and impersonal experiences of services, devoid of any spontaneity. It might actually deter customers from returning. It will affect revenue and repetition, but what a loss. Earlier today I referred to someone who is concerned about clause 20. He works in hospitality and he notes that working in hospitality really has enhanced his skills, precisely because it encouraged his people skills.

He has gained in confidence and grown into the young man that is now able to communicate so well precisely because he was exposed to that lively public square that is precisely the place, the pub, or any hospitality, that is now seen through the prism of harassment. That does Omar, the place of hospitality and the customers a great disservice to only see it that way. I believe the government think they are helping workers against fighting harassment with this clause.

It is not doing that, it will lead to the chilling of free speech and will be a disaster for the public square. Please don't do it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support this important amendment by Lord Young of Acton. And to endorse everything that Baroness Fox of Buckley just said. Your Lord's will be pleased to hear that I believe they covered so much of the ground that needs to be of the ground that needs to be covered here that I hope I won't have to speak for too long. Thank have to speak for too long. Thank you kindly. Just to pick up and tease out one of the truly important tease out one of the truly important aspects of what they have said, key to this clause is the word to this clause is the word harassment.

Key to it is the phrase, " To take all reasonable steps." Words can have various meanings and different people can interpret them different people can interpret them differently. I banter. He harasses. He, she or it is a social predator He, she or it is a social predator and should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That is what we're doing here, we are making laws. Laws get interpreted, used, prosecuted, people who see an
19:53
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea Portrait Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Conservative)
-
-
advantage in using the law can take their employer to court and we have their employer to court and we have yet more things being banned, more yet more things being banned, more opportunities for law fair, more opportunity to shut down our opportunity to shut down our national life. I am two thirds of the way through, you are -- will be the way through, you are -- will be pleased to hear. In the economist, which is not a particularly dry which is not a particularly dry magazine as your lordships no, it encounters all sorts of liberal encounters all sorts of liberal ideas -- supports.

There was an ideas -- supports. There was an article saying there are all these people who talk about civilisation is died and they've all got it wrong. There is one thing, do wrong. There is one thing, do civilisations that die, whether it's civilisations that die, whether it's the song, the Venetians, the Romans, the song, the Venetians, the Romans, why did they have a tremendously successful society that over a successful society that over a number of years collapsed? What they did was that they banned things.

They said we won't have this, you will be allowed to do that, you won't be allowed to import these things, we will put tariffs on goods imported, and above all, we will ban various types of speech. That's what the economist said leads to the decline of society. We are British, we have things like banter, we have for years, decades, centuries, been able to live at ease with each other and say amusing things. I've had people say things to me I did not particularly like, but it was banter and I went along with it and we can all go along with it.

If we insist on closing down, shutting down, the most harmless kinds of remarks, which courts will interpret as being just visible within the framework of this clause, then we risk going further down the path that the economist warned against. I plead with you all in the most kind way, think very hard about this amendment and please vote for it. Because it is not trivial, it is very important.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support this group of amendments in the name of my noble amendments in the name of my noble friend. If these amendments aren't accepted, I worry we will see a sharp increase in cases going to sharp increase in cases going to employment tribunals, adding more pressure to a system already stretched. It's not hard to imagine
19:56
Lord Ashcombe Portrait Lord Ashcombe (Conservative)
-
-
stretched. It's not hard to imagine how these disputes may play out. We will likely see countless cases built around the old, " Yes you did, no I didn't" Argument. Disagreements over who said what to whom and in what context. Not the genuine cases mentioned by the noble Lady. It's messy, it's time consuming and frankly, it's avoidable. Much of the debate on this issue so far is rightly focused on the hospitality, retail and entertainment sectors. Where these challenges are particularly acute.

But it's not just the sectors that have an issue coming to them, it goes much wider than that. By way of example, I work for a large insurance broker. We regularly host clients from around the world but our offices are in the city of London. These visitors often come from countries and cultures very different to our own. Imagine a scenario of an employee that here's a private conversation between two overseas clients in our lobby. Perhaps just in passing, and takes offence.

That could lead to a complaint and potentially even legal action. Despite my employer having no direct involvement. Why should any business large or small be held liable for that kind of situation? We need to remain an attractive destination for global business. Whether it's an insurance or any other sector. Welcoming international clients to the UK supports jobs, drives growth and benefits us all. But if businesses feel they are constantly at risk of ending up in tribunal over things, or the threat thereof, beyond their control, that creates a real dissent if to continue.

-- Disincentive. For smaller countries met companies, the stakes are even higher. The effects could be devastating. This is a matter of common sense and balance. These amendments don't take rights away from workers, they simply provide clarity and fairness for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

everyone involved. Has the Minister consulted about

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has the Minister consulted about how he would apply this clause to
19:58
19:59
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to the amendments in this group. When it comes to minute 43, 44, 45 and 193 and I wish minute 43, 44, 45 and 193 and I wish to clearly state we on the liberal Democrat benches do not agree with these amendments or their intentions. Throughout Committee stage the noble Lord has consistently framed his amendment on the subject around offence of what he terms banter. Suggesting its justification for remarks that can be harmful at the workplace.

It was on these benches it is clear the debate on this issue has been shaped by somewhat misleading portrayal of the bills aims. The amendment rest on narrow and simplistic view of harassment which mis-undermines protection for workers by focusing on conversations rather than addressing real problems of bullying and harassment. I must express concerns over the repeated definition of banter as a shield for inappropriate Hever. Too often it's been used to excuse conduct that is sexist, racist or otherwise discriminatory.

To say other I think is discourteous. If we undermine the protection the bill offers, especially through amendments and narrows employer's duties, we are singling the experiences and well- being of those workers are of little importance. We cannot dismiss their right to a safe and respectful work environment. I also wish to express our fondness over a minute 173. Which causes secular state to examine a group to examine why implement levels for blind and partially sighted people remains low and below national averages.

Regardless of where that provision is included in the bill, I hope the government will give serious consideration important going We recognise the need for clarity and hope that the government will offer clarity under this section of the bill ahead of them being brought before the House. It's no secret that the level of scrutiny given to second legislation is to put it second legislation is to put it mildly, wanting. I also wish to address a crucial question asked by How How the How the legislation How the legislation will How the legislation will function, it's difficult to understand how the provisions will work and the rights of workers will be properly safeguarded.

And Q.
20:02
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I'd like to thank my noble friends for their amendments in this friends for their amendments in this group. I join Lord God in talking about my noble friends Lord Hope's amendment in particular. He addresses an important point about the employment opportunities for blind and sighted paired people, but unfortunately the measures in this will make it significantly more costly to hire all individuals and this will hit those on the margins of the labour market the hardest. Lord Young has made some compelling points on clause 20 and this is where Lord God and I differ.

We must consider the logical and potentially absurd consequences of allowing unqualified liability for indirect harassment. If the same principle was applied in this House, for example if somebody made a comment and a doorkeeper overhears it and finds it offensive. Under their party harassment liability, would Lord Speaker be required to issue an apology? What were the noble Baroness's banter consultant say about that? It illustrates the workability of the current drafting.

Nobody would expect anybody in this House to be responsible for the utterances in the gallery. Speaking to amendment 193 in my name, the government has already decided to delay many of the measures of this bill. Originally we were told these measures would come into effect by 2026 but the government's decision to spurn parts of the bill I believe is an implicit administration that the consultation process was inadequate. The government has begun to realise the unintended consequences that can follow from some of these provisions.

Clause 20 which seeks to impose liability for third party harassment has a longer lead-in time. It opens a door to legal uncertainty and frivolous, potentially frivolous claims based on subjective remarks. Employees regularly interact with members of the public in the hospitality and retail sectors. Recent warnings from the British and Pub Association which have announced that Britain is using one pub every day should be taken to heed. It's not just a matter of economic, it is a cultural and social loss.

Pubs are part of the lifeblood of our national identity. In addition to facing tax increases, rising costs and staff shortages, pub landlords are being told they may be held legally responsible for comments made by their patrons, even if the comments their patrons, even if the comments This is not made up nonsense, it is factual. I urge the government to reflect and consult more widely and ensure that it does not impose a law which may undermine business, stifle free expression and expose employers to unfair liability.

to unfair liability.
20:06
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, OK, I now address emanates 42, 43, 44 and 45. This government has provided assurance to your Lordships House throughout these debates time and time again that clause 20 will not have the chilling effect on free speech is being claimed today. Therefore we will resist these amendments. I make it absolutely clear at the outset this clause is about addressing harassment, not about banter. We have overarching legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998 which guarantees freedom of expression and does so in a way that is legally and constitutionally stronger than any constitutionally stronger than any amendment the noble Lord could pass to the current Employment Rights Bill.

Therefore we do not accept the argument that carve-outs are required in new concepts should be introduced that will complicate the law unnecessarily. Employers are already obliged under the Equality Act 2010 to protect employees from harassment in the workplace. That has obviously not led to banter bouncers in the workplace. Therefore employers already have an understanding of how to apply these protections in practice. Our aim is not to burden employers or to prevent free speech, it is to deliver on our commitment to create and maintain workplaces and working conditions free from harassment, including by third parties.

The question was raised as to whether cases will go to a tribunal for people being oversensitive. It's important to note that in an employment tribunal claim for harassment if certain conduct has a humiliating or degrading effect on the recipe to -- on the participants, but that is not the intent, it is for the tribunal to determine. It's not a subjective test based on the view of the recipient. There is a seriousness threshold..

Causes drivel or minor offence will not meet the definition of harassment. I have to say that the protection is welcome by a nationally representative survey of 5,000 people by the TUC, finding eight nationally representative survey of 5,000 people by the TUC, finding 8/10... I do not know what is funny about it. I haven't heard any pulse from the opposite side. Finding that 79% of people support the plan to protect workers from harassment. The government will be publishing guidance so that employers are supported with these changes.

We will make clear they are not required to take reasonable steps and will set out how they can continue to effectively prevent harassment and protect free speech. No business will be required to hire staff to monitor speech or diversity under this provision. Many public facing businesses like pubs, universities, sports venues and public transport already have posters showing a zero tolerance approach to harassment at the venue site. We consider this is a reasonable step. Lord Lucas raised the issue of this building and this very building has notices detailing the behavioural code, making it clear everyone on the estate should treat others with respect and unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously.

It's not had a chilling effect on free speech in this place. Harassment is taking place in many workplaces which is not banter and in some places employers aren't doing enough to protect or support their employees. In a poll of 16-35-year-olds in 2018 the TUC recorded the impact of third party harassment. For example, a young woman explained that customers sexually harass staff when they are drunk. Another sales assistant aged 18-20 said they are constantly being sworn customers for no reason and also being called racial slurs.

People have been hit. I do not know what Lord Young's answer is to all that, but we have an answer, which is to take steps against their party harassment. My noble friend shared a personal story about when he worked in a pub in his student days and was harassed constantly, been called all manner of racist names. He complained to the manager who dismissed it as banter, but it wasn't banter and he still finds it difficult to talk about to this day.

He left after two weeks. We don't want people to have to do that in the future. It's important that future employees do not feel this way. Diversity in businesses can lead to benefits, more effective teams and improved understanding of customer wants and needs. Companies with the most diverse leadership teams are more likely than ever to outperform less diverse peers on profitability. A survey by hospitality UK and CGA shows two thirds of customers thinks that the venues diversity and inclusion policy is important and 1/3 said they would be more likely to visit a venue if it had policies and venues to promote equality.

We are therefore convinced that very few businesses if they want to keep their customers would support Lord Young's amendments. If I now turn to amendment 193, tabled by Lord Sharpe of Epsom, as set out in our roadmap for delivering the plans in work pay, it's important that we get implementation in the details right to ensure that employers and employees understand the new law and it can be as effective as possible in ending their party harassment. The approach we have taken and the timeline set out allows the time required to deliver effective implementation.

I assure the noble Lord there is no need to delay commencement of clause 20 until October 2027 due to concerns relating to free speech or burdens on business. Over the coming months we will be engaged with stakeholders to ensure that guidance is fit for purpose. This will build on the consultation held in 2019 on introducing protections against third-party workplace sexual harassment as well as responses to harassment as well as responses to the close call on equality law. Stakeholders can prepare for changes and we will ensure they are supported in their preparations.

I'd like to remind your Lordship sales that currently if a woman sexually harassed by a customer at work today she cannot seek individual read risk. If an employee experiences racial or homophobic harassment from 1/3 party, they have no protection under the Equality Act 2010. I hope we can agree that employees should feel safe at work and free of harassment. We should not delay introducing these important protections any longer. I therefore urge the noble Lord Lord Young to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

withdraw his amendment. I would like to clarify that when
20:14
Lord Young of Acton Portrait Lord Young of Acton (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to clarify that when I refer the noble Lord steamer register of interest, I was register of interest, I was referring to my job as general secretary. I thank noble Lord for their contribution to this debate, particularly Baroness Fox clean. Just to respond to a couple of points made by the noble Lady the Minister, I do not think you can justifiably claim that clause 20 will be for the first time protecting workers from being racially abused by customers or members of the public.

If someone racially abuses another person, that as I understand it would be a racially aggravated offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1980. It's not as if there are currently no protections for workers abused in that unacceptable way. The noble Lady the Minister said that the government intended to publish guidance on what all reasonable steps employers would be expected to take to protect their employees from third party harassment, but as I understand it, my reading of the bill is that the government is obliged to provide guidance when it comes to protecting workers from third-party sexual harassment, it was set up what reasonable steps are with respect to that, but there is no comparable clause in which the government commits to providing guidance as to what all reasonable steps are when it comes to employing employees from third-party nonsexual The Minister said it would introduce an element of confusion into clause 20 to accept either amendment 43 or 44.

Because the things these amendments are trying to rule out of scope are already out of scope. If that is the case, if the Minister genuinely believes that indirect harassment is not within scope, banter is not within scope, that this is an exaggeration, faux outrage, and if the Minister genuinely believes that good faith conversations about moral, political, religious or social matters, provided they are not obscene, are out of scope, then why not accept amendments 43 and 44? The reason for doing so is to provide the hospitality sector, and in particular, publicans, with some clarity about what reasonable steps they can be expected to take to comply with this new clause.

As it stands there's a great deal of confusion, they will feel they have to earn on the side of caution -- air on the side of caution to prevent the possibility of being prevent the possibility of being taken to the tribunal. The pub sector are on their knees. I would ask the House not to impose these additional burdens on publicans that are already struggling to survive and keep their businesses afloat. If the government genuinely believes in growth, if it genuinely believes that pubs are an important British institution wants to take steps to preserve them, that at the very least give them the clarity that accepting clauses 43 and 44 would provide.

Because I'm afraid I'm not satisfied by the noble Lady the Ministers answer and would like to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

test the opinion of the House on this issue. The question is that amendment 43

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The
20:18
20:29
20:30
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
projects.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In light of that I will have to be very careful about what I say to be very careful about what I say to ensure it doesn't offend staff. It must be tough being the Secretary of State for Transport because every time the government is in difficulty time the government is in difficulty with its Back Benchers, she sent out to make out another -- make another to make out another -- make another announcement about some distant spending plans. All the real announcements made in this statement announcements made in this statement were in fact announced by the last government.

Before the Minister says government. Before the Minister says where was the money, which displays a certain frailty of constitutional grasp, the fact is that had the government been reelected, there government been reelected, there would have been a spending review. Just as this government has had a Just as this government has had a Schemes that the Government had announced would be in the Spending announced would be in the Spending Review. That is the pledge. That is how the constitution works.

Of course, part of this is not about announcing new reels use but about cancelling road schemes so we are cancelling road schemes so we are not going to get the widening of the 812, we are not going to get the 847 once was to Sutton scheme. And while they are all gone for the foreseeable future, let me turn back to the rail schemes and with a few remarks that I have to make the remaining remarks will be about the scheme. We find ourselves in the extraordinary position of being asked to celebrate rail expansion when the Government has still failed to lay the Great British Railways bill before Parliament.

Great British Railways optimistically suggested in 2026 at the earliest now appears increasingly likely to slip to 2027 or beyond with the legislation itself yet to appear before either House of Parliament. Perhaps, my Lords, the Government has finally realised that it's centralising control of our railways is not the solution they once claimed it would be. The complexities of their grand nationalisation project appear to have caught them rather of God. So, where is the bill? Is my first question to the Minister.

Where is Great British Railways? But, more pertinently, where is Chteau Great pertinently, where is Chteau Great British Rail? That already has a new Chair. Where are they in these announcements? Because the relevance of that is that under the Government scheme under the government's plans for real, proposals such as this, proposals for expansion of the rail network are meant to be proposed and worked up and delivered by Great British Railways so to Government funding, not the other way around.

We are not even sure that all of these schemes will necessarily be carried out because what guarantee is there that there will be a priority for Great British Rail when that body comes into existence? Or is it, in fact, merely a puppet for the Department as we suspect might be the case after all. I warned when we were debating the rail passenger services bill which began the process of nationalising trade, train operating companies, I want that what the Government was doing was not moving from one state to another, but they were moving through one state to a huge transition period.

And that is what we are in at the moment, the transition period where we have no idea who is in charge of the railways will stop and no real accountability. Because it is a governance mess. The Department of Transport continues its iron grip on the rail operators which it now owes to subsidiary companies with civil servants of late running trains services while the promised arms length remains a distant aspiration. This raises fundamental questions about whether their calls for real growth genuine or merely a smokescreen for increased state control.

But, my Lords, the government's actions speak louder than their words. The office for rail and road under instruction from the Secretary of State has already rejected operator contracts despite compelling evidence that competition drives both service improvements and passenger growth. This ideological opposition to the actions flies in the face of economic evidence and passenger benefits. Consider the transformative impact of transformations like the trains which have brought direct services to underserved communities, Sunderland, Scarborough, Hull, these are not abstract policies but tangible improvements to people's lives, connecting communities that had previously lacked direct rail links.

In dependent search by Arab and Frontier economics provides unequivocal evidence of competitions, benefits, or corridors with open access competition service frequency rose by up to 60% and total passenger numbers increased by approximately 40%. These are not marginal gains. They represent the kind of transformational improvements the Government claims to seek through their infrastructure spending instead of embracing this proven model for growth they actively suppress it. If this Government were truly committed to real growth, they would be encouraged, not stifling the competition with the services and passenger numbers.

The fact that they do the opposite suggests that real policy is given more ideology than these ideologies and the delays to Great British Rail that the Government perhaps underestimated the complexity of the Grand National project. What was once promised as a streamlined solution now appears mired in the very bureaucratic inefficiencies they claimed to oppose. The latest date we have for the great British Rail built appear as the autumn. Will the movement, but the Noble Lord the Minister confirmed that date? And will he has to say as he has in the industry it is widely believed that he will not make that deadline and the bill will be coming much closer to Christmas at the earliest? My Lords, this house has a duty to scrutinise not the spending commitments but the coherence of the overall transport strategy.

We cannot properly fulfil that duty one key legislation remains unpublished and when policy appears to contradict evidence. Government must explain why they continue open access applications when the evidence will clearly demonstrate their value. They must clarify when Parliament will finally see the Great British Rail bill and they must reconcile their right real growth with actions and constraints. Until then, I fear we have been asked to applaud announcements while the fundamental questions about real policy direction remain unanswered. The British public deserves better than this policy vacuum masquerading

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as progress. My Lords, I am going to focus on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am going to focus on the statement of rail projects the statement of rail projects contained within it I and perhaps not within it but across the country communities have been let down by a
20:39
Baroness Pidgeon Portrait Baroness Pidgeon (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
communities have been let down by a system that is creaking, crying out for investment and improvement and a system that was neglected by the last Conservative Government Ulster constant announcements and three announcements, transport projects, with the fictional budgets that will not materialise whilst the roads have deteriorated and the public of B letdown and a safe and reliable transport system is vital for economic growth and therefore the capital investment is well used by communities that will benefit, in particular I wish to mention the East Midlands hub to be upgraded and the East West railway lines over £2 billion to Transport for London to continue with the purchase of the new Piccadilly railway trains.

And we await the detail of the northern powerhouse real which is soon, whatever soon might be. But it would be helpful that given the hopes raised in the past for the Government to provide details of how the money will be spent and over what timescale to deliver the project 's outlined in the statement. The statement also notes every other scheme will be reviewed and reports to be scrapped. I am particularly concerned about further electrification of the Midland mainline from London to Sheffield, given the removal of the high-speed two to Sheffield feels that Labour is letting down Sheffield, South Yorkshire, and, once again, cutting major investment into its railway, leaving Sheffield as the largest city in Britain without an electrified railway.

When can we see this important project back on track smack I am also deeply concerned at stage V resilience programs have not been funded and would take one large stomp to close the railway to the south-west once again. Monitoring is not enough and I hope that the Minister, is the former Chair of Network Rail, will ensure the House about the future of this project. And then the busiest interchange station in the entire country. Without step free access to platforms or accessible facilities for passengers.

And far to many platforms corridors for a station of around 6 million. Planning permission granted and ready to start construction next year, but put on hold. What am I talking about? I am talking about Peckham for south-east London. This is such a busy and important interchange. When will we expect funding for this vital project? And, finally, away from the specific projects I have outlined, can the Noble Lord the Minister give firm assurance that the Government has learned from high-speed two, crossrail, and that all these projects will be delivered on time, on budget, and using technology such as digital twins where appropriate to ensure value

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for money for the taxpayer. My Lords, I am pleased that the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am pleased that the Noble Lord said so much about other things. He did not have much to say about the list of funded schemes, so
20:42
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
about the list of funded schemes, so I am concluding that, I and lodge, he is happy with what he has read in that in The Other Place. And, of course, he makes a lot of noise about the fact that they would have been in some Spending Review had the Government been re-elected. It was not. But, actually, before then they had published endless numbers, documents with endless numbers of schemes that were, frankly, never likely to be funded. There were promises everywhere but funding nowhere and the best example of that, of course, is the notorious network document including Tavistock and a number of other places in the north of England at all but currently all the entries in that document none of them were ever funded.

Actually, he does not have to listen to this, so it is a pleasure to speak to the House now. And this was in front of the transport committee if you years ago and he says, and I quote, that a lot of promises were made in the ambition but it did not match the amount being set out. And I ended up with a list that has been funded and that is absolutely true. All sorts of communities have been promised transport schemes.

That were never likely to be funded but not funded and actually somebody has to sort that out and announced a program that will bring long-term economic prosperity in Britain and get schemes actually built and actually stop spending a lot of money on endless scheme development without actual schemes being delivered this is such a list and this list will be delivered and that funding is in place of the spending reviews, even though there is less than we would like, the momentum or the state of the economy at the time.

This Government took over. The Noble Lord has a lot to say in the government's real reform and continues to ask whether Bill is, but he knows perfectly well that actually progress can be made without the bill and indeed, the purpose of the public ownership bill that became enacted last year was to start the progress of bringing passenger operations back into public ownership and the consequence of that is where we already have two parts of the railway operations that will allow both or all of the better reliability increased revenue and costs, so, actually, things are happening today that were not going to happen under the previous regime and will produce a better railway and that is really important, so far as you say civil servants and training services actually I know that the south-eastern Railway they are good railway people and not civil servants, there are public servants and the intent to run these businesses for the benefit of the travelling public and of the British economy.

He did talk about open access a bit but what he failed to say about the office of Rail and Road recently rejecting them not just based on any competitive grants but simply rejected them, most recently, because of the lack of capacity in the railway system. Those train services could not run and if they had run they would have disturbed or rather reduced the reliability of the system and actually one of the points of the list of schemes that she did not go into in detail, but I could, is that actually many of the schemes will help the railway run by a previous capacity.

Example, digital on the southern end of the East Coast Main Line, which the noble Baroness So this list is looking at starting to improve railway capacity and reliability which wasn't a feature of many of the Network North schemes even though they weren't funded, and is a feature of this scheme. This is part of the government's intention for a long-term investment strategy, and the schemes recent announced by the Secretary of State last week are an important part of it full stop I will absolutely contend that the government is on track to deliver what the economy needs in terms of local transport, particularly in the Midlands and the North deliver on road schemes without having a horrifically long list of schemes which have been encouraged but were never likely to be funded, and on the work railway starting to actually do things which will make a real difference.

Baroness Pidgeon was much more focused on the announcement itself which I'm sure both IN the House are grateful for, she enumerating a number of the schemes in the announcement which I am pleased that she welcomes as well as the rest of us well. There will be an announcement on Northern Powerhouse Rail, it will be shortly I'm not going to define shortly tonight. But it will be, it does need to be worked out with the combined authority based in North of England and that is a reason for some delay.

On the road schemes, details of the timescales will emerge as the road investment scheme three is put together and announced in the early part of next year. On the railway we will now move forward with the schemes that have been announced. She is of course right that there are well-known projects and schemes which have not made this list, in particular railway schemes. list, in particular railway schemes. Principally because the other thing government did and the Chancellor announced as part of the spending review was to fund HS2 to continue to be delivered alongside the wholesale revision of its governance and management which will make spending that money more successful.

That doesn't mean that everything that one would have wanted to have been done is capable of being done for the moment and in particular she refers to the electrification of the Midland mainline which has got south of Leicester but will not go forward at least in the Spending Review program. What however will go forward is the trains which take advantage of the wires where they are up and indeed also the improvement of the power supply and resilience of the existing line south of Bedford which is quite old, and Sheffield Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and other major places in the Midland mainline will see a betterment of service through the introduction of new trains in the autumn and actually I think we would all want to regard future electrification as a deferral rather than an abandonment.

She referred to Phase 5 of the scheme at Dawlish and Devon, the resilience of the great Western mainline and of course phases one to four principally about repairing the sea wall and the damage crated 10 years ago by an exceptional storm, whereas Phase 5 is looking the stability of the cliffs behind the railway which are indeed, should be the subject of future work, but actually the remediation and indeed the speed of movement of those cliffs is something that is worth monitoring now, whereas actually the work that has been done up to now has been the basic resilience of the seawall in order to keep the railway running.

She is right about Peckham Rye it is the largest interchange station but the scheme is at least for the present moment unaffordable, though again I would expect that to form part of a longer term enhancement pipeline and it is regrettable there are things across the railway which everybody would have wanted to see but simply there is enough money for. Lastly she is right about the lessons from recent projects we have talked in this chamber by just two and about the need for new management, new governance and a new focus on being understanding what is spent, and the government should frankly be commended for its commitment to continue HS2 which will produce large-scale economic benefit in the Midland while that process takes place not everything is bad in the railway project firmament, indeed TransPennine upgrade and east-west rail are sofar on-time and on budget and learning from those is as important as learning from HS2 which sadly is neither.

Lastly she refers to digital twins, I know that Lord Vallance has a lot to say about digital twins for the whole of the Oxford Cambridge arc of which east- west rail will form part and its use in project management is only at the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

foothills but needs to be increased and I agree with her on that as well. My question is about accuracy of
20:52
20:53
20:54
Lord Berkeley Portrait Lord Berkeley (Labour)
-
-
railway and road schemes which they intend to go ahead with. This is the first time we've seen such a list for years. Inherent reduction the Secretary of State talked about green lighting over 50 rail and road projects, I'm not sure if green lighting is alright but occasionally greens can go to orange and red but I hope that's wrong. Within the text is quite a lot of uncertainty about which is going ahead in which which is what ministers call I think pause.

Pausing could happen just roll weaker it could happen for a year. I think you'll be useful next time they do this to actually spell out what pausing means one of the schemes paused as the one mentioned by Baroness Pidgeon about Dawlish and I have an interest, I live down the other end there. I'm not suggesting the work should start now but but my noble friend said monitoring should continue because if that does come down and it could I believe come quite quickly became ill put the south-western a very very difficult position.

I'd like to ask my noble friend, could he over ask my noble friend, could he over the next week or two crime publish a paper giving the criteria that they have used the going ahead or pausing different schemes, it can apply to roads as well. We had so much stop start the last few years for reasons we don't need to go into before, ill be very nice to know what other reasons, what are the criteria is it a good business case? Or is it because I know the Minister very well and I'm a local MP? Is there some other good reason? I'm sure there are good reasons for the decisions but I think it would be helpful if we were able to come up with that in the next few weeks.

Otherwise I congratulate him on a comprehensive document.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to my noble friend for his compliments and of course the real significance of this list is that it is a funded list rather than a list that isn't funded of than a list that isn't funded of aspiration and hope. I'm not too sure about the phrase green lighting sure about the phrase green lighting actually come --, I'm not too sure enough it is it's a shame. I think enough it is it's a shame. I think what it means is that actually these are funded schemes to go ahead, one or two of them still need element or two of them still need element consent orders which is of course a process which has to be taken to a conclusion.

Therefore the start dates will be different across huge dates will be different across huge list many of them are ready and have been funded for quite some time. The been funded for quite some time. The pausing at Dawlish which I refer to pausing at Dawlish which I refer to Baroness Baroness Pidgeon, the muck monitoring will take place is not should take place should I say to my noble Lord, it's will take place noble Lord, it's will take place because the monitoring of those does need to continue.

Certainly my understanding of the situation which I have to say going through the last job that I was doing rather than this one is that monitoring those cliffs is an essential thing to do but work actually needs remedy them is at least partially about what you see in the monitoring process so insensible to look now and do it when the thing is agreed. Will we publish a paper on a criteria that's been used? Well look, I think there are two things here one of which is the government has decided to do the schemes and has taken a view from the wreckage of what is inherited to actually prioritise things that need to be done which will contribute to a local economy.

So we will get on with doing that first. In the longer term there is an intention by tablet 10 year infrastructure strategy to have a long-term railway plan. I think in conjunction with the revision of the Green book the Chancellor talked about, the Spending Review, to look at aspects which allow more, projects in parts which allow more, projects in parts of the country with lower rates of economic activity to benefit, I think there will be a case to both publish a long-term railway plan and to talk about the criteria used to to talk about the criteria used to put into it now will get on with what's been announced.
20:59
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
Is well familiar with the intricacies of the Barnett formula, I know that because he is quoted that me the past. Whether you therefore confirm that the Barnett therefore confirm that the Barnett formula as far as real as concerned will indeed generate money for Wales will indeed generate money for Wales from those projects that are England only project such as the Oxford to Cambridge railway line and that he will confirm what the First Minister will confirm what the First Minister of Wales has called for? To wail -- for Wales to get the Barnett consequential of that expenditure.

 The noble Lord is right which is the subject has, before. There is a real difference in the current circumstances. Rail projects are all classified as England and Wales through the way in which this is done, the real difference in this list is for the first time there is a significant commitment to funding rail enhancements and Wales, 300 million or so in the Spending Review. And the title of over 450 million in 10 years. Further, the schemes have been announced for development and implementation are schemes that the current Welsh Government and in particular can skate to happen to me meet this morning on the subject on the Secretary of State for Wales both agree other rights schemes to do so there are schemes of the South Wales mainline arising from the Burns Report, schemes for the North Wales mainline to improve train frequency and connectivity, there is a scheme for Wrexham incident which curiously needs documents as referred to as page wood siding switches about the most obscure title you could imagine but which is actually designed to make some freight improvements to double the frequency on Wrexham to Bidston and a number of other things.

The significance of this announcement is it commits money to Welsh railway schemes that those schemes of the Welsh Government agree need to be taken forward as the most urgent and I hope the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like my Noble Friend I was rather surprised by the tone of the official opposition given the
21:01
Lord Teverson Portrait Lord Teverson (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
official opposition given the billions of pounds that were wasted by NHS to just to provide a shuttle between the high-speed shuttle between the north London suburb of Birmingham. What a waste of time and national resource. I very much welcome a number of initiatives on the statement, like Lord Berkeley, the Noble Lord Berkeley, I travel up from Cornwall, normally. And I welcome very much the stations at Wellington and also the opening of that line to Porter's head. Which we have waited for for some time.

I do rather regret, though, and the Noble Lord the Minister mentioned the Tavistock line, it looks like maybe that will not happen in my lifetime, but we will see. The question I wanted to ask the Noble Lord the Minister is two things. As someone that is not a real expert. That is one that I do not understand why we do not, in this country, have a regular electrification program for the whole of the rest of our network, both in terms of running cost and in terms of the cost of rail and the weight of the machines but also in terms of our carbon footprint.

I don't we just have the skills and the ability to roll out electrification each year in a standard way that actually makes that work at minimum cost? The other thing I would ask is rail signalling. I notice there is one signalling that is the Newcastle Metro but a number of schemes are needed for signalling and I do not understand in these days of advanced technical expertise, AI, which we do not just have in Signalling rather than having to continually replace very expensively the physical resources of signalling across our network.
21:03
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
I am pleased that Noble Lord welcomes so Wellington and Porter said. And I think the answer was Tavistock is there were so many schemes in the previous Government as restoring railways which looked on the face of it to be an invitation to any community in the country to push back the railway that has taken away 50, 60, or 70 years ago because, frankly, did not have many people using it. The answer, I think, to the Noble Lord about Tavistock is for Tavistock and Plymouth to put forward a sound business case for that investment that would reflect the actual cost of building that railway.

I have some experience in that schematic much earlier stage and someone rather optimistically claimed that it cost 30 million to extend from where Austin to Tavistock and the reality is it would not be reopening a railway about opening a new one. The regular electrification program would, of course, reduce cost, but we do have significant electrification going on in this country, the TransPennine upgrade is a very significant electrification project from York to Manchester and that is in the course of delivery at the moment and while we sorted out here just to in management terms as he will do then HS2 is a very significant piece to be carried out by those people in the medium-term I think that one of the answers is for us to have a strategy that embraces both running stock and the electrification because it is quite clear what technology allows trains or the battering of trains to replace on the network they would not need total electrification but the Noble Lord may have seen the proposals that do precisely that and it would be cheap to put them up to charge the batteries for when they need to go through other places.

He raises a very interesting point that I think the noble Baroness had it right about the European train control system on the south end of the East Coast Main Line. We need to move away from like to let replacement of existing signals and still more difficult, actually, the cost of those schemes means that almost inevitably whilst the aspiration to replace 1950s and signalling always starts with more flexibility and capacity, that flexibility and capacity has always been deleted out of those schemes because it costs too much and what you get is the like-for-like placement and really a significant cost.

The opportunity in the south end of the East Coast Main Line is to embed a system that does not require fixed assets railway which can run more trains on the same railway because the trains are intelligent and know where each other are and the advantage of doing that is that many, many classes of locomotive are fitted with the equipment and using it to replace conventional resignalling would be far more possible in the future than it is now, so it is a thoroughly good thing and it is right that is the way forward.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Reference has been made to applications and can I ask my Noble
21:07
21:07
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my Noble Friend for that question. The truth is that we knew at the time of the cancellation of at the time of the cancellation of her chest to that the original purpose of the new railway originally to Manchester was to enhance capacity and we knew at the time that it was cancelled that there were no alternatives, and there were no alternatives, and therefore the railway would be constrained but as it currently is the Government are thinking about what might be done about that, but until he HS1 is built to Birmingham, effectively with the office of real and Road have told applicants for the West Coast main line is that there simply is not any space left, and there is not any space left.

And, in fact, one of the things that they have had to consider is the duty to promote reliability of the runway and encourage Network Rail to improve reliability and it would be pretty hard to do so if, at the same time, approved applications did not have appropriately God train particles to achieve it. We will see what happens on the East Coast Main Line where there are several applications currently being considered by the independent adjudicator, but the truth is that one of the reasons for this on the south end of the East Coast main line is that the East Coast mainline is largely and I draw that houses attention to earlier discussions we have had about the mainline timetable which has been a long time coming and has yet to be decided by me as the real minister because it was so difficult to get an agreement between the parties and rates to train in order to produce a satisfactory timetable, so the truth is that my Noble Friend is right on both mainlines there is a shortage of capacity which can only be achieved through further investment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Rail privatisation I think is a spectacular disaster and that is possibly why around 80% according to
21:10
21:11
21:13
21:13
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. My Lords I RISE to move the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords I RISE to move the amendment on the important issue of nondisclosure agreements. NDA's have nondisclosure agreements. NDA's have their legitimate purposes. However, they should never be used to take unfair advantage of workers in the cover of workplace misconduct. Evidence has emerged in recent years that some employers have been doing just that. I want to praise the work of the campaigners who brought this evidence to light. Notably, spearheaded can't buy my silence and who is one of the many brave victims that have spoken out.

This evidence shows that some employers exploit the inherent imbalance of power that they have with their workers that can get NDA signed fostering a culture of silence and impunity. I also want to acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed across the House after the committee and thank members of the House as well as those in the other houseful raising the evidence of a change in Parliament and that then powerful interventions on this issue. In this House in particular I want to thank Baroness O'Grady, Baroness Chakrabarti, Baroness Kennedy, noble Baroness Morrissey, Baroness Goudie, Baroness Harman, and The Right Honourable Kramer.

The Government have listened to those calls for action and have tabled Government Amendment 46 as of this amendment will void any agreement such as the contract of employment or settlement of employment to network and their employer insofar as it prevents the worker from speaking out about relevant harassment or discrimination. Let me be clear, this amendment will not impact on the legitimate use of NDA's, for example to protect commerciality in business transactions. Relevant discrimination is described in line discrimination is described in line with the Equality Act 2010.

And that conduct that they have alleged they have suffered or conduct carried out or alleged to have been carried out by the employer or a co-worker, for example where a colleague tells another colleague that their boss has sexually harassed them. This will mean that workers who have experienced harassment or dissemination can speak up, as well as those that have witnessed The amendment also rendered void NDA is the Prevent employees speaking out about their employers response to relevant harassment or discrimination or an allegation related to it.

For example where an employer fails to investigate an allegation or where worker has received poor performance reviews or has had to suffer poor conduct as a result of them speaking out about being harassed. We understand that there may be cases where workers want confidentiality, we are therefore taking a power to defining regulations when the NDA will not be void. These regulations are conditions aimed at protecting workers ensuring they have a greater say in whether they wanted NDA and an understanding of what they are agreeing to.

This will help address the imbalance of power between workers and employers. In addition, in instances where worker enters into an NDA meeting these conditions, the government intend to specify in regulations who workers can still speak to about their experience. This may include for example a doctor or lawyer. Finally the amendment includes a power that will allow us to extend this new legislation to other individuals such as certain self-employed persons. These matters will be subject to consultation first to ensure we get things right and listen to employers and workers.

This amendment draws on legislation that commenced in Ireland last year that goes further in certain important respects, for example by extending rights to workers who experience relevant harassment and discrimination, not just at the hands of their employer also from third parties such as clients and customers of an employer. It is if you like Ireland plus. This world leading amendment will give millions of workers confidence that inappropriate behaviour in the workplace will be dealt with and not hidden. We are proud to be a government that is ending the appalling practice of NDA's being misused to silent victims of harassment or discrimination.

Once more I want to thank members of this House and those in the other place for their work advocating in this area including by tabling amendments on the spell. I also want to thank Zelda Perkins who I think was in The Gallery earlier this evening for her tireless campaigning for reform. I was delighted to meet her earlier today to be able to discuss important amendment. The government looks forward to working closely as we develop regulations and turn to, and in turn to implementing this important reform.

This is a huge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

milestone and I beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 22 insert the following new clause, contractual duties, confidentiality relating to harassment and discrimination is printed on the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

marshalled List. I'm going to speak to all three amendments in this group, the second amendments in this group, the second two amendments are in my name. Let me begin by thanking the government
21:19
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
me begin by thanking the government for listening to and acting on the concerns of victims of harassment and discrimination who have risked so much by speaking out for justice despite being bound by nondisclosure agreements. And the government's amendment 46 brings in radical change as the Minister has described, I join her in particularly mentioning Zelda Perkins who and can't buy my silence and the civic society groups, they Unfailing, determined, refused to be discouraged. I also want to congratulate MPs who spoke out in the Commons and in this House I was very glad she mentioned the names of the many Baronesses across the bench who have been involved and I know that Baroness Kennedy, Morrisey and chakra party can't be here today, we all expected the amendments come up on Wednesday.

With a sudden change of plan they are still here in spirit will stop -- Baroness Chakrabarti. And will continue to watch over this legislation. I also think she was right to take note of Baroness O'Grady's engagement. Her years leading the trade union movement I think gave the government the confidence needed to take action. For that always being respectful and grateful. The government will face a complex task in fashioning the regulations which must underpin this clause. Some NDA's for example are designed to protect children who are third parties in an event from disclosure of very personal details.

A complex and not an easy issue. I will say to her that I think those of us on these benches will be watching very closely as the regulations are developed. There is a key weakness in the proposed clause which I'm aware the government cannot tackle in this bill because of its scope. The clause and its protections apply only to workers and indeed to a narrow definition of workers which sits within the pre-existing legislation and disclosure. For example, a would-be actress interviewed by Harvey Weinstein would not be covered because she is would not be covered because she is An employee of one steamed company could safely speak out on her behalf with this new legislation, that's the Zelda Perkins example, if they had witnessed harassment it's a real improvement.

But the clause doesn't cover a job applicant, a company director, it currently doesn't protect a self-employed contractor though I know the government is looking at that issue, it doesn't protect a supplier even though all of these people could lose their careers or sometimes their businesses by actually speaking out. We on these benches will not stop this particular weakness from preventing us from supporting this amendment, we thoroughly do. To me it illustrates just how much more reform is needed to have a fully workable and effective framework for people to speak out.

That leads me to the two other amendments in this group. Amendment 95 in my name would set up an office of the whistleblower to protect whistleblowers oversee whistleblowing processes and enforce compliance with standards. It can bring redress against detriment, it covers everyone work or not, public or private sector, and deals completely with the weaknesses in the NDA clause. I want to thank whistleblowers UK and the numerous cases you helped draft it, it really has had the work of some of our leading lawyers.

The office would act on a hub and spoke basis with existing regulators and investigators almost all of whom are keen to see it in place because it delivers them the whistleblowing they need to be effective and especially to make the best use of their limited resources. Whistleblowers tell you where to look and provide information from the inside that enables both regulators and investigators and enforcement agencies to take action. The government is also committed to a duty of candour, I know there's been a hiccup this week but the Hillsborough Law action group who worked so hard on duty of candour also tell them that the duty works much better if it's complemented by an official whistleblower which then gives protection against detriment to those who do seek it out as they should.

The office is also not an expansion of regulation, ministers have said this but it's not. It streamlines existing processes and provides mechanisms to enforce existing regulation, existing law and existing sanctions. Experience in the US demonstrates that an office of a whistleblower becomes a major deterrent to bad actors, we would all want that, and the US experience also suggests the office would pay for itself within two years from recouped monies and prosecutions and then contribute substantial funds to the Treasury.

I recognise this is not the perfect bill in which to place this reform so I am looking to the government to reassure me that it is seizing the issue. I hope that we are going to hear from the Minister in closing that the Grant Thornton review of the whistleblowing framework will be made public shortly. Given that the terms of reference for that report was so narrow I'm also looking for a commitment to seriously and on a timely way progress to proper whistleblowing protection.

The third amendment in this group is amendment 96, it was drafted by Lord Wills. Together with the civic society group protect and signed by him, by me and by Baroness Morgan of Cotes. I'm neither Lord Wills or Baroness Morgan of Cotes can be here today so in a sense I am voicing for them. This amendment is an interim attempt to patch up some of the worst gaps in the present legislation we have on disclosure and whistleblowing until we get broader reform. It gives the Secretary of State powers to expand the range of unfair dismissal that so often...

Recognised whistleblower but the employer says no we are just missing you because you're not a good team player. It puts the whistleblowing into an impossible position in the context of the Employment Tribunal so exactly why this change is necessary. It also requires employers to take reasonable steps to investigate disclosures. I know Lord Wills can't conceive what the government hasn't actually agreed to this amendment, and it may be that he will be keen to test the opinion of the House if there is no significant reassurance that we can get some quick movement to try and deal with some of these most egregious circumstances.

I have said that if he can't be present on Wednesday when the issue would possibly come to a vote I will act on his behalf. Let me close again by on his behalf. Let me close again by congratulating the government. I hope that this strive forward on NDA's will make the government eager to seize the whole whistleblowing agenda. I think the government has already heard the sort of acclamation, the congratulations and the real pleasure that an issue that is difficult, that has been grasped, the metal has been grabbed and the government has made a very significant change.

Surely we can't allow repeated flow of scandals, criminality and cover-up to sully our country and cost so many so dear. I say to the government, bravo for all you have done. Moving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward on the rest, please act. It's a real pleasure to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a real pleasure to follow the noble Lady if I can call you my
21:27
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
the noble Lady if I can call you my noble friend, Baroness Kramer. And to add my strong support to my noble friend the Minister and the government's amendment G 46 nondisclosure agreement. This will make the UK a world leader in legislation to end the silence around workplace harassment and discrimination. Nearly 10 years ago the TUC conducted the biggest survey of its kind in Europe which found that half of all women had experienced sexual harassment at work and that figure rose to two thirds of young women.

Women on insecure contract including agency on zero hours contracts were the most vulnerable of all. Too often women subjected to harassment felt they had no choice but to leave their jobs. Risking their careers and livelihoods. Meanwhile too often the perpetrator remained in post, free to harass others. I will always remember one young woman who quits her job after increasingly disturbing comments made by her boss, and at her leaving party he told her that his only regret was that he hadn't had the chance to get her in the store cupboard and rape her.

This is why many of us believe so strongly that harassment is not a joke, it's not a bit of banter, it's not to be trivialised. Whether it's racism, sexism or any other form of prejudice and discrimination, it is an abuse of power. That has real life consequences for those who suffer it. Settlement agreements with nondisclosure clauses compound that lack of power that many of those subjected to harassment feel. So this amendment is about protecting the free speech of victims and witnesses to harassment.

This new right will not stop the use of settlement agreements, but it will stop them being used to gag victims, it puts the victim and witnesses to abuse in the driving seat stop they can decide if they want to talk about the experience and who they want to talk to. That should give every perpetrator pause should give every perpetrator pause for thought. As well as the noble Lords and ladies on all sides of this House, I see Lord Cromwell two had supported this amendment and our own minister Baroness Jones, I also want to congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner, the employment minister Justin Madders, and the brilliant blue Hayne -- Lou Hague MP4 championing this change.

Like others my last word of praise goes to all those campaigners, certainly not least to Zelda Perkins and the campaign can't buy my silence. Eight years ago, Zelda broke her silence and ever since has spoken up fearlessly on behalf of victims and survivors. I am so very proud. We will still be watching but I am so very proud that this Labour government is really lessened. -- I speak briefly on his immense and I'm grateful for the noble Baroness
21:31
Lord Cromwell Portrait Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
for name checking me on the supporters. First of all on Government Amendment 46, I have been Government Amendment 46, I have been going on about NDA's whistleblowers over the years for a long time. And over the years for a long time. And it is great to finally get to a day where we have legislation that where we have legislation that agrees with it. I agree with the reservations about this but it is a reservations about this but it is a substantial cheque for what is long substantial cheque for what is long overdue.

Turning to amendment 96 I support that amendment, the unfair dismissal I am interested in particular in supporting the duty to investigate bit. I often say that Parliament loves to make laws and Parliament loves to make laws and then never enforces them. then never enforces them. Organisations love to make policies about whistleblowing, to coin a about whistleblowing, to coin a phrase, big, beautiful policies about whistleblowing. The trouble is that when it comes to somebody that when it comes to somebody actually trying to sell row in practice very often the reception is practice very often the reception is the three D's.

Delay, dismiss, and the three D's. Delay, dismiss, and deny. This amendment will give the opportunity to remove something that is not only unfair to the individual employee but is corrosive to business officials and is a betrayal of investors interests in whatever the business or organisation isn't I would just like to remind the House that whistleblowing is not just about sexual harassment, vitally important though that aspect is, it can be by criminality, a whole range of kinds, which, if not revealed, is very corrosive to business and damaging to investors who take a keener interest in something than whistleblowers.

To bring our duty to investment will be a great step towards resisting the temptation and the ability to cover up issues brought up right whistleblowers. Finally, an amendment 95, Baroness Kramer has very long championed the office of the whistleblower and I think for all the reasons we have discussed tonight it is of benefit to whistleblowers and organisations to have those offers put in place. There is such a lot of work to do in terms of their knowledge, in terms of their support, with so much need out there I do not think I need to say any more, I am just happy to support once more Baroness Kramer's enthusiasm for the whistleblowers.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would very much like to thank the Minister and her offices for all the time they have given us over the
21:34
21:35
21:36
21:37
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, this has been very important debate and I thank the noble Baroness the Minister, Baroness O'Grady, Baroness Couttie, Baroness Ramsay, Lord Cromwell, my Noble Friend Lord Lucas for their contributions. But I would, in particular, like to congratulate and thank the noble Baroness Lady Kramer, especially, so far as the amendments 95 and 96 are concerned. They are vital and long overdue and I support them very strongly indeed. They strike at the very heart of what it means to have a fair, transparent, and accountable workplace.

Too often whistleblowers have faced retaliation, dismissal, and isolation. Not because they have done anything wrong but because they have identified where there has been something that is severely wrong. That is a moral failure in the system. And it is one that this House must now move to correct. Workplace harassment, abuse, corruption, mismanagement, these are not minor, private inconveniences to be swept under the carpet. There are serious matters of public interest. And it is precisely in the public interest that these amendments refine, redefine, what constitutes a protected disclosure and established independent office of the whistleblower.

And as the Noble Lord Cromwell just pointed out, this new body would be more than just symbolic. It would enforce real standards, offer real protections, and provide real address, for those that are brave enough to come forward. It would finally send a clear signal to employers that retaliation is just no longer ever going to be tolerated. And that burying the truth behind legal threats and nondisclosure agreements has got to stop it is particularly important for these protections to extend disclosures around violence, harassment, and abuse in the workplace.

And this is too often enforced where whistleblowing could save us from further harm, so I urge the Government to take the opportunity to stand firmly on the side of transparency, accountability, and justice.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I thank all noble Lords for their support for our
21:40
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
Lords for their support for our amendment? And I sure the noble Lords that we are following through to the implementation that Noble Lord Lucas, for instance, asked for a number of very specific questions, there will be further consultation on the regulations. But I want to absolutely sure all noble Lords of the government's absolute determination to get this fully on statute and the regulations. I know that noble Lords would hold our feet to the fire and I will be doing that as well, so we will deliver on this.

If I now move on, sorry, to amendments 95 and 96, my Lords, whistleblowers are forced to play an important role in wrongdoing and my practice in about this and it is vital that workers are able to come forward with concerns without suffering adverse treatment by the employer. That is why whistleblowers have been protected from dismissal and detrimental treatment under the Employment Rights Act since reforms were introduced in the UK, 1998, in the public interest disclosure act. However, sometimes since the world leading reforms were introduced Government acknowledges concerns of noble Lords and others that the whistleblowing framework may not be operating as effectively as it should be.

That is why we are taking a range of actions to strengthen this. Firstly, through the Employment Rights Bill are introducing a measure that we are expressing social harassment for the basis for the disclosure. This will provide welcome clarity for workers and have wider benefits including encouraging mobile cause to speak up about sexual harassment by using whistleblowing routes. The measure will also signal to employers that workers that have protected disclosures about sexual harassment must be treated fairly, as workers will have legal recourse if their employer suggests them to detriment as a result.

Additionally, we have committed to implementing professional standards for NHS managers to hold them accountable for silencing whistleblowers, or endangering patients for misconduct. Most recently, the Government amended the public interest disclosure risk described 2014 to allow workers to make protected disclosures to relevant Government departments on suspected breaches of sanctions. These changes will help workers to qualify for important employment protections when disclosing information on financial, transport, and other trade sanctions. And to seek redress, should the suffer the detriment or dismissal due to making a protected disclosure.

The amendments proposed in this billable make substantial changes which we believe should be considered as part of a broader assessment of the operating of the whistleblowing framework. For example, the amendment that would create an office for the whistleblower would introduce a significant structural change for that framework. The Government also knows there are different views about stakeholders and the role of the new body. However, as an indication of the continued movement in this space by the Government, I am pleased to another that the Government is today rubbishing the whistle report on the framework and undertaken by the previous Government.

The report about observations of insights about the operation of whistleblowing framework obtained from stakeholder engagement and a literature review that we believe would be a positive contribution to debate. The Government look forward to engaging stakeholders about that report and the proposal for reform. On that basis, I ask the Noble Lady the Baroness Kramer to withdraw amendment 95.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Might I thank the Minister for the letter in response to my the letter in response to my question? I quite understand that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

she can't answer the minute. Sorry, apologies. I am sure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Sorry, apologies. I am sure that we could provide some clarification on that. And I should say that I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

on that. And I should say that I meant to move my original amendments if I have not done that. The question is that amendment 40

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment 40 6B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the content have it. Amendment 47, Baroness
21:45
None Portrait Amendment 47
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith. My Lords, I rise to speak to
21:45
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes Portrait Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (Plaid Cymru)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendments 47 and 48, which I have tabled to address a critical and tabled to address a critical and long-standing gap in how we protect workers from sexual harassment and gender based violence in the workplace. These amendments, at their hearts, are about prevention, about ensuring that employers have proactive duty to make workplaces safer, and that the Health and Safety Executive has a clear enforceable role in holding them to account. And, as we all know, They amend the work -- health and safety at work to place an explicit duty on employers under the oversight of the HSE, to prevent workplace harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and gender-based abuse.

We had an important debate on these amendments at committee and I'm grateful to Lord Russell and Baroness Jones for joining me in making that case. I would also like to thank Baroness Kramer for her thoughtful and supportive response from the Liberal Democrat benches. I wish to thank the Minister for her engagement, since then including two meetings most recently with the safeguarding and violence against women and girls minister Jess Phillips in attendance as well. I appreciate those conversations and believe we are moving in the right direction.

However, despite the government's assertion that the current regulatory framework is strong and appropriate, I remain unconvinced. I'm not alone in that view. The organisation supporting the intention behind these amendments, frontline services, legal experts and trade unions believe as I do that the status quo is inadequate and reactive. It too often leaves survivors carrying the burden of enforcement long after the harm has already been done. Let me be clear, the police cannot enforce prevention. They act after the events and as I outlined in my recent letter to the Minister, conviction rates remain shockingly low, just 1.8% of stalking cases reported to the police last year led to a conviction.

We know that work pace per specific abuse has not been recorded, Freedom of Information Act show that only two police forces reported any cases of workplace sexual harassment at all, just seven cases in an entire year. That is not an incredible enforcement pathway. Likewise, the Equality & Human Rights Commission, while an important body is constrained. It cannot fine, it also doesn't cover the forms of gender-based violence. Sexual Domestic Abuse Act stalking. When they spill over into workplaces as we know that they often do.

And an automatic investigation of breaches of the prevention duty under the workers protection Acts 2023 under the workers protection Acts 2023 Does Not Take Pl unless a survivor wins a sexual harassment case. By contrast the Health and Safety Executive is already present in workplaces, it already regulates employers and already imposes significant penalties when health and safety obligations are breached. If two care homes in Wales can be If two care homes in Wales can be fined £400,000 for failing to manage risks of violence from patients, why should a multinational corporation be let off with a warning letter for failing to protect its employees from sexual harassment? I'm not asking for the reinvention of the wheel.

I'm asking that an existing regulator be given a clear mandate to address a risk it already recognises using powers that are already -- it already holds. UK has ratified the ILO Convention 190 which obliges us to ensure employers which obliges us to ensure employers To vent violence and To vent violence and harassment To vent violence and harassment at work including gender-based violence. These amendments would help us fulfil that obligation, not in theory but in practice. These amendments have been drafted with the legal and sectoral expertise of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and rights of women.

Are backed by over 20 trade unions, specialist organisations and frontline charities including the end violence against and coalition, white ribbon UK, Unite hospitality and the TUC young workers network. These are voices we should listen to, not only because they represent workers, but because they are already doing the work that government has so far failed to do. This is especially clear today when an enquiry has upheld 45 allegations made against the MasterChef presenter Gregg Wallace. While 11 complaints have been made to the employers, the BBC and the production company, unacceptable behaviour from sexually explicit comments to unwanted touching, to being in a state of undress was allowed to continue for nearly 20 years with no real repercussions.

These workers were not protected by the current regulatory framework, the work place regulatory framework, the work place This is not a marginal issue, this is about the safety and dignity of workers, disproportionately women, disproportionately young people, and disproportionately those precarious or public facing work. We all here know those women, those women are my friends, they are your daughters, they are the people that we pass on the street every day. And we are with them a system that is not just reactive but preventative.

Not just principled, but enforceable. And I hope that the government will reflect carefully and support the intentions behind these amendments because silence or inaction in the face of systematic workplace harm is unacceptable. It is complicity. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed after clause 22 insert the following new clause, duty to prevent violence and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace, as printed on the marshalled List. I'm going to speak very briefly

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to speak very briefly because Baroness Smith has given such an effective speech which
21:52
Baroness Kramer Portrait Baroness Kramer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
such an effective speech which outlines the issue and the hour is late. The Health and Safety Executive when she first came forward with this proposal I thought my goodness, here is a body could effectively deal with harassment and violence in the workplace because it knows how to respond very quickly to situations which put people in an unsafe set of circumstances. I suspect when the HSE was first put into place sexual harassment and violence were probably considered to be somewhat acceptable.

All they were domestic or they were private. But they certainly weren't something that an employer or workplace should be concerned about. But times have changed and we no longer look at the that way. I think it's entirely appropriate therefore to update the SHG's role to be able to take on these issues. It's very easy to see how effective that organisation could be in closing down both harassment and violence, it's a respected organisation. People in a workplace no that it will act and it will enforce those kinds of behaviours make a great difference to whole culture within the workplace.

I thought this was a gene -- and ingenious approach and I very much want to back it because we want to do is stop violence and harassment, and here it seems to me is a mechanism which does that with very little change to the existing organisation structures, but by giving power and responsibility to an organisation that has the capacity to be able to deal with the problems and deal with them effectively.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I will rise very briefly under supply should follow Baroness Kramer
21:54
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
supply should follow Baroness Kramer who I think very powerfully made the case for Amendment 48 I'm going to focus on 47. Baroness Smith has already made the case very powerfully but I'm just going to add one very recent set of statistics to this. The noble Lady mentioned unions and unite in the last week has put out a study pulling women across the 19 sectors of work that it covers. It found, these figures are truly shocking, one quarter of respondents said they had been sexually assaulted either at work, in a workplace -related environment or on the way to and from work.

Eight% said they have been a victim of sexual coercion at work. This is the sort of situation we have seen as Baroness Smith said, people who are in insecure employment, zero hours contracts which the government is doing something about, perhaps not enough something, but if you are in a situation where you desperately How many hours you get on the rotor that puts that supervisor in an incredible position of power which can entirely is being abused. What was really telling, 56% of the respondents said they heard sexually offensive joke at work, 55% had experienced unwanted gestures or sexual remarks.

I'm sure the government response will be that we are taking the issues to react, but what is really crucial about Amendment 47 is it sets out a responsibility to prevent this happening, and I think this really needs to be regarded as a public needs to be regarded as a public health measure. We hear often in your Lordships chamber issues around mental health and well-being and problems we have in our society, if you are forced to keep going into a workplace which is actively hostile to you in this kind of gender harassment and abuse, that's going to be very bad for you, it's going to be very bad for the company.

Really as a society we shouldn't tolerate it.
21:56
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular Baroness Smith for her introduction. We must recognise that violence and harassment in the violence and harassment in the workplace are unacceptable in any form, it's also important to acknowledge I think that women particularly in certain sectors are often at greater risk and they face additional barriers to speaking out or seeking redress. This amendment raises serious and pressing concerns about how we ensure that all workplaces are safe, inclusive and free from abuse.

The call for more proactive duties on employers and grating solvent from the Health and Safety Executive is one approach to addressing these challenges. However as with any proposed legislative change it is right we consider carefully the potential implications including how such duties would be enforced. The capacity of the Health and Safety Executive and how we balance existing legal protections with any new obligations which would place on employers. I'm very interested to hear what the Minister has to say on this point particularly with regard to how the government sees the role of regulation guidance and support in preventing workplace violence and harassment.

In particular one clause that did pique my interest in that did pique my interest in 3C which refers to gender identities including women and girls, that would seem to me to be straying dangerously into Supreme Court territory which as I understand we have yet to hear the EHRC's guidance on this. It would strike me as a tad premature but I'm interested to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
21:58
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today's short debate and I thank Baroness Smith, for tabling this amendment and would like to reassure her that the government is fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment, in particular gender-based violence and harassment. The current strong regular three framework ensures workers are protected from such risks, employers currently have a clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks and long established health and safety at work act 1974.

And the statutory provisions made. This includes taking action to prevent workplace violence. They are required to assess these risks and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce them. As part of these existing regular three framework the management of health and safety at work regulations 1999 requires employers to assess risks which arise from the work activity including the potential for violence and take suitable action to reduce or eliminate this risk. The health and safety at work act 1974 and its associate regulations cannot be used for issues that do not arise out of the work activity.

As this would result in HSE operating. The Health and Safety Executive or HSE and local authorities were responsible for enforcing the health and safety at work act take both proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers are complying with their duties. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate measures to protect workers and anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence. The HSE has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligation.

In the Baronesses proposal there is a request for HSE to publish health and safety framework, specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. However this framework already exists as employers have duties under the management of health and safety at work regulations to ensure they have sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety risks arising at the work activity, including violence and aggression. Where an employer is found to have breached health and safety law HSE do not have powers to issue fines, when a significant breach is identified, and a case meet the threshold for prosecution, under the code for Crown prosecutors, HSE bring employers to account through the Criminal Justice System.

It is then for the courts to decide the penalty subsequently imposed, if an employee is guilty of such offences and if any fine imposed by the courts goes directly to His courts goes directly to His Though harassment in the workplace could be addressed under the Health and Safety at Work Act it is HS ease long-standing policy that they do not intervene where there is more appropriate for a later legislation exists. The protection provided by the framework overlaps with the most relevant organisation taking the lead on specific issues.

A preventative duty for employers to social harassment in the workplace already exists under the Equalities Act 2010. The recent amendment to the act came into force on 26 October, 2024, requiring employers to take proactive measures to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. This provision is enforced by the equality and human rights commission. When harassment offences are committed in the workplace, the protection of harassment act 1997 provides the harassment act 1997 provides the police with the authority to prosecute such offences.

Additionally, the he had chance can take action under the Equality Act, sorry, 2010. 2010. My Lords, hope this will reassure the noble Lords that the currently the framework for addressing violence and harassment in the world prices both robust and comprehensive also the Government remains committed to raising awareness on this important issue. Tackling violence against women and girls is a top priority for this Government. Our manifesto included the ambition to have it in a decade. We are going further than before to deliver a cross Government transformative approaches to half violence against women and girls and women against women and girls strategy which we hope will be Of preventative action which are counted in the noble Baronesses amendment are key to ending violence against women and girls.

Government will continue to have conversations with the noble Baroness and others on this important issue as we pursue our target of halving violence against women and girls. I just want to answer two quick points. One is on third-party arrests and apparently closed 20 will introduce the obligation on the Equality Act 2010 permit and the rest employees by the third party in the course of the employment. And also under central harassment we are supporting effective implementation of the new duty under the Equalities Act, 2010, to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment of employees which, as I said earlier, came into force on the 26th, as I said earlier, came into force on 26 October and given the adequacy of the protections provided by existing legislation I therefore respectfully ask that noble Baroness Smith to withdraw amendment 47.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Minister for his answer. I must admit that the answer answer. I must admit that the answer does not counter the fact that the does not counter the fact that the burden of proof still remains on individuals rather than employers and I have previously shared a number of cases where, for example, number of cases where, for example, big companies have had big media attention around this and have only attention around this and have only received a warning letter from EHRC.

And in comparison to other businesses where, for example, the two care homes that I shared the two care homes that I shared the case of our treated very differently, so I not convinced that differently, so I not convinced that what we currently have in regulation actually makes a difference to actually makes a difference to individual workers who are experiencing these incidents in experiencing these incidents in their workplace. However, I am grateful to the Minister for grateful to the Minister for recognising the importance of prevention and that there is more to prevention and that there is more to be done.

So, on this occasion, I will withdraw my amendments, however I will be pressing this with the Government further, so I welcome the opportunity to have a look at this, particularly in the about strategy as it is launched or published in September. However, I must remind the Government that this has to be a cross departmental approach and it should not be up to one department to set this out and there is a responsibility here for this department to use all of the options that they have and just doing good is not good enough.

Why can't we try to achieve the best outcomes for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

these workers is Mac so, on this occasion, I will withdraw my amendments. Measure that the imminent be withdrawn. Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment is, by leave, My My Lords, My Lords, I My Lords, I big My Lords, I big to My Lords, I big to move My Lords, I big to move that My Lords, I big to move that further

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I big to move that further consideration on the report be adjourned. The question is that further consideration on the report be now adjourned. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House be now adjourned.
14:00
None Portrait Oral questions: Action to control imported goods worth below the £135 threshhold for value added tax
-

22:13
14:01
None Portrait Oral questions: Action to control imported goods worth below the £135 threshhold for value added tax
-

House House of House of Lords House of Lords - House of Lords - 14 House of Lords - 14 July House of Lords - 14 July 2025.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page