Lords Chamber

Monday 21st July 2025

(began 5 hours, 20 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
None Portrait Oral questions: Cuts to Official Development Assistance in the UK
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

First First Oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Oral Question, First Oral Question, Lord First Oral Question, Lord Oates.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

First Oral Question, Lord Oates.
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Availability of weight loss medications
-

Third Oral Question.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg leave to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper. And in so doing declare
14:59
15:00
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
None Portrait Oral questions: Regional effects of the reduction in staff costs for NHS England
-

Fourth Oral Question, Lord Scriven.
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:22
None Portrait Business of the House
-

previously debated in Grand Committee. Baroness Hayman of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ullock. I beg to move a motion tanning in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my name on the Order Paper BP. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Armed Forces Act

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. Armed Forces Act 2006 continuation, Lord Coaker. I beg to move motion standing in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

my name on the Order Paper be approved. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". Online safety super complaint eligibility and procedural matters Regulations

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and procedural matters Regulations 2024 I've, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch. I beg to move motion standing in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Legislative Reform Orders of adult Legislative Reform Orders of adult social to order 2025, Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent. I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Electricity and (No. 2) Regulations,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

2025, and one of the motion. I beg to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper en

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bloc. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Third reading of the House of Lords Third reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, Baroness Smith of Basildon.
15:24
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Smith of Basildon. I have it in command from His Majesty looking to acquaint the House that His Majesty haven't been reformed of the... Has consented to place a progressive interest, so far as they are affected by the bill and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the deposed of Parliament for the purposes of the bill. I beg to move this bill be read 1/3 time. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be read a time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After close three, Amendment one, Baroness Smith of Basildon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Basildon. I rise to move Amendment one and speak to amendments one, two, three, speak to amendments one, two, three, four and six. In committee and report the House considered the amendments tabled by the noble Lord amendments tabled by the noble Lord Lord Ashton of Hyde regarding the sensitive matter of allowing peer to sensitive matter of allowing peer to lack capacity to be able to retire lack capacity to be able to retire through a power of attorney. The noble Lord agreed to withdraw his amendment so we could consider and discuss the issue further.

I'm discuss the issue further. I'm grateful to noble Lords and the grateful to noble Lords and the grateful to noble Lords and the noble Lady Baroness Prentis for meeting me after report discusses issue. I would like to thank also the noble Lady Baroness Browning has the noble Lady Baroness Browning has engaged with me on this issue. It's an issue many of us have personal an issue many of us have personal experience of and feel passionately about. As I have said, I think we're trying to get to the same place on this matter and there is agreement across the House on the position that members who lose capacity should be able to retire with the dignity deserve.

As I noted in previous debates, after becoming leader formally raised this matter with the clerk of the Parliament and sought my own legal advice, and I have discussed with this with a number of noble Lords, the usual channels and the clerk of the Parliament. Following the debate in committee I was grateful for the support across the House, and as a result a solution was agreed by the committee. The clerk of the Parliament confirms to accept notice of this nation in retirement submitted to him by a person acting on behalf of Apia who had lost capacity.

Where that person holds either a lasting power of attorney, executed under the personal capacity act,... Made prior to 2005 act. Following discussions with noble Lords the debate at report it became clear that in view of the House it would be preferable to find a solution in statute, that would put it beyond doubt that the lack capacity are able to retire via power of attorney. The solution would... As leader and as the house, we have a duty to get to this right.

I committed to engage in further discussions on the issue and I believe the amendments tabled in my name now present a solution that will satisfy the concerns that were raised in previous debates. I will briefly outline this for the position of the House. Amendment one in my name makes clear that a notice under section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act be given and signed by a person acting on behalf of who lacks capacity. And provides that such a notice must be given and signed in accordance with standing orders of the House.

It will then be for the standing orders and any associated gardens of the companion both of which will be subject of the Procedure Committee and then the House to set out how the arrangements are to operate in practice. That will be subject to further work discussions that I hope will start over the summer recess so will start over the summer recess so the standing orders and the guidance replaced as soon as possible. I would expect them to include the details of the source of instruments under which the clerk will accept notice of resignation on behalf appear, the requirements on a person, and the steps to be taken when that notice is received.

I would have course consult those noble Lords who expressed interest in the area including those who have signed the amendment and the usual channels. Can I say, I'm very grateful for the support from across the House for these amendments. These are the only amendments to have attracted the support of all the usual channels, and I'm grateful for that. I think this approach provides the certainty noble Lords have sought on this issue, but it also reduces the risk of wider ramifications on the existing legal framework capacity and powers of attorney.

And return to subject have raised before it gives the House ownership of the details of these arrangements allowing us to make modifications as and when required. This is so the House can remain idle and responsive to ensure they remain workable, particularly in the event of any future changes. In resolving this issue, I have decided to table amendments to make alterations to the commencement provisions in the bill. This is to ensure that the families of P is who wish to avail themselves of these new arrangements do not have to wait until the end of the parliamentary session.

As a result, I now intend for the bill to come into force on Royal assent. Specifically and only in relation to the amendments I have tabled in the power of attorney, that is Amendment three. The other substantive provisions of the bill will commence as planned, at the end of the parliamentary session in which it receives Royal assent. I wish to thank noble Lords again for working instructor free on this issue. I have listened to the house's view on this issue, at every point, to seek to find a solution.

At committee I listened and acted and I put forward a solution at report. And I do feel this amendment provides a certainty and durability that House was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

seeking. I beg to move. Amendment proposed, after close
15:30
Lord Ashton of Hyde Portrait Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-affiliated)
-
-
three insert the following new clause as printed on the marshalled list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the noble Lady lead the lead of the houseful coming up with and discussing this elegant with and discussing this elegant solution of removing Amendment one and the consequential amendments, all of which I fully endorse. They all of which I fully endorse. They will be more comprehensive than my will be more comprehensive than my original amendment, as soon as the detail has been addressed in the standing orders, and there will be a resolution to the problem which faced all parties and groups in the faced all parties and groups in the House.

In her speech the noble Lady leader acknowledged and took into leader acknowledged and took into The house will be given a chance to take the view on their merits. They will be able to be changed will be able to be changed relatively easily if necessary, for example if the power of attorney regime changes in the future. May I regime changes in the future. May I also thank the noble and learned Lord Garnier, Lord Keen, Baroness Lord Garnier, Lord Keen, Baroness Prentis, and Lord Pannick for their Prentis, and Lord Pannick for their assistance and advice.

In thanking the noble Lady the leader, I'm sure it won't have escaped her notice that the only backbench amendment to the historic House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, subsequently adopted by the government, was initiated by a Hereditary Peer. Not an important factor I admit, but perhaps a footnote to a footnote in history. footnote to a footnote in history.
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:37
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
I rise briefly to speak to amendment five, the other amendment in this group. It is a small change, consequential to the amendment your Lordships made during our first day on report. Since the bill now seeks to abolish the system of hereditary by-elections, to let those who currently sit in the House leave in the same manner as the rest of us, that is by one of the roots set out in the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, or by some far higher authority, amendment five changes the requirement in clause 64 amendment five changes the requirement in clause 644 their rates of sums to be at the end of session as originally proposed.

I'm grateful for noble Lords from all corners of the house who supported this. I believe it's consistent with the governance manifesto commitment, but as well as being kinder and less abrupt it is more consistent with the way we have treated other groups of noble Lords who have had their time in this House brought to an end. The Irish peers in the 1920s, and the Lords after 2009. I also want to thank the noble Baroness the leader for her support, and echo the comments that have been made about the amendment on power of attorney.

I know it's often awkward for those of us in this House to debate the composition of the House or confront the consequences it has for our members. But she has been clear throughout in her praise for the public service given to our hereditary colleagues over many years, I thank her for saying that throughout. I thank her as well for the consensus she has achieved on the amendments she has brought today. I think it's a very good thing that an amendment is going to the other place bearing not just her name but Lord True, Lord Newby and Lord Pannick.

At -- I hope we can find some other areas of consensus but I'm grateful for this one. but I'm grateful for this one.
15:39
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I think it is good we have found an elegant solution, I am happy to take it on this occasion, an elegant solution to a problem we all recognise. Have to say to Lord Parkinson, I didn't realise there had been an awkwardness in the House about discussing measures about this bill. I think I know what he means. On my amendments I am very grateful to all noble Lords who supported them, particularly the leader of the opposition who added his name and others as well.

In that spirit, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. The question is that amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that amendment one is agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. The question is that amendments to to for be moved en bloc. As many as are of that en bloc. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". Contents contrary, "Not content". Contents habit. The question is that amendment five be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not "Content", of the contrary, "Not content".

The contents have it. The question is that amendment six be agreed to, as many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move this bill do now past. The other place admitted the bill to this hausfrau scrutiny in December of last year. Since then we have spent eight days, nine have spent eight days, nine including today, considering the legislation, a total of 51 hours of legislation, a total of 51 hours of scrutiny. A total of 146 amendments were tabled in committee, with 124 were tabled in committee, with 124 debated and a further 36 tabled a debated and a further 36 tabled a report stage.

The government is grateful for the debates we've had on the bill. I want to thank the usual channels on amendments regarding the power of attorney as well as number of other members who have contributed to the wider debates in this House. With regards to progressing further reform of your Lordship's House, I've already spoken about my intention to establish a dedicated Select Committee on the issue of the timing and participation and the impact that would have on the site of the House -- the size of the House.

I look forward to progressing those issues during the passage of this bill. Before I draw to a close throughout the passage of this bill I have been ably assisted by a first rate team and other officials behind-the-scenes. I want to thank them for their hard work, Lady Anderson common Lord Collins, the Attorney General, I'm also grateful to the number of noble Lords who over several months met me both privately and in small groups to discuss the issues they had particular concerns with or suggestions they had for the bill.

A number of noble Lords have followed the journey of this bill from the beginning, and it's been quite a journey. It will now go to the other place with amendments as Lord Parkinson said, and will no doubt return to our House for further review. It is my hope we will deliver on the government's manifesto commitments on this bill and see legislation on the statute book as soon as possible. I beg to move this bill do now past.
15:42
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal for her moly and words. I hope during the time that elapses between now and our return in September careful thought will be given by this place and the other players to the merits of the amendments and debates in your Lordship's House. I hope the government will think positively, if not in the context of this bill, about proposals your Lordships output that all Ministers in your Lordship's House should be paid.

And we reaffirmed the right of the monarch to create peerages that do not require the holder to sit in this place. I think those ideas are worth taking forward. For my own part, and I would venture to suggest in the hopes of many other noble Lords, I would like to think the joint amendment on power of attorney could be the symbol of other accords that might be reached as this reform goes forward. I remain committed to the principles I set out at the beginning of our committee stage, which include along with a more reasonable attitude to those of our colleagues who have sat among us, a voluntary understanding to address perceived issue of numbers and the reinforcement of the conventions on the conduct of this House and its relations with the other place.

That would actually liberate this House from the unnecessary late nights that no one here enjoys. I do hope that would still be possible, for without the fullest trust, respect and goodwill between the government of the day and His Majesty's opposition, and I value the candour and friendship with the Leader of the House, but without goodwill between the government of the day and the Opposition days House cannot function. The brutal reality is the full exclusion of over 80 peers does not evidence for respect, it cannot be the basis of full goodwill.

Be that as it may, in asking my colleagues to agree that the bill do now past, which I know many on this side in their hearts regret, I do invite the whole House to assent to the principle that no person should again enter this House to any degree by right of hereditary. That has long been the professed wish of Labour and Liberal Democrat benches. My only regret now is that it's not been accompanied as was promised and honoured in 1999 by properly worked out proposals for reform.

The richest people have never been asked to assent to and all appointed house in perpetuity. This bill as presented would have left along with a sprinkling of bishops a House of Life Peers created by a statute passed as recently as 1958. An all appointed house, which is almost unique in the world. No other liberal democracy would long tolerate that a Prime Minister of any party, even one like Mr Faraj's not yet represented here, should have full control of the numbers of people sent here.

And add to that the untrammelled power to purge and throughout members of the sitting legislature. Such a constitutional settlement could not and should not settlement could not and should not The passing of this bill, there's also the history of a part of our kingdom and perhaps it is right to refer to it because in those centuries, much that was good and great, and in the widest sense noble, was accomplished, from the curtailing of the absolute power of the monarchy in mediaeval times and to the glorious Revolution, to wooden initiatives like that of my noble friend Lord Allan's father and the first freeing of gay people from the shameful odious penal laws in 19 67.

It was then a different building, but it was here as Prime Minister that the first Duke of Wellington carried catholic emancipation. It was here as Prime Minister the first Belgrade carried the great reform Bill. For centuries in this place, until now, Hereditary Peers of all parties came with a high and unfailing sense of duty to serve and give good counsel to the fullest of their abilities. We see that same spirit here today in so many of our friends and colleagues. We should honour them and effort remember the great achievements.

It was a forebear of my noble friend the Earl of Effingham to lead our resistance to the Spanish Armada. It was a member of this House, Viscount Nelson, who fell in his country service at Trafalgar. It was a grandson of the Duke so Winston Churchill stood at the Dispatch Box and rallied our country in the darkest days of the war. Indeed it was that same Dispatch Box the grandfather of my noble friend Earl Attlee stood and carried the case for the creation of the NHS to which my noble friend is that living memorial.

In our full and final removal of hereditary succession from this place, let us not turn our backs on what the principle of hereditary and family have meant and must always mean in our society and every healthy society. It is in order to create, assist and bequeath to the children who come after them, that millions of working families go out each day to strive, toil. It is from good parents that millions of young people across the generations learn their skills and values.

Poetry is part of who we are and what we strive to be -- hereditary. The Labour Party has one. No hereditary peer will ever again take their oath at this Dispatch Box. But I submit it is not necessary on top of that with to wield brutal acts on our colleagues who sit here now. That is what the amendment passed by your Lordship's House for grandfathers rights ask the government to moderate. There is a chance, and there's a choice, to temper historic victory with magnanimity in that victory.

Such a statesman like choice would benefit this House in keeping members we value, and at the same time, unleashed a spirit of goodwill that I believe could carry Castle together through the rest of this together through the rest of this Parliament. -- Arias altogether. -- Carry us altogether. Carry us altogether.
15:49
Lord Newby Portrait Lord Newby (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The bill is exceptionally short. But the recent it's occupied 51 hours of your Lordships time is that the bill has been used as an opportunity to discuss the future composition of virtually every possible aspect of a future composition, and the powers of your Lordship's House. And as those unfortunate to hear my contributions will know, have argued consistently that there should be an elected house, and moved instantly which would deal in one full sweep with the noble Lord Lord True's worry about the excessive power of the Prime Minister in his or her ability to create new piece.

Sadly, your Lordship's House did not agree with me and those on our benches on broader reform, but it has done already one useful bit of tidying up in terms of the agreement that was reached on the power of attorney and it's also helpfully I think, demonstrated a fairly considerable degree of consensus on what are likely to be the next elements of reform, namely the need to have a retirement age and the need to set at least low bars in terms of participation.

And I think now, having heard the arguments on those issues, and discovered that there is a very considerable degree of agreement about the principles of them, I think the noble Baroness's proposals for Select Committee is timely, but we mustn't let the grass grow under our feet, and it's important that this committee is established, secondly that it works with a set timetable, and a spring forward proposals to your Lordship's House, so that we can be invited to agree on those proposals in the near future.

Because there are many good things about your Lordship's House but some of them were debated and exposed some length during the debate and we have it in our power to deal with some of those quite quickly. I think for the good of the House and of democracy we need to get on with it and from these benches we look forward to paying our part in doing so. I should finally say that I have been guided through the shells and perils of the bill by Elizabeth, In-N-Out whips office, without whom I may well not have retained what sanity I have and I'm extremely grateful to her.
15:52
15:53
Lord Strathclyde Portrait Lord Strathclyde (Conservative)
-
-
Second reading I called this bill a nasty little bill. And I did so because it failed to see any kind of consensus on a serious reform of the House had failed to advance an important constitutional matter with cross-party agreement. But the bricks with which to build that consensus to exist. And this bill leaves your house today amended. And it's amended fairly, moderately and sensibly. And so I wish it well. I hope the mood of friendly consensus continues.

And that the other place will give our proposals the consideration they deserve, although I must admit it is not easy to accept that my time here is nearly over. We will accept the mandate that the government has to end the involvement of a hereditary principle as a route of entry to our house but I joined my colleagues of full benches, still wondering why those of us already serving here are due to be flung out. I look at the noble Lord the convener of the crossbenches, my noble friends Lord Howell and Lord Porter and and all the myriad members who still give so much service to the House.

Even on the Liberal Democrat benches, the the Liberal Democrat benches, the noble Viscount Lord Thurso who is sadly not here, but Lord Addington who has kept those benches quarrel at on so many late nights, and as at on so many late nights, and as for peers who sit behind the government, such as the noble Viscount Lord Stansgate, who has made such a good impact on the House in the few years he has been here. Will the government really be better off without him? The noble Baroness the leader of the House of course listened carefully to the arguments but she has never answered the essential question.

Why have these, what have these sitting parliamentarians done to deserve being shown the door in such a way? Your Lordship's House, I'm glad to say, sees things rather differently, and an amendment to the bill has been passed which insists that there should be arrangements made for P is who wish to state. It would be a sign of strength that the government should indicate that it will now seek and accommodation with my noble friends Lord True and the convener on a realistic number of peers being offered the opportunity to continue their parliamentary lives.

We all know that many peers are planning to retire. The bill now returns to the Commons. It is an opportunity over the summer recess for the government to reconsider how it wishes to move forward on the bill. It's never too late to appear gracious and magnanimous, and even come. Labour's victory in abolishing heredity is real. Need we have such a ruthless Purge.
15:56
Lord Dobbs Portrait Lord Dobbs (Conservative)
-
-
My may I and posters for a few moments on this matter. I think it's relevant to embark on a significant anniversary for the Labour Party this month, I'm not talking about the first anniversary of this government. I'm talking about the 80th anniversary of that remarkable Labour government of 1945, led by Clement Attlee. Captain Clement Attlee, South Lancashire Regiment, Fort nobly, gallantly, and the tragic military adventure, disaster, he was the last but one man to withdraw from the beach.

An adventure which of course the cost was in Churchill his entire political career. -- Winston Churchill. The clock moved on. The names of the beaches changed. The Second World War. Go, it was gold. In the Second World War Clement Attlee formed a very special relationship with Winston Churchill and it was a relationship, of course they hated each other, a load each other's politics and fought hard but it was a relationship based on personal respect and tolerance. And that relationship changed history.

Change the history of a country, change the history of the entire world. And I think that relationship has something to tell us about to has something to tell us about to date. It's an example of tolerance that drives democracy. Democracy isn't simply about the heavy hand of numbers and votes and the clenched fist manifestoes and mandates. It's about getting things done. And tolerance and respect is the lifeblood of democracy which enables those great tectonic plates of politics, when they meet, to slide past each other and to survive, rather than meet head-on.

And create fields around us. -- And create fields around us. -- And create chaos. One thing I think we can say about our noble registries we are just about to say goodbye to is that it did not come here free title. Most have several. They came here for public service. They came here to do their duty so many generations of their families before them had done. And I wish to pay my respect to offer my gratitude to them, and to express my personal affection for so many of them who have served.

I think they are an example to the rest of us in that. And I hope that the government will take the example of that great leader, Clement Attlee, and in the way that it increments this bill, to show the respect and tolerance which he set an example for. I believe that our Hereditary Peers deserve it. They should go without goodwill, our blessing, and indeed, our friendship.
15:59
Lord Moore of Etchingham Portrait Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lords, I have attended all stages of this debate and I have collected a strong sense as the bill has been taken forward that the government has really seen it has something which is not because it's regarded it as a tidying up exercise but of course it is a constitutional and that is therefore serious. I tried to imagine how future historians may look upon what has happened and I don't think they will see this as part of a series of measures which gradually, like a series of measures which gradually extended the franchise for example.

They will not be a common emancipating thread running through it all. Instead I think historians will see as a measure which finally ended the main principle on which the dish is constructed and replaced Nothing will, of nothing. I would argue the principal of heredity has more merits than these debates have allowed, it's well rooted in human nature, though undemocratic it is compatible with a democratic system. If you look at Freedom House list of the freest countries in the world, 10 of the top 20 are monarchies.

You might quite rightly object that none of them apart from us have Hereditary Peer edge, that's correct. All those monarchies have second chambers which are constituted and worked through and have been reformed. Under what's going on now we don't have that, we won't have that, we have no proper proposals as such. In fact your Lordships House is representational power once hereditaries are gone is in some sense weaker than it was when it was first developed centuries ago. At least in those days it represented powerful interests in the life of the nation, whereas we accept for the Lords whereas we accept for the Lords temporal are almost all here as preachers of ministerial patronage.

As well as saying goodbye and thank you to the 86 leaving, which we have tired the sun with talking many a time, we should consider and I look at those present as people like prisoners awaiting sentence. I think we should think later about this that we are doing something which is actually quite big, for something that is rather small-minded. That is something which one always regrets. Being a hereditary Lee minded person myself, I am proud to have grandchildren.

If they ever asked me, what did you do in the war for parliamentary reform, grandfather? I want to say, well my ideas, I tried to uphold parliaments independence and legitimacy.
16:03
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean Portrait Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
-
-
My grandchildren refer to the Parliament building as grandpa's office. I would just like to point out I think this is a moment when we have lit a fuse. A fuse that will ultimately irrevocably change the nature of the Lords. And more importantly, and perhaps for those at the other end at the House of Commons itself. I have always been opposed to the idea of an elected House of Lords. Partly because of my experience in the House of Commons, and belief in the primacy of the House of Commons.

As my noble friend Lord True pointed out, to suddenly create a house which depends wholly on ministerial patronage is to open the gates for the arguments we had and we have had so many years of them, for an elected house. How can it possibly be possible to sustain the idea that it's better to have people appointed by Prime Minister than people who are elected by the people? If Prime Minister's have taken it upon themselves, as an opportunity by accepting the amendment which has been made to the bill to at least mitigate it, if people see that Prime Ministers can remove whole groups of people whether they are hereditaries or people over the age of 80, or people who have some other characteristic, then I think the voters will say why should he choose? Or why should she choose, as Prime Minister? Why should we not choose as electors? If we had an elected house, as the noble Lord the leader of the Liberal Democrats and I'm calling them Liberal Democrats today because he is making a democratic argument.

So I think we will find that the future of the House of Commons will change irrevocably as the primary chamber. That is the basis upon which all reforms have failed, when the penny has suddenly dropped on Members of Parliament that there will be a member of this second chamber in their constituency, that their role as constituency MPs will be undermined. That their ability to make promises on the doorstep the second guessed, that party management will result in the membership of this House under an elected system being determined by party leaders, and it will be filled with people who go along with whatever the party management wish.

Not something that I find very attractive, I have to say. So I just hope that at the other end, in their zeal for getting rid of hereditaries which you have done, they do not miss the point that they have lit a fuse which may very well blow everything they believe in and support apart. To the detriment of our country and the good management of all.
16:06
Lord Grocott Portrait Lord Grocott (Labour)
-
-
I'm afraid I'm going to break the melancholy mood we have heard from previous speakers. For me, I thought this day would never come. This bill, which removes the hereditary principle as a basis for membership of this House, which is now apparently supported by everyone across the House by all political persuasions. That is news to me. I wish someone had told me that a long time ago, it would have saved me a lot of time and trouble over many years.

The idea that somehow or other this is being rushed, the House is being bounced, perhaps I could be allowed to trip back just a could be allowed to trip back just a little way to 1994, when a bill to remove the hereditary principle from the House of Lords was introduced in the Commons by an obscure labour backbencher. Modesty prevents me from mentioning his name. For over three decades now at various levels this reform which we are undertaking today has been gestating, if that's the right word.

It's nothing surprising that it's happened as it has, it's been debated ad nauseam. What does surprise me about some of the speeches that we have even heard today is that it seems to me what is being done, maybe I will fallout with my own side over this point, it's essentially a conservative change to the constitution. It is incremental. It has taken place over many years. It's already been done in substance, with no hurt to anyone so far as I can discover, when over 600 Hereditary Peers were removed from the House 25 years ago.

I'm not aware of the threat to our democracy that was occasioned by that change. I saw no amendments, I was waiting for them from some of the advocates of no change over the years, to have put down an amendment to this bill. They easily could have done, to reinstate the 600. To which Lord Strathclyde is generous enough to perhaps regret he didn't do it. All I can say is that for 31 years this has been coming around, very gradually, far too slowly I would say.

The frustration I felt I think many members of the House can understand. But at last we are at this day, when there will be no more ludicrous, I can't find the adjectives I have run out of them, farcical, unbelievable, absurd, Hereditary Peers by-elections. I mean the title is silly enough, without going into any detail. But I do hope that we can learn to lessons in particular from this episode. I rejoice that this bill is at last going on the statute book.

Of course people are missed, they are general elections. People come and go in parliaments. Two things we should have learned, one I'm afraid the Lib Dems have not learned and many conservatives I've heard recently have not, if you want reform to the House of Lords if you go about it on the basis of changing everything, and all singing all dancing reform of the Lords, the electoral system, the powers, the relationship with the Commons, if that's what your objective is you are going to fail.

It has failed repeatedly, how many times? How many times we have to prove the obvious? Every time since 1911 every attempt to to affect that kind of change have failed. The only way to do it, and I've been amazed at the number of leading Tories who said we can't do that, it's not a thorough reform of the Lords. The only to affect reform is the way this bill does. That's a long considered, specifically focused change, which is pretty well unarguable as we have demonstrated with the abundant support that now exists for the end of the hereditary principle.

If you want change, do it incrementally, do it a bit at a time like this Select Committee is essentially proposing. But the second lesson, which I tried in vain over four Private Member's Bills and numerous interventions and the like, the second change is to recognise that if we can't even make on our own the kind of change which my simple two clauses offered, which was simply to end the by-elections, and we could have done it ourselves were it not for the hostility of a were it not for the hostility of a small number of unreformed apple -- conservatives, one person said they didn't like the fact that the bill was being considered because he was a proper conservative, he didn't like change.

In fact he wasn't too keen on the 1918 32 reform act, it was a step too far even for the most conservative at those times. But if we don't make changes simple, we don't make changes simple, straightforward, unarguable changes ourselves then other people will do it for us. That's what will happen. And I strongly recommend that if we do nothing else as a result of this, which I'm not in the least bit sombre about, we will learn those two lessons.

Do it a bit at a time, and do it before anyone else does it for you. And with that I will just say how thrilled I am to be able to say, though not moving it myself, that this bill do now past.
16:13
16:13
16:15
Earl of Caithness Portrait The Earl of Caithness (Conservative)
-
-
I have long supported the abolition of the right of Hereditary Peers to sit in your Lordship's House. I have said it before in the House, and I meant it. There are two reasons I didn't like the One was that they were private members bills. The reform of this nature should be a government bill. It is quite right that the government have got their way on it. The second reason, my Lords, was that I am disappointed that is hereditary is have failed in one respect.

In 1999, then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irving Blair, said to me, one of the reasons we have kept you is to ensure that the Labour Party fulfil their manifesto commitment to reform the House of Lords. Well, we know that that manifesto commitment was not done. And it must have been quite hard for some noble Lords to have taken part and listened to some of the excellent speeches and debates we have had on this bill and I perhaps mention two that my noble friends Lady Mobarik and the noble Lord Lord and Queen at second reading, a good speech on prejudice.

I would like to also thank the noble Lords opposite for some of their kind words to me about how sad they will be to see the hereditaries go. I enjoyed that conversation, until it petered out when I said, you could have done something about it. I would also like to thank the noble Lords opposite, particularly the influx of Labour peers that came in in 1999, when I took my seat here, I could claim a maximum daily allowance of £4.73.

That is worth £105 also in today's money. But it was in 2,000 /2001 that after numerous attempts at trying to improve our expenses, our expenses suddenly increased hugely. A maximum daily claim will allowance went up 50% in the year and the amount we could then claim which we can't any more. Go to and research costs for non-sitting days nearly doubled. And so that was a bonus for me. Like many p to took bonus for me.

Like many p to took the seat on the front bench, took a substantial reduction in our salary, so the increase in expenses was welcome and I'm extremely wakeful that Labour peers that enabled that. that Labour peers that enabled that.
16:18
Lord Mancroft Portrait Lord Mancroft (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I made a short intervention at an earlier stage. The noble Baroness leader of the House questioned, and I hope not seriously, whether or not I still liked her. The answer is of course I do. I hold the noble Baroness in the greatest respect and indeed affection, as does the whole house, and that respect and affection is unaltered by the passage of this bill. We on this side of the House do not have personal grudges. I accept as a noble friends do the government is fully entitled to get its business and passes manifesto legislation even if I don't like it.

This removes the process by which the new peers can join the House by further by-elections. We accept that, albeit reluctantly. But nowhere in the manifesto did it state that currently sitting members of the House will be similarly removed which is an additional measure and sets a bad and dangerous precedent about removing members of the chamber by dint of its majority in the first, an unheard of provision that exists in no other one democracy. The noble Lord said it would be absurd to suggest that the president would ever be repeated but I suspect he is wrong and as he and his noble friends may well find out to the discomfort and cost in the not-too-distant future.

So as this bill enters its final stages, I would like to ask the noble Baroness the leader in turn if she still likes me. Or is there something I have done that is so deeply offensive that I and my noble friends should be thrown out of this House like discarded rubbish. We often talk of the dignity of the House but I cannot think of anything less dignified for the House and what this government is now doing in this bill. I would like to think that I have done duty over the last almost 40 years.

I certainly believe we have stuck to our side of the deal we made 25 years ago with Lord Irving on behalf of the Labour Party, not a deal which tie the hands of the future government as has been claimed but which to its shame this government is now needing on. The House resting with the provisions of the Employment Rights Act school. The government is concerned with the rights of those on short-term contracts, but apparently at the same time cares little for those of us who worked here with no formal contract, or none of this in this House are technically serving as mothers of the House it would be difficult to argue that this is a place of work and one could argue that the writ of summons taken together constitute some form of agreement.

At either way we are now to be treated in a way that no one else in employment or in any workplace in Britain can be treated. It is rightly legal to sack anyone on the basis of their birth except here in the upper house of this mother of Parliament. So before I go I would be very grateful if the noble Baroness leader would tell exactly what it is that we have done that is so wrong to deserve to be treated in this way.

The noble Lord Lord Grocott has repeatedly gone out of his way to say that this is not personal. But he has wrong. Because it is very personal to each and everyone of us to be treated like this by those we considered our friends and colleagues. It is also deeply, deeply offensive. And I would simply like to know why. Is that really too much to ask?
16:22
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
I had not intended to respond at length and I will not do so given the debate has been quite a long one on the third reading. I was reminded earlier that day is the anniversary of the moon landings. And Apollo 11 took eight days, three hours, and 18 minutes and 35 seconds to complete its mission. I think that is slightly shorter than the time we have spent debating this bill through all its passengers. A number of issues, yes I have a soft spot for the noble Lord Lord Mancroft.

And of course this feels personal to those peers. Have to say it felt very personal to me when I lost my seat as a Member of Parliament with far less notice as well. But this was, he says it was not in the Labour Party manifesto but it was. And he may recall when we were debating the Grocott bills I did say and I wrote in the House magazine as well, we should accept that bill and we would help get that through because otherwise the consequence would be, we would be in a position where all Hereditary Peers would be removed under a Labour government.

So he was given some notice, he may not have listened or read anything I wrote was due was in the Labour Party manifesto. There's nothing about legislation that says we don't value the work of Hereditary Peers or indeed any other member of your Lordships house. That has was in the case. But we were quite clear that hereditary route is not the route that the country expects, or the Labour Party expects, into your Lordship's House. The noble Lord true, we will look at this again but I think he said, if we proceed with the bill, no, if we were to proceed with the bill and the word has been drafted it would unleash a spirit of goodwill and I hope that wasn't an indication from him that said by carrying out a bill in our manifesto, it would unleash a spirit of something opposite goodwill.

I hope that's not what he intended but could certainly is how it can could certainly is how it can across. The name Lord Forsyth was concerned that this bill opens the gates to further reform will change. I say to him, I have also heard from other noble Lords that if we finished with this bill nothing will ever happen again, both can't be true. I do think this House should be taking responsibility more for what we can do, if we take responsibly on the Grocott bill, and managed to get through, we properly would not be had.

On the issues in the select committee, and I know the noble Lord would like to go further and faster, and great lever in bite-size chunks, the House to responsibly. If we can make progress on those, on those issues and by implication the impact on the size of the House, I think that is good progress to be made and if we show we can take responsibly for the work of our house is house, cross-party, we can do so again in the future.

So do understand the views expressed. This is a matter of principle. It was flagged for some time before, it was a clear manifesto commitment, so I beg to move this bill do now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. It may be contents have it. It may be appropriate to have a very short interval before I caught the next interval before I caught the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, third

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, third reading My Lords, third reading of My Lords, third reading of the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Renters' Rights Bill. My Lords, having command from His Majesty The King to acquaint the House that His Majesty, having been informed of the board of the Renters' Rights Bill has consented Renters' Rights Bill has consented to place his interest so far as it is affected by the bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the bill.
16:28
16:28
16:29
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Mr Mann proposed," page 20, line 4, leave out 16, B, and insert, 16, C.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

C. Once again I would like to thank the noble Lord Lord de Clifford for his thoughtful contributions and engagement during the passage of the engagement during the passage of the bill. Amendments one and two corrected cross-references in clause 12 and schedule two, and follow on from amendment 53, A, these amendments do not change the substance of the amendment that was

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to a report stage and on that basis, we are happy to agree them. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Amendment two contents have it. Amendment two contents have it. Amendment two family. -- Formally. Leave out 16, B, and insert 16, C. The question is B, and insert 16, C. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content". The contents have it. I beg to move that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill do now pass. I would like to start by thanking all noble Lords for their contributions and engagement during the passage of the Renters' Rights the passage of the Renters' Rights Bill. We have debated this bill at length and past the midnight hour on length and past the midnight hour on one occasion and over the last six months with many thoughtful and considered contributions from across the House, I am grateful in the House, I am grateful in particular to the opposition of the particular to the opposition of the frontbench namely that noble Baroness Lady Scott of Bybrook and the noble Lord Lord Jamieson for their robust and constructive challenge throughout the passage of the bill.

I would like to thank the bill. I would like to thank noble Baroness Lady Thornhill and Lady Grender for their continued engagement and support. In broad agreement that this bill is long overdue and are looking forward to seeing make a real difference to the people that rely on the sector to people that rely on the sector to Including the noble Lords Cromwell, Lord Best, Lord Carrington, Lord Krebs, noble Baroness lady Waltham, Lord Pannick, and many others. Whilst there may be disagreement on some of the issues we have debated, another we all share the same aim of ensuring the private rented sector continues to work for all.

Finally, I would like to thank my WIPO that sat with three throughout the bill, the Noble Lord such fault and I am grateful to the noble Lords that voted on the bill, including the bill team, and particularly Eden Hilton, Bill manager, but Hermione James Karen, Tom, Ross, Anna, Camilla, Stefan and my private office. I would also like to. Tribute to all of the parliamentary staff, including the clocks, doorkeeper's, security, and public bill office, many of whom have had to stay late as we debated the bill into the early hours.

Sorry.
16:31
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that this bill due now pass.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, let me begin by thanking all noble Lords across the House for their contributions to the House for their contributions to the scrutiny of this bill. While we may differ in our views, the commitment differ in our views, the commitment shown by members to improving the private rented sector is evident and deeply valued. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks to the noble Baroness the Minister. She has shown courtesy, patience, and great resilience throughout this process.

resilience throughout this process. Demonstrating what we would consider a difficult bill, often an a difficult bill, often an indefensible one, she has defended a policy we think reflects more political positioning than practical political positioning than practical policy making. Despite her efforts, we are left with a piece of legislation that risks doing more legislation that risks doing more harm than good. The facts are stark, according to samples, the number of according to samples, the number of rental properties dropped by 42% in quarter one this year.

Compared to quarter one this year. Compared to the same period in 2024. My Lords, the same period in 2024. My Lords, that is 42% fewer homes available, fewer homes for families, less mobility for renters Camilla Strauss mobility for renters Camilla Strauss and more pressure on rent. It is not theoretical, it is happening now, and this bill is accelerating that trend. It is uncertainty around fixed term tenancies, poorly defined position grounds, and reliance on the stretched tribunal is driving responsible landlords away from the sector.

When providers exist supply exit supply shrinks and when supply shrinks rent rises. We understand why tenants seek greater security, but let us be honest, much of what the bill tries to fix is a symptom of a very deep problem. They are simply not enough rented properties in this country, and there are going to be less. Instead of addressing that shortage, this legislation papers over the cracks with layers of regulation that risks doing more harm than good.

It treats the pressures of scarcity, rising rents, insecurity, limited choice, as issues that can be regulated away. My Lords, regulation without supply is a dead end. What we need is a balanced approach. Yes, protect tenants, but also create the conditions for responsible landlords to stay in the market, invest, and offer decent homes. Without that balance, the consequences are predictable and, my Lords, they are already playing out. The real target should be the road landlords, those that exploit the vulnerable tenants and undermine confidence in the sector.

This bill misses that Mark, instead of cracking down on the worst offenders, it keeps new burdens on the majority who act responsibly. What the sector truly needs is a rogue landlord bill, targeted, proportionate, and enforceable, one that protect tenants without pushing decent landlords out of the market. And, instead, we have a bill that gets the balance wrong, it risks shrinking supply, increasing costs, and adding complexity, just when we need clarity and confidence the most. This bill does not strike the right balance between protection and division.

It feels tenants, it feels landlords, and it fails the very market it claims to reform. And the size of the House we will continue to monitor the market and we will challenge the Government to act on any negative outcomes. Before I sit down, my Lords, I would just like to congratulate both Sam and Molly in my office, as it her first in the House and I thank them, most sincerely, for the fantastic support they have given to me and to my Noble Friend throughout the passage of this bill.

of this bill.
16:36
Baroness Thornhill Portrait Baroness Thornhill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, we, on these benches, have been clear throughout the bill that we support it very much. Its main provisions include the abolition of no fault of fiction is an fixed term tenancies and the absolute clear emphasis on tenants rights and much more transparency. There is no doubt that it is a radical bill, but one that will make significant changes to the private rented sector. It has also been said and I wish to repeat it again that good landlords have nothing to fear from these reforms and this we hope will improve into be the case.

It is will improve into be the case. It is clear to say that this process is about improving the bill through recent debate and using the expertise of the House. In truth, to me, it felt more like a conflict, a battle, tenants versus landlords, with the reforms of the Government pitted against the fears and genuine concerns robustly from the frontbenchers and from others around the House. There were also areas of Crosshouse issues that only time will tell.

The capacity of the courts, the impact on all aspects of the houses, including student landlords and the supply of homes to rent, about which, let's say, there were polarised views and the concerns expressed by that Noble Lady in her speech shared by her selves, but we also we hope that the recent figures will study and that the initial inevitable and evil the market will settle down and we look forward to more to rent and more social because both are needed.

We do hope that that Ministers assurances on the military homes standard will also come to pass as our amendment on that issue is welcomed convincingly. Finally, some very genuine thank use. Thank you firstly to everyone that took part in the many amendments and debates that were based on genuine experience, but particularly to the Minister for her time generously given and her patients tested, perhaps just a little, by the determined double act of Baroness Scott and Lord Jamieson, I admire their persistence.

The Minister also showed that she was not willing to be moved on the Government because bill. Her steeliness in the onslaught, however politely delivered, is also commendable. And nor can we forget the valuable contributions of several noble crossbenchers, Lord Cromwell, best, and Carrington, forming a new trio. There was also much wrangling, my learning curve was greatly assisted by several noble Lords, lawyers, especially the noble Earl kernel. Even if I did not always agree with them.

My Lords, for their advocacy on behalf of tenants and shining a light on the reality of many renters, the renters coalition deserve a big thank you. Generation rent, in particular, deserve a special mention, as do the national registered landlords Association. Four May, it was challenging to read their excellent briefings and pit their persuasive arguments against my own. It is also appropriate to thank all the offices of the House who, have noted, tirelessly to get everything done on time and correctly delivered.

This was my first bill and I and grateful to have had a small but dedicated team behind me, especially Baroness Grender and Lord Shipley. And where would any of us be without our able and professional staff, in this case Adam from our whips office. My Lords, it has been a worthy task to contribute to that much-needed reform of the private sector. reform of the private sector.
16:40
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
Traditionally the third reason is an occasion to give thanks and congratulations to all those that have been involved in the bill, whether inside this chamber or outside, my Noble Friend that Minister has well lit as the Baroness Scott and the Baroness Fleet of the Liberals Baroness Thornhill has. At this stage, my Lords, our companion makes it plain that the debates of previous stages of the bill should not be reopened, that speeches should be brief and I hope that my Noble Friend noted that I seeing this, I repeat, I intend to abide by these requirements and congratulations to the Noble Lord are very warmly felt.

We cannot, however, leave this bill, without thing found thanks to my Noble Friend the Minister for her pioneering of this will through all stages of the bill passing through this House and, again, the words of Baroness Scott I think I am echoing in that regard. Throughout, she has been a peregrine of patience and courtesy. She has also been enormously conscientious. Holding meetings right up to the third day of report and sending letters, even though the letter to the Noble Lord Carrington was somehow in transit on the third day of debate.

Not wishing to leave anybody out, my Noble Friend recently thanked and congratulated a pair on a speech that he had not made. But nobody was left out as a result. A special reason to thank and congratulate the Minister has been dishy at length Minister has been dishy at length and complexity of this bill, and I add congratulations to Baroness Scott of Thornhill in dealing with the length and complexity of this and I am sorry I did not bring this down until now.

The bill itself, this is somewhat alarming, stretches over 254 pages. It still has to be spliced in two earlier statutes, most particularly the Housing Act of 1988. And I have gotten my hand here the current in addition of the Housing Act 1998 and this stretches Housing Act 1998 and this stretches over 383 pages. But by the time the provisions of this bill have been spliced it will be 600 or seven pages long. This is not a debate that I am wishing to introduce now, this is a subject that I believe should have the intention of another occasion the length of these bills, the Housing Act, for example, of 19, the Housing Act, for example, of 1998 can be read in its completion.

It tells you the state of landlord and tenant law in 1988. When I first came to the House 54 years ago, the legislation was not run in that direction, but this is a matter, as I said just now, for another debate on another occasion. My Lords, perhaps I could just end on a personal note, I am aware it must have been difficult for my Noble Friend the Minister to be sitting right behind and muttering from time to time that I would ask forgiveness of my Noble Friend the Minister, but I am very lame and I used to always sit at the back, but I am afraid my lameness has taken me to behind the Minister.

But, as I repeat, I apologise and I hope, however, she would accept my many interventions and my genuine attempt to improve this bill to focus more clearly on landlord.
16:45
16:46
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage Portrait Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Models, for the thousands of renters and good landlords who have been disadvantaged by the actions of rogue landlords about the country, not to mention the local authorities who have had to pick up the pieces of the failure to act over the last 14 years, which have created the worst housing crisis in generations, I hope this bill will be a blessed relief. This bill, combined with a competitive package of measures on housing delivery, including £39 billion in funding, on social housing, comprehensive reform of the planning system, an unprecedented investment in construction skills and training, will start the process of delivering what we all want to of delivering what we all want to see, which is that everybody has a fit, safe, secure, and affordable.

My young grandson, only nine years old, was asked to write about home old, was asked to write about home the other day. He did a diagram with lots of things saying what he thought was. At the bottom, he wrote 'home is as special as love', I thought was a marvellous phrase from a nine-year-old. Will continue to debate some of the detail around the spell, I hope we can all keep in our minds, as we do so, how important having a home is to everybody, and having it be safe, secure and affordable is to everybody.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this bill do now perhaps. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "No". The content savage.
16:48
16:48
16:48
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
content". The contents have it. After clause 34, amendment 111 After clause 34, amendment 111ZA, Lord Clement-Jones.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to move amendment 111 a day which seeks to introduce a requirement for workplace AI risk and impact assessments. This and impact assessments. This amendment is focused on addressing the profound and rapidly evolving impact of artificial intelligence systems on the modern workplace. systems on the modern workplace. There were many opportunities for its adoption, but also risks and its adoption, but also risks and impacts. There is massive job, potentially, massive job potentially, massive job displacement, between one-3 million jobs overall.

A workplace skills jobs overall. A workplace skills gap, gaps more than half the UK workforce lacks essential digital skills and the majority of the public has no AI education or training. AI recruitment algorithms training. AI recruitment algorithms have resulted in race and sex discrimination. There are legal vulnerabilities, companies risk vulnerabilities, companies risk facing costly lawsuits and settlements, when unsuccessful job applicants claim unlawful discrimination by AI hiring systems. discrimination by AI hiring systems. But meanwhile, AI adoption accelerates rapidly the UK's regulatory framework is lagging regulatory framework is lagging behind.

Organisations like the trade union congress, at the Institute for future work, have consistently highlighted the critical need for robust regulation in this area. The TUC, through its own artificial intelligence regulation and employment rights Bill drafted with a multi-stakeholder task force, explicitly proposes workforce AI risk assessment. And emphasises the need for worker consultation before AI systems are implemented. They also advocate for fundamental rights, such as the rights to a human review, for high-risk decisions. It similarly calls for accountability for algorithms act, which would mandate pre-emptive algorithmic impact assessments, to identify and mitigate risks, ensuring greater transparency and accountability in the use of AI artwork.

Both organisations stress that existing frameworks are insufficient to protect workers, from the potential harms of AI. At committee stage, when I moved a similar amendment, then amendment 149, the Minister, Lord Leong, acknowledged and said the government has committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers and experts, to examine what AI and new technologies mean for work, jobs, and skills. He went on, we will promote best practice and safeguarding against invasion of privacy, through surveillance technology, spyware, and this discover Tory algorithmic decision- making.

I am sure Lord Clement- Jones, the Institute for the future of work will be welcome to make an input into that word, and the consultation going forward. And I assure the noble Baroness Lady Bennett and all noble Lords this is an area the government actively looking into and we will consult on proposals, in the make work pay plan in due course. This is all very reassuring perhaps, but I re-tabled the amendment today precisely because we need more concrete specifics regarding this promise consultation.

My Lords, the TUC have been working on this for four years, is it too much to ask the government to take a clear position about what is proposed now? The minutes are referred to the importance of proper consultation. This is a crucial area impacting the fundamental right and well-being of workers right now, my Lords. Often without the knowledge. AI systems are increasingly being introduced into the workforce. I should ask the government, it needs to provide clarity on what kind of consultation is being undertaken.

With whom will they be engaging, beyond relevant stakeholders? What is the precise timescale that is consultation? And any subsequent legislative action, particularly given the rapid introduction of AI into workplaces. We cannot afford a wait and see approach, if comprehensive AI regulation cannot be addressed within this bill, as regards to workplace, then we need immediate and clear commitment for provision within dedicated AI legislation, perhaps coming down the track, to ensure that AI in the workplace truly benefits everyone.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

beg to move. Amendment proposed. After clause
16:53
Lord Holmes of Richmond Portrait Lord Holmes of Richmond (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

34, insert the following new clause, as printed on the Marshalled list. It is a pleasure always to follow

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure always to follow my honourable friend, Lord Clement- my honourable friend, Lord Clement- Jones, who in his single no Sony and amendment had covered a lot of material in my more spreadout set of amendments. I write to support his amendment 111 and speak to my amendments 168 and 176, I should declare my interest set out in the register, in particular, technology interests, not least as a member of the advisory board, and member of the technology committee of the Crown Estate.

Take one brief spurt ROBYN CLARK:Step backwards. From the outset, the government do not want to -- Step backwards. From the outset, the government do not want to take this, rather than domain specific approach, that's fine, it is clearly stated position. It wouldn't be my choice, but what is simultaneously interesting is if that choice is adopted, how is consistency across our economy, and across our society, insured? Whenever an individual, a citizen, comes up against AI, they can be assured of a consistent approach, in the treatment and challenges and opportunities of AI.

Similarly, what is the case where there is no competent regulator authority? If neither approach is adopted, which seems to be largely the case. As in, whenever colleagues have raised amendments around AI, in what you may call domain specific areas, such as the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, the Data Bill, now the employment rights Bill, we are similarly told this is not the legislation for AI. So, I would at the Minister for clarity, as to whether, if a cross sector approach to AI is not being taken, is a domain specific approach being taken? When opportunities are being taken? When opportunities are being not taken up, where appropriate legislation comes in front of your Lordships house.

My Lords, to the amendments in my name, amendment 168 goes to the very heart of the issue around employers' use of AI. We have, I would suggest, very good, if not excellent, principles set out in the then government white paper of 2023. I put many of these into my amendment, 168. What it not be beneficial to have these principles set in statute? For the benefit, in this instance, workers, whenever they can across employers, deploying AI, in their workplace.

Amendment 169, lifts a clause largely from my AI regulation private members bill and suggests that NAI responsible officer in all organisations that develop, deploy, and use AI, would It is not a question of audit, but a positive, dynamic, vibrant role. So the benefits of AI could be felt by workers, right across their employment experience. It would be proportionate, it would be the right touch, with important requirements easily recognised as mirroring similar requirements, as set out in the Companies Act, for other obligations.

I believe if we had AI responsible officers across our economy, across businesses and organisations, that are deploying and using AI right now, this would be positive, dynamic, and beneficial, for workers, for employees, for employers, for our economy, and for our wider society. economy, and for our wider society. Amendment 170 goes to the issue of IP copyright and labelling. And put a responsibility on workers who are using AI to report to the relevant government department on the genesis of that IP address copyrighted material.

And indeed, the data used in that AI deployment. Which means there will be clarity, not only as to where that IP, copyright, and data emanated, but that it was got through informed consent, and that all IP copyright obligations had been respected and adhered to. Amendments 171, and 172, similarly look to where workers data may be ingested right now, by employers use of AI. Such great useful and economically beneficial sources for employers and businesses. And it suggests, again, they should be informed consent from those workers.

Before any of their data can be used, ingested, and deployed. I would like to take a little time on amendment 174. Around the whole area of AI in recruitment and employment. This goes back to one of my earlier points at the beginning of the speech. Recruitment being an area where there currently exists no where there currently exists no competent authority or regulator. So, if the government continue with their domain specific approach, recruitment remains a gap, because there is no domain specific competent authority or regulator, who could be held responsible for the deployment and development of AI in that sector.

If, for example, somebody finds themselves not making a shortlist, they may not know that AI has been involved in making a decision. Even if they were aware, they will find themselves with no redress and no competent authority to take their claim to. So, would the Minister not agree that this makes the case at least for the consideration of a recruitment and employment specific regulation to be brought about in this bill? And if not, and would certainly be my preference, to have a right touch cross sector AI authority, which would do this job of assuring that wherever individuals, workers, employees, citizens, come across AI, they can have clarity, certainty, consistency, in the application of that AI.

In this instance, in the recruitment. But the AI authority, agile light touch, crucially, horizontally focus, but ensure that across all sectors of employment, all sectors of our economy, and society. I will touch briefly on amendment 176, around the algorithmic allocation of work. Again, this is already happening, often times without employees even often times without employees even Amendment is not to be considered and adopted, what is the government's approach to how this is currently occurring in our economy to workers right now is not often with extremely discriminatory and detrimental impact of those workers.

detrimental impact of those workers. AI has such potential to transform employment for the benefit of workers, employers, and our businesses, and indeed about economy. It has the potential if it is human led AI to drive productivity in a way that no other element of about economy is currently likely to do. Similarly, if we do nothing, and we continue with this wait-and-see approach to legislation and regulation, it is most likely that workers may, often times, find themselves at the sharp end of algorithmic allocation of work, of the use of AI in the workplace, making their data and numerous ways, they will find themselves at the sharp end of AI and unable to avail themselves of benefits.

This situation could be wholly averted if some of these amendments were considered and incorporated into this Employment Rights Bill. Better still, if the Government reconsidered and looked at bringing forward a cross sector regulation bill because what we know, fundamentally, is that regulation is right for workers, right for employees, right for all aspects of our economy and society and when I say right regulation I mean the right sized regulation. What we know from history, not least recently, recent history, right sized regulation, good for innovation, good for investment, good for citizens, creative, good for our country.

Would the Government not be good enough to agree?
17:04
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town Portrait Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I rise aware that many of the members in this group have a rather different focus to the points that I wish to make and acknowledge the amendments of my noble Lords Clement Jones of Richmond and I believe they provide a valuable opportunity to provide and reflect on the particular nature of working in tech and AI first of this essay sector as has already been alluded to that makes a significant and growing contributing to the UK economy and it is rightly seen as one of the priorities dance of the Governments modern industrial strategy, and as the rather scary AI 2027 forecast makes clear, developments in this space are accelerating incredibly rapidly and are already reshaping how we live and work and even as I say that I am wondering whether I may have triggered an algorithmic alert somewhere, little for Parliamentary privilege covers some of that, but AI is happening regardless of how we feel about it and the opportunity it provides makes it all the more important that firms are based here and regulated here, rather than elsewhere.

Jobs in this area do tend to be highly skilled and well-paid, but that does not mean workers do not need other protections, and in many cases the things that matter most are not the same as minimum wage and paid leave but about how easily people can move between companies and start their own ventures and work across several fast-growing enterprises. But here and the noncompete that pose particular challenges. And safeguarding intellectual has led some firms to restrict employee movement.

But this comes at a cost to innovation, so competition, to the flea 400 DS that underpin these industries. And in general terms but no meaningful reform followed, so I wondered whether the department has a view on how widespread these clauses now are, particularly in fast-moving and competitive sectors and without any formal assessment has been made of their impact on innovation, start activity, and in people's ability to move freely and fairly between them. I fully appreciate that this bill is focused on establishing baseline rights for on establishing baseline rights for all workers, not addressing sector specific concerns, but I hope the Minister might be able to say something about how these challenges are being considered as part of the government's wider thinking on the future of work and how we ensure that the UK remains a good place to innovate as well as a fair place to work.
17:07
Lord Freyberg Portrait Lord Freyberg (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support the timely and vital amendments tabled by the noble Lords Clement Jones and Lord Holmes of Richmond concerning the use of Artificial Intelligence in the workplace. These amendments covering transparency, accountability, consent, fairness, and the protection of workers rights speaks to one of the central challenges of our time, how we align the rapid deployment of AI with the rights, dignity, and agency of the people. Just 11 days ago, if you of us, including the Noble Lord Clement Jones had the privilege of attending the aligning AI for human flourishing roundtable hosted here in the House of Lords by the noble Baroness Lady Kidron and convened by Oxford University's Institute for ethics in AI and the accelerator Fellowship program.

It was led by Professor Ewell Shani, brought together leading international voices, including Professor and Andre Nelson who designed that US blueprint for the AI bill of rights, later embedded in President Biden's executive order on AI. That discussion made one thing clear, we are at a crossroads. As Professor Nelson put it in a recent AI action Summit in Paris, we can create AI systems that expand opportunity rather than consolidate power for the few, so if we are serious about that aspiration, we need laws that are embedded in practice.

I hope we will soon see legislation introduced in this House and an AI Bill of Rights rooted in that context, reflecting our democratic values, legal traditions, and the lived realities of British workers. That will require leadership from the Government and support across parties and I believe this House is well placed to lead the way. That is precisely what Loeb homes amendment seeks to do, amendment 168 outlines the core principles that employers must uphold when using AI on workers.

Safety, fairness, transparency, governance, inclusion, and the right to redress. These are the bedrock of responsible innovation. Amendment 169 proposes the appointment of designated AI offices within organisations, ensuring someone is directly accountable for the ethical and unbiased use of these powerful technologies. Amendment 171 and 172 tackle perhaps the most urgent concern, consent. Though workers data should be ingested by AI systems or decisions made about their employment by algorithm, without their meaningful and informed quality.

We are not speaking in obstructions, AI is already determining who is shortlisted, scheduled, surveilled, or sidelined. These systems often operate in secret and carry forward the biases of the data they are trained on. If we do not act now, we risk embedding discrimination. This is not the first time this House has stood up for fairness in AI, on 12 May in this year many of us voted in support of Baroness Kidron's amendments to the data which called for transparency over copyright and AI.

That debate also was about rights, rights to control one's work, one's data, one's identity. The same principle is at stake here. If the UK is to lead on AI we must lead not just in capability but in ethics. Lord Holmes amendments are radical, they are responsible. They bring our values into alignment with our technologies. I therefore urge your Lordships to support them, even though it is highly unlikely they will be accepted. will be accepted.
17:11
17:12
Lord Hunt of Wirral Portrait Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would also like to congratulate my fellow solicitor, Lord Clement-Jones, and my Noble Friend Lord Holmes of Richmond and there amendments and indeed following up in the exchanges that took place a question earlier today when the Noble Lord the Minister did, Lord Vallance, did offer to give us a reading list, that we And when the noble Baroness the Mr Syms of the debate, could you just identify for us what Lord Vallance had in mind? Because we are anxious to make sure that we are up-to-date on these very important subjects.

AI technologies are evolving at pace. Touching every corner of the economy from manufacturing and logistics to retail, healthcare, and, as my noble fellow employer knows, particularly, professional services. In the context of work, AI offers real potential. Because it can support productivity. Streamline processes and free individuals from repetitive and done some tasks. It would also, if properly deployed, open up new opportunities for people who have historically faced barriers to employment. Alongside, as the Noble Lord Freiburg has just reminded us there are real concerns.

He instance to a number of them and they are set out in amendment 168 and those concerns are about fairness, transparency, and accountability and, indeed, the role of human oversight in decisions that affect peoples lives and their livelihoods. It is therefore important that we take a balanced and thoughtful approach. Now, Lord Keighley of Camden Town did, quite rightly, point out that there are a number of noncompete agreements now emerging, and we have two aware that these could so easily stifle innovation, and this must be all about encouraging and stimulating innovation, so it is very important that we take a balanced and thoughtful approach, but we should not allow technological change to outpace our frameworks for fairness, ethics, and employment rights.

In conclusion, AI is not distant or abstract issue. It is here, it is evolving, and it is shaping the future of work. I do hope we can move forward in a way that is both pro innovation and firmly rooted in the values of fairness, dignity, and accountability. And we very much look forward to hearing the noble Baroness the Ministers thoughts on Baroness the Ministers thoughts on Baroness the Ministers thoughts on
17:15
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
I will begin with amendment 111 111ZA, by law, Joe's, 168, 169, 172, 175 and 176, tabled by Lord Holmes, and I would like to also thank the and I would like to also thank the noble Lord Lord Holmes, for his engagement on these issues, let me start by reassuring all noble Lord that we agreed that AI should be deployed and used responsibly, including within the workplace as the noble Lord notes, in January 2025, we published the AI Opportunities Action Plan, including a commitment to support the AI assurance ecosystem, to increase trust in and adoption of AI.

One of the key deliverables in this area is the AI management essentials tool. We are delivering this tool to support businesses, particularly SMEs, to implement good AI governance practices. And following public consultation earlier this, I hope to update your Lordships house on consultation response and updated version of that tool soon. Regarding this amendment, I would like to remind noble Lords that our plan to Make Work Pay makes it clear that workers interests will need to inform the digital transformation happening in our workplace.

Our approach is to protect the jobs can ensure good future jobs, and ensure mighty protections keep pace with technological change. To be clear, we are committed to working with trade unions, employers, workers, and experts, to examine what AI and technologies mean for work, jobs and skills, and we will promote best practice in safeguarding against invasion of privacy, through surveillance technology, spyware, discriminatory algorithmic decision-making. In response to the noble Lords, of course we will put ethics and fairness at the heart of back.

I am keen to stress we are taking steps to enhance our understanding of this area. This is including engagement and roundtable events with a wide range of stakeholders and experts to help reach our understanding. I would like to reaffirm we will consult on the makework proposals in due course. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked what would be in the scope of the consultations, in the scope of the consultations, and the consultation plan includes examining what AI and new technologies, including automation and Ai-Media for books, jobs and skills.

Examining how to help privacy, through spyware, algorithmic decision-making, and to examine how best to make the introduction of surveillance technology in the workplace, with negotiations with trade unions or employee representatives. And again, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about whether it was going to be domain specific or not. As the noble Lord Hunt has just reminded us, this was dealt with within the oral question earlier this afternoon, when my noble friend, Lord Vallance, said existing regulators will oversee AI systems, supported by AI skills across regulatory coordination, through forums, like the Regulatory Information Office.

Some crosscutting issues will also be addressed in the planned consultation on AI. My notes, looking specifically at amendment 171, let me reassure the noble Lord that we believe data protection legislation provide sufficient protection for workers and individuals, where their personal data is being used in line with the key data protection principles, including lawfulness, fairness, and transparency. Consent is a lawful ground to present data, however, due to the power imbalance between employee and employer, it is often appropriate for employers to rely on consent, for employees, the process their data.

This is why we have an additional lawful ground to carry out such processing, like legitimate interests, under the data protection law. Therefore, we do not wish to limit data processing in these situations to consent alone. I would also like to point out that, whilst data protection principles established the requirements we expect the use of AI systems to adhere to, AI assurance provides ways to evidence that these requirements have been met in practice. Amendment 170, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, would require workers and employers to maintain records of data and intellectual property use in AI training and to allow independent audits of AI processes.

As the noble Lord will know, this issue was debated extensively by noble Lords, during the passage of the data using access Bill, 2025. -- Data Use and access Bill, 2025. -- Data Use and Access Bill. We will publish a report including the transparency of the use of intellectual property material in AI training, within nine months of Royal Assent of the act, which will be due by 18th of March next year. The government have also committed to setting up expert stakeholder working groups, to help drive practical workable solutions in this area, alongside a parliamentary working group to engage with policy development as engage with policy development as well.

Turning to amendment 174, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, this proposes a review of the use of AI in recruitment and employment. As the noble Lord will be aware, the previous government published detailed guidance on responsible AI in recruitment last year. Which covers governance, accessibility requirements, and tests. This was developed with stakeholders and relevant regulatory regulators, so should the commissioner's office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Employers and recruiters may find this guidance useful, to help integrate AI into their recruitment practices, in a recruitment practices, in a responsible way.

Furthermore, I am excited about the opportunities that AI will have on supporting the UK's workforce, as well as creating jobs and growing our economy. However, you must also understand how it may affect the labour market, including any potential disruption. The AI Security Institute has begun assessing this issue and I hope to be able to update your Lordships house on this, as work progresses. Regarding our position on general AI regulation, the establishment of a new AI regulator, we believe AI is the best regulated at point of use by the UK's existing sectorial regulators.

As experts in this sector, they are the best placed to understand the uses and the risks of AI in their relevant areas and we will support them to do this. I want to emphasise that in response to the AI Opportunities Action Plan, we have committed to supporting regulators in evaluating the AI capabilities and understanding how that can be strengthened. I also want to assure your Lordships house, but we are committed to making sure workers interests inform the digital transformation taking place in the workplace.

I am grateful to my noble friend, topic, for raising the point of noncompete clauses. There has an extensive research and analysis in recent years, looking at the prevalence of noncompete causes in the labour market and the impact on both workers and the wider economy. Research published in 2023 Research published in 2020 3,000 at noncompete clauses are widely used across the labour market, with around 5 million employees working under a contract, that contains a noncompete clause in Great Britain, with a typical generation of around six months.

That's my noble friend identified, this can adversely impact both the worker affected through limiting their ability to move between jobs and the wider economy due to impact on competition. It is often assumed that noncompete clauses are only found in contracts of high earners, however, research by the Competition and Markets Authority published last year, found that while noncompetes are more common in high-paid jobs, even in lower paid jobs, 20-50% of workers believe they are covered by noncompete clauses. The government have been reviewing the research, and the work that has been done to date on noncompete clauses, and I am pleased to be able to confirm that we will be consulting on options for reform on noncompete clause has, in employment contract, in due course.

Bylaws, Mark my Lords, finally, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, ask for my suggested reading list, from my noble friend's kind offer earlier this afternoon, and of course, I can do no better than to recommend the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones', excellent book on AI. Therefore, in that spirit, I asked the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, to withdraw his amendment.
17:25
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The noble Baroness nearly won the over by that point, my Lords. Can I thank her, I do feel like someone who is expecting a full meal and just received a rather light snack, my Lords, but I will explain why as we go through. First of all, I want to thank the noble Lord Holmes I feel I am somewhat upstaging him, putting an amendment at the front of the group. But, we have many common themes that we both have pursued over the years together, and I do agree with him about the desirability of a cross sector approach.

He is much more patient than I am, so putting down individual amendments, and hoping that the Minister was going to make satisfactory answers, he is clearly more optimistic than I am, whether his optimism has been justified his optimism has been justified today, I am not so sure. The Minister couldn't even really acknowledge that the work done by the TUC, which I think are the absolutely groundbreaking, my Lords, in so many ways. As I said, they have taken four years, so it seems extraordinary the government is doing what it's doing.

I acknowledge what the noble nor -- Noble Lord had to say, not sure how it connected to AI but I thought he brought the subject of noncompete clauses very currently linking it to innovation, which does links to AI, of course, and I was encouraged by what the Minister had to say on consultation on form, just take me back to, the noble Lord Hunt reminded me that I was a solicitor, unlike him, I do not have a practising certificate still.

But there we are, he has got much more stamina than I have. But of course, noncompete clauses can be extremely important in terms of making sure that know-how and so on is preserved within an existing business. And I thank the noble Lord Freyberg as well in terms of what he had to say, making sure that AI ensures human flourishing, and that we preserve agency. And this is what amendments of the kind that the mobile Lord Holmes and I put down are all about, my Lords.

-- Noble Lord Holmes. Ecosystem, AI management essential tools were talked about, there was going to be a consultation on. But I could sense in there that there was any intention at all to do anything, and involuntary approach. We have a lot of employment law, which has developed over the years, the government seems to be absolutely allergic to doing anything with any allergic to doing anything with any teeth. She mentioned that the issue of recruitment practices, my Lords, but that, again, seems to be very much a voluntary approach.

The AI Security Institute is not a regulator. So, I cannot feel the Minister was given much more than what the noble Lord Lyon gave last time. For instance, the Minister talked about consultation, over makework proposals. But this involves talking about best practice, in terms of the adoption of AI, how best to deal, how best to deal with surveillance technology. Again, I did not sense any real intent to try and make sure we have a new set of protections in the work place, in the face of AI, my Lords.

I very much hope that, as time goes on, the government will develop a much more muscular approach to this. much more muscular approach to this. As many noble Lords say, AI presents a great number of opportunities in the workplace, but what we absolutely do not want, is to see that opportunities are overwhelmed by mistrust and a belief that AI presents unacceptable risks, on the part of those employees. What we want to see us employees understanding that, in the face of AI adoption, they have the right to be consulted, there is proper risk assessment of the introduction of these systems into the workplace, and so there is a proper consensual approach to AI adoption.

I really do not feel the government is keeping up-to-date with the issues in this respect. But I am afraid that his rather reflected in some of the issues we are going to be talking about on Wednesday as well. In the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

meantime, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Is it your Lordship's pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? The amendment is, by leave, withdrawn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. , I rise to speak to amendments

**** Possible New Speaker ****

111A, 1116A, and B, in my name, and 111 I rise to speak to amendments 111A, 1116A, and B, in my name, and
17:31
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
111A, 1116A, and B, in my name, and 111B in my name, the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport. They seek to improve the government's proposals to mandate a single detailed set of terms and conditions for all support staff. As we debated in committee, the status quo isn't perfect. The current national council arrangement have significant weaknesses in their application schools, which has led some local authorities, to opt out some local authorities, to opt out I hope the House will forgive me if I remind noble Lords why these amendments are necessary.

First of all, we are talking about a very large workforce, about half a million people are employed within the school support staff workforce, half of those, roughly, our teaching assistants, and the other half have a huge range of roles, literally thousands of different roles. This is a very complicated area. There is variety in roles and in conditions that reflect local needs, whether it is the organisational structure of a trust, pressures on local authority where it opts out of the NJC, or where employers have particular needs because of geographic local market conditions, I mentioned in my debate at committee the difference in trying to recruit an IT assistant in Cambridge versus Oldham, and the landscape is very different today from the early 2,000 is when the triple SNB previously existed.

We now have around two and a half thousand trusts with about half of our schools interests and half in local authorities, but the innovation we have seen in relation to these conditions for school support staff has, of course, been, largely, in the trust sector, so just to recap our specific worries about the bill as currently drafted. The first is that it will add to the complexity of the workload and the cost of every single school in the country at a time when we know that schools are under considerable pressure and where the Government is, rightly, focusing on recruitment and retention of the workforce, both teaching and support staff, and my amendment 111 a seems to mitigate the potential damage of this by limiting the triple SNB powers to creating a framework that academies must consider regarding my numeration terms of conditions, training, career progression, and related matters.

I tried to work out roughly how many role profiles the department would need to create two breaths of roles that the triple SNB will cover, and I think it is realistic to say that across about 22,000 schools and around two in half thousand trusts there will literally be thousands of ways of dividing up the specifying roles so that if the triple SNB is going to try to articulate the role profiles in detail, they will have to produce thousands of them.

We just debated the power of AI, may be these are all going to be drafted by AI, who knows, if not, it could take a very long time. And just to give one example of the complexity of this, we think just about finance roles in schools and trust, they could vary from the chief financial officer of a very large trust, the chief operating and financial officers in medium-sized trusts who manage estates and technology through finance directors of smaller trust, executive business managers in larger trust, finance directors in single Academy trusts who have a role not unlike a business manager who maintained school work but with more accountability, then we go to finance managers, finance assistance, senior management consultants, financial accounts, finance business partners, payroll managers and the list goes on and all of these are in endless company should switch change over time as trust and schools grow, shrink, and change, and the same is true for H are, for technology, for data, for projects, as well as pastoral roles, so this is just to illustrate that we are looking at a vast undertaking and, more importantly, a needless one given my amendment and the Governments very welcome amendment 112 and associated amendments which clarify that there cannot be an agreement that cuts the pay of a school support staff member.

That any national framework which fails to acknowledge this reality risks becoming either so vague as to not be useful or too rigid to serve communities effectively, we just have not had clarity yet from the Government about how this is going to be addressed in the real world and we are also worried there was no estimate at all for the additional costs that this approach will create four schools and my amendment 116 aims to address this. It seems extraordinary to introduce a measure that would increase costs to schools, increase costs to the public without working out how much that would be and I do not know if the noble Baroness the Minister can the House on that point.

And our final concern is that the Government amendment 112 would not fully address the ability of trusts to innovate and improve the terms for their support staff which, rightly, the Government has, as its priority, in terms of recruitment and attention, and as I read it, it appears to say that subsections two to five on page 207 line 17 of schedule for do not apply if each individual term and condition is to the advantage of the employee, and I phrased that in a positive sense that the amendment is phrased the other way around.

And I think across the House I hope we are keen that innovation in terms of terms and conditions as possible where they provide an advantage to the employee in the round, but not necessarily looking at every element separately. For example, some trusts have a policy, currently, that everyone who joins any child facing role must either have or work towards achieving a level III qualification. That is clearly good for children it leads to higher pay which is good for the member of staff, but the duty on an employer to work towards a level III qualification is clearly a new requirement on that employee and my understanding is that anything that requires a person to acquire a qualification or undertake training is not defined as an improvement in their terms and conditions, so an employee could reasonably say I do not have to do that under the new national terms and conditions, even where the unions think it is a good idea, other employees are in favour of it, so trusts would not be able to stick with such approaches that benefit children and benefit staff, so I hope that the noble Baroness the Minister can confirm that my understanding of this is right.

It is frequently the case that contracts for support staff and trusts are very differently constructed to those in the maintenance sector, and if contracts specify that ours, holiday, allowances, pay skills et cetera are set out in a completely different way the triple SNB terms and conditions, the overall impact of this is better for everyone, why would we want to rule this out? Could the noble Baroness the Minister please confirm? The noble Baroness Lady Smith kindly met with the Noble Lord Goddard hand eye last week.

She pointed out that school support staff the only public sector workforce without a pay negotiating body, and of course she is right on that, but if the Government is interested in the outcomes rather than the process, then my amendments, particularly 111 a achieve their aim is but avoid complexity and cost. We believe that the Government has addressed the issue of setting a floor, not a ceiling on pay, but we do not think that the amendment, as drafted, though I understand it is the government's intention to address innovation, it does not address the reality of innovation and improvements of terms and conditions, hence my amendment 111.

I hope the Minister can be clear when she comes to sum up that the Government will agree with me and with the Noble Lord Goddard that we can find a way to address this effectively. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed schedule four,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed schedule four, page 201, line 3, leave out for the purposes of this part and insert the words printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

words printed on the Marshall list. My Lords, may I rather impudently congratulate the Government on its congratulate the Government on its amendments 112, 113, 115, 116, 116
17:41
17:42
Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
-
spoken on this bill, so I registered my interest for the multi-Academy trust with 1,400 staff and this new negotiating body literally drives respect of the 1970s, central bureaucratic body determining conditions and pay for all to be across the whole nation and it would remove any ability to take note of the local employers, in the case of my own Academy trust we completed a secondary school structure review in 2022 and just finished the same one for a primary school.

We now have in place rates that meet our needs in each school and, most importantly, for our pupils. We have set out a grading system to reflect local conditions in which we operate. We have primary and secondary staffing levels that are strong and sustainable, the triple S indeed would undo all of this and the cost of going through this new legislation would be bureaucratic and increase the overhead in OI human resources, demonstrating these changes that would take away resources from the frontline with no meaningful benefit.

I do congratulate the Government for at least accepting that there is a floor to this whole arrangement, but it still leads an extremely complicated set of bureaucracy. To provide good education we need flexibility. We operate very harmoniously with our unions and share a common mission and believe we have created a first-class card of support staff, indeed only two weeks ago one of our support staff save the life of one of our children that had a cardiac arrest on the playing field when playing away at a local defibrillator that had kept the child alive for 20 minutes.

But looking at this whole L more widely, if we zoom out just beyond the area of education, we start to see the impact of the aggressive anti- employer strategy being deployed by this Government. We have seen the impact already of VAT on private schools with them already going out of business and the staff losing their jobs we have already seen the escalation of national insurance, employers national insurance which is contributing, already, to some 60,000 jobs lost in the hospitality sector, and last week noble Lords we tried to one the Government about the banter clause which would drive another nail in to the coffin of the hospitality sector.

Private sector employer marking vacancies of under great pressure at the beginning of last year there were 900,000 vacancies and by May of this year that was down to about 720,000. We heard a little earlier in the debate about the Noble Lord Clement-Jones on AI and we are already seeing the impact of this, perhaps more dramatically in the US where Microsoft in the last two months Microsoft in the last two months As my noble friend said, schools are under significant financial pressure already, and indeed, for me, the most frightening impact is this issue of persistent absence and this is an area where we knew particularly non-teaching staff.

For example, in one of our schools in a very deprived area, we use a retired taxi driver. How does he fit into this rigid new system? We use him because he knows the community, he has been riding people about that town for 30 years, so, my Lords, I town for 30 years, so, my Lords, I plead for flexibility. I've been in business for 45 years, hired my first employee in 1979, I have created jobs in the private sector in that time, I can assure you, for that to happen, one needs a flexible employment market.

The SSSNB does the direct opposite of this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support amendments 111 a and 111B, in the name of Baroness
17:47
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Portrait Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (Crossbench)
-
-
a and 111B, in the name of Baroness Barran, and I declare an interest as governor of King's College London, mathematic school. And as a member of its finance and pay committees. I have been trying to get my head around the implications of these clauses on support staff, ever since the bill was introduced. And the more I think about it, the more unworkable it seems to me it is. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, the complexity of support staff roles and the way they vary with different types of schools, has become much, much greater in the last 20 years, just from my own personal experience, as a rather unusual 16-19 Academy, we do outreach, project in collaboration with charities, the University, we are engaged in a large number of things, which are not just around standard school teaching.

$$TRANSMIT' We use, for teaching staff, the standard scale, it is not actually a problem for us. But for support staff, we have very specific roles, which are suited to the particular activities that people are engaged with. We certainly pay as much as we can afford to, and in a London market, we don't have much choice, but the point I really want to stress is, why it is very welcome to see the government recognising not been reduced as much as this, there are a huge number of really important and central jobs and roles out there.

Which vary hugely according to the nature of the school, and what people are doing. The complexity that this will introduce for us, when we do the planning of the workforce, and when we try to work out, where, on the scales, a new role for profit, really worries me. So, I also hope very much that, as things rolled out, the government will think very hard about how to move forward, in a way that allows successful schools, which are going beyond the traditional classroom teaching, and wish I'd been a huge number of important things, to continue to create support staff roles, that fit what they are trying to do.
17:49
Lord Storey Portrait Lord Storey (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I declare an interest in a governor of Kings School in Liverpool, schools face two challenges, some might say crisis, a moment, there is a shortage of staff which is becoming a serious concern. And secondly, there are real pressures on school budgets. And I suppose, my concern, or I might take it back a moment and say, it was easy, wasn't it, in the day when all schools were local authority schools because they have the same framework and structures.

And now we have a very different landscape, which we all accept, and there is no difference now in how we see the landscape. Half the tools are what I call maintained schools and the other half are academies, with appointments towards secondary schools. And large multi-Academy trusts. Who, in a sense, bigger than the local authorities. My local authority where I worked for a number of US city schools, and there are a multi-Academy class with far more schools than that.

And we want a system that is fair to all teaching staff. -- Non-teaching staff. We do not want to see a cut in salaries but we have to recognise you have a system that is not bureaucratic, giving freedom to schools in both cases, to be able to do what is best for their staff and I just fear that that will not be the case, if the government has its way and I hope the Minister will give us reassurance on this. I slightly disagree with, actually, I do agree with Baroness Wolf, that we have a more varied system but I slightly disagree when she says all schools, particularly the successful ones, it is all schools, not just the successful ones.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am sorry. I just hope the Minister will really consider this is a huge issue really consider this is a huge issue and we cannot see our schools having and we cannot see our schools having to pay more cost, and we don't want to see any staff disadvantaged by well-meaning move by government.
17:52
Lord Goddard of Stockport Portrait Lord Goddard of Stockport (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

well-meaning move by government. I rise to support the amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to support the amendment signed in my name. These amendments, certainly we are dancing on the head certainly we are dancing on the head of a pin. These are welcome amendments, they begin to address something I never knew anything about, and support staff never had a baseline figure. And that should be addressed. The reality of it is, having spoken to the Minister, the day before yesterday, or today, time flies. The fact is, there are 520,000 of them.

That is 52% of everyone employed at schools, that is more than teachers, and those support staff are a whole range of duties, and the majority are tailored to their specific needs, as has been said in this debate. And I will draw myself to the government amendment 114, SSSNB unable to reach an agreement, with the Secretary of State, to resolve regulation. As long as Revelation can refer to persons in conditions of employment, to make employer worse off, it would also not better employer offering unfavourable terms and conditions provided by the regulations.

We agree with that. So, why can't they amendment, and all of Baroness Barran's amendment, changes from a particular worthiness, the SSSNB will be blocked, it will prevent the SSSNB from plucky employers who were to adopt new improved employment conditions, providing they meet the standards of minimum supporting. What we are trying to say here is where they cannot come to a negotiation, the government should step in where regulation, if they want to do. But when it comes to recreation, why should we stop somebody wanting to offer more, above the floor, above the base, so there is no argument about that, we all agree it is the base, to actually say that, actually, why would SSSNB want to block some employer offering an employee better terms? Because if you reject this amendment, that is the alternative to what we are arguing.

If somebody wants to pay somebody more, above the base, it is surely better for the employee? Surely that is better. Then somebody saying you cannot and the government may do it. I think the difference is quite subtle, the difference is sooner or later, someone will have to work out the maths on this. When you work out the maths for 520,000 people, and go to all the local authorities, and you go to all those academies, private school, everybody, all of a sudden, as I said before, they are bound to be winners and losers unless you make that never sufficiently high bar, that there are known as and losers, I cannot imagine what that number will be, because it will be a high number.

And if that is about empowering people uplifting society, all for that. Again, there is A- level of detail, that detail is these are enormous numbers of people, this is not a small group of people, this is more than teachers. Teachers have had pay, they have had more pay, and the teachers have been on strike for more money. That is your teachers. The support staff do not do that, the support staff are vulnerable. They haven't got the power to take industrial action, to fight their corner, to negotiate their terms individually with local authorities and academies.

And by and large, I don't think anybody employing any of these people are below the minimum wage, I am sure they are all above living wage, so this is a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a NUT. I get the principle, I understand that, there has been no base figure, that should be addressed. But if you address in that, and that is a philosophical labour bodies, then you must put a pricetag on that, because people need to know what that cost is, not only for my local authority, but for every local authority, and every academy in the country.

And if the Baroness Ford willing to push this to about today, although I think she won't, then this bench will support it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Goddard, I agree with everything he said, would have liked to thank Baroness Barran for her amendments in this group and to thank my noble friend, Lord Agnew, for his very interesting and timely perspective and if I may, I like also to salute the teaching assistant he mentioned. Amendment
17:56
17:57
17:58
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
noble Lord, Lord Agnew, mentions. And we all know examples of support staff who have paid a significant intervention role in helping to run the schools. Roles which I would say are often under rewarded and unrecognised. And it is about time that we put them on a proper footing. And they are paid and conditions on a proper footing. And it is right that we have a mechanism for employer and employee representatives to come together to negotiate and to agree pay and conditions that reflect the varied and vital role that support staff undertake.

We have heard arguments made across the House, that we must make the legislation itself clearer, that the SSSNB will not mandate A1 size fits all approach. And individual employees will be protected from any moves to their detriment, as a result of the SSSNB process. My Lords, we have listened to noble Lords on this issue, and while we have always been clear this is the government's intent and it can be achieved through existing provisions, we have decided to amend the SSSNB provisions to ensure that both principles are established in primary legislation.

This change will mean all school support staff will benefit from a minimum offer or floor for paid conditions and there will be no ceiling, to prevent employers offering better pale conditions. This protects individual employees and allows employers to go beyond agreements reached, should they choose to do so, in response to their local circumstances. This was the argument very much made at committee stage. A number of noble Lords are giving that particularly academies, and employers, wanted to pay more and give better pay and conditions, and we are making it clear that that is absolutely the right thing to do, and our amendments will do that.

If I turn now to amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Baroness Barran, amendment 111 a would change the remake of the SSSNB for academies, so that academy employers would be required to have regard only to the framework. As outlined in response to this amendment, during committee, it would be wrong to create a two tier system for support staff. As roughly half of the 22,000 state funded schools in England are now academies, it is right that academies are included in the Thatcher Tory remit of the SSSNB, in the same way as maintains in schools.

I would say to the noble Lady there is no need to take a different approach for academies, where there will be ample room for all schools, irrespective of their structure. But I hope she understands and agrees that all school staff support and deserve to know where they can expect, what they can expect, as a minimum for paid conditions, and they can continue to benefit from more favourable terms were employers offer them. However, the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness risks a two tier system that undermines the role of the new negotiating body, establishing minimum standards, which will work for all schools, in recognising the vital roles the support staff undertake.

If I now turn to amendment 111B, which would prevent the SSSNB from blocking employers, who wish to adopt new or improved employment terms or conditions. I agree with the intent here, but this amendment is simply unnecessary. The government amendment I have just spoken about only prevents this. I know the noble Baroness and Lord Hannay useful meeting with my noble friend, Baroness Smith, the Minister for, on this, where this was Our amendment only establishes that there will be fix ability for schools that offer more favourable terms for their support staff in response to local circumstances in the contract only needing to change if there terms or conditions are below the statutory minimum agreements arising from the SSSNB.

This allows employers to retain contracts for their employees that contain more favourable pay and conditions that were agreed prior to the SSSNB regulations or for employers to agree more favourable pay conditions through a subsequent local negotiation. Importantly, our amendment both protects individual employee entitlements and preserves the flexibility for employers. The SSSNB will not mandate uniformity, or significance to schools, instead, it will mean that support staff in academies and maintained schools will all benefit from a minimum of will all benefit from a minimum of that is appropriate for the rules staff are undertaking in schools and it will also allow for greater consistency in the relationship between roles, training, and pay, as agreed upon by representatives representing the increase school support staff and their employers.

If I could now speak to amendment 116 a, as I have outlined at Committee stage because the costs associated with the constitution of the SSSNB are limited to fees that will be met by the Department and it would that be disproportionate and unnecessarily restrict the flexibility to amend the constitution if the Government Secretary of State was required to have an impact statement and laid before Parliament before making or revising these constitutional arrangements. We now turn to amendment 116 B which requires the annual reports of the SSSNB to include the increased costs to the education sector of the agreements made in that report.

The Secretary of State will specify what the SSSNB needs to consider such as the cost implication and the practical considerations for schools when remitting the SSSNB. And of course employers will also have reports on that to ensure that their interest in the costs that they are concerned about are taken into account. Assessing the cost implications and affordability for the education sector of agreements reached by the SSSNB on paying conditions would be for the Department of education prior to the Secretary of State ratifying any agreements, the Secretary of State has the power to affirm that to the SSN B or issue alternative regulations, should the agreements not be practical, this is the failsafe that I think that the Noble Lady the Baroness is looking for.

It would not be appropriate to specify in primary legislation that these assessments would be contained in annual reports to be produced by the SSSNB and we anticipate that the Department for Education would be better placed to undertake assessments than the SSN B itself and to decide where or whether they should be implemented. If I now turn to Government amendment 117, 118, 190 and 122, which are intended to have the same effect as the Social Care Negotiating Bodies as amendments in my name to the SSN B clauses, it is critical to this Government to provide better care for people in their own homes and in the communities where they needed.

These provisions will help ensure that care professionals are recognised and rewarded for their important work. They were 1.59 million people working in the adult social sector in England in the financial year 2023, 2024. As such, we are introducing amendments to ensure that changes to workers pay and conditions as a result of the agreements for collations being implemented would only be to their benefit. This amendment also makes it clear that employees can offer more favourable terms and conditions than those provided for by an agreement or equivalent regulations, including through collective agreements.

This would incentivise employers to compete when attracting talent. And, finally, I turned to Government amendments 120 and 121 Government amendments 120 and 121 and we are always grateful to the committee for its excellent work that we can counter with its statement that it is heartening that inability someone in dedicating powers it is only found for on which to raise concerns and we wish to look at our amendments to clause 46 that will ensure that substantial content of guidance is subject to parliamentary scrutiny and the appropriate legislature where regulations set out in consequences for failure to comply with the duty and regulation to the guidance.

The measures being introduced show major reforms, creating new structures to address major problems in the social care sector and, as such, our drafting has needed to evolve over time and respond to new issues as we built this process and we are happy to accept the committee's feedback and we hope that your Lordships house, we hope to ratio your Lordships house and the commitment to provide Parliament with appropriate oversight. I therefore beg to move all of the Government amendments made in my and I asked the Baroness Barran to withdraw 111 A.
18:08
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I would like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short but important debate and I think that my Noble Friend, the Noble Lady Baroness and Lord Storey made very good, practical examples of the risk of this approach and of undoing some of the good innovation that has happened in this sector over several years. The Noble Lord Goddard said he thought we might be dancing on the head of a pin and maybe he's right but I think there is a sort of fundamental principle at the heart of this that seems to be little different in the Department of Health at the moment and the Department for Education about the amount that we trust those leaders within the sector to take these decisions.

And I think we have seen really positive change in the sector in relation to school support staff as the result of innovation and as the result of delegation to school and trust leaders. And I think that we regret very much on these benches that recently is a and what appears to be a change and rather diverging policies between Government halls. Turning to the remarks from the Minister, she talked about the fact that we would not have a one size fits all approach, and what I tried to be clear about in my remarks is we will not have a one size fits all and that clearly cannot happen, we are going to have several thousand sizes, and that is just unworkable.

I know the Noble Lady does not agree with me, but I think that is the reality. She talks about ample room for innovation but not wanting a two tier system and I just find it hard to kind of follow the logic if we have enough room for flexibility by definition, there will be evolution and there will be floor, but, rightly, there will be differences in different areas., She said that the Government, and I is understood, she will correct me, but the Government would cover any costs associated with these changes.

I would just remind her that the Government imposed the new employers National Insurance contribution that has not covered all of the costs for schools, and that is unless schools are having to try to cover part of that themselves, so I hope that in this case we could take her words as literally 100% of the cost, but I do not think, on the one hand I do not think that we disagree about innovation, but on the other hand she did not address the two examples that I gave in my speech were actually it is the package of conditions that are innovative and to the advantage of the individual employee and that her amendment 112 does seem to be, and I and not a lawyer, to have been extremely carefully framed, so it talks about the subsections two to five do not apply in relation to a term or condition for the person's employment, singular, and to the extent that giving effect to the agreement would alter the term or condition to the person's detriment and then goes on and says do not prevent the terms and conditions plural of a person's employment from including a term or condition singular that is more favourable to the person and would otherwise have effect et cetera et cetera, so when I talked to leaders in the sector, but they are worried about is that they put together a package of conditions and I gave the example of where someone has a requirement to reach a level III qualification but then obviously is entitled to higher pay.

Something that benefits children and that individual. She did not address that point and I am left not with a concern that we want a different thing, although I do have a nagging doubt that this phrasing would exclude that. But with the reality that I think that as drafted we do need amendment 11 and 1B but I will, as the Noble Lady requested, withdraw 1118, but I would like to test the opinion of the House on 111B.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure that amendment 111 a be withdrawn? Amendment is, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment 111B, moved formally. The Amendment 111B, moved formally. The question is that amendment 111. The question is that amendment 111B agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", the question will be decided by question will be decided by division. I will advise the House 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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is The question is that The question is that amendment 111B be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents will go to the right by the thrown comedy not contents to the thrown comedy not contents to the left by the bar. -- Will go to the right by the thrown comedy not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

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

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May May have May have noted, May have noted, contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May have noted, contents 266, May have noted, contents 266, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May have noted, contents 266, not contents 162, the contents have it. contents 162, the contents have it. We now come to government amendments 112-116, which were moved formally. The question is that amendment 112- 116 will be agreed on block, As many as are of that opinion, say, as are of that opinion, say, "Content". Of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. content". The contents have it. Amendment 116A, Baroness Barran, not moved.

And amendment 116B, not moved. And amendment 116B, not moved. We then come to government moved. We then come to government amendments 117-122, to be agreed to. Moved formally. The question is that these amendments 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 the next group. After clause 53, amendment 112 112A, not Hendry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is actually amendment 120 2A, and the purpose of this amendment and the purpose of this amendment was to probe the extent to which the
18:25
18:26
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to briefly say, having raised these issues at the beginning of the committee stage, and the favourable response to the frontbench, to arrange a meeting, to be discussed, I am very much looking forward, at least I hope I am very much look forward, to the Minister, I thank my noble friends for moving their amendment, and I beg to move amendments 123 and 124 in my name. These amendments relate to clause 54 which provides, giving effect to international conventions and to give effect to national agreements, as they relate to maritime employment.

Abbott like to thank the delegated how and regulatory reform committee, for its consideration of these powers and its recommendation, to amend the procedure for 84 to a two, for first-time informative, for affirmative oral uses, I wrote to the committee on some of the July, setting out our response in full, these amendments change the parliamentary procedure applicable to regulations, made under the power in the new section, of the shipping act 1995, giving effect to international agreements, as they relate to maritime employment. This amendment means all uses of the powers could affect future all specified international agreements will now be subject to affirmative procedures not just the first use.

It means Parliament have greater oversight of these agreements and amendments to them. If I now turn to amendment 122, A, tabled by my noble friend, Lord Hendy. The amendment would specify that the statutory rights, to which workers in the UK are entitled, also apply to ships crews working aboard services that enter ports in Great Britain. 120 more times per year, or that operate between a place in Great Britain and another place in the United Kingdom.
18:30
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
This scope of service is covered, following the approach taken in following the approach taken in clause 29, where government have sought to ensure that those employed abroad these services are cashed by abroad these services are cashed by the requirement, for collective the requirement, for collective redundancy. I would like to thank my noble friend for this amendment, noble friend for this amendment, about the application of employment rights to seafarers, and frankly maritime trade union for their continuing engagement on these continuing engagement on these issues.

I hope to be able to provide some clarity today, but we can also commit to continuing ongoing discussion about how we can ensure that seafarers are receiving robust protections. The government wants to see stronger employment rights for seafarers, that is why in addition to the broader changes to employment rights, we have included a package of maritime specific measures in this bill. As my noble friend notes, this bill. As my noble friend notes, we are closing the loophole that means the ferries can avoid prosecution, for failing to provide prosecution, for failing to provide advance notice of proposed collective redundancies.

And we are providing powerful mandatory seafarers charter, which will allow seafarers charter, which will allow us to set out a high minimum standard, for wages, and for how long seafarers can spend at sea long seafarers can spend at sea without a break. This will establish A-level playing field, that will help prevent the undercutting of working conditions in the way they sought to do. The new power to give effect to the Maritime Labour Convention and other international agreements, as they relate to maritime employment, is also important.

Where international agreement is needed to improve protections, we can implement those changes. In relation to broader employment rights, it is important to note that many seafarers with strong connections are already entitled to British employment rights and would be entitled to protections in this bill. This will include seafarers, who would ordinarily work in the territorial waters of Great Britain. It would also consider how seafarers who spent some time working outside would be covered. These legal tests would ensure those seafarers who have a strong connection that they would expect to be covered by GB law are indeed protected.

While we appreciate the intention perhaps this amendment, as drafted, it's very broad and would apply a wide but uncertain range of rights onto seafarers with various levels of connections in Great Britain, spanning across a significant number of pieces of legislation. Except in this amendment without undertaking a proper review of the consequences of this, across all relative pieces of legislation would run the risk of unintended consequences for seafarers. It could not only to supply certain rights for seafarers who currently receive them but also false UK employment protections but those who wish to be covered by different jurisdiction, depending on Applying the frequency test to all statutory rights is not the same as applying it to the collective redundancy rights.

Neither of these measures confer any individual rights and the seafarers and the mechanisms carefully designed to ensure compliance of the specific measures with international law. Since this amendment will confer individual rights and seafarers working on non-UK flagships that will be enforceable in UK courts, it is important that we consider the legal consequences of this. In particular we would need to carefully consider how international law, sorry, we will need to carefully consider the international law implications. It's important we chart the right course between protecting seafarers connected to the UK and making sure our framework is legally robust.

The reasons set out we cannot except this amendment as drafted. This amendment would have far-reaching implications, which would need proper consideration and scrutiny of the issue. As I say, the risk of unintended consequences are too great and it could undermine the progress for seafarers that we have made to the carefully designed measures in the bill. However, we do appreciate the intention behind the amendment. Let me assure you that this government is committed to protecting seafarers and we will continue to work with ambition and determination to advance seafarers rights internationally and domestically.

We will welcome the opportunity to continue the extensive engagement we have already undertaken with the unions and industry about the application of employment protection to seafarers. The maritime minister recently met with the RMT and undertook to continue dialogue on this matter. He will be happy to meet with them again following official discussions to explore how we can secure the objectives behind my noble friend's amendment. On this basis and with that I asked my noble friend to withdraw amendment 122A and big to move both of the amendments in my name.

name.
18:34
18:34
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. After clause 54,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

amendment 125, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. RIs to speak to amendment 125 standing in my name. This amendment standing in my name. This amendment speaks to a fundamental principle that we should run through every piece of employment legislation reconsider and that is the right of the individual to determine their the individual to determine their own path. Too much of this will rest on an implicit and rather patronising assumption that workers are somehow incapable of managing their own affairs. They must be their own affairs.

They must be corralled, collectively represented and told what is best for them. This and told what is best for them. This challenges head-on. It gives a worker the right not to be bound by worker the right not to be bound by It's not antiunion, it is pro- choice. It is pro-individual. If we believe in personal responsibility we must also believe in personal we must also believe in personal freedom. Workers are independent minded individuals who want to make minded individuals who want to make up their own minds about pain up their own minds about pain conditions.

We have to be clear, statutory rights stay in place. This amendment does nothing to undermine minimum standards, but allows the worker to rely on them without relying on a collective network. The government treats workers as a monolith. They are if I'm not I merit, but by mentorship and conformity. This offers a powerful alternative that the individual workers matter. Their preferences matter, freedom of contract isn't an abstract legal concept, but a cornerstone of liberty. I beg to move.
18:36
Lord Hendy Portrait Lord Hendy (Labour)
-
-
Amendment proposed. After clause 54, insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak to amendment 127, but before I do so, can I just say a word about the noble Lord Lord Sharpe's amendment 125. He and other lords on that side of the House lords on that side of the House often accuse those on this side of the House of ignorance of business, the House of ignorance of business, but this amendment shows ignorance but this amendment shows ignorance of what happens in industrial relations on the ground. Let me make three points.

First, there is nothing in the law to prevent an nothing in the law to prevent an employer and an individual employee employer and an individual employee agreeing an improvement to terms and conditions on an existing collective conditions on an existing collective agreement. Save in exceptional circumstances such as that illustrated by the case of Wilson and Palmer in the United Kingdom where the employer offered to pay workers a higher rate of pay if they surrendered their union the ship. That principle would also apply to That principle would also apply to prevent the penalisation of workers prevent the penalisation of workers on grounds of any other protected characteristic, but as a general characteristic, but as a general principle, workers and employers can agree to improve an existing collective agreement.

Second point, why would an individual employee agreed to detrimental terms, terms are worse than a collective agreement? Lower wages, fewer works, less holidays, worse terms and conditions? There can be no reason why a worker would wish not to abide by the existing collective agreement. Employees need detection against employers, he might otherwise exploit this proposed loophole by saying to an individual employee I want you to opt out of the collective agreement, hence undermining it. Third and final point, collective agreements are not dictated by the trade unions, but they are agreed by an employer and usually by a vote of the employees.

What we need is more negotiation and less litigation. With that I turned to my amendment 127. This amendment is intended to provide my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State with a mechanism to promote and encourage collective bargaining on a sector wide basis without prescribing in detailed the model to be deployed. It is to be used when needed. It does not compel the government to put it into operation. I will not repeat the arguments I developed in committee over the course of three speeches about collective bargaining, but I think I may be permitted to summarise the gist of those arguments in six points.

First, the Employment Rights Bill makes commendable forms to the legal machinery to establish collective bargaining between trade unions and a single employer. But there is no mechanism in the bill or anywhere else for multi-employer collective agreements, or sector wide collective agreements. Secondly, sector or collective bargaining was the norm for the United Kingdom from the norm for the United Kingdom from 1918 up until 1990. It established a coverage of over 80% of British workers between the years 1945 and the late 1980s.

That percentage of workers covered by a collective agreement has now declined to 25%. That means that three quarters of our workforce are employed on take it or leave it terms without any possibility of negotiating anything better than that which the employer offers. Thirdly, 80% collective bargaining coverage curiously, or coincidentally, is the level now set for the 27 member states of the European Union after two decades in which the EU undermined sector or collective bargaining. That policy was reversed in 2024 by means of I -- by means of a directive.

Of course collective bargaining is advocated by the OECD, the IMF and the ILO. Fourthly, Labour's Green the ILO. Fourthly, Labour's Green Paper new deal for working people and the subsequent publication Making Work Pay, Implementing the New Deal for Working People, Labour manifesto and the King's Speech will endorse the extension of collective bargaining. Fifth, I come to the benefit of sector or collective bargaining. I think they need spelling out again. They are as I identify them at least eight particular benefits.

First benefit, sector or collective bargaining increases wages. Let us recall that the real value of wages has risen only half a% in the last 20 years. Secondly, arising wages increases demand in the economy. Demand for the goods and services produced by employers. Thirdly, collective bargaining contracts the differentials which have emerged, Gender Pay Gap, ethnic minority pay gap, disability pay gap and so on. Fourthly, collective bargaining by increasing wages diminishes the need for state benefits by way of subsidy to low wages, and let us not forget that 31% of those in receipt of Universal Credit are actually in work, which gives an indication of the lowness of wages in this country.

Fifth, the increasing wages increases the tax take by the government which diminishes the need to find money elsewhere. Six, sectoral collective bargaining means that there is no undercutting. Seven, the other side of that coin means it encourages employers to compete on productivity, investment and other issues. Eight, it achieves a form of democracy at work. It gives workers a say in the terms and conditions on which they work. I said there were six points and the sixth and final point is one of particular interest to me as a lawyer.

It is that the observation that the rule of law plays apart here. The rule of law, Lord Bingham's eighth principle, is that states must abide by the treaties which they have ratified. That principle has been endorsed in almost every speech I have heard my noble and no lead friend the Attorney-General give since his appointment to the office. -- Noble and learned right honourable friend. Convention 98 and article 6, sub- article to the European social Charter 1961 impose the duty on ratifying states, which includes the United Kingdom, not just to permit collective bargaining, but to "Promote and encourage" Collective bargaining.

The Employment Rights Bill was the opportunity to promote and encourage collective bargaining at sectoral level. But the bill does nothing to do that in any sector of the economy. I will remind the House, and I created this very short couple of sentences from the European committee on social rights, who said, if the spontaneous development of collective bargaining is not sufficient, positive measures should be taken to facilitate and encourage the conclusion of collective agreements. Where only 30% of the total number of employees are covered by collective agreements, voluntary negotiations are not sufficiently promoted in The United Kingdom is now significant below 30% of collective bargaining coverage.

In many sectors, collective bargaining is not common to use the words of the committee, spontaneously developing. One only has to think of agriculture, food and parcel delivery, hospitality, social care and so on. I have not forgotten the Adult Social Care Negotiating Body or the school support staff negotiating body, but for reasons I set out at length in committee and won't repeat again, those bodies do not constitute a collective bargaining and cannot be extended to other sectors.

They are not collective bargaining, one because the act says they are not, to the parties have no money over the sub -- autonomy over the subject matter of the proceedings and thirdly because the Minister can overwrite the agreement or non-agreement. I therefore urge the Minister to accept the offer of this machinery which the bill can keep on its back pocket until needed. pocket until needed.
18:47
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway Portrait Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Labour)
-
-
I wanted to speak to amendment 127 standing in the name of Lord Hendy but I am conscious that some of my comments may be relevant to amendment 125 two which I oppose. According to the latest NFS figures, 6.4 million people hold a union card. Making trade unionism by far the largest democratic membership movement in the UK. Many of Britain's most innovative companies recognise trade unions and the real value and independent voice for value and independent voice for workers adds, EDF renewables to name one.

We've heard on several occasions how union membership has declined since the 1980s and no doubt we can debate the reasons for that. But it's also worth recording that the ONS annual survey of Hours and earnings which is a survey of employers shows that today the pay of more than four in 10 jobs in the UK is set with reference to a union agreement. In other words, collective bargaining still sets the pace for the playing conditions of a substantial part of the workforce, well beyond union membership.

But expanding collective bargaining coverage has never been more urgent. EC The Analysis Show is that the UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe. The picture on wealth inequality is even picture on wealth inequality is even worse. That is bad for society and a break on fair growth. It's not just about families who work all the hours God sends yet still rely on benefits and food banks, or that under the previous government, living standards stagnated for 15 long years, or how the real threat to the survival of pubs, hospitality and small businesses on the High Street is the prolonged squeeze on disposable income that has hammered consumer spending.

It's more than that. Ever since the previous government's austerity cuts, Brexit and then COVID, there has been growing public anger that sacrifice has not been equally shared. The so-called trickle-down theory of economics has proved to be an elaborate con. To take one glaring example, in the financial year from 2023 the CEO of the services giant my see was paid nearly £15 million, that's 575 times more than the median worker at the company.

I challenge any noble Lord to justify that. Some noble Lords opposite may not like what trade unions stand for, in the other place there party joined the Reform Party to vote joined the Reform Party to vote against better set pay and then to exploitative -- and an end to exploitative zero hour contracts and protection against fire and rehire. When it comes to collective bargaining I have yet to hear the opposition come up with a better plan for workers so that workers can win a fairer share of the wealth but after all, they helped create.

Perhaps we can hear an alternative today? In the meantime as we have heard the evidence is clear, when individual workers combine their working power they are much more likely to win better pay, safety, skills training, family friendly policies, workforce engagement and ultimately higher productivity. A good deal for workers and for their employers. I congratulate the Minister on the government's plan to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body and to establish a Fair Pay Agreement for social care.

This could be transformative, not only for the workforce, but for the service. And everyone who relies on their dedicated care. But we cannot stop there, we can debate the detail, but at the heart of my noble friend Lord Hendy's amendment is the objective to spread the benefits of collective bargaining to more sectors of the economy. That would provide A-level playing field for business, lift living standards, improve workforce well-being and boost company productivity, which in turn would aid fair growth.

In her response to the debate committee on 5 June my noble friend the Minister Lady Jones said that the government intended to learn from the first Fair Pay Agreement process before considering rolling out agreements in other areas. I do understand the concerns to learn from the success of the commitments already contained within this bill. But it would seem sensible to me to take powers to introduce more sectoral agreements now, so that the government is ready to act quickly in the future.

I know that the government understands the absolute urgency of the need to tackle inequality in this country, to get living standards rising and to boost business investment in skills and productivity. I have to say that sectoral collective agreements are one of the quickest most flexible and most effective ways to do just that. But in the meantime can the Minister kindly undertake to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Office Minister to explore how government procurement social value rules can promote their work? And a collective

**** Possible New Speaker ****

voice for workers. I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for directing our attention to collective bargaining attention to collective bargaining and its historic importance in our national life and its relevance today. Many I think in this chamber today. Many I think in this chamber today. Many I think in this chamber today might know that the hero of establishing that collective bargaining system which has been talked about by others so fondly was talked about by others so fondly was Stanley Baldwin in 1928.

He was concerned about the excesses in the
18:54
18:56
Baroness Verma Portrait Baroness Verma (Conservative)
-
-
In response to Lord Hendy's amendment I just wanted to explore the fact that we have strong representation currently for the unions, we've seen that through recent strikes that there is an ability to be able to go out there and voice your opinion. My worry, and I would like to have this recorded that as a business person, as the register lays out is that most of the businesses impacted will be SMEs, the sectors that are already dominantly very good employers.

Most small medium size businesses work with their workforce, we all wish to do well because we want better productivity. It's not in our interests not to do so. I want to remind noble Lords my own grandfather was the founder of one of the founders of the Indian workers Association, because at that time unions were not representing properly minority communities. My worry is that we are going to go back to a place where minority communities who don't actually know whether they have a choice or not to be part of the union or not will have to come back into a union weathervane know that they are a member or not.

I just want to know from Lord Hendy how that would be clarified because there would be many from the minority communities work incredibly hard, our ambitious aspirational, want to end up owning their own businesses and find that working and learning from employers is the best way to do it. I fully support my noble friend's amendment because I think that the world has moved on so much and technology has enabled us to do so many things so differently that we are far more able to hold employers to account.

There is no place to hide from bad employers, so I don't think that Lord Hendy's amendments are actually going to make a lot of difference to today's workforce where we are using a lot of new technologies to be able to make sure that the workforce is a much more fairer place.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't really quite recognise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I don't really quite recognise the workplace that the noble Lady
18:59
18:59
19:01
19:02
19:03
19:03
Lord Leong Portrait Lord Leong (Labour)
-
-
-all noble Lord who have spoken. -- My Lords, I thank all noble Lord to have spoken. Lord Sharpe has tabled an amendment 125. Workers are free to join or not to join a trade union. It is their choice. They are not compelled to pay any union subscription or any part thereof where a union is recognised by the employer for collective bargaining purposes. So they do not need to pay any union subscription, or join the union.

Many employers choose to recognise a union voluntarily. One of the advantages of trade union recognition is that enables the employer to negotiate collective employments, terms of which may apply to all workers in the workplace. My noble friend Lord Henley explained so clearly the principles of collective agreements. He said all I needed to say. The application of the terms of collective agreements to workers generally depends in any event, or incorporation of those terms into the workers contracts, either expressly or by implication.

That is the normal position. But providing some individual workers with the statutory right to withdraw from the previous collective agreement, even where they can rely on statutory entitlements, would create unnecessary risks of a multitier system, with workers on different terms and conditions of employment. We believe this is not something that will be beneficial to employees as it would likely create more red tape and confusion. We cannot therefore support this amendment. Turning to amendment 127 tabled by Lord, we welcome any support for sectoral collective bargaining and we appreciate the informed and wide-ranging debate we had during committee on these points.

We are demonstrating a commitment to sectorial collective bargaining in the social care and support staff sections, as was debated in the earlier group. Finally, we believe bespoke primary legislation will be required to allow such bodies to operate as effectively as possible. This will allow Parliament to fully consider any such sectors and scrutinise the framework for the new beginning processes. We welcome representation regarding next steps on sectorial collective bargaining and we are working hard to consider the groundwork required for future models.

However, before this work is done, we do not seek the sweeping powers which my noble friend's amendment aims to give the Secretary of State without a sufficient clear purpose of plan. May I say to my noble friend Lord Henley that we are committed to supporting sectoral collective bargaining where appropriate and recognise a positive contribution it can make to Britain's economy. However, different sectors will have different needs, so we need to ensure that any legislation on collective bargaining is for purpose for each of the specific sectors.

Developing the legislation in Developing the legislation in collaboration with the sector and workers will be key to its success. I think this offers my noble friend some comfort in him not moving further with this amendment. I refer to Baroness O'Grady, and I will ensure that I will mention to Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent who is the Cabinet office minister so she can organise meetings with officials of the Department with her. As far as ethnic minority business, I do agree.

Most businesses are good businesses. This bill goes after those minority and unscrupulous businesses and this bill does just that. I therefore respectfully ask Lord Sharpe of Epsom to withdraw amendment 125.
19:08
19:09
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay Portrait Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Conservative)
-
-
It is by leave withdrawn. Amendment 126, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move a member 126 which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move a member 126 which

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to move a member 126 which stands in my name along with other noble Lords. This amendment is identical to the amendment which Lord Faulkner and I proposed Lord Faulkner and I proposed committee, although we have swapped committee, although we have swapped round. Whereas the noble Lord served as the driver and I took on the role of firemen shovelling fuel into the of firemen shovelling fuel into the firebox, we have now swapped places. We are glad to have support from the crossbenches and the Liberal crossbenches and the Liberal Democrat benches as well from the noble Lords Lord Palmer and Lord noble Lords Lord Palmer and Lord Clancarty.

The noble Lord the Clancarty. The noble Lord the Minister kindly organised a helpful meeting for us following the debate meeting for us following the debate we had in committee and we are grateful to him and his officials, as well as to colleagues from the Health and Safety Executive and the office for rail and roads. Our helpful discussion highlighted the good relationship that the heritage good relationship that the heritage sector has with its regulators. The heritage Association works closely with the Orr to produce guidance and examples of best practice across the country.

As we set out in committee this is a sector that takes its responsibilities to its staff, volunteers and visitors very seriously. It's scrupulous in following the laws and regulations that governs it. That brings us to the problem our amendment seeks to remedy. Whilst they have been helpful assurances from the regulators that they would not rely on outdated legislation as the basis for a prosecution regarding the use of young volunteers, the statute book says otherwise, fenced law passed more than one century ago seeking to protect women and children in the decimated workforce that the country found in the aftermath of the first world war.

The employment of women, young persons and children's act 1920 makes it unlawful to employ young people underage of 16 on the railways. That was passed more than 30 years before the first preserved railways started operation with the aid of volunteers, but by slightly confused extension to later legislation the 1920 act prohibits includes unpaid work by volunteers, far from what the original act envisaged. This has had a chilling effect on the responsible law- abiding businesses and charitable organisations which look after this important part of our national heritage.

So concerned were they that in 2015 the heritage Association sought counsel's opinion which confirmed the 1920 act remained in full sent it was unlawful to allow volunteers under 16 to undertake voluntary work and a heritage or tramway. For the past decade Lord Faulkner has been seeking to put that right. The Private Members' Bill he brought in the last Parliament passed all its stages in your Lordships House without amendment but regrettably was not taken up in the other place. It did win important and helpful assurances from the regulators, but these do not have statutory forms and do not cover the threat of civil action or prosecution by other public authorities.

I stress nobody in the sector wants to be accused of mis-applying the law. If the law is unclear it is our duty to clarify it rather than asking voluntary organisations to spend many hours and thousands of pounds trying to disentangle the confusion that legislators have caused. The amendment that the noble Lords and I have brought is narrowly framed. It seeks to make clear that voluntary work on a heritage or tramway is not to be considered employment in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of the 1920 act.

It leaves that act on the statute book. The noble Lord the Minister mentioned in committee a case some 16 years ago when it was used in connection with the illegal employment of a child in a factory. We can see it's important in such cases, but this is a world away from the volunteering once you encourage in young people in our heritage sector. The benefits of volunteering are manifold. It will help young people in future employment, it rings together people from across the generations and diverse backgrounds and will keep our heritage alive.

It's a boost to the organisations that look after the shared heritage that operate on tight margins and in the face of other challenges. And Friday I had the pleasure of visiting along with Expedition. It Expedition. It welcomed Expedition. It welcomed more Expedition. It welcomed more than 1,400 people, telling them not just the proud story of our industrial past, but showing them how they can get involved in the future of our railways as coders, whether analysts and so much more and how they can and so much more and how they can Of our railways.

The exhibition is brilliantly targeted at school children in school year 7-9, the time when they are choosing the subjects that will stare them towards their future careers. These are exactly the young people whose passion our heritage railways want to ignite to help them in whatever direction life takes them. The unintended consequence from this act of Parliament passed more than one century ago stands in the way of unleashing that potential. The noble Lord has campaigned long and hard

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for it to re-remedied. I do hope his friend the noble Lord the Minister is able to do that today. I beg to move. Amendment proposed. After clause
19:15
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Portrait Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed. After clause 54 insert the new clause.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

54 insert the new clause. There was nothing in the amendment with which I agreed. He refer to the fact that he and I refer to the fact that he and I tabled an identical amendment in committee and we have come back tonight because this is an issue tonight because this is an issue that has to be settled one way or that has to be settled one way or Declare previously my interest and I should also sound the sponsor each should also sound the sponsor each year of NHRA on board for three young volunteers, that is to encourage the continued influx of young people to learn the skills and enjoy the satisfaction working on the steam railway.

Last month in my role as president of the HRA and is role as president of the HRA and is co-chair of the all-party group on heritage trail I was fortunate enough to take part in the 70th enough to take part in the 70th anniversary celebrations of the Ffestiniog Railway North Wales which Ffestiniog Railway North Wales which was brilliantly organised and fitted admirably with the national rail 200 program. Involves a cavalcade of every steam locomotive the railway every steam locomotive the railway possesses in procession on the end it was a very fine tribute to railways history and its contribution to the economy of North Wales.

I met young people, many young people who are keen to join the railway but are prevented from doing so because of their age. I took the opportunity also to talk to older volunteers who now are a part older volunteers who now are a part of the very successful. Most without exception those older volunteers who started ages as young as 13 back in the 1970s and in blissful ignorance of the employment of women, young persons and children act 1920.

An act which frankly had disappeared from public consciousness. Many indeed had been involved in the hard physical labour of building the deviation, some of your Lordships may know, which allowed the railway to be carried above the waterline of a new reservoir to reach the northern terminus. As Lord Parkinson said, once the HRA received the Holyoake Malcolm advice of the 1920 act had been interpreted to extend to under 16's and included volunteering as well as paid work, things changed.

The safety regulators had made it clear that they would not prosecute under the 1920 act they would maintain safety and safeguarding under more recent and appropriate legislation. But I have to ask why if that is so, this piece of anachronistic legislation is still on the statute book? I'm most grateful to the Minister Lord Katz for the discussions he initiated with Lord Parkinson on this, and I know how sympathetic ears to the points we have been making. I understand the possibility remains of further guidance from the safety regulators, but that guidance must be reinforced by statutory force.

Because whilst the 1920 act is enforced, responsible heritage railway managers will not wish to break it. Even if the ORR wouldn't prosecute, what is the stopper local authority or a parent from doing so? It is time to make things clear and simple by removing this outdated restriction that is holding heritage railways back from encouraging the next generation and preventing them from enjoying opportunities that so many leading figures in the heritage railway movement had as youngsters. railway movement had as youngsters.

railway movement had as youngsters.
19:19
19:20
19:21
19:23
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The incredible thing about this amendment is it has signatories and support from the Conservative benches, the Labour benches, the Liberal Democrat benches and crossbenchers. It is something which I think the government should take into account it is not some weird idea from one part of this House, it is a cross the House. -- Across. I applaud the initiative which started with my old friend Lord Faulkner if you will allow me to say that. The principle here is to try and stop unintended consequences.

The fact that the law is as it is cannot be ignored. We have an opportunity here to tweak the employment rights legislation to put that right. We are dealing with young people who are doing voluntary work on the railways, there was an incredible program on television recently which I referred to in a previous speech. Whether young people were seen to be doing all the jobs on the heritage railway accepts running the engine which was dangerous and they were not therefore allowed to do that.

They were the porters, the inspectors, whatever it is. We all gave on it, the young people gave on it, the community gained from it -- gained from it. Over there is a possibility that someone could be prosecuted because the law says what it does. When talking about one small heritage railway as Lord Faulkner said there are many, quoted the railway, the North Yorkshire Moors Railway, the West Somerset Railway, the Middleton Railway, many others. There is a long long list.

This is a very under stated thing. People said to me, why was I signing Lord Faulkner, Lord Parkinson's amendment because we are dealing with real matters of moment in the employment rights legislation. This is an opportunity to put right a small error in history. I invite everybody if we go to a vote to support this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support my noble friend Lord Parkinson of
19:25
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page